[spookthesunset]

2 weeks tops. Calling it now. 2 months of this will result in rioting and all kinds of crazy shit. And for what? The data based in SK and Singapore doesn’t suggest this virus is worth risking compete societal collapse. Testing there is showing a >1% death rate and because of how those tests work, it is provably about a half to a full order of magnitude lower.

Sorry doomsayers, you better have some good evidence to suggest a 2 month lockup is worth the massive damage to our society. Better also outline what “lockup” means. Is that in big cities? The whole country? The planet?

What is your exit criteria? Who will have to go out into the world to keep shelves stocked and your Uber eats meals delivered? Who is going to be manufacturing your heart medicine? Who will clean that plugged drain? Who will repair that drain unplugger persons tool when it breaks?

2 weeks tops. Perhaps slightly longer for very small isolated hotspot areas. Any more than that and shit is gonna go down.

[pbhjpbhj]

FWIW studies have seen 0-24 days incubation period (though typically 2-7 days, still long) - https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-incuba....

This study (https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2020200370, small cohort of 21) had a symptoms-to-discharge period of 19+/-4 days (17+/-4 days in hospital).

Assuming you have a perfect lock down now. People will continue for 7 days to get infected from asymptomatic cases (much longer for some). At the end of that week it will be one week until most symptoms have appeared (but again much longer for some). Now you have hospitalisations of the infected, or home care (as hospitals won't be able to cope). In UK you have to test negative from 3 tests on two subsequent days in order to be cleared for release (report on BBC Radio 4 from an infected patient); assuming a similar standard then we're looking at 7+7+17 days, 31 days until people are starting to be safe to associate with ...

I don't share your "2 weeks top" blind faith.

>Testing there is showing a >1% death rate and because of how those tests work, it is provably about a half to a full order of magnitude lower.

Could you source the proof of this please?

[ericd]

You seem like you're panicking. If you need evidence for the necessity, go read literally anything about what Italy is facing. China locked down cities with 0 infections pretty completely for ~4 weeks, and they still have isolation measures going. I believe the heavily hit cities are still totally locked down. This is what it took to get numbers under control once it had spread, and because of the US' late reaction, it's what's necessary now.

[tempestn]

And because China reacted with extreme measures, they got the virus under control, and are now starting to reduce the restrictions, and commerce is starting back up. It's nowhere near normal, but by reacting quickly and decisively you reduce the likelihood of longer lockdowns being required in the future (as well as the likelihood of significant loss of life).

This video gives a sense of the measures taken in cities outside of Wuhan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfsdJGj3-jM

[spookthesunset]

America is not even close to Italy. Not demographically, not density, not medically. Nothing is the same between us. And it isn't "Italy" it is a region in Italy with the problem. Same with china. China isn't locking down "China". Just a small part of it. You cannot take those two datapoints and apply them to the rest of the world. Not even close.

And I'm not panicking, I'm just tired of people running around doomsaying. There is so much trash information out there and people have completely shut down their ability to think rationally. It kinda ticks me off.

[kelw22]

You're comparing America to Italy and saying they're different (which I don't fully agree with). You should also be comparing our response to Italy's and seeing they're the same. We're both under poor leadership who downplay and deny basic scientific facts. The spread here will be the same. The timeline will be the same. Our shortage of hospital beds will be here within a week. The interruption to life is not going to be measured in weeks; it'll be months. I'm not trying to stress you out more, but you keep saying "two weeks" without any actual reason for saying so. I'd put $100 that in two weeks all we see is the very well understood and predicted 2-4x in infection rates.

Last point: I live in Seattle. You have previously mentioned how people won't stand for this and there will be riots. What you're failing to grasp is that when people are scared, 90% of them stop going out on their own. Yes, there were some young people still going to bars, but Seattle shut down FAR before any kind of order to do so. People chose to stay in once it became apparent their choice was either staying in or risking needing a hospital that is oversubscribed. That will happen in many, many other places in our country, and there won't be riots because people don't want to be around enough people to riot.

[yiyus]

You keep saying people don't think rationally, but you do not make any rational argument.

You say: "lock-down 2 weeks tops", when the incubation period is known to be around that or even more, and we have clearly seen that a 2 weeks period does not have any appreciable effect. You say the situation is different than in Italy, even when the number of people in ICUs and deaths is growing exactly in the same way in every other part of the world, with the only exception of countries who took measures earlier. You say it won't be so bad when you admit it will kill a 1% of the infected and all studies talk about at least ~50% of the population catching it at some point. You are not being rational.

I am also tired of the doomsaying but I have not seen any serious study that is minimally optimistic, and I've seen many pessimistic ones.