[IanSanders]

> 1)

I'm just a rando from the internet but my suspicion is that governments could be intentionally trying to slow the infection rate down rather than stop it completely. If you perform a perfect shutdown with 200 cases, lets say another 400 are identified since, all 600 recover/don't make it, but once you stop the quarantine everything will be back to square one - someone will spread it again eventually.

On the other hand if you let it spread a bit, then shutdown, high but manageable number of people will get sick and recover. (I will be less efficient so some transmission will still occur, eventually ensuring everyone either recovered or died, with as many as possible getting the medical care)

[harambae]

>intentionally trying to slow the infection rate down rather than stop it completely

The individualistic attitudes in the US (and probably Europe, although I'm not an expert there) were never going to lead to the infection being stopped entirely. I can't imagine anyone was actually worried about being too effective in containment.

[IanSanders]

>I can't imagine anyone was actually worried about being too effective in containment.

It could have been when we had just a few cases, but you're right.

The more effective the quarantine is, the longer it will take, creating more stress on the economy.

[OJFord]

UK government was open about that. (It spread faster than anticipated though, so was dialled back and we're now in 'lockdown'.)