[umvi]

> I notice you skipped South Korea. What stopped it there?

South Korea is anomalous. Has literally any other country been able to replicate their success?

> Glad you are admitting your own ignorance. Now, if you would just listen to the people who do know a little something about viral epidemics and their containment, you could cure that little condition.

Containment/minimizing covid-19 deaths is a very short-sighted variable to optimize for. Leaders need to weigh the cost of containment vs. the cost of prolonged lockdown/economic collapse. I have yet to see you acknowledge containment policies as having any downsides whatsoever. I don't think you really understand how desperate the situation is from an economic standpoint. The Fed can't just print money to solve every problem; otherwise, why work? Why not just have the Fed print every citizen $1M?

> In the meantime, you should stop spewing these dangerous ideas. You sound exactly like the Texas Lt. Governor. And, let me tell you: neither I nor my family are dying for you.

If you or your family are extra vulnerable, I'm afraid you'll have to avoid contact with others until a vaccine is developed. In the meantime, I'm not content with the current solution of "halt the economy/destroy lives/print money indefinitely". I feel the best course of action is to let the disease spread normally with a few extra measures in place to slow it down (social distancing/masks). And it seems a lot of governors agree with me - many states are starting to re-open. In my opinion, covid-19 is not as bad as it seems. Our data is biased because it comes mainly from hospitals while the majority of the cases go unnoticed. Things will return to normal.

[_y5hn]

Taiwan. And your reasoning is just plain wrong. Measures bring R well below 1, that together with broad testing is when you start opening up.

[sfj]

It was never an epidemic in Taiwan, and they never did a shelter in place order nor closed businesses. They simply did contact tracing before it became a problem.

[_y5hn]

So it worked "better", yes. It's not about closing down or opening up, but proper preparation and responses according to the circumstances. So we can draw ideas from countries that manage better.

If the goal is herd immunity, of course, it's not better. However, that comes with heavy costs and there's no consensus which strategy is best. Likely, the differeing strategies will converge somewhat. We can live fine with a scaled-down, controlled pandemic.

[sfj]

> So it worked "better", yes.

Now I don't understand what you were replying to. I thought it was "South Korea is anomalous. Has literally any other country been able to replicate their success?" I don't see how it "worked better" answers whether it "replicated S.K.'s success". I'd argue it didn't because it didn't have S.K's problem (having not become a massive issue)

> It's not about closing down or opening up, but proper preparation and responses according to the circumstances. So we can draw ideas from countries that manage better.

Can we learn from Taiwan? Sure, and probably will. But their situation was never what we are facing now.

> If the goal is herd immunity, of course, it's not better. However, that comes with heavy costs and there's no consensus which strategy is best. Likely, the differeing strategies will converge somewhat. We can live fine with a scaled-down, controlled pandemic.

I also agree that this hope for herd immunity is a risky bet. Given it has already mutated at the hook site, I don't think a vaccine or antibodies is going to save us. If we reach herd immunity or develop a vaccine for one strain, then another may spread again like wildfire, just like the flu.

[pmiller2]

South Korea contained the epidemic with massive testing and contact tracing. There is literally no reason why that could not be done here, once we get the number of cases down via lockdown measures. But, it would be foolish to start opening things up until the infrastructure to do that testing and contact tracing is in place.

If the choice is saving capitalism or saving 450,000 lives, I choose lives. I don't give a shit about the fortunes of corporate shareholders, landlords, bankers, etc., when nearly 1 in 700 lives are at stake. How about you?

[makomk]

South Korea's peak testing rate per capita is lower than the US's per capita testing rate now or at any point in the last month or so. Same when comparing to many of the European countries. Their testing was fairly substantial compared to what other countries were doing a few months ago, but it wasn't "mass testing" in the sense that the US press and experts are currently advocating. (Most of the tests were focused on Shincheonji members, even though infections almost certainly weren't - they just made an easy target). It was, however, enough to indicate that testing and contact tracing was missing a substantial chunk of infections which were spreading within the community. Somehow they managed to stamp those out by tightening social distancing measures without a full lockdown or mass testing, and there's no good explanation for why this worked.

[umvi]

> If the choice is saving capitalism or saving 450,000 lives, I choose lives. ... How about you?

capitalism, hands down. Far more than 450k will die/suffer in the event of complete economic collapse. And yes, capitalism has its thorns, but generally it has brought more wealth and prosperity to people than any other economic model in history.

[JoeAltmaier]

But its a strawman. Capitalism isn't at risk; some current business owners are at risk. And these conservatives are shouting "The sky is falling! Better let me go back into business! Only a few will die!" Because they value their money over other peoples lives.