[sudosysgen]

To note, extremely sucessful lockdowns were executed by Vietnam, which has a GDP per capita of 2700$, a seventh of the global average. That is to say, if they have a competent government, even poor countries did lockdown successfully.

[whb07]

By true sense of the word "quarantine", means locked up in some room while you recover/pass infection. Someone has to come to you, feed you, observe you etc. So this isn't happening.

What is really happening is:

* Keep megastores and large companies open. With the lower classes going to work, and entire cities cramming into specific stores that are open.

* upper-middle and upper classes staying inside, working remote, and ordering take out.

But let's not talk about specifics, of which these I am sure happened in Vietnam as well.

If you really wanted to reduce mortality for this one chosen disease, then you'd address the biggest risk factors which are obesity and age. So if you really wanted to significantly reduce the risk of death from this you would:

* force everyone who is obese to work out 1 hour daily. * ban high carb and junk foods for the next "2 weeks".

voila! coincidentally those measures would reduce all-cause mortality.

[sudosysgen]

Yes, I did say lockdown and not quarantine though.

Real lockdowns are much more effective than your suggested state mandated diet and workouts though. They, in countries that did it for real, which means not keeping megastores and large companies open but actually locking down everything and using the army and police to deliver food that you then cook to everyone, you can get the mortality rate to basically zero. Which Vietnam did.