The political acceptability of releasing then locking down again is likely to be very low in my view.<p>Friends and colleagues I speak to who haven’t followed the modelling papers etc think the point of a lockdown is to eliminate the virus entirely - not contain, not delay but eliminate entirely. There is also a very strong fear of getting the virus (many of the same people are convinced that it’s a death sentence almost akin to Ebola). I suspect that these views are very widespread and this is why the lockdowns currently enjoy strong popular support.<p>A release followed by a second lockdown would, I think, be viewed as an admission that the policy was a failure therefore and would also lead to a reassessment of how dangerous it really is amongst those people. Those still suffering from the economic damage from the first (which will be almost everyone) will have a lot of reasons to resist very hard and I think most governments in democratic countries would struggle to implement such a policy.
Successive lockdowns and easings are probably going to continue for up to two years. Anybody arguing that the stock market or the economy is going to bounce back quickly in the next two months are either bullshitting you or deluding themselves.<p>No “stimulus” package is going to be effective, because you can’t use spending to stimulate an economy which has been forced to stop producing goods and services. All you will accomplish is inflation as more money chases fewer goods and services.
There is another study from Harvard released this week saying the same thing about multiple surges of containment:<p>[1] <a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927586" rel="nofollow">https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927586</a>
But of course. If you intentionally prevent ppl from being infected then they remain susceptible. Short of a vaccine, you can't put it off forever. Those ppl can't hide forever.<p>This is an expected - or should be - result of "flatten the curve." FTC is not about the virus per se, it's about the healthcare system. That is, to not exceed the volume the healthcare system can handle.<p>Put another way, an increase in the number of positives isn't necessarily a bad thing. If if stays towards the 80% who are asymptomatic or low risk then the more the better. They'll get it. Recovery and will be past it. The key number - the number the media should be emphasizing - is the positives in high risk individuals. That's the curve we don't want to see spike.<p>Furthermore, it's where those happen. One-thousand as 50 in 20 cities is not the same as 500 in one city (e.g., NYC) and the other 500 distributed evenly elsewhere.<p>The aggregate numbers make great - but crap - headlines. The understanding is in the details.
Why wont the world stay at home together for 3 months? Lets start apr1! Then by july there will be no more covid19. And lots of other infectious diseases too, i imagine..
Technically this is clickbait - the title's implication is that we'll have more lockdowns in the future, while the article only talks about how the current lockdown will ebb and flow. If something is lifted and reinstated its really the same lockdown, not a new one.<p>I was hoping to read an article about the potential of other coronaviruses or threats that may cause global lockdowns in the future.
“ Hong Kong and Singapore were early examples of places that were able to contain the spread of the virus”<p><i>cough</i>TAIWAN<i>cough</i><p>Again for the people in the back:<p>T•A•I•W•A•N
This is terrible thinking: South Korea and other places have not locked down and they have effectively contained the virus.<p>We are doing Trillions of damage they are avoiding. Given the costs we should be spending billions studying what they are doing.<p>We need to understand more effectively how the virus is spreading and focus on those spots, not this lockdown stuff which is too costly.<p>Some basic policies like mask-wearing for everyone in public, gloves, and masks in restaurants, and on subways busses, N95 maybe for anyone in crowded area jobs, anyone with any sickness immediately self-isolates etc..<p>These total shut-downs seem like a 'home vacay' for now but it will start causing serious pain very soon.<p>Edit: I should add by 'trillions in damage' I'm not worried about shareholders; this will have serious consequences for people. Many millions are losing their jobs, millions will be evicted, foreclosed, homeless, jobless, and otherwise, have their lives severely disrupted. FYI in America no job = no healthcare. At some point, the shelves stop being stocked. We need to be smart.