- Moderator
- #1,369
Sideways
VIP Member
This is a very all or nothing approach. We aren't in full lockdown here. Lots of people are continuing on with their jobs as usual (all my landscaping mates, for example? Still landscaping. Plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc - still attending to all those comfort things. And when my kettle broke down? I headed to the electrical store as usual to replace it - phew!). That's tightening and loosening the limitations, to control the pace at which the population gets infected. Because...why don't we just let everyone get back to their livelihood and let Corona run its course?
maths like this starts to fall apart really quickly if the virus spreads too quickly. People that would have survived, don't, because they can't get access to medical care. And people who would ordinarily survive the treatable illnesses and injuries we acquire in the ordinary course of living, also have worst-case outcomes, because medical treatment is no longer available.From that 200,000 who display symptoms - 10,000 will roughly be severe and likely to die.
In places where the spread of the virus has been controlled, the maths suggesting good outcomes for most of the population hold true.
In places where the virus has flooded the population? The numbers start falling apart really quickly, and you end up with the military getting called in to haul away the bodies (eg Iran, Italy, Spain...).
So, JMHO, but the flexible, loosen/tighten approach to social controls is a good idea. Best option of a range of shit options. We're a long way from total lockdown here. And our curve is starting to do exactly what we want it to do. So that we don't have people dying en masse like we're seeing in some places, but we're also not having our front door welded shut for the next 3 months like in slme places.
We're existing in the big grey, flexible area between the 2 extremes. It doesn't need to be a black and white, total lockdown or let it fly approach.