The really strict lock-downs have only been happening for the last week. People love it because they imagine this is only going to last a few weeks. Tell them that in order to be effective we're going to need to stay shut down for a year or more. Then let's talk about how much people like it.
The plan is to lift the lockdown after a few weeks when the number of new cases is low enough for targeted interventions - thorough contact tracing and quarantining.
Whose plan is that? My gov't has only told the citizens about their plan to shut things down, they haven't elaborated on what happens next. Just today we took the next step and made it a legal requirement that everyone stay at home. In our jurisdiction of just over 4 million people, we have 191 positive tests and 5 deaths. The number of new cases is already tiny, so how much lower do they have to go before we can switch to targeted interventions?
Governments appear to be still working out the details of what to do, but you can look at those countries on the leading edge to see that they do come out of shutdown gradually and have other measures in place that are somewhat effective for COVID-19.
> In our jurisdiction of just over 4 million people, we have 191 positive tests and 5 deaths. The number of new cases is already tiny, so how much lower do they have to go before we can switch to targeted interventions?
Targetted interventions may not be sufficient if you're at the leading each of the wave - the exponentially rising part, or after the inflection point but still rising. In that phase the number of people actually carrying the virus and passing it on is much higher than the number of positive tests, most of them are asymptomatic spreading it (or were before shutdown), and nobody knows who they are. It can be at the start of an exponential growth, even with small numbers, and even if the numbers dropped temporarily.
> so how much lower do they have to go before we can switch to targeted interventions?
It totally depends why they are low, and for how long.
South Korea never shut anything down apart from schools moving online.
Their entire strategy was one of targeted isolation rather than blanket shutdowns.
They've had one of the best results so far. Some of the responses out of the west really comes across as a kneejerk reactions by leaders who don't have the slightest clue what to do.
Last rumour I picked up from the news where I live, in the UK, is that the current plan is:
1. Shut down most of the economy to dampen the enormity of the tidal wave as peak pandemic hits, to reduce the overwhelm in intensive care units, and thereby reduce deaths.
2. After the peak (shape and size altered by 1) has passed and it is decaying, if the shutdown ends abruptly then the pandemic here will start up all over again. So instead, the shutdown will be eased off alongside extensive personal testing and individually self-targeted isolation.
I worry that 2 won't work so well because there are a lot of people who will turn into spreaders: Test negative at home for "had the virus", but in the phase where people who had the virus can get back out, will be happy to get out and pretend they had it already had it, hidden in plain sight among those who have. After all we already saw, here in the UK, that a lot of people are happy to be spreaders on the grounds that "only sick and old people are dying anyway".
