Did we lock down parts of the country too early?

[Ergel]

Knowing what you know now, and the obvious reality on the ground that there is zero appetite for a second lockdown - did we lock down too early in parts of the country that had almost no outbreak at the start. Would we have been better off waiting 1 month until it got a little bad, then done a serious lockdown for 2(?) months. Then reopened.
A couple of benefits:
1. Maximize effects of the lockdown - when you locked down early you didn't accomplish anything long term - just delayed the start of major spread. If you lock down a month later - you use the lockdown to diminish that spread and at the end of it you are later in the calendar
2. People take the lockdown more seriously because they know the serious nature and local impact of the virus
3. More infected people by the time you reopen - so some of the community has immunity (not sure how much of a difference this will make if it's only 5% or so)



How about another theory? Should we have 10 day open followed by 5 day lockdown going forward? Or 20 open 10 lockdown? This should slow down the pace of infection as we test extensively during the lockdown and hope we slow the virus with each lockdown.

[S209]

Knowing what you know now, and the obvious reality on the ground that there is zero appetite for a second lockdown - did we lock down too early in parts of the country that had almost no outbreak at the start. Would we have been better off waiting 1 month until it got a little bad, then done a serious lockdown for 2(?) months. Then reopened.
A couple of benefits:
1. Maximize effects of the lockdown - when you locked down early you didn't accomplish anything long term - just delayed the start of major spread. If you lock down a month later - you use the lockdown to diminish that spread and at the end of it you are later in the calendar
2. People take the lockdown more seriously because they know the serious nature and local impact of the virus
3. More infected people by the time you reopen - so some of the community has immunity (not sure how much of a difference this will make if it's only 5% or so)



How about another theory? Should we have 10 day open followed by 5 day lockdown going forward? Or 20 open 10 lockdown? This should slow down the pace of infection as we test extensively during the lockdown and hope we slow the virus with each lockdown.

To what end? This is purely to prevent the health care facilities from getting overwhelmed?

It’s highly likely that we have already accomplished a lot of what we were looking to do in a big way, even if everything were to reopen completely today.

[CountValentine]

The problem is we can even get a simple thing right like wearing masks.

[Mikes@Micro]

.

The problem is we can even get a simple thing right like wearing masks.

[etech0]

.

Where is that from?

[S209]

.

Yes yes, that explains why millions of people in Asia have constant respiratory problems.

Seriously, take a break from pajama media and get a grip.

[Lurker]

Knowing what you know now, and the obvious reality on the ground that there is zero appetite for a second lockdown - did we lock down too early in parts of the country that had almost no outbreak at the start. Would we have been better off waiting 1 month until it got a little bad, then done a serious lockdown for 2(?) months. Then reopened.
A couple of benefits:
1. Maximize effects of the lockdown - when you locked down early you didn't accomplish anything long term - just delayed the start of major spread. If you lock down a month later - you use the lockdown to diminish that spread and at the end of it you are later in the calendar
2. People take the lockdown more seriously because they know the serious nature and local impact of the virus
3. More infected people by the time you reopen - so some of the community has immunity (not sure how much of a difference this will make if it's only 5% or so)



How about another theory? Should we have 10 day open followed by 5 day lockdown going forward? Or 20 open 10 lockdown? This should slow down the pace of infection as we test extensively during the lockdown and hope we slow the virus with each lockdown.

Do you have specific examples of areas you feel may have benefited from waiting?

[yuneeq]

Knowing what you know now, and the obvious reality on the ground that there is zero appetite for a second lockdown - did we lock down too early in parts of the country that had almost no outbreak at the start. Would we have been better off waiting 1 month until it got a little bad, then done a serious lockdown for 2(?) months. Then reopened.
A couple of benefits:
1. Maximize effects of the lockdown - when you locked down early you didn't accomplish anything long term - just delayed the start of major spread. If you lock down a month later - you use the lockdown to diminish that spread and at the end of it you are later in the calendar
2. People take the lockdown more seriously because they know the serious nature and local impact of the virus
3. More infected people by the time you reopen - so some of the community has immunity (not sure how much of a difference this will make if it's only 5% or so)



How about another theory? Should we have 10 day open followed by 5 day lockdown going forward? Or 20 open 10 lockdown? This should slow down the pace of infection as we test extensively during the lockdown and hope we slow the virus with each lockdown.

No it was not too early, it was done too late, and done without any brains. No masks, and businesses were kept shut when things got better.
Every single country that locked down or wore masks is fine now. Besides the US.

[yuneeq]

Top 15 countries with new cases in last 24 hours. Guess how many of these countries we were talking about 2 months ago?
Besides Iran on the bottom of the list, none. Because every single country that was hit hard has taken the right measures. And we're still arguing if mask wearing is violating our rights.