Data analysis of the Spanish flu seems to indicate that it is indeed smart to close before cases appear. A pretty good analysis here: https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1235204443362205699

Calling it Spanish Flu (instead of 1918 pandemic) were it had no relationship with Spain..

It’s not so simple to say “closing before a case is smart.” It’s always before a case.

They have 2 confirmed cases at this point so..

I don’t believe that’s the case, at least at this current moment: There is one confirmed case in the Faculty, and two potential student cases.

Source: https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/03/06/stanford-cancels-...

Shall we close everything up then, just in case? Maybe then we should keep everything closed, as a precaution against other infectious diseases, including as-yet-unknown future ones?

No need to invent hypotheticals when we’re dealing with an actual, unfolding crisis.

The cost of closing schools, canceling events, etc, for several weeks would have been very disruptive and expensive. But it stood a chance of containing this.

Now we’re experiencing the beginning of the economic impact plus we’re allowing this to become a pandemic — and probably seasonal. It’s hard to see how the cost won’t be astronomically higher in choosing to react rather than take proactive steps.

And we chose this path with Italy and China already showing us the seriousness of this virus.

When UW's own researchers had shown that there were likely to be at least a few hundred cases in the Seattle area and only tens had been found, the probability that the outbreak would end without reaching campus was already slim.

Even if the starting number is low, as long as the growth rate is consistently exponential that won't last very long. And even if the majority of cases are mild, the hospitalization rate seems to be high enough to overwhelm our capacity (if growth is unchecked) at which point people don't get proper treatment and the statistics get worse.

I think the real measure of if this is under control is the growth rate and not the absolute numbers, since exponential growth will generate big numbers very quickly. If the growth is not under control, slowing it down at the beginning makes a lot of sense compared to later (and buys time for vaccine development).

I'm not an expert so I hope I haven't gotten any of this wrong, but the experts / authorities taking it seriously seems pretty justified.