If we do a "full lockdown" like this, there needs to be a suspension of basically all bills (mortgage, rent, etc.) for the period of the shutdown +20%.

This obviously doesn't work if "suspension" means you don't pay the provider, because then they can't in turn pay their employees etc.

What could work is some kind of UBI which people could then use to pay their bills.

Good point.

This is fundamentally a problem with our society. I'm not sure what happened to workers in authoritarian countries that are locked down (ie. China), how are they supporting their workers that can't work?

We can't have a modern society where your choices are work and spread a deadly virus likely overwhelming hospital facilities or not work, fail to pay rent, become homeless and starve.

Singapore has been paying S$100/day (about US$70/day) for anyone issued a quarantine/stay-home order [1]. They've been doing extensive testing and contact tracing though, so they haven't been doing general lockdowns, just targeted stay-home orders to contacts of tested-positive people.

[1] https://www.mom.gov.sg/covid-19/frequently-asked-questions

People in China tend to save more than living paycheck to paycheck like Americans.

> The full lockdown you are advocating for could cause significantly more devastation than it prevents.

The financial hit will be very real, but there can and will be mitigations down the line. What do you think are the chances that city, state and federal governments are all just going to let people starve in their homes? For example, the California state government has promised to keep paying teachers and school staff despite school closures. Not to mention companies, organizations and individuals. Many tech companies are continuing to pay maintenance staff despite office closures, for example.

As for the devastation that it prevents - well, many unnecessary deaths. The government might be able to pay you a portion of lost wages, give you a loan or reduce your taxes this year, but it can't bring back your loved ones if they die from the coronavirus.

> I'd be surprised if a majority of people actually did that

There are always going to be idiots and morons. But I think if cases and deaths skyrocket over the next few weeks, as is currently expected, the number of people flouting the quarantine is going to go down pretty dramatically. Not only will people become more aware of the risk, but more businesses will be closed so there's less incentive (e.g. all bars and clubs closed in several states, Starbucks is now takeout-only in some places, attractions like Disneyland closing down etc).

Are loans just going to suspend interest and payment dates extended? I sure hope so because if not, there is going to be a wave of foreclosures and closed small businesses not seen since the 2007 crash.

Personally I am in deep water because Airbnb is allowing 100% refunds without any compensation for hosts!

1) Your friends are going to face that situation regardless. It's not like if we don't shut down now, things will be fine in a week or a month. We will shut things down, it's just a question of whether we do it proactively or reactively. And proactively has already passed, but we still could shut down before we're absolutely forced to.

2) Don't make it optional. If ever there was a use for the national guard, this is it. Put police and soldiers in the street. No one goes out unless it's for food or healthcare, on penalty of heavy fines and imprisonment.

Again, this isn't optional, and we will do this. Look at Italy. It's just a question of whether we do it now or in a few weeks, when our hesitation will have cost tens of thousands of lives and even more economic ruin.

Italy is a unique situation with the world’s second-oldest population.

People continue analogizing without acknowledging that confounding factor.

I want no part of an armed national guard enforcing a nationwide quarantine. And I’m guessing the 70 and 80 year olds who are most affected would rather roll the dice than watch our country descend into such an autocratic look.

Age is not the only factor. A false sense of security affected Italy as much, if not more. Isn’t japan the oldest? How do you explain their relative success???

Autocracy is a bogeyman just like Socialism. Sometimes you have to temporarily rally as humanity for the good of the whole and give up your individual “freedom.”

Well, we’ll get to see it play out in the next few weeks, won’t we. France and Spain aren’t making me feel better. And given how unhealthy the American population is, I think you’re being incredibly cavalier with other people’s lives.

(Not GP)

I think you’re being incredibly cavalier with other people’s personal freedoms if you’re advocating China-style totalitarian lockdown in response.

No, I don’t think having the national guard enforce a national quarantine is a good thing.

Lots of people seem to have this delusion that we will eradicate this virus, or that we cam hold off until the vaccine is ready. That’s a fantasy. The entire world will be exposed, and thus our job is just to slow the rate enough that we do not run out of medical capacity. That’s all.

—-

Seriously tho, it shocks me that people are acting that this is an extinction event. It’s not. My layperson napkin math makes me predict around 1-3 million dead in America by the time this has run its course. That’s a terrible figure but it’s very different from losing 100 million.

Again, I support social distancing and flattening the curve, but I oppose all forms of compulsion in this matter. People seem to really be losing their sanity here...

No they just think that 1 to 8 million dead is really bad, and are willing to give up some freedom to save a ton of lives.

I understand that.

I will note that the phrase “some freedom” is slippery. Really we’re talking about ceding the fundamental freedom of movement.

We already have these limitations in place now don't we? I mean we can't go into private property, because it's someone else's property. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins kind of deal.

If you're free to move around while sick, doesn't that in essence limit my freedom to go to the same place? If you're infected you are in fact a danger to those around you.

You should note that:

* quarantine laws and powers have existed for thousands of years in all forms of governments, and much more draconian steps have been taken in this country in the past -- which were obviously reversed after the crisis.

* speaking of, these laws & powers have been on the books for quite some time -- not exactly in a sub-basement with a burnt-out lightbulb and a sign reading "Beware the Leopard" :-)

* the majority of people are OK with lawful extreme public health measures in the face of an extreme pandemic; that number increases as more people get sick and die from the disease.

* most people also uniformly agree that we don't have time right now to re-litigate the hundred years of legal analysis, court decisions, and public health science that led to modern public health law just for the benefit of the latest generation of libertarians.

* most importantly -- flippantly shrugging off the death of a million (or THREE million) of your countrymen as an argument against closing restaurants is going to make most people think you're a sociopath. Unless you're in an impermeable bunker with a literal lifetime supply of every need and no human relationships, the rapid death of millions of Americans and the attendant culture and economic shocks should upset you, or at least make you anxious about the future.

Stay healthy, and good luck with those back-of-the-napkin epidemiology and civil rights analyses!

Sorry for the late response here. I appreciate the points you raised, but could do without the snarky comments. They distract from the argument, IMO. Particularly when you utilize strawmans like so:

> flippantly shrugging off the death of a million (or THREE million) of your countrymen as an argument against closing restaurants

The above is a blatant mischaracterization of my position. You really did show that straw effigy who was boss though :P

> Put police and soldiers in the street. No one goes out unless it's for food or healthcare, on penalty of heavy fines and imprisonment.

OK, but how will people without savings or adequate credit pay for food and healthcare?

Also, how can people stay at home if they're homeless?

Will governments step in with free food, and rules against eviction?

Yes, the government should step in with those measures regardless. Without that, this isn't possible. Then we are stuck doing nothing like the UK, despite having almost two months lead time on this.

I strongly disagree with imprisonment here, but I can get behind fines.

They only get imprisoned in jails if they opt not to be imprisoned at home.

Re 1) Why would my friends loose all of their hours if their employers don't shut down? My friends are young enough that they would likely recover quickly from the virus if they got it.

Re 2) There is no way the police has the manpower to enforce a shutdown like that, even with help from the national guard. There would be riots. And where does food even come from in this hypathetical situation?

> Why would my friends loose all of their hours if their employers don't shut down? My friends are young enough that they would likely recover quickly from the virus if they got it.

There is a chance your friends may lose their jobs in any case given how this is being managed. It'll be interesting to see how people treat each other in the coming weeks when people suspect they've not been social distancing. People are just going to get more entrenched in their politics.

> where does food even come from in this hypathetical [sic] situation?

Where does the food come from that the National Guard are delivering in New Rochelle? [1] A point that isn't well made in many of these threads is that these shutdowns are targeted. The behavior of people in the neighboring areas will also be impacted without being part of the shutdown, and these only need to go on for a limited period.

I am curious how long the National Guard, etc. have remained engaged after other deployments. Do they need reauthorization after a certain timeframe? How does their engagement prevent better alternatives getting engaged? Someone has to have researched that, but I've never seen it brought up in discussions like this one.

[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katebubacz/inside-new-r...

1) The employers will shut down, guaranteed. It's just a matter of whether we do it now or a few weeks from now. Just keeping everything open and running through this is not an option. The only way you can do that is to have an incredibly competent government that is on top of testing and contact tracing at all times, and that ship has long sailed. Look at the UK to see how this "keep things running and just protect the vulnerable" strategy plays out. It's already starting to break down and they'll be in lockdown in a week or two, but many more will ultimately die than they would have if they had locked down before they were forced to. It's not a question of if we lock down, but when.

2) Disagree. Again, look at Europe right now.

Boy, intelligent enough to recognize the economic consequences of this quarantine, and the consequences if we don't quarantine?

Sounds like you need to register a vote for one Mr Bernard Sanders. It's not too late.