It's been explained thousands of time already, most people will get it eventually, the game is to spread it over time. If you spread it over months hospitals will be able to better take care of patients (not only coronavirus, every other patients too).

> Do people really believe the virus won't be there afterwards?

That's why we're not in charge of it, many smart people are taking what they believe is the best decisions for their country/the world, they probably have more data and knowledge than you, and no, they're probably not as dumb as you're trying to paint them.

Please don't assume things about what I'm not saying. I'm not saying people are dumb.

> they probably have more data and knowledge than you

Also please appreciate the fact that you don't know me - or my context for having opinions about this.

If we can massively ramp up testing infrastructure, we can manage and treat the “unpause” a lot better. The more time we can buy now with drastic measures, the better prepared will be to deal with subsequent peaks, spreads, and resource constraints.

Way too late IMO.

The recipe in China was social distancing, masks and hand sanitizing. Somehow in China politicians understood the concept that germs coming out of your mouth and nose can be most effectively stopped right there - they even advocated makeshift masks while ramping up production of surgical and n95 masks.

I am currently in France and the only measure is social distancing. Police dont wear masks, no hand sanitizer at supermarket entrance. It is simply not available although it is mostly just 70% alcohol. I have masks and I wear them when I go out but people (strangers) even tell me on the street that they are useless. I think Louis Pasteur is agitatedly turning in his grave.

It looks like we'll have to wait until China can supply us with enough masks. Until then pressing "unpause" will start the epidemic all over again - if the confinement is going to halt it.

Ironically, the problem is not that we have done too much damage in the short term but that we haven't done enough. What we need to do is stop people from going outside unless absolutely necessary. It's pretty much that simple, but no one likes what that looks like: martial law, forced quarantine, forced house arrest like they have in China. The government should deal with the short term pain by stepping in and back stoping every business by guaranteeing payroll for a few months. It will be insanely expensive and be political suicide, but it would work (as seen in China). What won't work is the weak, iterative preventive methods we are employing now which don't stop the virus from spreading (as people won't comply) and lead to prolonged economic pain.

It's not a paused, unpaused situation.

It's a brace ourselves to prevent a cascading effect from overtaking our healthcare system. After the initial wave breaks over us, we'll still be dealing it - we hopefully just won't be overwhelmed.

It stops the spread of the virus. If you did nothing 5% would die and worse those that have recovered have problems breathing (can't walk up stairs).

Life would come to a halt regardless.

There is no indication that 5% of the population will die.

The Imperial College report finds that in a complete do-nothing scenario, 4 million Americans will die, which is only 1.2% of the population.

With some mitigation (isolation of the elderly, isolation of suspect cases and their families) that number is reduced to 2 million, only 0.6% of the total population. This is the approach we need to be pursuing, and it means reopening all schools and businesses right now, and directing and supporting the elderly to self-isolate. Massively ramping up our healthcare infrastructure and preparing for massive triage is also a good idea.

The alternative of complete suppression requires total shutdown for an estimated period of 18 months, until a vaccine is available. However, its worth nothing that vaccines for influenza (for reference) are only partially (50-70%) effective, and need to be renewed annually. So its likely that even in this total shutdown scenario, we are still looking at 1 million deaths - with immense and unprecedented economic and social impacts.

Keep in mind, that 2.8 million Americans die annually from all causes - 0.8%. Coronavirus might mean for example that a critically ill patient dies from cancer a week earlier than otherwise.

5% is very much an assumption of yours right now.

> those that have recovered have problems breathing (can't walk up stairs)

Source?

No offense, I know people who have recovered and none of them have any hint of anything afterwards.

"Some recovered patients may have reduced lung function" https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/artic... (HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22568100)

No offense taken. I kind of worry about this mindset generally. It isn't real unless I know someone who is in hospital. It gets real quickly when you get sick.

I didn't mean to be so "anecdotal" here. I do know people who are fine, I've read stories of people who are fine, the data shows most people will be fine - except that elderly age group & folks with seemingly compromised immune systems. There are exceptions of course. And it is very real, but I think people need to be cognisant of data when citing mortality rates & incidents.

Anecdotes, Yay! :-)

No offense.

Nice.

No offense.

Please don't include personal attacks in your comments.

Again, this is about slowing down the spread of the virus so that it won't overwhelm hospitals.

We will live with the virus for decades.

We are pausing the economy to buy us time until a treatment or vaccine is available.

> buy us time

> slowing down the spread of the virus

This is a whimsical idea that things will remain in stasis until something happens. Explain it to the newly unemployed with expiring healthcare and diminishing prospects.

> unemployed with expiring healthcare

That's why people have to vote for things in their interests before problems arise. You shouldn't lose your healthcare when you lose your job.

What if people consistently vote against their own best interests?

I don’t see how their employment prospects or healthcare scenario would improve with them falling severely sick and now having preexisting conditions to boot.

This is exactly where governments need to step in to prevent stuff like this.

> Do people really believe the virus won't be there afterwards?

Of course people believe the virus will be there afterwards, it will almost certainly never go away. Look at how much effort the world put into eradicating Smallpox.

That effort will not be repeated given the current conservative politics in the US, Britain, and Russia. Modern conservatism is financially backed by the kind of capitalists that have enormous amounts of cash to spend on preventing regulation of their industries (like oil, health insurance, for-profit universities, churches).

That has led to a massive anti-science, anti-social safety net, anti-vaxx backlash. It will be impossible to get the entire world to coöperate and get eradicate it as we did with Smallpox.

But.

By buying time and saving lives now, we give ourselves a chance to develop vaccines. In functioning developed countries, we will build herd immunity through vaccination.

Meanwhile, countries like the USA will have regular COVID-19 outbreaks in pockets where somebody decides not to vaccinate their children, just as we do with Measles and other entirely preventable diseases.

Sorry to be so gloom-and-doom, but connect the dots between "YOLO, I'm young, I'm healthy, I'm off to Spring Break in Florida and Hawaii during a pandemic, sucks to be anybody who gets it from me," and, "Vaccines? We don't need any of that elitist Liberal malarky."

---

p.s. You got a lot of downvotes. Nobody can explain exactly why any comment gets downvoted, but my suggestion is that your questions are good, but leading off with a statement that you are struggling to see how this will help may be perceived as jumping to a conclusion without paying attention to any of the knowledge about this that is readily available, and then expressing absolute confidence in your evaluation of what will happen.

I cannot read your mind, but others may perceive it as being a bit Dunning-Kruger, like you have jumped to a conclusion without doing even cursory research, and assuming that you know enough that you don't need to listen to any of the many experts who are saying the opposite of what you are saying.

Again, I don't purport to tell you what you're thinking, just sharing a (quite possibly wrong) conjecture for why your otherwise good question gets a negative response.