A Wuhan-severity lockdown of a few weeks? If we're assuming the scenario by fiat, a relatively low one, probably overlapping with the upper range of coronavirus fatality estimates.
The problem is that I wouldn't trust anyone who wants such a thing to actually end it as promised. I've seen a lot of people, some of whom I know to otherwise be reasonable and honest, transition from "we've gotta stay at home for a few weeks" in early March to "we've gotta stay home for months" today.
It was clear from Imperial's models published in mid-March that the lockdowns would need to last for months, not just a few weeks. That governments failed to clearly explain this to their citizens was an explicit political choice.
The models also show that post-lockdown a brief lifting of restrictions for 1-3 weeks would permit the next "small" wave of infections to occur whilst limiting load on health services. And then the lockdown cycle repeats. At best, this continues for 12 to 18 months. Longer, if a vaccine is not developed.
Again, most governments have not clearly informed the public, not only because the immediate political cost too high, but because of fears a significant proportion of citizens may for any number of reasons (disbelief, panic, despair) behave unhelpfully in reaction to this stark reality.
Right, that’s the attitude I invariably see from hard lockdown proponents. They’re not thinking of targeted interventions to accomplish a bit of good. They’re proposing to abolish all public life for the next 18 months and all social activity for 12 of those months, because some disease model they read said that strategy minimizes the number of deaths. That’s a dystopian, super dumb idea, and I’m glad to see that my country at least doesn’t take it seriously.
At this point, with an R0 at 6, it's likely the number of people that have been infected is 100X bigger, which means the real fatality rate is 100X smaller.
An no, current tests can't show that because those people are likely cured already and never have been counted.
So, if we say today the CFR is officially at 1%, 100X smaller would be 1 over 10,000. To me, it's definitely not acceptable to lockdown people for such a death rate.
That 100 factor could end up being different but the reasoning is the same, we didn't count most of the infected people.
You ignored my question, you already said less than 1% is unacceptable, and just repeated yourself. Forget COVID, I'm referring to a future theoretical disease - at what death rate does a nationally enforced lockdown of a few weeks become acceptable?
10 times the rate of the flu is a good basis I think, or 1% death rate. But confirmed, not like right now where we all know we haven't counted a lot of people in that number of cases and therefore the death rate is a lot lower.
Another thing, it's not weeks, we're talking months here, May 1st it's not gonna be back to business as it was before.
Remember, this virus has circulated weeks before the confinement, so don't you think a doubling R0 have completely changed the number of cases that have been modeled so far, and therefore the CFR?
Of course we have much to learn and this new R0 number is part of that learning process, but imo, we can't think like 2 days ago when we thought the R0 was between 2 and 3.
I'm just reading about that city in Germany, Gangelt, where they did those blood tests to 1000 people, they found out that 2% are actively infected, and 14% have the antibodies (indicating a prior infection):
