Does the lockdown make sense? We all go to the local neighbourhood supermarkets to shop, where we bump into everyone locally, anyway.

We have no idea how many are infected; just the reported cases that are symptomatic.

Iceland has voluntary testing in place, and 50% of those tested are asymptomatic.

https://www.businessinsider.com/iceland-coronavirus-pandemic-approach-could-help-other-countries-2020-4?r=DE&IR=T

Note that this is voluntary, though a more scientific approach is underway. So we know at least 50% are asymptomatic, and I expect that percentage to be actually higher. Only time will tell.

@lordalveric Yes it makes sense.. obviously bumping into people locally rarely, once a week is far far better than bumping into them daily..

Yes a lot of people are asymptomatic, which is what makes the quarintine even more important, you cant tell who is a risk or not.

@freemo But if the actual death rate is low, lower than that of your typical flu, does it make sense to do the lockdowns? Note that that is not the same as quarantines.

Once a week will slow the progress a bit, not halt it dead in its tracks... and the exponential spread... it may double once every 10 days rather than once every 3.

it may be that CoVID-19 will not complete running its course until:
1) Nearly everyone is infected,
2) Nearly everyone is inoculated, once we have a vaccine, if we ever get that at all.

And so, the cost-benefit analysis of the lockdown (borders, physical presence at jobs, etc.) vs. just quarantining the infected -- even with the low mortality rate -- has to be weighed careful against both the economic and psychological impacts -- which could also lead to death.

I am not at all confident that those in power know how to properly decide in such a manner. Politicians are typically not mathematicians.

@lordalveric It isnt, we have more than enough data to know that the death rate is many orders of magnitude higher than the flu after calculating in asymptomatic carriers.. so no

No one is trying to halt it dead in its tracks, you seem to be missing the whole point. The point is exactly as you describe "slow it a bit", the point isnt to eliminate the virus that is impossible and was never the intent.

We are trying to "flatten the curve" as they say.. the number infected in the end wont change, that willb e the herd immunity point. What we want to do is make sure the infections dont all happen at once but instead are spread out over a longer period of time. this ensures our hospitals dont get overloaded and the sick can be treated.

@freemo We still do not have good asymptomatic figures for most countries. Iceland right now perhaps represents the best known.

Again, yes, we don't want to overwhelm the hospitals, as what happened in Italy. BUT, how long do we "slow" the growth before it starts to have fatalities elsewhere?

This is really something akin to a linear programming problem. Except the growth rates are exponential, not linear. I suppose one could log it to make it appear "linear".

I am not aware of this analysis being performed at all.

Meanwhile, I shall continue in my amped up daily doses of vitamin C, Zinc, capsaicin, etc.

@lordalveric You dont need it for "most countries" the asymptomatic percentages would be about the same, its the same virus in different countries.

But if your just arguing we need better testing, no arguments from me on that, it would be great, more data always is..

But the need for quarintine is inescapable no matter how you dice it.

But yea we also cant quarantine forever.. for now its clear its needed. But I agree there comes a point where eventually (in a month or two) it probably would do more harm than good. But we arent there yet. This thing is still spreading pretty fast even with the quarintine so either way it will resolve itself soon enough for better or worse.

@freemo I am speaking basically to lockdowns, NOT quarantines. And yes, testen, testen, testen! (as it is said here.)

Just a basic 5-minute serological test, self-administered, would be much better than what we have now.

Then, the approach can be similar to what was done in South Koera or Iceland -- just quarantine those known to be infected, and track the rest.

There are some really thorny privacy issues here, and allowing any government to sink their teeth into that will make it difficult to "claw it back" once the pandemic is over.

@lordalveric Testing an entire population, something youd have to do multiple times over, is no small task, especially when you understand how the existing tests work.. but in theory if that were possible it would help yea.

@freemo I know it will not be easy, but anything would be better than these annoying lockdowns that are everywhere right now.

@lordalveric Well at the moment it isnt just not easy, it isnt possible. But with the proper investments in technology it would be, but your talking **huge** investments.