It's not "full lockdown", there is one step greater, if I understand correctly. "Full lockdown" requires you to have explicit permission to leave your home, right now you can leave your home to meet basic needs, take a walk, get exercise, et cetera
Not quite a full lockdown, grocery stores, pharmacies, etc are all open, restaurants can be open for takeout, etc, but certainly a big change up from business as usual.
Yeah, even in Wuhan it's been true. The consensus seems to be that there's no point closing down grocery stores and pharmacies, since there has to be some centralized location where food and medicine get distributed.
It's pretty important to emphasize that there is no legal or constitutional framework (of which I am aware) for backing this with lawful force. These are suggestions, probably good ones, but not enforceable ones.
On the basis of what research? Some experts are suggesting against these kinds of measures.
And this is a serious encroachment on fundamental rights, for a virus whose worst-case scenario is a number of deaths similar to the number of people who die from smoking every year.
First, I think that we should obey lockdown orders that are in line with many (though, as you say, not all) medical experts. Few policies are supported unanimously and, given the stakes, noting that it isn't unanimously supported seems like a very weak critique.
Second, if you want to critique the policy, you should probably be providing information on how some experts disagree with this policy and why. If ever there was a time to err on the side of caution this is it, and erring on the side of caution includes being cautious with how we critique health policy. We all have the right (and obligation) to talk about what approach would be best, but in doing that we must not undermine the current, unavoidably imperfect, approach.
Where do you get the idea that the worst case scenario is similar to the number of deaths from smoking? If half the US population gets the virus and 1% die, that' 1.5 million deaths. But if half the population gets the virus all at almost the same time, hospitals run out of ventilators, and maybe it will be 5% deaths. That's 7.5 million deaths.
I appreciate that we're all doing our own thinking and napkin math here, but the people who crunch these numbers all the time are talking about worst-case estimations much, much lower than that.
This is ridiculous and completely overblown. WFH home is plenty along with simply avoiding crowded spaces. They better not do something stupid like close the airports I need to visit family beginning in April.
Are you saying this because you have inside knowledge or because this affects you on a personal level? You also sprinkled in "simply avoiding crowded spaces", but you don't suggest a way to encourage/enforce this.
Not overblown IMO. When dealing with exponential growth, acting is only useful if you do it when it seems too early. If you wait until later, it is too late.
Are any well-informed researchers recommending this level of lockdown? At least some experts, including CIDRAP, are opposed to closing schools, let alone locking people down. Is anyone seriously considering and commenting on the damage this policy will do to vulnerable populations?
This seemingly solid paper[0], published in the Journal of Medical Virology, shows Vitamin D to be an important intervention. And obviously fresh air and sun are generally important for health and well-being.
There is no limitations on personal exercise like going out for walks except that you should try and remain 6ft+ from others. I don't think suggesting people be isolated from close contact with others during a global pandemic is authoritarian and wrong-headed. It seems to me like the benefits of fresh air might be lesser than the lung damage of covid19 after all.
