LogFAQs > #936147272

streamofthesky posted...

And their shut down was far more strict. There's still tons of people out and about in the U.S.

Honestly, I think there's something to be said for China's more aggressive quarantine approach. Hypothetically, this whole thing ecould be fixed with minimal economic repercussions if nearly everything was completely locked down for three weeks: stop all work that doesn't need to happen right now (which would basically mean agriculture, utilities, emergency services, medical, and emergency repair services (e.g. plumbers, electricians)), give everyone three weeks' worth of cheap, nutritionally complete food, freeze all exchanges of money so that nobody is put out by not being paid to do things, and just keep everybody at home for three weeks. At the end of it, test everyone that's shown symptoms, quarantine them and the people living with them for a suitable period after that, and with closed borders (which most countries have now anyway), you're not going to see any new cases

You'd get some businesses incurring extra costs for that shutdown due to the loss of perishable goods (food service being the most obvious example), and the government would incur the costs of those rations and everyone's utility bills for the month, but that'd be a whole lot less than what the US government has already thrown at the stock market in an effort to stimulate it, and a whole lot less than what any government is currently proposing in an effort to help keep businesses afloat through an indefinite shutdown period. All these reactive half-measures are likely going to be inadequate, both for controlling the virus to any meaningful level and for preventing economic loss from it.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.