Is a depression better? Would 100,000 deaths due to economic collapse be better? Panic much?
The global effort to slow and curb the spread of the disease is to prevent the deaths of millions
and chaos in hospitals around the world. What's happening in Italy is only the beginning of what would happen around the globe without these drastic measures. Get real. Given the long incubation period, these measures are going to need over a month before we see real results.
I'd venture to guess that at least the travel industry would be in the same exact position even if there were no government mandated lockdowns. If millions around the world were dying because of a highly infectious virus, who would want to travel? In that scenario you would have similar economic recession/depression but also many unnecessary fatalities.
Because experts are not experts in everything that's why. You can be an expert in the medical field, but not in others. We are holding this country hostage based on just a group of experts, I am afraid of group-think here.
I am pretty sure they will advise us to stay put for 3 months, which would be their point of view to mitigate this. But as you can see, your 'economics expert' Thomas Friedman foresees economic disaster if we extend this.
There is going to be a point 'experts' in all diverse fields will not agree on the best solution to this going forward, should we just listen to some and not listen to other experts?
Of course experts with different agendas and from different fields will have conflicting points of view. It's a no brainer that an economic expert would say the cessation of economic activity would not be good for the economy. And no brainer that a public health expert would say that a cessation of public gatherings would help with stopping the spread of the disease. It all comes down to what you value. If you value life and public health (which I would hope would be most important), the public health experts should be the ones you defer to. If you value money more then like an economist, you would see all of this as too much or unnecessary.
Isn't amazing that your country (GERMANY) is not doing any lock-down, business as usual. Yes for them it doesn't matter if millions die. Perhaps they know money does go away in a crisis, unless why haven't they done any lock downs ?
Look at the statistics. There's a pattern in countries that didn't aggressively test from the start (US, UK, Italy, Spain, France) and ones that did (Germany, Singapore, South Korea). Germany has almost 30,000 cases but around 120 deaths. The Netherlands has a fifth of the number of known
(emphasis on known) cases but more deaths. The lockdowns are to not overwhelm the healthcare system, not to eradicate the disease. Testing is key and many countries would not have needed to lockdown if they had adequately tested from the beginning.
In Germany they've been aggressive with testing and subsequent quarantines for the people who do have the virus. Same with South Korea and Singapore. But if your society can't or doesn't test you would have no idea who has the disease, where it's most prominent, and most importantly how and where it's spreading
. So in that case, you have to lockdown under the assumption that anyone could be a carrier. In a society that does
know those things a strict lockdown wouldn't be necessary as you wouldn't have to make that assumption. It's actually that simple.