As during the Prohibition where people moved their social gathering from public bars and saloons to their private residences, I think the same thing will happen now. Social gathering in comparable numbers will resume but they will be in private “speak easy” locations with restricted entry to those who have the right test results instead of knowing the right password.
With this more diffuse spread of the disease and early warning from experience out of China, we could be implementing their late-stage practices right up front. Require people to check-in/check-out of each public gathering space, have them record their names and times when the enter and leave, and record their responses to health questions along with a quick temperature reading.
I don’t think the rapid declaration of emergencies and the cascading declarations at every state and local government was a prudent decision. I would like to imagine a dedomenocracy would have come up with a wiser plan of action. A wiser plan of action would be to be much more selective about declaration of emergency and focused in such a way to minimize the impact.
The current practice of ghost flights by airlines is a great analogy to what needs to happen in the workforce. To protect the nation from large numbers of hospitalizations and deaths, we could remove the people from their positions when they are over 50 or have one of the identified preexisting conditions. Eventually (hopefully), the crisis will abate where we can allow these people to return to their original roles.
Why are the very young more resilient to this disease. Among their traits is an unawareness of various topics outside their immediate lives. They have not been educated to learn these topics, and their attention is not drawn to them even if they were able to learn them. These topics include politics and suspicions of what other groups may be plotting against them.
It is inevitable that there will be a point where we must abandon the hope of containing the spread through quarantines. Our best hope of minimizing the number of deaths and of those needing intensive care is to isolate the ones most at risk if they were infected. Instead of removing from the economy those who are suspected as being infectious, we instead remove those who have known preexisting conditions or age.
This proposal would quarantine only healthy people having the preexisting conditions most at risk of having complications that will require hospital care and that can likely result in death. This population is easy to identify. The logistics of isolating healthy people from the rest of the population is easier than quarantining the infected While the current population of healthy with at-risk preexisting conditions is high, eventually it will be much smaller than the population of infected people. In this approach, the infected can safely move around because they are isolated from the ones most vulnerable to complications.
One way they can get our attention is to create an infectious and more fatal-than-normal virus and set it loose. A single virus would self replicate and spread. The numbers of infected and the severity of their outcomes would definitely get the attention of the leaders. Watching from afar, they would see who is actually in control, and more specifically who is most productive to interact with. The message may be encoded cleverly in the statistical variations of outcomes among different sub-populations.
many other viruses have the exact same luck and have been getting away with this sequence of lucky moves for eons. It just makes me wonder whether viral accommodation by cells is a part of normal biology of a species for some greater goal that outweighs even the survival of the individual.
One side of the debate says this is a remedy to a failing capitalism, while the other side says this is socialism.
As I look at it, the real goal is finding a remedy to a broken employment model.