This article presents it as dueling narratives: open versus authoritarian. This implies that, as of now, the US has some choice. But we don't. We screwed up testing when it was small and containable, and now it's not.
The general public still doesn't realize that it's going to be two months before the shelter in place and general social distancing rules start to make a difference.
Even then, after months of lockdown, it's just going to flare up again as soon as the rules are relaxed.
And they have tested 140k of the cases now and more, how many cases has U.S. tested so far? Not even close.
What about contact tracing? Have you heard South Korea let confirmed cases leave the hospital with fake name + addresses? Or knowing that family members may have infected and still going out to the public? U.S. has. [1][2]
That's the difference you can maintain a society. Lock-up is the second last resort. And then you will have to follow U.K. to let it be.
[1]: https://people.com/human-interest/nj-woman-with-coronavirus-...
[2]: https://www.kcra.com/article/father-of-missouri-coronavirus-...
Not trying to defend their actions but I’d bet they were trying to avoid being put on quarentine in the hospital to later receive a hefty bill to pay.
Stopped reading there, it's not worth my time. It takes up to two weeks to develop any symptoms, so remarks like that are either misguided or intentionally misleading.
¹ https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2762808/incubation-period...
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00740-y
So not exactly CCP style lockdown but not a 2019 style free society either. They did make the hard choices necessary to got it in control. But it wasn't as simple as more testing.
This was especially important for early actions taken by S.Korea's CDC since a single super-spreader (#31) had contacts with thousands(!) of people within just 2~3 days. I'm 99% sure that Europe and America also have similar cases, but just remains unveiled because they couldn't really do the same thing with the given authority. S.Korea was in a similar situation during the MERS outbreak but now they passed a law to allow such actions.
IMHO, this trade-off is no brainer. The cost is can be controlled/minimized while the economical/societal damages caused by full lockdown is not. And yes, this is also not 2019 style free society.
[1] https://milano.repubblica.it/cronaca/2020/03/18/news/coronav...
In particular: did South Korea shut down its schools?
There is "information" everywhere but no precise or exhaustive data on who did what.
Because it's too fucking late for the South Korea response. I'm sorry, but asking questions like this at this point is completely useless, and the "wait, woah, slow down" response is exactly the sort of attitude that kept us from being able to pull off what South Korea did in the first place.
Europe has hundreds of international airports and uncountable open border crossings. Containment was never really a possibility in Europe. Containment in mainland North America was even less likely. Even if governments wanted to close borders between states/provinces, there's no mechanism to do so.
I know "core temperature" is hard to take at the wrist, but I'm sure _something_ could be done. Wouldn't this benefit entire nations if the technology could be invented to have hyper-local influenza and pandemic forecasting?
It looks like this tech does exist in rudimentary form, for females, and it's specifically tied for fertility tracking.
Also, very cool chart in the article.