Logic says this too.
Deadly, contagious virus with no vaccine, which takes roughly 18 months. There aren't too many options. I've heard chatter that big co's started telling their employees they're planning 18 months WFH.
Deadly, contagious virus with no vaccine, which takes roughly 18 months. There aren't too many options. I've heard chatter that big co's started telling their employees they're planning 18 months WFH.
Once the disease surge in densely populated ends areas it appears to become quite manageable.
We'll probably wear masks this entire time, and there'll probably another closure next time the disease surges. Until we find an effective treatment or a vaccine.
If there's a second wave, we'll probably need those containment measures again just to bring it down to the flu level.
If this were a raging pandemic this would not be the case.
E. Asian countries use a strict screen-and-test routine (+ a few restrictions), and if/when that slips they turn to a lockdown until they can control the outbreak enough to return to screen-and-test (e.g. Singapore just these recent days). That's a data point, but I don't think it supports the 'just get back to usual' POV. The US has far more entry points than Singapore, even after it manages to control the disease internally.
The UK abandoned their no-lockdown policy because it didn't work.
That leaves us with.. Sweden which doesn't look good at all compared to its neighbours which have locked down?
Honest question: do you think a second quarantine will be as effective as the first? Tracing and isolation after the first quarantine must be as close as spotless as possible, because personally I don't believe that the population will tolerate a second lock-up as easily as the first.
Public will may decline/increase depending on country and political climate, but enforcement, tracking and treatment mechanisms will have improved everywhere. So a 2nd quarantine need not be as effective as the first, and overall, governments that will want to lock down will be able to do it.
The real question is whether a political/economical calculation will delay a 2nd quarantine unnecessarily in cases it is necessary.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/singing-stops-...
Governments and their expert panels can't just think that people will "reprogram" themselves to stay away from most social contacts. It's alienating at best and outright dangerous for one's mind at worst.
Once the number of cases gets low, it won't be possible, or justifiable, to keep people locked up. Even more so that some countries that were affected after my own have already begun their plans to lift lockdowns (some with definite dates, some without).