+1 - Browsh is one of the most amazing pieces of software I've come across in the past few years.
I've found that using Browsh together with mosh and tmux, you can get a surprisingly functional remote desktop experience. I've found it especially handy in cases when "normal" remote desktop is too slow, e.g. when tethered to mobile data connection or using an underpowered client device.
> The full lockdown you are advocating for could cause significantly more devastation than it prevents.
The financial hit will be very real, but there can and will be mitigations down the line. What do you think are the chances that city, state and federal governments are all just going to let people starve in their homes? For example, the California state government has promised to keep paying teachers and school staff despite school closures. Not to mention companies, organizations and individuals. Many tech companies are continuing to pay maintenance staff despite office closures, for example.
As for the devastation that it prevents - well, many unnecessary deaths. The government might be able to pay you a portion of lost wages, give you a loan or reduce your taxes this year, but it can't bring back your loved ones if they die from the coronavirus.
> I'd be surprised if a majority of people actually did that
There are always going to be idiots and morons. But I think if cases and deaths skyrocket over the next few weeks, as is currently expected, the number of people flouting the quarantine is going to go down pretty dramatically. Not only will people become more aware of the risk, but more businesses will be closed so there's less incentive (e.g. all bars and clubs closed in several states, Starbucks is now takeout-only in some places, attractions like Disneyland closing down etc).
I think as the number of cases explode with more testing availability, governments at all levels will be pressured into taking more action if only to show the population something is being done.
But yes, we now know it's already too late. The US has failed to contain the disease like China, Hong Kong, Taiwan etc did, and the CDC already expects most of the U.S. population will be exposed to this virus eventually. There's no precedent yet for a COVID-19 epidemic of this size -- China has successfully contained it, and Italy's population is just 1/5 of the US.
But on the other hand, we as average people can still do our part and meaningfully contribute to flattening the curve. Even one unnecessary death avoided is a win.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the situation in Italy is 100% accurately "going to replicate in most places". It's only an example to warn us of the kind of human tragedy that could happen if we don't get our sh*t together in the US.
No one cares if the theoretically more accurate number really should be 20K cases and not 50K cases in 10 days. The point is we need to act NOW rather than 10 days later. As Dr. Fauci said, it's probably better for us to be overreacting at this point than under-reacting. [1]
If you're young and healthy, I can totally see how a lock down might feel worse than the risk of getting the coronavirus.
But it's not just about you. It's about the elderly, the sick, the weak around you. Even if you end up fine after getting the disease, you're going to transmit it to other people, directly or indirectly, who may end up dying because of you. That's what R0 is about.
So yeah, a lock down will suck for you, but I hope it makes you feel better to know that it will help save someone else's life.
Well, for most people losing their family would feel way worse.
There are many ways to mitigate the economic impact down the line. Governments at all levels, companies and organization are already helping blunt the impact. For example, the California state government has promised to keep paying teachers and school staff. Many tech companies are continuing to pay maintenance staff despite office closures. NBA players have donated to arena staff affected by cancellations.
> Young People at the lowest risk from this virus are going to be much worse off than just catching a fucking bad cold.
It's not a "fucking bad cold" for young people.
- Over 50% of ICU patients in Netherlands from COVID-19 are under 50. [1]
- Over 50% of ICU patients in France are under 60. [2]
- Over 40% of patients requiring hospitalization in China were under 50. [3]
Young people are not invincible. The fact that they can use up a significant chunk of already scarce medical resources suggests that we really shouldn't be sending that message and encouraging young people to not give a sh*t about the epidemic.
Those numbers measure the wrong thing. The proportion of young people in care means nothing without knowing also the proportion of young people infected.
Even if the number of young infected is much larger, it still means a significant number of young people need hospital treatment. A cold basically never needs hospital treatment. So it may not be deadly for the young but it's certainly not a bad cold.
Governments at all levels, companies and non-profits can (and I don't doubt will) help mitigate the financial hit in the months and years ahead. The California state government has for example promised to keep paying teachers and school staff. [1] Many tech companies for example are continuing to pay maintenance staff despite office closures. [2] NBA players have donated to arena staff affected by cancellations. [3]
But there is nothing anyone can do to bring back our loved ones.
First of all, let's be clear that flattening the curve WILL save lives, even if the same number of people ultimately get exposed to the virus. Not only will we avoid overrunning hospitals, we also buy ourselves valuable time to ramp up production on equipment like ventilators, necessary medicine and protective gear, find better treatments and cures, and perhaps develop a vaccine.
So, is saving lives worth the economic impact? I think the answer is very simple.
I did account for the death rate when the healthcare system is overwhelmed; I have no doubt it will save lives.
Then, as I also said, if you are 60 and your very old mother is on her death bed, and you get to buy her one more week of life by eliminating your entire retirements savings, would you do it? If not, after that we are so to speak just haggling about the price.
Oh, and what if I came for your retirement savings because they could save my mother, that you don't even know?
There are trade-off on another level too. Recessions have very real human consequences that I mentioned in another comment. Many of them involve deaths, but many more just involve ruined lives. I'd sooner let one 80yo die than make one 40yo miserable for the rest of his life.
I've found that using Browsh together with mosh and tmux, you can get a surprisingly functional remote desktop experience. I've found it especially handy in cases when "normal" remote desktop is too slow, e.g. when tethered to mobile data connection or using an underpowered client device.