I don't agree with it, but I understand the reasoning. If you look coldly at what is going on, the whole global economy has suddenly come to a full stop, and a quarantine to be effective needs to last for months. Under these conditions businesses will be going under left and right, many people will lose their jobs quickly and en masse, etc...

This will be an economic meltdown that is going to make the 2008 economic crisis look like child's play, and THIS TIME we won't have a strong (in terms of economy) China to bail the rest of the world out. It will last a very long time (if we ever completely recover!),  there will be hunger, there will be civil unrest and the consequences can be very serious indeed.

In the end and unless a vaccine comes up, all we are doing now is preventing the collapse of the world health systems by flattening the curve (number of infected at one single time), because otherwise this will NOT stop until 70-80% of the population has been infected and becomes immune. 3.2% of those who get infected will die ANYWAY (mostly the weak, the sick and the elderly, but not only), and keeping the curve flat will also avoid the deaths of the other 4% of the infected who would otherwise die due to the lack of intensive medical care.

So the choice becomes: do we die from the disease or from the cure? What is worse in the long run? How many more people will be affected - and indeed die - by an economic crisis never before seen in the modern history of mankind?

The alternative to shooting the economy in the head is to keep people going and working despite the pandemic (in a way that is what happened in the 1918 Spanish flu). Most (80%) will experience mild symptoms, and those who will have to die, will die, but those who remain will not be facing global economic chaos once group immunity is achieved in a year or so.

Worse, the dying will basically have to be sent home to die, as none of the world's health systems can cope with a pandemic of this magnitude without completely collapsing, which in turn also means people dying from what would otherwise be avoidable deaths (accidents, curable diseases, etc...). There would be mass graves like it happened in 1918 due to so many dying in such a short period of time, etc...

A monstrous choice from a purely humanistic perspective. After all, how much would you pay to bring a loved one back, if only you could? I think most people would give all they have.

I believe the expression that more suits the situation we are currently in is 'between a rock and a hard place', or even 'out of the frying pan and into the fire'.

Apologies if this is a very bleak analysis of what is going on, but I think people should be aware of what is happening and what can POTENTIALLY happen.

It may be bleak, but it more or less is the truth.  Unless a vaccine is developed sooner and not later, it won't matter a hoot about the world's economies.  They will all go down in a screaming heap, as will the world's health systems as they crumble under the unprecedented demand.

I seem to recall a prophet from a few hundred years ago predicted that most of the world's population would perish to a pestulence like no other before it, that those who remain will be plunged back to the Stoneage.

I heard earlier this evening that Prince Charles has the corona virus.  That's not good!  It just goes to show, nobody is immune and that this virus is non-selective .... it'll infect anyone and everyone, regardless of wealth or status, and no matter what we do to stops it, this disease will continue to spread because there are those who simply aren't doing the right thing

I will observe the social distancing and remain at home unless going out is absolutely necessary, but too many seem to think it won't happen to them and are placing themselves and other at risk by not observing social distancing or self-isolation.

Anyway, there's nothing I can do about it, other than to stay at home and keep to myself.

Going out tomorrow...to the Blood Bank....they want my plasma....and looks like it'll be every 2 weeks....

I go by treadlie ...so I get exercise at the same time....

Hoping the Fuzz will pull me up wanting to know why I'm 'out and about'... so I can say 'essential service'...;)

I really do not think ill of the President for his remarks. His job is to keep Americans safe, and I sincerely believe this he will do. It is also his job to show a bit of light ... of hope  ... at the end of the tunnel. He has a very tough balancing act .. to be cautious yet not morbid and at the same time to give encouragement and show progress.  However, the doctor's and scientist's think and act on the basis of 'data' and 'numbers'... a much more sterile viewpoint, somewhat devoid of emotion. In the end, the President will give full consideration to that view as he has no choice but to err on the side of caution for the lives of many are at risk.  The economy of the country is no less important, however, and the President must walk that fine line. It may be that certain areas or even some States, my be able to move more toward 'normalcy' before others. i.e. Montana, Wyoming, Nevada etc. ... states with very open spaces and large rural areas with lower populations.  These, with proper cautions and oversight, may be at much less risk. This is an hour to hour and day to day procession of decisions.

Tell them you're going to give blood, maybe they'll give you an escort, that would be kind of fun   

Now that's a thought....I've got quite a few myself stashed away....and when all else fails....I can sniff the glue...;)

Hopefully you don't, though it's something I wouldn't mention when so many people with substance abuse issues are desperately looking for their next fix, any fix during this Corona virus lockdown.