What do you think about "Can just slow the spread" notion? (i.e., will ultimately kill same number)

[pat_k]

30. "Same" is a misstatement. But certainly containment saves MORE lives than just "slowing"

As long as aggressive testing and tracing continue -- as far as it is possible -- I'm happy.

My fear is that accepting "can't contain" prematurely is being used as an excuse NOT to fund aggressive testing, tracing, and so on. That it is being used as an excuse to limit response to "slowing" measures, like "social distancing," cancelling events, and other things that have a different sort of cost (lost revenue, economic downturn) than efforts that require proactive state, local, and national government action and funding.

Effective containment efforts require recruitment of personnel, setting up drive thru testing sites capable of collecting samples from large numbers of people, home testing programs like what the Gates foundation is working to launch in Seattle, set up of labs capable of processing tests rapidly, and implementation of effective tracing efforts. These types of efforts require the actual appropriation of funds.

Perhaps we have passed the point of no return, perhaps not. I am not convinced we have. I see the "can just slow" as a premature conclusion, an excuse not to institute and pay for real containment, and therefore a self-fulfilling prophecy.