This implies very serious efforts, though, which I'm not sure we're seeing in the West.
The lack of decisiveness in the west worries me. It's like they wait for the hospitals to be full before they decide quarantine might be in order.
People here aren't as docile as Chinese people and don't fear their government. If a city was quarantined like Wuhan with the situation turning to shit, many people would take to the street to protest instead of staying nicely confined at home.
And if the government's repression got too harsh there, you'd get protests all around the country in support.
That's why I haven't heard anything from my government about potential large-scale quarantine. They know that here it probably would make the situation worse.
2) i wouldn't be so sure that quarantine measures would be such universally disliked. it'll take a couple deaths and a few tv interviews with medical personnel with an overwhelmed hospital in the background to sway the public emotion in the containment direction. it better be executed well, though, or riots become a serious proposition.
Where do you escalate from that? Machine-gunning people in the streets?
But now, we know this virus isn't ebola's death rate combined with measle's R0. Large scale quarantine like in China is probably overkill and quite risky if your population isn't as docile as populations in authoritarians regimes.
Closing schools, cancelling mass events and asking people to work from home if they can is a more measured approach. Even without that, the apocalypse isn't coming anytime soon.
Don't underestimate the sense of doing what's good for the community and the patriotism of the Chinese people (and I'm sure many others).
I think they understood what was at stake and what had to be done, and did it but not because they are "docile" or because they "fear their government".
From a cynical point of view, the governments in the west might see this disease as a god-send. It mostly kills the old and sick. So if you let it run its course through the whole population, the strain on pension and public health systems will (eventually) be reduced -- "sozialverträgliches Frühableben" as one German top medic once called it. A disease that mostly leaves the young and productive part of the population intact might thus be welcomed as a solution to the demographic problems in the west.
Note, I don't agree with this point of view, but it might help explain the timid response in the west.
Everyone in my office could work from home, but we're not allowed because "it's not that bad" yet. One of my colleague is coughing for a week and still coming in and everyone is making joke about "aha he could be patient 0 here".
The answer is that with early detection, and keeping the virus numbers low, the health care network can be kept free for caring for the cases that do come through.
And ICU level care cannot cure the virus but can reduce fatalities.
- If someone is witness to the start of the fire, they’re going to call the fire department who will mobilize all resources available to a small area -> fire is contained quickly and with minimal loss of life or property
- If the fire starts in a remote area with nobody around for miles, it will get bigger and avoid detection until it becomes an imminent risk to people. At that point, the same resources will be spread across a larger area. As the wildfire grows, the wind caries embers and sparks other fires miles away, making the situation worse.
Obviously if you suffer from preexisting health issues, especially cardiopulmonary issues, you're far more likely to develop pneumonia, primary or secondary, or otherwise succumb.
[1] This page equivocates Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome with pneumonia: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007192.htm
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197121...