My worldview:

1) Short sharp lockdown to get to zero new cases, using as much of Asia, NZ playbook as possible
2) Then test, trace, isolate to maintain a green zone
3) This minimizes both economic & viral damage
4) Alternative is halfway lockdown that stops economy but not virus https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1254315162313490434

Another alternative is “let-it-rip” to allow herd immunity. I get why folks propose this. Spanish Flu didn’t end us, right?

But I’m skeptical because (a) long-term effects still unknown and (b) we are seeing many asymptomatics are actually presymptomatic. https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1254318488547495939?s=20 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1254318488547495939

We don’t fully understand everything this virus can do. It’s only four months old. Letting it just go to 100% seems rash to me, if we have an alternative.

Yes, civilization survived Spanish Flu, but millions died and many things are now different. https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1253375231885864963

To just cite Spanish Flu recovery without noting differences is IMO ahistorical.

- it didn’t cause record economic crash
- far less of economy was devoted to travel, restaurants, concerts, etc
- whole episode was heavily censored and in shadow of WW1
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1246310545193447426?s=21 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1246310545193447426

We understand why the digital economy of 2020 would be hit harder by a solar storm than the economy of 1859.

Could the consumer economy of 2020 be hit harder by a virus than the agricultural & industrial producer economy of 1918?

It has long supply chains, high leverage, etc

Why might the consumer economy of 2020 be hit harder by a virus than the agricultural & industrial producer economy of 1918?

Some theses:

1) WW1 had already caused shock to supply chains

2) Today’s physical leisure economy (travel, restaurants, events, etc) is more disrupted