[xcentrk]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

According to me, we have two choices:

Have a 2 or 3 month lockdown now and contain the virus
....

@vivek95: I always have this lingering question in my mind since the talks about covid-19 is started. What is the actual lifetime of this virus inside an asymptomatic carrier.

Let's take the scenario 1 mentioned by @civic-sense.

Let's assume after 3 months the lock-down is lifted. Will it be possible for any asymptomatic carrier to transmit this disease even after 3 month quarantine. If that's the case, then I am out of words. Or will it die down on it's own after few months?.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I do think that, if a country like UK (it's my mother country, as most people know) can put its hands in its pockets to help both businesses and employees at this time, after year upon year of "austerity" forced on its people for no good reason, then India can too. I hope to see more. But this is for the politicians.

Now, I want to explore another avenue, and that is the What If of... calling off the lockdown, re-opening businesses, getting back to work, getting back to the shops.

What happens? Corvid-19 is still out there, and the numbers are going to start rising again. I'm not going to suggest that we'll all end up dead, although for sure, some of us will. I am going to suggest that a lot of people are quire likely going to get ill fairly quickly.

We all know the corvid-d spectrum of possible effects, ranging from zilch-symptomless, through worse-than-flu, seriously-ill, ICU-critically-ill, death. People are very interested in the Death statistic, and it is, perhaps, the only one where there is a possibility of knowing it. The mid-range statistic might be more useful for economic forecasts.

I suggest (and am totally open to other suggestions) that, within 2-14 days of hitting the restart button, what we have come to call the economy (which actually includes everything from the multinationals to the one-man-bands, and everyone from the CEOs to the cleaners) is going to be crippled because a major proportion of its workforce is going to be too ill to work. Plus all the stuff of health facilities being over-run by the seriously/critically sick.

It's not a nice prospect. And will be it be different in 2 weeks?

[mohansrides]

Originally Posted by TRR

..
I will reiterate that I am not one of those looking for 3 months, or a year of lockdown to experiment on our citizens. Like I said in the other post, we cannot afford to wait for herd immunity. A two-week extension will buy us some time that we may be able to afford at this stage. And in this I concur with what some other members of this forum are saying....

First, let us get this out of the way. A two week, or even a three week extension is a given. That is most likely going to happen and that idea enjoys broad support. Heck, even I say now that we are in the lockdown already, extend it by another 3 weeks if you have to get maximum results. So, no argument from me there at all.

What we are essentially discussing here is the idea that many people are proposing of extending the lockdown to 12 weeks or so. That I think will be too much for the economy to bear.

Moving forward, I am simply using your posts to carry the discussion forward. So, please do not interpret my usage of your posts as me attacking you. That is not the case.

Originally Posted by TRR

Hi sir. I will start off by saying that what you said makes for an interesting read and really makes a discussion on this subject worthwhile.... You talk of your maid. How would you explain to your maid about the "bigger question" when her aged parents die due to Covid because some person on the bus coughed on them and they contract the disease? You talk of the auto drivers. How would you explain to the auto driver when the doctors remove his father's ventilator and let him die because a younger patient comes in with a greater likelihood of being saved? These aren't ifs and buts, rather this is what has actually happened in...

The big problems that I have with the above argument is that almost all the what-ifs are conjecture, while the loss of jobs is a certainty.

"...The rickshaw driver's father may be the one to get pulled off the ventilator and my maid's parents may die because someone coughs on them...."

Sure, that could happen. But, the above statement is made as if those outcomes are 100% probable, which is not the case. In the mean time, what will in fact definitely happen is that these people will get pushed into unbelievably deep economic setbacks. In a best case scenario, we are looking at deep debt burdens for large sections of society. In a worst case, well I think we all know how that story goes.

I hesitate to say anything trivializing any loss of life. But, if you argue that there is a high likelihood that the rickshaw driver's father and that my maid's parents will die, I have no option but to point to the statistical probability of that happening - In NYC, which is still NOT under a full lockdown by the way, and where the virus is in community transmission stage, the infection rate is 150000 people (1.5 lacs). That is out of 18 MILLION (1.8 crores). And of the 150000 (1.5 lacs) of Covid-19 positive people, roughly 6000 have died. While any loss of life is sad, I am sorry; but those statistics just do not convince me that those prospective outcomes you mention for my maids parents and that auto driver's father are a certainty.

Originally Posted by TRR

..The bigger question from whose perspective sir? Why don't we ask this same question to the families of the people who got infected and died simply because that one person who returned from abroad and refused to isolate at home spread the disease? No amount of "greater good" will console these people. Which is why I made my previous post. I reiterate, I identify with the hardships faced by the poor and unemployed, while I also sympathise with those who have been affected by Covid in a physical sense..

Again, I will reiterate, that I am not denying people will face economic hardships, more so the poor and less fortunate..

Those who argue for a protracted lockdown keep saying that they empathize with the economic hardship. But really, it does not look like they do so at all. Because their argument is undoubtedly for the few at the cost of many. Let me explain.

The virus DOES NOT INFECT EVERYONE. We know that for sure. Also, NOT EVERYONE WHO GETS INFECTED DIES, OR EVEN REQUIRES CRITICAL CARE. We know that for sure too. But, in the mean time, because of the lockdown NO ONE IS WORKING AND MAKING MONEY FOR THEIR FAMILIES. Or at least, no one in the most economically compromised section of society is working.

Do we see the problem now?

Don't get me wrong. It is perfectly correct to require test positive cases and international travelers to be quarantined. But, that is not what is being advocated here. What we are essentially saying is that a perfectly asymptomatic person with no travel history should, for the X% chance that they will get infected and then possibly infect others, 100% give up their right to earn a living without commensurate compensation.

When did this become accepted practice?

If this was the case, no one should be allowed to smoke a cigarette. Because they are undoubtedly suicidal maniacs who are putting the rest of us in danger. Why, even all of us car junkies are flushing everyone else's lives down the tube with our vehicles. There are enough statistics about pulmonary related deaths due to the dirty air and due to smoking, active or passive. Should we legislate laws immediately banning all these activities?

Originally Posted by TRR

..
1) with regard to the testing of persons, I stated this very clearly in my post here. We are ramping up our testing facilities so as to widen the net of testing, because that is KEY to coming out of this mess. We were forced to turn away people at the start of this mess, simply because we did not have enough test kits and had to maximize utility of the precious few that we had. Hopefully with the ICMR's new strategies, no possible case is turned away going forward. No use of a lockdown alone, I agree whole-heartedly. The lockdown has bought us time, at a cost of lives, to ramp up testing. Because if there was no lockdown, we'd be going the USA way. Just in a much worse fashion, no two-ways about it. This is what I believe we are achieving with this economy-crushing lockdown. I've also talked about rapid response capabilities that will (hopefully) arise once we're out of this lockdown to nip future infections in the bud. Do take some time out and go through the above linked post of mine, then you'll see where I am coming from on this.

Everyone knows that a lockdown buys us time to widen the test net. But, even given a 3 month lockdown, we will never be able to test each and every citizen or resident in the country. Given that testing every single person in the country is not possible, how can we guarantee that a lockdown will indeed work as a deterrent? And what about a reemergence of the virus? Will we go into lockdown every single time we have an outbreak and shoot the economy into the crapper repeatedly?

So, setting aside all other arguments, this here is the real problem. There is no absolute proof that a lockdown is THE solution. If that were the case, I would wholeheartedly agree with the measure. But, that argument simply cannot be advanced today because no one really knows anything about this virus.

In short, no one knows if a lockdown will definitely kill the virus. But, in the mean time, a protracted lockdown will definitely kill the economy. That outcome carries a 100% probability.

Originally Posted by TRR

..But I ask you this, what would you have the administration do with respect to these future threats? ...

As to what I would have the administration do, some of it, the administration is doing already - use the lock down to ramp up isolation wards and test kits. Mandate the use of masks. What I would hope for moving forward is that the lockdown be lifted after a maximum of 5 or 6 weeks. After that, people who have traveled into the country and those who test positive should be quarantined for 3 weeks minimum, or until they test negative. Symptomatic patients should immediately be tested and be either quarantined or discharged based on test result.

Really, that's the best we can do. Locking down an entire nation is simply too cruel on too many people. It is more cruel than the virus itself.

[kiku007]

It's good that people are discussing critical factors like lives, livelihood and the economy.

I actually see the debate between lives and economy as a healthy one. They both are highly interlinked.

Assuming there's going to be extended lockdown in some degree or the other, what would you like the Central and State Governments to do in the short-term?

1. Universal basic income for all people below the poverty line for the next X months?
2. Tax exemption/deferment for income taxpayers and businesses?
3. Incentives for investments in healthcare?
4. Fast track debt recovery from multi-million $ loan defaults?
5. Cut non-essential government expenses?
6. Increase insurance coverage for essential services workers?
7. Pay the states their pending GST due amount?

Let's keep it simple and constructive.

[joslicx]

Originally Posted by kiku007

It's good that people are discussing critical factors like lives, livelihood and the economy.

1. Universal basic income for all people below the poverty line for the next X months?
2. Tax exemption/deferment for income taxpayers and businesses?
3. Incentives for investments in healthcare?
4. Fast track debt recovery from multi-million $ loan defaults?
5. Cut non-essential government expenses?
6. Increase insurance coverage for essential services workers?
7. Pay the states their pending GST due amount?

Let's keep it simple and constructive.

These are excellent suggestions. Maybe somebody can educate us all how government can actually do this and where the money will come from. Because the reality is, their own income is going to go down significantly. Millions of people are going to lose jobs ( estimates vary, could be as high as 100m!!) So that means less income from direct and indirect taxes. Millions of industries and establishments can close down for lack of work and/or workers. That's again huge tax loss. Govts make lot of money from sales of fuel and liquor. But because of lockdown both incomes go down significantly.

So in a nutshell, govt needs to spend like hell but they don't have any money. We already run a huge deficit. As one famous economist PM once remarked, Money does not grow on trees. It would be interesting to see how we come out of this. And it's not just our country. The whole world is impacted. The UN estimates some 400m people will become poor. It going to be a huge tragedy unlike any in the past.

[TRR]

Originally Posted by mohansrides

The big problems that I have with the above argument is that almost all the what-ifs are conjecture, while the loss of jobs is a certainty.

-snip-

I hesitate to say anything trivializing any loss of life. But, if you argue that there is a high likelihood that the rickshaw driver's father and that my maid's parents will die, I have no option but to point to the statistical probability of that happening - In NYC, which is still NOT under a full lockdown by the way, and where the virus is in community transmission stage, the infection rate is 150000 people (1.5 lacs). That is out of 18 MILLION (1.8 crores). And of the 150000 (1.5 lacs) of Covid-19 positive people, roughly 6000 have died. While any loss of life is sad, I am sorry; but those statistics just do not convince me that those prospective outcomes you mention for my maids parents and that auto driver's father are a certainty.

The virus DOES NOT INFECT EVERYONE. We know that for sure. Also, NOT EVERYONE WHO GETS INFECTED DIES, OR EVEN REQUIRES CRITICAL CARE. We know that for sure too. But, in the mean time, because of the lockdown NO ONE IS WORKING AND MAKING MONEY FOR THEIR FAMILIES. Or at least, no one in the most economically compromised section of society is working.

Thank you for bringing up New York. You're right the state hasn't gone into a total lockdown. So how's their economy doing? Nearly 15 million people have filed or are going to file unemployment claims in America, with nearly 500,000+ in New York alone. You think this 500,000+ are CEOs and Hedge Fund Managers? These are people from the lowest strata of society, who have been let go by organizations. This is with no lockdown as you say. You be the judge of whether the US has shot their economy into the crapper, regardless of a lockdown. Oh and don't forget the 6000 people and COUNTING, who are now out of the economy 100% in NY alone.

Businesses in the US are asking for multi-billion dollar bailouts. A majority of the most affected businesses include mom and pop stores. So why didn't the lack of a lockdown help these people keep their businesses afloat? This is something I was referencing to in my earlier post with regard to Beijing.

Is a lockdown going to seriously affect the economy? I agree. Would the lack of the lockdown have benefited the economy in any reasonable way? Look to the US.

Also, A genuine question that I have. At the start of the lockdown, we had members dismissing the 20,000 deaths worldwide from Covid saying, 'oh only 20,000 deaths, why the lockdown?' Today you are dismissing 88,000 deaths worldwide saying, 'oh the statistical deaths are too low for me to not put the economy in front.' I want to know till what level would this same excuse carry on? 100,000? More? The Covid virus hasn't run its full course across the world, so it's easy to discount the deaths at the current stage as too few.

If the deaths are low, it is because governments across the world stepped in and did the best things they could, not because Covid is affecting only a statistical few. If the deaths in India are low, it is because the government reacted quickly and instituted whatever it has put in place so far, not because Covid is killing only a select few. There is hard evidence from the ICMR for this fact, comparing a non-lockdown spread with a lockdown spread.

Originally Posted by mohansrides

Given that testing every single person in the country is not possible, how can we guarantee that a lockdown will indeed work as a deterrent? And what about a reemergence of the virus? Will we go into lockdown every single time we have an outbreak and shoot the economy into the crapper repeatedly?

With all due respect sir, I have mentioned a possible exit strategy multiple times that don't include locking down every time we find a new patient. These are viable options. Please take the time to read some of those posts. I don't know why we are coming back to the same argument of "oh what will we do if we find a new patient in the future?"

Originally Posted by mohansrides

So, setting aside all other arguments, this here is the real problem. There is no absolute proof that a lockdown is THE solution. If that were the case, I would wholeheartedly agree with the measure. But, that argument simply cannot be advanced today because no one really knows anything about this virus.

Thank you for reiterating exactly what I said in the quoted part of your post. Looks like we agree on this point.

Originally Posted by mohansrides

In short, no one knows if a lockdown will definitely kill the virus. But, in the mean time, a protracted lockdown will definitely kill the economy. That outcome carries a 100% probability.

In the mean time, a lack of lockdown has already seriously damaged the US economy. So what was the point of keeping the economy open then? People died and the virus spread rampantly, and yet jobs were still lost.

Killing the economy seems a little far-fetched. I will quote your own post on this -

Originally Posted by mohansrides

As mentioned by other on this thread, there is no hard data available as to which tactic has worked. Your statement that some countries' economies are dead, appears to be based on anecdotal evidence alone. If you have hard numbers as to which country's economy is shattered beyond redemption because they have not locked down, please share.

In your own words, your statement that India's economy is dead, appears to be based on anecdotal evidence alone. If you have hard numbers to show that India's economy is shattered beyond redemption ONLY BECAUSE WE LOCKED DOWN, please share, I'd be happy to change my stance.

You shared stories of friends and colleagues who have lost jobs and shuttered businesses because of the lockdown. I have shared information above on Americans who lost jobs and shuttered businesses even with no lockdown. So no, pointing out facts that people in India have lost jobs and shuttered businesses is not 'hard' evidence that only the lockdown has shattered India's economy beyond redemption, because this would have been the same story, with or without a lockdown.

Meanwhile, I have shared some empirical evidence as to some countries that are coming out of a month-long lockdown, not having destroyed their economy. Refer to my previous posts on this. Whether, this scenarios are applicable to India's scenario is another debate unto itself.

Originally Posted by mohansrides

As to what I would have the administration do, some of it, the administration is doing already - use the lock down to ramp up isolation wards and test kits. Mandate the use of....

As to what I would have the administration do, some of it, the administration is doing already - use the lock down to ramp up isolation wards and test kits. Mandate the use of masks. What I would hope for moving forward is that the lockdown be lifted after a maximum of 5 or 6 weeks. After that, people who have traveled into the country and those who test positive should be quarantined for 3 weeks minimum, or until they test negative. Symptomatic patients should immediately be tested and be either quarantined or discharged based on test result

Again, thank you for reiterating exactly what I have stated in my post earlier. Seems we agree on this front too

[carboy]

Originally Posted by mohansrides

The virus DOES NOT INFECT EVERYONE. We know that for sure.

I am not in favour of the lockdown. However, how do you know that the virus does not infect everyone? And that too, for sure?

[wheelguy]

Note from Support: PLEASE DO NOT Copy-Paste articles from websites. Post links & quote excerpts only.


Government working on staggered easing of lockdown

NEW DELHI: The country seems to be gravitating towards a bottoms-up staggered easing of the nationwide lockdown, driven by local situations , even as there’s overwhelming support for its extension beyond April 14.
All the empowered groups constituted by the government are frantically attempting to build post-lockdown strategies and ‘unlockdown’ measures by taking into account every related issue — from air travel and transport of persons and goods to flexible work formats and essential supplies, people aware of the discussions told ET.

• “Empowered groups and stakeholder ministries along with industry are looking at this issue,” a senior official involved in the exercise told ET . “It is a complex situation given the need to protect those delivering services as well as reaching essentials to people. We hope to firm up clear guidelines and protocols for the hotspots,” the person said.

[kiku007]

Originally Posted by joslicx

These are excellent suggestions. Maybe somebody can educate us all how government can actually do this and where the money will come from. Because the reality is, their own income is going to go down significantly. Millions of people are going to lose jobs ( estimates vary, could be as high as 100m!!) So that means less income from direct and indirect taxes. Millions of industries and establishments can close down for lack of work and/or workers. That's again huge tax loss. Govts make lot of money from sales of fuel and liquor. But because of lockdown both incomes go down significantly.

So in a nutshell, govt needs to spend like hell but they don't have any money. We already run a huge deficit. As one famous economist PM once remarked, Money does not grow on trees. It would be interesting to see how we come out of this. And it's not just our country. The whole world is impacted. The UN estimates some 400m people will become poor. It going to be a huge tragedy unlike any in the past.

I read the below link and understood how Australia is able to afford its massive stimulus package. Hint: They didn't have a hidden treasure chest.

https://www.theage.com.au/business/t...03-p54goi.html

This may not directly give the answer to your question but it'll give a perspective of how one of the developed countries is dealing with it.

IIRC the Indian Government took 1.7L Crores from the RBI last year. I don't know if any other country had that liberty or even if India itself had done that in the past. Perhaps the Indian Government can leverage that amount or did they spend that all?

P.S: https://www.ndtv.com/business/all-pe...home-topscroll

"All Pending Income Tax Refunds Up To Rs 5 Lakh To Be Released Immediately
Besides, all pending GST and custom refunds will also be released benefiting close to 1 lakh businesses."

Money doesn't grow in trees but they were able to afford the above. It has to be done.

[am1m]

Some good news from Meghalaya: https://scroll.in/latest/958458/coro...-from-april-15


"The Meghalaya government on Tuesday decided to lift the lockdown in place to combat the coronavirus pandemic on April 15, NDTV reported. While a nationwide lockdown is in place till April 14, not a single case of the coronavirus has been reported in the state so far.

All government offices in Meghalaya will start functioning from April 15, and private vehicles will be allowed on roads and agricultural activity will be resumed, the state government said. However, educational institutions will remain closed till April 30. Weekly markets in rural areas will resume while adhering to Covid-19 protocols as prescribed by the health department, the government said.

Private business establishments will not be allowed to be opened."

[Bigzero]

I had been sporting a beard for close to two years now, and I shaved it off on the third day of the lockdown, much to the consternation of my family members.

Now I am just watching it grow back.....

[yd_gli]

This is turning out to be quite some discussion. I personally think we are caught in between the rock and a hard place and neither direction will bring us back to our pre-virus way of life. Given the state of affairs we'll languish around in the Stage II transmission rates until a cure/vaccine is discovered. Until then it's going to an on-off cycle.

I have one question for all the critics of the lockdown extension scenario. What possible benefit can come out of reduced restrictions? Most of the labor used by the real estate and manufacturing industries has gone back to their villages/farming and there is no hope of them returning until after Diwali at best. The tier 1 automobile manufacturing sector will have a demand of a week of production per month at max in a reduced lockdown scenario. It does not make financial or technical sense to restart machines to cater to such low volumes. With the virus still spreading, will people want to go to restaurants? No. Malls? No. Schools? No. Coaching classes? No. New cars? Difficult given the situation. New homes? I don't think so. Sport/Music events? No.

Most of my contacts in the IT sector are working from home and things are going ok. The reduced workload is due to the situation in the US and EU. The India lockdown has nothing to do with it. My cousins in the finance industry in Mumbai are working from home as well and things are moving along as best as they can in this situation. I utilize the services of an IT MNC and most of my colleagues have communicated that they will not be coming into the office and if need be they will utilize their accrued paid time off. At the end of the day if push comes to shove, most people will get rid of their house/car rather than land up in an ICU on a ventilator.

Farming, grocery, healthcare and essential good industries are already functioning as per normal.

So, I am not sure what the benefits of a reduced lockdown scenario are against a full lockdown. Sure, there are some businesses where there is work but they can't execute and the only benefit of a reduced lockdown is to force their employees to come to work which they can't right now. I am pretty sure these kind of cases are a minority. And even if the restrictions are lowered, I doubt if a sensible human being would want to go sit with a few hundred other colleagues in a closed room for the next six months.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by yd_gli

What possible benefit can come out of reduced restrictions?

So, I am not sure what the benefits of a reduced lockdown scenario are against a full lockdown.

I can only give my personal, layman's (non-medical, non governmental/administrative/expert) opinion. I think there are lots of benefits. (Will be glad to be corrected on any of the points of course.)

If a district or a taluk (or a state like in the case of a few) has no reported cases till the 15th, why not open them for some activities. As several articles have already specified, that does NOT mean for life as usual. Large gatherings will still be banned, educational institutions will be shut and so on. But a lot of things can continue in terms of work and life. And that will provide a lot of relief for a lot of people in that zone.

It frees up the district and higher administration from the extra tasks that come with a stricter lock down. Deciding who goes where, issuing passes, having to seal a larger border, not having to check every private vehicle within that zone, things like that. Those resources can focus on the affected hot spots instead and work on helping them. The unaffected district/state/taluk borders will still be sealed to restrict cross-border movement.

Finally, morale! I stay in Bangalore Urban with the highest cases in Karnataka and even within, I live in a very high-population-density area. So I think my area is almost certainly going to be subject to a stricter lock down for longer. Still it gives me hope when I see that other districts where there are no cases are seeing some return to normalcy. Also people might be motivated to adhere to the lock down rules more if they see the benefits of doing so, reducing spread of cases, and quicker return to normalcy.

[wheelguy]

Note from Support: PLEASE DO NOT Copy-Paste articles from websites. Post links & quote excerpts only.


Here's what Rajiv Bajaj had to say about the lockdown:

To the best of my knowledge, virtually no country has imposed such a sweeping lockdown as India has; I continue to believe this makes India weak rather than stronger in combating the epidemic.

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Now, I want to explore another avenue, and that is the What If of... calling off the lockdown, re-opening businesses, getting back to work, getting back to the shops.

I'm going to stay away from playing the let-me-voice-and-argue-on-my-opinion out here and let the government, with the support of the experts (assumption) to take the right call. So far they have done a decent job IMO. Could be much better, but still back in early March, I was expecting a much worse-off scenario to unwind, back when we were debating the potential options/actions to be taken when the infected numbers were in double digits and doing absolutely un-necessary comparisons with TB, Malaria, road accidents and what-not.

But for anyone with time to read and understand global trends with specific aspects that can be very easily mirrored in India, the US is a very good source of (a pseudo) testing ground; with some caveats taken.

Here's an absolutely eye-opening and brilliant interactive and visual article by the New York Times on the impact of a very-less spoken and usually hidden set of citizens, the rural regions of the country.



A lot of similarities to be seen (and of course there are much more differences too) with the Indian rural scene; the above article displays how the scene across rural America went from a single rural case on 2nd March across the US to over 2/3rd of rural districts having infections by the end of the month.



Very less healthcare options and that too spread over large distances, limited understanding and a heavy dependency on the state than private entities; high impact of religious entities (that never generally toe the line with the govt directives); and a higher percentage of lower-income folks and a lot of local/wrong beliefs going around.
Some places are even seeing the local hospital(s) refusing to treat Corona patients!

Now that's a scene we don't want to replicate in India ever. Irrespective of how the decision is taken wrt the lockdown over the next few week(s).


-----------
Edit: @Thad E Ginathom; nothing against your post Quoted it for a different reason and that was forgotten entirely later while writing the above.