I agree with you about opinions. The reason China took those drastic measures is that, at the beginning, it seemed that this virus would be another SARS. If it had that kind of mortality rate, slowing the spread had to be done at all costs. If it was like SARS or MERS then I wouldn't have a problem with taking those kinds of actions worldwide.My personal interpretation of the effectiveness and legitimacy of extreme quarantine measures is this: the ‘numbers’ in Wuhan China where/when the virus originally emerged (Mid-January) represent the potential for unchecked transmission. With no natural immunity, it will run rampant. Once China limited travel and gatherings, we saw cases elsewhere on the mainland measured in hundreds rather then 10s of thousands. These controls seem to objectively work.
I appreciate and respect opinions regarding the economic and societal disruption. These are significant, will have ripple effects of their own, and will be a major burden for all... perhaps a defining time in our lives like 9/11 was for many here. Clearly, China did the math and decided that disruption was worth more to them then the potential of lives lost directly to the virus. This is a strong message about the seriousness of the situation and it frankly disturbs me that many do not see that implications of that decision themselves.
However... at the end of the day, we all have our opinions and in this particular situation those opinions matter little outside ourselves. We are powerless to change the overwhelming course of political, societal, and scientific influence at this point. We’re all along for the ride and the sooner we all see and accept that and start working together to deal with these challenges, and minimize the pain from those ‘ripple effects’, the better.
If, as it looks more and more like it will be, it is similar to adding another flu, then I don't.
There are far less disruptive actions that could be taken to help prevent these viruses from jumping species to humans. Unfortunately, discussing those measures would violate the WHO directive to avoid stigmatism.