monomial wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 4:23 pm

starkmonster wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:53 am

jah steu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 9:04 am More on topic... many locals seem convinced that a state of emergency will be declared as soon as it has passed through the various stages of law and been signed off by the king or his proxy.
But why? Many businesses have been closed or restricted already, most people are staying at home as much as possible. They are wearing masks when going out. Cases are currently low and not growing exponentially.
How would declaring a state of emergency and/or imposing a complete lockdown improve the situation further?

The lock down is inevitable if we look at it from a game theory perspective.

Player 1 (the government) there are two possibilities:

1. lock down or
2 .no lock down.

Player 2 (the virus) there are two possibilities.

3. More vigilant in Cambodia than current data suggests.
4. As vigilant or less than current data suggests.

Look at each combination:

1 + 3 = slows the outbreak of the virus, reduces chains of transmission, reduces peak load on health system (political consequences == 6/10)
1 + 4 = virus is contained, current chains of transmission are extinguished, internally life + economy return to near normal (political consequences == 2/10)
2 + 3 = virus spreads out of control, many deaths, huge economic damage (political consequences == 10/10)
3 + 4 = virus continues to spread at low levels, social distancing restrictions remain in place until vaccine found, economy running at 50% (political consequences 6/10)

The potential upside of being one of the first countries to get past this == HUGE
The potential downside of under responding == HUGE
The potential downside of over responding == MINIMAL

PLUS: under responding can be proven, while over responding can't be proven. If the outbreak never happens here, then the government can say it was because of the strong response.

Interesting, but your numerical values are completely wrong.

SIR models show there are only 3 possible ways this virus ends:

1) A vaccine is developed
2) 90+% end up infected and immune
3) Technology is developed to test and isolate anyone, even asymptomatic, with 24 hours of infection.

1 and 3 are many months away in the best of circumstances.

The lockdown merely spreads the curve, but doesn't end until 2 is achieved. It is a fantasy to think you lock down for a few weeks and starve the virus to death. That is not what happens. This thing is much too virulent for that. Any amount of movement, and some is necessary for people to eat, will result in the virus spreading. The spread can be slowed, but not stopped.

So a lockdown situation, unlike what some believe, is going to last for months. The political consequences are going to be much more serious than the political consequences of letting the virus take its course. So you need to reverse 1+3 and 2+3 to be accurate.

If you want to be the first country to get past this, then no lockdown and herd immunity is the way to go. No response is the optimal solution under this scenario. Since Cambodia has basically no medical services to speak of, and the only value of the lockdown is to spread the curve to help medical services cope, well multiplication by zero comes into play here. Whether it is 1 patient or 1000 patients, Cambodia's medical capabilities are unable to handle it.

Whether that is politically acceptable to the outside world or not is the real question.

Again, the lock down does not stop people from being infected. 90+% will be infected lockdown or no lockdown if the pathogen is as virulent as reported. You simply spread the deaths out over time with a lockdown, giving your medical facilities a chance to help those who need ventilators to survive.

Lock down is probably the wrong move in Cambodia, as sad as that is to report. It is simply not medically advanced enough for a lockdown to make a difference. So if you advocate for a lockdown, you are advocating to kill people slowly while killing your economy as well. No lockdown means kill people quickly and restore the economy. One is politically correct and acceptable internationally, but ultimately futile. The other is politically unacceptable and will result in being maligned internationally, but probably a better solution.