[oldalum]

.in order to have really shut this down, given the average American's lack of social distance and facemasking, we'd have to have acted from the start as if this virus were contagious pre-symptoms.  Which would have required a much higher level of action to counter...a level of action that I can't imagine any American government would be able to justify undergoing without proof.

Yes. In the interview linked elsewhere on this board, SSC's Dr. Cody said the key moment was when they had the first patient who had acquired the virus from "community spread" -- i.e., they could not identify how or where she got it from. It probably would have been impossible at that time for her to have imposed the shelter-at-home order that would have been needed to tamp down the spread early in its exponential growth. But it raises the question in my mind, was it necessary for us to see community spread without symptoms here when it was happening outside the U.S.?

Where I think our federal government fell short is in making preparations for the incoming epidemic when they knew in January it was likely coming. That would have been the time to start ramping up production of PPE and ventilators, and import tests initially while multi-tracking ours. (by putting all our eggs in the CDC's basket re testing, the feds gambled and lost). Over time, we will learn what our top government officials were told when, and whether their responses were prudent (I hope in time for the next election--that is the appropriate point where accountability can be enforced). But it is troubling that the intelligence agencies apparently were "warning" the POTUS in January about this--we'll need to learn more about that and about the President's response (I know he downplayed it publicly for quite a while, but that would not be so bad if he was simultaneously getting the federal response appropriately ramped up behind the scenes--which doesn't seem to have happened).

Bottom line: spread of the infection in the U.S. could not have been prevented, but with stronger federal action, the shortage of equipment and tests could have been lessened, and social distancing could have been imposed earlier and consistently.

[oldalum]

.in order to have really shut this down, given the average American's lack of social distance and facemasking, we'd have to have acted from the start as if this virus were contagious pre-symptoms.  Which would have required a much higher level of action to counter...a level of action that I can't imagine any American government would be able to justify undergoing without proof.

Yes. In the interview linked elsewhere on this board, SSC's Dr. Cody said the key moment was when they had the first patient who had acquired the virus from "community spread" -- i.e., they could not identify how or where she got it from. It probably would have been impossible at that time for her to have imposed the shelter-at-home order that would have been needed to tamp down the spread early in its exponential growth. But it raises the question in my mind, was it necessary for us to see community spread without symptoms here when it was happening outside the U.S.?

Where I think our federal government fell short is in making preparations for the incoming epidemic when they knew in January it was likely coming. That would have been the time to start ramping up production of PPE and ventilators, and import tests initially while multi-tracking ours. (by putting all our eggs in the CDC's basket re testing, the feds gambled and lost). Over time, we will learn what our top government officials were told when, and whether their responses were prudent (I hope in time for the next election--that is the appropriate point where accountability can be enforced). But it is troubling that the intelligence agencies apparently were "warning" the POTUS in January about this--we'll need to learn more about that and about the President's response (I know he downplayed it publicly for quite a while, but that would not be so bad if he was simultaneously getting the federal response appropriately ramped up behind the scenes--which doesn't seem to have happened).

Bottom line: spread of the infection in the U.S. could not have been prevented, but with stronger federal action, the shortage of equipment and tests could have been lessened, and social distancing could have been imposed earlier and consistently.