[Redacted quote of deleted post]

This is what I don't understand: there is a clear understanding that if there is infrastructure collapse or almost collapse radical measures costing trillions of dollars is justified. BUT, if one could, with $100B prevent this or minimise risk of same, that is not worth engaging in? Quarantining the whole country when there are a million cases, let alone 10M, is way too late...no quarantine can be absolute: people need to buy food, essential services still need to be provided. It will radically slow things down, but since the base number of infected is so high, it will buy you a few weeks at most. Radical social distancing plans, including mandating (with gov subsidy) workers who exhibit even mild symptoms to stay at home, at the early part of the epidemic, when there are only hundreds or a few thousand cases at most (a la China), will buy you many months of time, AND won't bring things to a complete halt...it will have huge economic consequences, but it (may) won't result in infrastructure collapse.

tb