I have only insulted you when you started doing so.Still, no substantive response to this besides insults and nitpicking. I even gave you an out and an opportunity for a civilized response to end the discussion, and you’re still insisting on pretending you don’t understand anything I type.
"A three-page leaked letter from the United Nation's health body to provincial health ministers suggested an intermittent lockdown as a balance between tackling the virus and keeping the economy going."
The World Health Organization advises fortnightly cycles as the outbreak accelerates
"Prof. Uri Alon and his graduate students Omer Karin and Yael Korem-Kohanim, together with senior engineer Boaz Dudovich of Applied Materials, suggest, based on an epidemiological model they developed, a policy that effectively suppresses the coronavirus and, at the same time, allows sustainable, albeit reduced, economic activity."
REHOVOT, ISRAEL—March 31, 2020—Think of dieting. You can fast for two months and lose weight, but you will probably die. Even if you survive, you will quickly gain weight again. Similarly, a two-month lockdown will suppress the coronavirus, but it will kill the economy. Lockdown will push...
"A strong lockdown is hardship. Therefore we examined whether such a lockdown could be intermitted with periods with normal social contact, without endangering the success of the strategy. We found (Fig. 4a) that a 55%-on-45%-off schedule for the full lockdown will not suppress the epidemic. In order to suppress the SARS-CoV-2 virus, two thirds of the time society should be locked down, leaving one third for social interactions (Fig. 4b and supplementary material Fig. S1). This seems an attractive alternative to a permanent lockdown provided a selection of economic activities that require live human-human interactions could be confined to shorter time periods without increasing contact intensity."
Basically my strategy -> "A more complex strategy should be one where the intensity of the shutdown is adapted on the fly to the severity of the epidemic. Choosing the fraction of the population that is newly tested as virus-positive (blue line in Fig. 5) as the variable controlling the social distancing factor as shown by the orange line in and legend to Fig. 5, this adaptive strategy should do better than a fixed lockdown of comparable intensity. Implemented at time 15 days after the first detection of an infected individual, this should lead to a lethality after one year of only 0.013% (gray line in Fig. 5), i.e., one fourth the 0.33% a continuous 2.25 fold lockdown would have led to (see Fig. 3). A disadvantage of this adaptive strategy is that the mortality increases linearly with time also after the first year. However, the total mortality should still not overtake that of the constant lockdown by social distancing factor of 2.25 until after 10 years. We reckon that long before then a vaccine, some other cure, or an improved patient detection and insulation strategy should have been discovered and put in place. The adaptive lockdown could be optimized further in terms of parameters and with respect to any specific epidemic, culture and geographical unit."
Using standard systems biology methodologies a 14-compartment dynamic model was developed for the Corona virus epidemic. The model predicts that: (i) it will be impossible to limit lockdown intensity such that sufficient herd immunity develops for this epidemic to die down, (ii) the death toll...