Also, all public sector employees who do not perform critical functions will be sent home on paid leave, and all private companies are recommended to do the same.
On top of this all public gatherings of more than 100 people is discouraged, and it is alsp encouraged for all bars and nightclubs to keep closed for now. These are expected to be signed into law within the week.
It has been motivated at least in Denmark (limit was 1000, now 100) and Sweden (limit 500) that larger events attract people traveling to it. This traveling and being among large crowds large is what they want to avoid.
While smaller events, say a local low division football team, doesn't normally attract a tone else than locals. The exact number is arbitrary but has to be something, right now 100 in Denmark, 500 in Sweden and will likely change over time.
Yes. The Joe Rogan experience episode with Michael Osterholm talked about this. Basically all of this social distancing is about slowing the spread so as to not overwhelm the healthcare system, not stop it. They can calculate how much you impact the speed of spread if you limit gatherings to 1k, 100, 50, 5, etc. From there it's a somewhat subjective risk assessment of what you want to recommend, bearing in mind that destroying the economy results in deaths from downstream effects.
It’s probably not feasible to come up with anything but an arbitrary number. But 100 allows for important meetings and some ceremonies. More than that are usually public events.
The good thing is that probably you can come up with an educated guess, if you put in a formula, based on that we saw until now how the propagation works. The bad thing is that you will come up with a number much smaller than 100 and it will lead to panic
Are businesses being provided lines of credit or other funding sources to continue paying employees while their income might decline in the short term? Or are they able/expected to pay out of cash reserves or existing business credit lines?
yes, the specifics aren't out yet but a package is being put together right now by the government. We don't know yet how much, but the numbers are in the billions.
The government is aware that this is a dificult situation financially for a lot of companies and are working to resolve it. A lot of it will be through delayed payment of taxes and VAT to keep cashflow.
One thing to keep in mind is that interest rates in Denmark is currently negative. That means that the government, and even large credit-worthy corporates, can borrow and actually get paid to do so.
That makes weathering a storm like this relatively easy from an economics standpoint. It's easy to delay revenue and cover fixed costs without incurring any significant financing costs.
That seems to be a cheerful economics standpoint that treats accounting as having primacy over physical supply of goods. It is good if they have a neat legal mechanism to stop companies going bankrupt but the economy is going to tank if everyone stays home and does nothing (or less than normal; in some roles that can work from home). Any economy that doesn't report that it is tanking is an economy built of lies and chicanery.
The economy isn't a GDP or stock market index; it is a complicated process for getting people what they want and need based on an estimate of how much we can afford to give them. It can't weather everyone parking up in any meaningful sense no matter what numbers are published in the ledgers.
I disagree. The interest rate is not entirely divorced from tangible reality. Rather it's the emergent manifestation of the aggregate behavior and preferences of investors, savers, and foreign traders across the entire economy.
A low interest rate is the direct result of indifference to inter-temporal substitution. It indicates that households are willing to shift consumption from the present to the future, that firms can readily defer capital investments, and that foreign producers are willing to cover temporary shortfalls in domestic production because they have high faith in the currency and financial system.
All of those things are physical manifestations of how and why it would be easy for Denmark to weather a temporary supply shock. 3-6 months of reduced economic output can easily be handled by relatively painless deferrals in demand. Danish consumers will shift back vacations, home upgrades and new cars until later in the year. Danish businesses have very well maintained capital equipment, and can stretch maintenance and upgrade cycles. Chinese and Russian exporters have very high faith in the Danish Krona, and will sell goods today for the promise of Danish goods in the distant future.
> Rather it's the emergent manifestation of the aggregate behavior and preferences of investors, savers, and foreign traders across the entire economy.
I'm no expert in Danish monetary policies; but I'm 80% confident their interest rates are set by these people:
It isn't an emergent phenomenon if a 25 person committee declares what the phenomenon will emerge to.
> A low interest rate is the direct result of indifference to inter-temporal substitution.
It is a direct response to government removing anyone who cares about the future from the market by buying them out.
> Chinese and Russian exporters have very high faith in the Danish Krona, and will sell goods today for the promise of Danish goods in the distant future.
I mean sure, but Denmark is maintaining a currency peg. None of this is reassuring free market singalling; this is all the largely the government declaring that the numbers must not look bad.
This seems enormously complicated. How can the government reliably assess lost revenue? What about businesses whose expenditures were always unrealistic and a temporary closure pushed them over the edge, should they be covered too?
Note that I’m not criticizing the solution, just remarking on how hard the problem looks.
For starters VAT and payroll taxes deadlines will be extended, more measures will come. People who have been forced to cancel major events, will be refunded.
There are no immediate promises of such measures being made. Edit: Since this is being downvoted could someone provide a source for such immediate promises? I must have missed it.
Something that I heard from an epidemiologist the other day is how shutting down schools and daycares can be incredibly counterproductive, because such a high percentage of health care workers have children which suddenly are at home and need to be supervised, pulling these workers out of their duties.
I suppose its ok early on, but seems problematic if enough people eventually get infected.
Understood that schools are primary transmission vectors.
I disagree here. Denmark is acting proactively and shutting down schools for 2 weeks. This is a "rip the band aid off early" type of move. By shutting down everything for 2 weeks, they effectively self-quarantine during the entire incubation period and will dramatically slow the rate of the virus.
China, on the other hand, did not do this, and they were forced to shut down schools for 6 months.
These moves are HARD and painful, but the key to stopping a pandemic is acting overly aggressive and far-reaching. The USA is not doing nearly enough. We're going to be Italy in about 2 weeks.
I live in Denmark and have been following this way too closely. I think we will be Italy within the next two weeks. Until today people have been completely unconcerned. But in the last three days the number of detected cases has jumped from 37 to 92 to 264 to 516. Nobody was taking this seriously until today, and there's just no way this hasn't already spread across the country undetected.
The number of "detected" cases is influenced by the testing capability of those performing the tests. In a few days the real average "growth" rate will be clearer, but until the effects of some strong enough measures start to affect the numbers nobody can expect anything much better than what we see in Italy -- the curves across the Europe have "similar" growth:
Sorry for not being clear. The point I'm making is exactly that people have been complacent due to the low numbers, primarily sure to inadequate testing.
for the two weeks as of day one of the changes. What if the virus shows up on day 15, the day after things return to normal? Will they stay shutdown for another two weeks?
The virus will show up afterwards but could already be slowed by then combined with fewer infections from people returning from abroad. But they will have to see simply.
>China, on the other hand, did not do this, and they were forced to shut down schools for 6 months.
where did you get that 6 months number from? considering Virus started in January and its March now.
>These moves are HARD and painful, but the key to stopping a pandemic is acting overly aggressive and far-reaching.
there is nothing aggressive or far-reaching in those moves, Poland enacted similar measures yesterday and every expert agrees its not enough and too late.
> Understood that schools are primary transmission vectors.
Are they? There seems to be limited transmission from children (to other children or even adults), in part because they generally aren't getting symptomatic when exposed.
. "For COVID-19 virus, initial data indicates that children are less affected than adults and that clinical attack rates in the 0-19 age group are low. Further preliminary data from household transmission studies in China suggest that children are infected from adults, rather than vice versa."
I don't deny kids can transmit it to other kids, just that the odds are low. In fact, the only school I could find that was a cluster (Suyeong-gu Kindergarten in Korea) was 5 infected adults, 1 infected kid, and 160 negatives (which I assume were dominated by children).
Does anyone know of school clusters that have emerged?
I saw the Joe Rogan clip[1] and I agree that Michael Osterholm's analysis of this seems correct when it comes to the United States.
Denmark however has a completely different structure socially. All private sector employees who can work from home are urged to work from home. All public sector employees who are not working in any matter-of-life-and-death function are forced to stay at home. The public sector employees will still get paid despite not working. Practically this means very, very few cases of health care workers with children needs to be home supervising the children.
Wait, how would this prevent health care workers with children from needing to be home? Who is going to be watching those kids while the parents are working at a hospital?
There might be some cases where watching the kids for them is difficult, but most likely the local hospitals already have an idea for this for the minority of employees whose single parent or both parents work in healthcare. Usually their partner can help out.
How about keeping the daycares open for the children of those in healthcare and only for them? Still a big spread reduction, zero healthcare side-effects. It would be very difficult to enforce because so many others would think that they deserve an exception as well...
Most children have two parents. The few cases where both parents work in health care they most likely have immediate family and/or friends who are either public workers or private sector workers who can work from home.
Probably best to shut them down too early or not at all. Grandparents tend to be relied upon as babysitters in time of need, so if you wait until transmission among school children is widespread your actions just delivered the virus to some of the most vulnerable populations.
My parents are elderly and my partner's parents live 150 miles away, and both work; We have no family that is able or willing to watch our child so we pay for care (and it's hugely expensive, over $2500/mo for center based care)
My partner works as an RN, and I'm in software development. I've always taken the days off when our child is ill, it's logistically simpler, but I make 2X the salary so we have always said my job is the priority if we lose child care long term.
If our daycare closes for a long period that means my partner needs to stop going to work and there's one less RN at that hospital.
To make things worse, our daycare has already stated that the current "24 hours fever free" policy of your child returning is now "14 days fever free, or a physician's note indicating it's safe to return" -- and you must keep paying while they are out, that's the existing policy when it's a day or so and apparently will continue even when it's two+ weeks... no relief expected.
If daycares are forced to shutdown, but still require payment from parents, that will be absolutely egregious and infuriating.
Denmark is geographically a relatively small country, and it is not uncommon for children to travel alone across the country in dedicated trains[1] for the children during the weekends.
That said, its really not uncommon for other family members besides grandparents and even friends of the family to take care of your children in Denmark.
It is a war and calculation should be done in a different way.
1. Healthcare system is the TOP priority and keeps its resource adequate is critical.
2. If workers need to take care of their children, try to seek more ways to staff the hospital: (1) recruiting volunteers for non-specialized roles (2) adjusting shifts (3) concentrate resources, even move resources geographically.
Basically this is what China has done to bend the curve and what Italy is currently doing. You have to think this as a whole.
The prime minister said schools and daycares would stay open to serve those. Also that the school itself is not the problem, only the amount of people.
Denmark has a substantial safety net with generous parental leave policies. Accordingly, it would expected that one parent or relative could help out without impacting their own income and job security.
No they wont, schools will shut fully down. For ppl that rely on child care, and cant do it themselves, something will be provided. But the schools are not it.
Well, let’s think about what might happen: people still need to work, and children want to play. Hey let’s meet all at one parent’s home today and tomorrow at the next...
I really doubt it is as effective as many think unless there is a general lock down and people are expected not to visit other people.
There's a big difference between putting 500 kids in a building for eight hours a day and a bunch of small, clustered groups of kids forming for playdates.
This is an analysis if you just shutdown schools, if you send all but critical for food/power/utilities workers home and pay them, then the assumptions are completely different.
I wonder what basically a 2-4 week vacation for an entire nation looks like.
Our kindergarten is currently preparing for just that. Which parents have other options of day care, who can have kids at home, who can take additional kids. I understood that to be something city wide. I have no problem having three instead of two kids at home, I working from home anyway, so if I have my own kids or an additional one doesn't make much of a difference for me. But it does for other parents.
PM said that people in critical functions who could find a care solution for their kids should show up to school -- and a solution would be worked out.
She admitted that the specifics of such solutions are not known at this time.
I'm surprised they don't just provide a day care service for the children of healthcare workers, considering those children are more likely to get infected by their parent anyways just preemptively treat them as patients with some shared curriculum and oversight.
A virologist mentioned that kids up until 19 basically don't get sick from this virus, something like 0.2%, and even if they do its not as hard on them as on adult in their 40ies or older. So indeed very counter productive
0.2% is the mortality rate up to 19, not the risk of getting sick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus_disease_2019#Morta...). The disease can be serious even if it's not fatal, and children can easily spread the virus to their families. It's even possible for someone to become infected and spread the virus without showing any symptoms at all.
Isn't it both? Kids get it less often then adults, if they do they have a lower mortality rate (0% in fact for kids < 12), and don't seem to transmit it significantly to adults. (it's adults infecting them)
I haven't heard any authoritative sources talk about that. Do you have a cite?
The world is in crisis. Arguing against public attempts to contain a virus based on "Something that I heard" is more than a little irresponsible right now. Surely the point is valid as a debate subject, but it needs numbers and it needs analysis. Prima facie, social isolation works, and at this stage is our only remaining hope at containment.
Interestingly Iceland, which has most of it's infections from Italy (and the other Alpine countries), designated those countries as areas with high risk of infection long before those countries would admit it, is not looking into these kinds of closures. I understand that they request people not to gather in large groups, on a completely voluntary basis and anyone is free to self-quarantine with pay or benefits.
The consensus over there is that the disruptions would be worse than an increase in infections. Closing schools and other limits would only delay the infections and they would likely become unmanageable when limits are lifted. The emphasis is on protecting those that are most likely to get seriously sick, and not limiting the number of infections of those that are not at (high) risk. They also consider that if those that have been infected build immunity, it would be better (and I'm paraphrasing) "to just get it over with."
On Friday they will start testing around the country to get a better understanding of the infection rate, especially whether it's already prevalent in the community. This will be on an unprecedented scale, as they expect to test >2% of the population. The expected result is that the infection is already widely distributed in the community.
This seems like an insane policy based on what we know about sars2-cov and the demographics of Iceland. Over 25% of the population (95K) is in the most vulnerable age group. If just 1% of that cohort becomes sick, you'll swamp the entire healthcare system. And that's excluding the effect on the other 75%. Just because they're risk is lower doesn't mean they won't need hospital care.
30 intensive care beds may prove insufficient if there is widespread infection. Not only the elderly need intensive care: in Italy 40% of the patients in intensive care are below 60.
Infected people are more likely to be symptomatic than not, as far as we know (for example from the Diamond Princess).
Even if it was only 10%, should I find reassuring that 6000 people (less than 2% of the population) would have to get infected for the collapse of the healthcare infrastructure to start?
29 ICU beds will not be able to handle the oncoming wave of patients. My city is roughly the same size population as Iceland and only has 900 hospital beds. I don't know how many of those are ICU, or could be converted to makeshift ICU as Italy has been doing.
Only days ago, a Denmark university professor openly claimed ( actually more like lashed out ) at Hong Kong people /students over-reacting with CoronaVirus and there is no need to wear masks.
I guess that didn't age well. Still wish more people have trusted the advice from HK from our experiences with SARS and how to handle information from CCP.
Norway got more cases than denmark (622 vs 514), and our government is still asleep. The "wait and see" attitude makes shure they are always 3 steps behind.
At this point the number of cases is slightly less important than the rate. Denmark's numbers are increasing at a rate that's unprecedented amongst all current COVID-19 outbreaks (amongst the data that is available). The past 2 days the numbers in Denmark have tripled twice (and are on track to triple another time today).
You could expect Denmarks numbers to overtake Norway's before the end of today or whenever the new measurements come in.
Denmark's # of confirmed cases was up 627% from yesterday.
For anyone interested in watching this unfold, I highly recommend the daily posts by /u/Fwoggie2 on /r/supplychain. Every day he posts a status update on the growth of cases per country and supply chain impacts for goods across the globe. Here's the link to today's report. https://new.reddit.com/r/supplychain/comments/fgwbrx/covid19...
It's worth pointing out that he seems to have missed the update on 2020-03-09 where the total was set to 90. But yeah it's pretty worrying. Especially since it almost doubled again today.
This is actually a great opportunity for a natural experiment. AFAIK Norws and Swedes have similar cultures re: touching and kissing; probably very similar genetics too.
The risks of not freaking out and it decimating the populace should easily outweigh the risks of freaking out and it not having an impact. It's very difficult to even rationalize the latter because a freakout might mean the impact is negligible.
At this point more than enough data exists to show the population will suffer ~1% losses. We shouldn't need 10% to freak out. Not to mention long-tail fatalities that might arise if it becomes an annual virus like the flu. When all that had to happen was people treat it seriously to begin with rather than saying "But the flu is way worse".
Maybe, or maybe not. Let’s say it’s 0.5% fatal and largely only to folks who are older and have comorbid conditions. Instead we panic 100% of people, leading to mass hysteria, loss of livelihood, global recession, military zombie apocalypse lockdowns and so on. What if our response causes more harm? It might well.
Proportionality of response matters and so do second and third order effects. What if all the above causes more than 5000 suicides? Did we win?
The difference between 0.5% and 3% case fatality rate is in large part determined by whether hospitals become overwhelmed, and that in turn will be determined by whether we take immediate and widespread preemptive action to reduce the exponent of the infection curve.
Generate a random int from [0,199]. If you generated a 0, you die.
Rationally, you pretty confident that you won't die? Sure. But what behavior changes are you willing to tolerate not to have to take the chance? I sure wouldn't take the bet on a lark, even though the expectation is that I live.
Now think about extending that same game to your family and friends, to the school down the street, to the shopping mall, and to the elder's home in town. Some people are going to roll 0, and there's a real risk that some of those people are people you know and care about. And even if they're not, your community will still be dramatically affected. It could be your car mechanic, your office's custodial staff, or the greybeard in your office who knows how to decipher the old FORTRAN code.
I'm not willing to be flippant about that. Even 1 in 200 people can be devastating emotional, logistical, and financial toll on a community. I'm not saying panic, but I don't think it's smart or responsible to downplay the risks of infection in a disease that is currently spreading exponentially (or, at least, maintains a positive growth ratio.) Canceling gatherings, temporarily closing schools, working from home, etc.--these are all inconvenient, they make our lives and business harder, they're having a negative financial impact. But they're also totally the reasonable course of action in the face of a pretty serious threat.
There's a 1% lifetime chance you die in a car accident and 2% you die of an opioid overdose. Roll a die between [0,199] and get a 0,1 you die in a car wreck. Roll a 2,3,4 or a 5, and you die of an opioid overdose. I'd be willing to bet somewhere around the 6-10 range represents your risk of dying of a climate related change.
Rationally, you pretty confident that you won't die? Sure. But what behavior changes are you willing to tolerate not to have to take the chance?
Evidently none, because here we are diving cars, taking painkillers and rolling coal. This is a solid read: [1]. If you're immunocompromised or old, by all means, stay inside and don't associate with groups of people. If you're young and healthy, you're totally unequivocally fine.
This quote is particularly apropos: "...We're bad at accurately assessing risk; we tend to exaggerate spectacular, strange, and rare events, and downplay ordinary, familiar, and common ones."
You're comparing lifetime risks with an annual risk. And your third paragraph is so full of misinformation, I almost believe you're intentionally trolling.
And Bruce isn't discussing a failure to assess the risk of COVID-19 (the article is from 2013). He's criticizing the fetish of expect technology to solve social problems. I've interviewed Bruce and I think he'd be appalled to think his essay was being misconstrued in this manner.
> You're comparing lifetime risks with an annual risk.
And? People tend to develop immunity to diseases the've had in the past (although this is TBD in this specific case) so lifetime risk could easily be a reasonable comparison metric. My point is we do very dangerous things regularly, but because we're used to them, we largely ignore them.
Cigarettes kill 480,000 people in the US alone each year [0]. The flu kills 61,000 people in the US alone each year. Alcohol kills 88,000 people in the US alone each year. Opioids kill 77,000 people in the US alone each year.
There are 6 million car accidents in the US each year of which 2 million people receive permanent injuries and 36,000 die.
nCoV-19 is on track to kill 100 in the US.
> And your third paragraph is so full of misinformation, I almost believe you're intentionally trolling.
How so? The mortality rates are clear: under 10, 0% chance of death. 11-39, 0.2% chance of death. 40-49, 0.4% chance of death. [1] Older folks, higher rates, but of course, H1N1 kills 10% of elderly folks that get it too. And these are CFRs -- numbers which go down, sometimes dramatically, over time as we gain a fuller perspective on the situation.
If you're young you are fine. Children are basically unaffected, that is, they catch it, and it goes away. Often they don't even notice they had it.
> And Bruce isn't discussing a failure to assess the risk of COVID-19 (the article is from 2013).
I never said he was. The quote was pretty clear and free-standing: people are bad at assessing risk of unlikely or one-off events. It terrifies them.
In my opinion the essay evaluates one set of strategies people use to avoid risk at all costs: technological, but it's the realization of the underlying that is relevant here.
Or in the realm of 3% when hospitals are saturated, because everyone gets sick at once. Which they will with exponential spread and a doubling rate of 4 days.
I don't consider it acceptable to sacrifice 3% of the population in one fell swoop, to avoid short-term economic damage. Or even a fraction of that. It's abhorrent. Please walk me through the moral reasoning if this is your stance.
By the way, someone getting very, very sad because their quite healthy loved parent died a decade too early, is also economic damage.
Yes, of course, if it neccessary. That's what the following Danish translates to
> Dog vil visse institutioner blive holdt åben for forældre, der ikke kan finde anden løsning, og for forældre, der varetager kritiske hverv og ikke kan finde anden løsning.
A large number of companies have instituted a work-from-home policy in response, mine among them. Indefinite duration. Priority given to people who ride public transport, and especially people who are vulnerable from a health perspective. Estimate approximately 70% of the company will be working from home for at least two weeks.
Let's see if this works. Otherwise, it's soon the Wuhan routine or the default result: write off a low single-digit portion of the population in two months. The last option would be devastating.
In the press conference that was just held the minister of public health commented that he had been on a conference call with his Italian counterpart that had strongly advised him to shut everything down NOW, and not make the waiting mistake they did in Italy.
They, and almost every other European country, have already made that mistake. This decision is comparable to what Italy did on February 29th when they had 10% of the cases they have today. But Denmark is (if you correct for the smaller population) already at 60% of the cases that Italy has.
Switzerland and Norway are in that same boat. Spain is getting there, it's the country whose numbers are growing the fastest. France has elections on the 15th, 'nuff said.
Only Germany is comparable to that 10%, and they aren't doing anything either. They do have more ICU beds than others, but it isn't a great consolation.
It's my understanding that the UK's reserved response so far is because a 'shut down' is not sustainable for a long time, and we feel that it's not the right time to start yet.
Yeah, we're going to get a lot of interesting natural experimental data on pandemics and the responses to them from the differing actions of countries to this outbreak.
Subcontractor for one of Polish mobile carriers here. Around 5pm we got a memo to work remotely starting tomorrow until further notice. Until now the company has been rather reluctant to embrace remote work to the full extent (maximum 1 day per week with quite a complicated procedure to go through to get approved). I've never worked remotely for this company so this is going to be an interesting time.
Until there's a vaccine this is all "flattening the curve" trying to limit the overall number of severely sick individuals to a level that they can get hospital care.
Seattle area schools just shut down, and earlier today the governor put restrictions on gatherings of more than 250 people. Seems like it’s moving pretty fast.
it won't be mandated by the federal government nation wide but you'll see it (and it's already started in some places) at the county level and maybe state level.
About time... They might be able to reduce R0 < 1 and be done with the pandemics in 3-4 weeks. On the other hand, Spain and Germany are going to blow up next week, Italy-style.
Unlikely... even if they could wave a magic wand and wipe out the disease in Denmark entirely they are just going to be re-infected via people from other countries.
Important is that they are then able to quickly disperse local outbreaks once they are familiar with how to handle it. Right now they are fighting to keep it contained nation-wide, i.e. reducing R0 to under 1, that should last up to 4 weeks if China is any kind of a reliable indicator, then local outbreaks might still happen but could be quickly quarantined without overloading ICUs.
What makes you think that? Seriously asking, because I don't see that risk right now. Also, if it does blow up like Italy we will just have to take it up from there, no point in arguing about the past.
It is not the most popular opinion, but unless the modeling is coming from legit experts, as compared to some people playing with numbers, I prefer to ignore them. I stick with sources like the WHO and local health authorities, simply becasue they have the knowledge, expertie, man power and data basis to come up with reliable numbers.
That being said, Austria is closing schools starting next week, Bavaria is discussing the same. Denmark and Plnd are closing schools as well. So even if Italy is 7 days ahead, other Eurpean countries are closing down sooner.
Which is a good thing in both cases you mentioned. Though seeing those visualizations could put things in a proper perspective and prompt officials to act quickly while they could still do something about it. Many health experts are worried and are expressing their concerns publicly already.
/r/covid19 is trying to keep all posts scientific and high quality, maybe you can monitor it over there for latest info.
Not that active on reddit, but given that the data presentation from WHO and co. is abysmal, both in style and depth, I might give it a try. Not that I am following it to closely until now, so. Might change, so.
I would love to get my hands on the raw data the WHO has so. Not post any results online or publicly, but to toy around with them. It is such an intriguing data set!
You are ruining my whole schedule for tomorrow, man! Just as a heads up, i am no ML guy or even data scientist, just a logistics guy who loves to crunch numbers in Excel. So I don't think you have to go through the pain to indirectly reach out to the CDC just tosatisfy my curiosity! But thanks a lot for the link!
Bottom-line is that we are doing this to protect the elderly, so that the healthcare system won't be overrun. And in the process hopefully a vaccine or treatment will be introduced to counter the virus.
_.png){kind=link}
On top of this all public gatherings of more than 100 people is discouraged, and it is alsp encouraged for all bars and nightclubs to keep closed for now. These are expected to be signed into law within the week.