Replies

It is glaringly obvious a decision was made very early on to allow this disease to take its course. The cost to the economy judged higher if they decided to effectively fight. So, why not have the best of both worlds? Be somber and pretend to fight it.

It sure seems that way in the United States. First don't test so nobody knows whether it's here or not. Begin testing later and then claim that we fought it effectively but now it's here. Then highlight how many people die of the flu every year. Then say it's low risk for everyone but old and sick people. Bring up flu deaths again. Then say "Well, we fought the good fight. It's here now."

Another aspect was maybe delaying and stalling as much as possible in the hope that it will be seasonal and that warmer weather will help to control it and then claim victory until after the election after it kicks in again if it is seasonal and becomes more widespread than before.

They’re going to miss the mark. Most predictions I have seen have the healthcare system being overwhelmed by end of April without any measures to slow it down.