>> The resulting economic impact therefore can’t be that big.
The impact on the spread of the virus can't be that big either. My point though is that big flashy moves like banning all flights appear to do very little compared to more mundane tactics. At least based on the info in the press conference I'm referring to the data doesn't support flight bans, banning large gatherings etc.
You shouldn't discount the psychological factor of these things. Today, 1 day after the big move by the US to ban flights from Europe, we're seeing a lot more movement from various governments and states in taking action against the virus' spread. So even though the action itself might not be that useful, it's big enough that it gets people attention and it seems to have moved people across governments into more action.
True but I'd still go back to the UK advice: the virus is going to spread (we aren't going to stop it) so we need to focus on spreading the peak out so we can deal with it. If we force people to make drastic changes too early (well before the peak) then when we actually need them to make those changes (just before the peak) they will be burnt out and won't do it nearly as effectively.
Until recently I would have said the same thing as you, but I'm increasingly convinced that the drastic changes (closing schools, social distancing etc) are exactly what we should be doing to spread the peak out.
The peak is coming either way. Continuing to allow people to mix with each other as normal will make it steeper and more intense.
Yesterday I talked to a colleague who relayed the story of a transatlantic flight this week, where only 6 seats were filled, out of 36 in the section.
I don’t think there’s much remaining travel left to be banned. The resulting economic impact therefore can’t be that big.