Where did he argue that Bill Gates has never made a bad judgment call? You still have zero evidence for your take on this, no matter how practical it may seem. You are going on your intuition and common sense on how to solve this crisis for an entire country?
Your mothers' hospital should be running tests with that other 50% of unused utility right now. Conduct trials on patients found to be positive, etc. That's literally the second point Gates made.
> It's not practical any more to try to contain the outbreak. The idea at this point is to limit the number of cases at any given time to prevent overburdening the local community's medical resources.
Lockdown is the most effective way of limiting the number of cases.
The only thing your intuition and experts agree on is the knock that the world economy is going to take. I challenge you to provide models that show that your "practical" handling of this situation won't have the same disastrous effects on the economy when instead of 3% of a smaller number of the population die, 10% of a much larger portion of the population die. These numbers are in line with countries that implemented lockdown early or have very strong government influence versus countries that implemented lockdown too late.
A lot will have to happen _during_ lockdown, you can't just sit idly by. Basically it will buy time.
Of course the virus will still spread once lockdown is lifted, but for countries like the US (not even to mention Italy and Spain) who started behind the curve any time you can buy to bolster your response should be taken.
3blue1brown's latest video on YouTube demonstrates that we can also buy time by using a combination of mitigation techniques short of a full lockdown. It's a video of a computer simulation created by a mathematician fwiw, but it shows some of our options, and that brute force may not be required.
Sometimes I want to advocate for a full global lockdown, but I think about the random emergency appendectomy, and other weird edge cases that would be complicated by a lockdown of any magnitude.
Your mothers' hospital should be running tests with that other 50% of unused utility right now. Conduct trials on patients found to be positive, etc. That's literally the second point Gates made.
> It's not practical any more to try to contain the outbreak. The idea at this point is to limit the number of cases at any given time to prevent overburdening the local community's medical resources.
Lockdown is the most effective way of limiting the number of cases.
The only thing your intuition and experts agree on is the knock that the world economy is going to take. I challenge you to provide models that show that your "practical" handling of this situation won't have the same disastrous effects on the economy when instead of 3% of a smaller number of the population die, 10% of a much larger portion of the population die. These numbers are in line with countries that implemented lockdown early or have very strong government influence versus countries that implemented lockdown too late.