I'm sad to say that people aren't getting it when they say that we could end up like Italy if we aren't careful. Even if we assume that tens of thousands are infected in Lombardy, that is still less than 1% of the population.
Assuming that it can't be contained, as everyone seems to think, then the virus will only die off when many tens of percent of the population have become infected (say 40 to 80%). Unless we want to go into full lock down mode for the next 12 to 18 months while a vaccine is sorted, we can pretty much guarantee that something far worse than Italy is already inevitable.
To mix my metaphors, the debate is do we want to try to fight the rising tide in the hope of a life raft, or cut people adrift and get through it as quickly as possible. If Lombardy is already drowning under less than 1% infection, is there any point in dragging that situation out for many months until we hit herd immunity?
Who'd want to lead at times like this. We're effectively in wartime levels of descision making.
And on a linked note about the lack of action at the moment, it's all very well talking about flattening the curve, but if you zoom out to take in the entire likely outbreak, the bit we are on right now already looks flat.
None of this is what I expected to think, but I'm wavering between thinking that the response is genius or lunacy. Only time will tell.