Italy's Coronavirus Lockdown Upends the Most Basic Routines and Joys(stamfordadvocate.com)
stamfordadvocate.com
Italy's Coronavirus Lockdown Upends the Most Basic Routines and Joys
https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Italy-s-coronavirus-lockdown-upends-the-most-15119948.php
59 comments
Tbh, i think we should employ wuhan-style lockdowns globally as early as possible to reduce the rate of infection as low as possible for some defined time span (e.g. for 2 weeks). After this the number of people requiring ICU should be known and stable, and then lift the lockdowns appropriately according to the percentage of people requiring intensive care.
I live in germany and currently it seems we're approaching that. The US still seems to be in denial.
I live in germany and currently it seems we're approaching that. The US still seems to be in denial.
The risk is that this lockdown isn't sufficient to modify the progression of the epidemic. Then it will probably have to be modified.
Presumably, most transmission is happening in social settings and closed environments. These measures should mitigate that. The change in social behavior would suggest it's working. We'll find out in five days or so if this is working.
Presumably, most transmission is happening in social settings and closed environments. These measures should mitigate that. The change in social behavior would suggest it's working. We'll find out in five days or so if this is working.
It's worked elsewhere so there is good reason to hope that it will work in Italy as well. It sucks that we have to wait five days to find out though. What I wouldn't give for a crystal ball right now.
A lockdown has worked in only one place: China. And it worked because the measures were extreme: not allowing people to leave their homes (except once a week to go shopping), banning cars on the roads, closing workplaces, etc.
No country is implementing measures nearly as extreme as China, so they won't be as successful in slowing down the epidemic.
Before someone mentions South Korea: Korean CDC explained their epidemic curve is bending because they are finishing testing the 200,000 sect members at the center of the epidemic. So fewer tests = fewer detected infections: "in Daegu and Gyeongbuk region, the transmission seems a bit slow down as testing Shincheonji members is almost finished" Source: https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=00... In other words this is NOT a sign Korea is succeeding at containing it. I have seen zero epidemiologists correctly report on this. They all fail to read what KCDC is saying.
No country is implementing measures nearly as extreme as China, so they won't be as successful in slowing down the epidemic.
Before someone mentions South Korea: Korean CDC explained their epidemic curve is bending because they are finishing testing the 200,000 sect members at the center of the epidemic. So fewer tests = fewer detected infections: "in Daegu and Gyeongbuk region, the transmission seems a bit slow down as testing Shincheonji members is almost finished" Source: https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=00... In other words this is NOT a sign Korea is succeeding at containing it. I have seen zero epidemiologists correctly report on this. They all fail to read what KCDC is saying.
The crucial thing is that the daily growth rate in South Korea averaged over the last 7 days is 1.05 and sinking, a far cry from the stable ~1.33 average in European countries with significant outbreaks.
It's outrageous to me that you are still commenting on this after so many people here debunked you (and were thoroughly proven right by now) when you were claiming apocalyptic CFR numbers.
It's outrageous to me that you are still commenting on this after so many people here debunked you (and were thoroughly proven right by now) when you were claiming apocalyptic CFR numbers.
>It's outrageous to me that you are still commenting on this after so many people here debunked you (and were thoroughly proven right by now) when you were claiming apocalyptic CFR numbers.
There seems to be some missing context here. What are you talking about?
There seems to be some missing context here. What are you talking about?
The growth rate in South Korea is low (1.05) because they are doing fewer tests, as they are finishing testing the sect members, as KCDC explained. IOW it does not reflect the true growth of the outbreak, but is an artifact of testing slowing down.
"so many people here debunked you"
I was criticized, but the criticism was invalid. My estimates turned out correct according to published studies (note that the high CFR >9% is not the same as the IFR which takes into account underascertainment and is lower around 0.5-1.6%):
A CFR of 18% was estimated by https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...
A CFR of 33% was estimated by https://institutefordiseasemodeling.github.io/nCoV-public/an...
A CFR of 5.3 or 8.4% (depending on two scenarios) was estimated by https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/2/523
(These reports have been quoted by the WHO in situation report 30 (references 10, 11 and 12) and report 31: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati... and https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati... )
For reference I have always claimed a WIDE range for the CFR: between 9% and 56% (see https://blog.zorinaq.com/case-fatality-ratio-ncov/) So two of the three studies support me, and the third one is slightly outside my range (with one scenario where they calculated 8.4% being close to my lower bound of 9%.)
Note that these are NOT "apocalyptic estimates", as these three published estimates and my estimate only claim to be valid for one particular case: the CFR (1) for China, (2) as of January/early February, (3) not accounting for underreporting of cases. The CFR does change significantly over time, depending on countries, and depending on the ascertainment rate. The biggest factor is underascertainment, and if we correct for this in China, we calculate a much lower fatality closer to 0.5-1.6%, we call this the Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR). See the last section in my blog post "Updates & Validation": https://blog.zorinaq.com/case-fatality-ratio-ncov/#updates--...
Perhaps you thought or assumed I was calculating the IFR, not CFR.
"so many people here debunked you"
I was criticized, but the criticism was invalid. My estimates turned out correct according to published studies (note that the high CFR >9% is not the same as the IFR which takes into account underascertainment and is lower around 0.5-1.6%):
A CFR of 18% was estimated by https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...
A CFR of 33% was estimated by https://institutefordiseasemodeling.github.io/nCoV-public/an...
A CFR of 5.3 or 8.4% (depending on two scenarios) was estimated by https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/2/523
(These reports have been quoted by the WHO in situation report 30 (references 10, 11 and 12) and report 31: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati... and https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati... )
For reference I have always claimed a WIDE range for the CFR: between 9% and 56% (see https://blog.zorinaq.com/case-fatality-ratio-ncov/) So two of the three studies support me, and the third one is slightly outside my range (with one scenario where they calculated 8.4% being close to my lower bound of 9%.)
Note that these are NOT "apocalyptic estimates", as these three published estimates and my estimate only claim to be valid for one particular case: the CFR (1) for China, (2) as of January/early February, (3) not accounting for underreporting of cases. The CFR does change significantly over time, depending on countries, and depending on the ascertainment rate. The biggest factor is underascertainment, and if we correct for this in China, we calculate a much lower fatality closer to 0.5-1.6%, we call this the Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR). See the last section in my blog post "Updates & Validation": https://blog.zorinaq.com/case-fatality-ratio-ncov/#updates--...
Perhaps you thought or assumed I was calculating the IFR, not CFR.
I'm well aware of the difference between IFR and CFR. CFR is nowhere in the range you quoted. Being consistent with incorrect studies is nothing to brag about.
Re South Korea: You are presenting a hypothesis as fact. For lots of reasons the hypothesis appears unlikely. Time will tell, but I'm confident you'll be proven wrong again, if I see another comment by you then I'll gladly point it out.
Why are you doing this? I think that's a question for yourself...
Re South Korea: You are presenting a hypothesis as fact. For lots of reasons the hypothesis appears unlikely. Time will tell, but I'm confident you'll be proven wrong again, if I see another comment by you then I'll gladly point it out.
Why are you doing this? I think that's a question for yourself...
"Being consistent with incorrect studies is nothing to brag about.”
So ALL(!) the studies referenced in WHO situation reports are "incorrect"? The WHO couldn't/didn't find any other studies that were "correct"? Don't you think it is a little improbable that 4 entities (WHO + 3 teams behind the 3 studies) are all wrong?
You say the CFR is nowhere in the range but that's because you, like all media, look at the so-called naïve CFR (deaths/cases) which is known to severely underestimate the true CFR in the initial rapid growth phase of an epidemic, because deaths lag cases. The naïve CFR gives accurate results only when calculated across a cohort of patients who all either recovered or died, with none left hospitalized. Epidemiologists are very aware of this bias; my post at https://blog.zorinaq.com/case-fatality-ratio-ncov/ covers this topic and presents various links including 4-5 peer-reviewed papers documenting it. This bias is why none of the proper CFR estimates employ the naïve CFR calculation.
Also you need to be aware that CFR evolves over time. Initially the most severe cases are the ones that are detected first, so CFR among these initial cohorts is higher.
In fact the high CFR is confirmed by observations of these cohorts. For example 11 of the first 99 patients died[1]. That's a CFR of 11% right there. And some of these patients were still hospitalized at the time of publication, some additional ones may have died since then.
My CFR estimate and the 3 studies referenced by the WHO were all based on such early data when the detected cases were more severe. If we were to redo the estimate today with current data from China, we would find a lower CFR because today they can run many more lab tests on larger swath of population so they detect a larger proportion of mild cases.
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
So ALL(!) the studies referenced in WHO situation reports are "incorrect"? The WHO couldn't/didn't find any other studies that were "correct"? Don't you think it is a little improbable that 4 entities (WHO + 3 teams behind the 3 studies) are all wrong?
You say the CFR is nowhere in the range but that's because you, like all media, look at the so-called naïve CFR (deaths/cases) which is known to severely underestimate the true CFR in the initial rapid growth phase of an epidemic, because deaths lag cases. The naïve CFR gives accurate results only when calculated across a cohort of patients who all either recovered or died, with none left hospitalized. Epidemiologists are very aware of this bias; my post at https://blog.zorinaq.com/case-fatality-ratio-ncov/ covers this topic and presents various links including 4-5 peer-reviewed papers documenting it. This bias is why none of the proper CFR estimates employ the naïve CFR calculation.
Also you need to be aware that CFR evolves over time. Initially the most severe cases are the ones that are detected first, so CFR among these initial cohorts is higher.
In fact the high CFR is confirmed by observations of these cohorts. For example 11 of the first 99 patients died[1]. That's a CFR of 11% right there. And some of these patients were still hospitalized at the time of publication, some additional ones may have died since then.
My CFR estimate and the 3 studies referenced by the WHO were all based on such early data when the detected cases were more severe. If we were to redo the estimate today with current data from China, we would find a lower CFR because today they can run many more lab tests on larger swath of population so they detect a larger proportion of mild cases.
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
The problem with what you are doing is you are taking in a lot of information, and then you come here and to Twitter to repeat the most disturbing sounding factoids without any critical thinking and without any consideration for context, all for attention. This is really offensive to me, which is why I react so strongly to it.
Re CFR: If you are allowed to cherry pick a narrowly defined set of cases, you can make this value look any way you want. If that's the argument you are retreating to, you simply have nothing to say, because it is grossly misleading.
Re South Korea: numbers of people tested is on a stable exponential trajectory since the very beginning, unaffected by how many church members are tested. The exponential growth factor for the number of confirmed cases has been stably decaying since the very beginning. There is simply nothing to indicate that the artifact you suggest exists, yet you take a single sentence you found online to claim South Korean growth isn't actually slowing. What the fuck dude?
Re CFR: If you are allowed to cherry pick a narrowly defined set of cases, you can make this value look any way you want. If that's the argument you are retreating to, you simply have nothing to say, because it is grossly misleading.
Re South Korea: numbers of people tested is on a stable exponential trajectory since the very beginning, unaffected by how many church members are tested. The exponential growth factor for the number of confirmed cases has been stably decaying since the very beginning. There is simply nothing to indicate that the artifact you suggest exists, yet you take a single sentence you found online to claim South Korean growth isn't actually slowing. What the fuck dude?
To an outside reader, you haven't presented any research and are making unfounded claims. I don't see why you're in any sense credible.
Sorry, in my mind I was addressing mrb directly who surely knows the relevant data already. But you're right I should have included citations for other readers.
The most detailed analysis of Chinese(!) CFR numbers I am aware of, including discussions of all the issues that mrb likes to quote to sow confusion: Riou et al. [0]
Cumulative number of tests performed in South Korea: See the table at [1]; ideally plot the "Total Tested" column logarithmically to see sustained exponential growth clearly.
Confirmed cases in South Korea over time [2]. Plot South Korea alone to see the continuous decay (pretty much from day 1 to right now) of the exponential growth rate clearly.
[0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.04.20031104v...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_S...
[2] https://studylib.net/coronavirus-growth
The most detailed analysis of Chinese(!) CFR numbers I am aware of, including discussions of all the issues that mrb likes to quote to sow confusion: Riou et al. [0]
Cumulative number of tests performed in South Korea: See the table at [1]; ideally plot the "Total Tested" column logarithmically to see sustained exponential growth clearly.
Confirmed cases in South Korea over time [2]. Plot South Korea alone to see the continuous decay (pretty much from day 1 to right now) of the exponential growth rate clearly.
[0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.04.20031104v...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_S...
[2] https://studylib.net/coronavirus-growth
The really good analysis: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop...
It's true that it's only really worked in China so far, at least only that we know of positively. But there is also some research coming out suggesting that some of the measures China took were more effective than other ones. In any case, I said there is a reason for hope, not a reason for certainty. We will see how effective Italy's measures are.
[deleted]
It worked in China because they really enforce drastic measures. People must stay at home, everybody outside wears a mask (they're made in China, we don't have any), streets, transport & supermarkets are disinfected daily, people who leave hospital have even clothes disinfected etc.
Nothing like this happens in EU or USA :(
Nothing like this happens in EU or USA :(
> One of the biggest downsides is that people are not allowed to visit relatives or families in other cities/villages, even if a few kilometers away.
How does this affect people who depend on personal care from relatives and friends to do daily activities like cooking, cleaning themselves and going to the toilet?
How does this affect people who depend on personal care from relatives and friends to do daily activities like cooking, cleaning themselves and going to the toilet?
You can get a note which has the reason for your travel. If it checks out you are free to travel IIRC.
Reasons to travel might be ex. work
Reasons to travel might be ex. work
So you're saying, if you're single already, you're safe from coronavirus at bars already
>>this lockdown is not so bad,
I am glad it isn't--for you. Other people's mileage might vary
I am glad it isn't--for you. Other people's mileage might vary
>Italian here, north-west. Media are really exaggerating with the situation with daily life and routine, we are allowed to take a walk and go to bars or restaurants if there is one meter of distance between people.
That seems ... like it would be really hard to do consistently adhere to and enforce, especially when it goes against social conventions and the places fill up to capacity.
That seems ... like it would be really hard to do consistently adhere to and enforce, especially when it goes against social conventions and the places fill up to capacity.
You'd be surprised: https://i.redd.it/n95poyxjful41.jpg
(The comments from Finns on r/europe are hilarious)
(The comments from Finns on r/europe are hilarious)
[deleted]
Presumably people realize why it’s in place and how it benefits them?
I realize I shouldn't be touching my face, but it's so automatic that I have to keep stopping myself and it's a constant battle.
Time to cover it with a nanosilver gel mask then. Should somewhat disinfect your hands too. ;)
(I'm half serious there, if the mask was fabric or plastic, it'd be safe, otherwise nope.)
(I'm half serious there, if the mask was fabric or plastic, it'd be safe, otherwise nope.)
Modern media is really doing more harm than good.
Elevating threat perception for everything has become a daily occurance. One day it's North Korea nukes. Another day it's Russians. Another it's Iran. Another day it's climate, #metoo, immigrants, shooters etc etc.
I grew up at a time where the threats were even worse but we weren't surrounded by unqualified people falling over each other inducing anxiety in everyone as a full time job.
I think journos need to be kicked off social media or put in timeout zones after a particular message has saturated the network (can be easily be auto triggered). They are trapped by the dynamics of getting likes/views/clicks. Most of them I feel are loosing their minds and are on auto pilot. By themselves they can't exist that trap.
Elevating threat perception for everything has become a daily occurance. One day it's North Korea nukes. Another day it's Russians. Another it's Iran. Another day it's climate, #metoo, immigrants, shooters etc etc.
I grew up at a time where the threats were even worse but we weren't surrounded by unqualified people falling over each other inducing anxiety in everyone as a full time job.
I think journos need to be kicked off social media or put in timeout zones after a particular message has saturated the network (can be easily be auto triggered). They are trapped by the dynamics of getting likes/views/clicks. Most of them I feel are loosing their minds and are on auto pilot. By themselves they can't exist that trap.
Cable TV news was a massive experiment to try and find out if there is actually 24 hours' worth of news that happens every day. One which failed to reject the null hypothesis.
Social media journalism is merely a replication study.
Social media journalism is merely a replication study.
The best comment I have seen in a while...
In case of this pandemia exaggeration can have positive influence because people have natural tendency to underestimate how easily common cold and flu spreads.
A lockdown is obviously not an enjoyable thing, but it is necessary to flatten the curve [^1] and it's downsides are less severe then it's benefits if done correctly.
Keep this in mind as the situation continues to evolve. Stock things in your house which bring you joy (good food, games, good books) and do your best to spread confidence to others around you. If you have enough space to get in some exercise, even if it's just pushups and situps, do so. If you are working from home, do your best to have a clearly defined time for your work and separate your working space from your leisure space as much as practical. If you've been thinking about writing a book or starting a new blog, now is a good time to do so.
It may not be enjoyable but it is necessary. Make the best use of this time you can.
[^1]: https://www.flattenthecurve.com/
Keep this in mind as the situation continues to evolve. Stock things in your house which bring you joy (good food, games, good books) and do your best to spread confidence to others around you. If you have enough space to get in some exercise, even if it's just pushups and situps, do so. If you are working from home, do your best to have a clearly defined time for your work and separate your working space from your leisure space as much as practical. If you've been thinking about writing a book or starting a new blog, now is a good time to do so.
It may not be enjoyable but it is necessary. Make the best use of this time you can.
[^1]: https://www.flattenthecurve.com/
Imagine if steam takes advantage of this to have a coronavirus sale. 50% off all zombie themed games for the coming month.
It would probably be in bad taste to theme it so...on the nose, but I'd believe that it's a good time to be releasing a fresh game right now. It's certainly a terrible time for games in development, with work collaboration maybe disrupted and with all the big publicity events getting cancelled, and it's a bad time for other media that bank a lot on physical releases (e.g. theatrical releases for movies getting pushed back), but the at-home media out now could find an audience with more time than they otherwise might have.
I don't know. I started playing Pandemic again. Play is a form of experimentation and learning, and what better way to experiment than zombie games?
I don't think it would be in bad taste if it's clearly hyperbolic and perhaps it is coupled with informational messages. PornHub is famous for doing this.
There's also a funeral services company in Rome whose death-themed ads have become a meme ("don't worry antivaxers, we will always be ready to help if you die"), we love it. :-)
There's also a funeral services company in Rome whose death-themed ads have become a meme ("don't worry antivaxers, we will always be ready to help if you die"), we love it. :-)
Antivaxxers are generally not liked very much; it’s fairly “safe” to make fun of them. Doing so for coronavirus when people have family members who may have it is significantly less so.
Too late: https://www.facebook.com/onoranzefunebritaffo/photos/a.79642...
(translation: "stay at home or we will all end up in a box")
(translation: "stay at home or we will all end up in a box")
I think if they just did zombie games it could be construed as making light of the situation and get them some backlash. Broader discounts and some signalling that the intent is to encourage people to stay inside more might work though.
I got a good chuckle out of this comment. Thanks.
edit: fair I'll retract this
I'm unfamiliar with this person. Do you have a reason to doubt that the author has the MPH that they assert that they have?
Assuming its the same person as https://tislab.org/jmcmurry.html (seems quite likely) then she's both well-informed about GSuite and public health.
What’s wrong with the author’s credentials at the bottom of the page?
As a side note, maybe the single restaurant manager interviewed does normally that, but it is highly unusual that a restaurant manager hugs and/or kisses (or even shakes hands) with a customer of the restaurant.
There is this sort of folklore about Italy that everyone kisses and hugs everyone else.
This is simply not accurate.
If you are introduced to someone (a stranger), it is normal courtesy to shake hands with him/her (and that's it, no hugs, no kisses), as well, unless the other person is an old friend the normal shaking of hands is the normal means of greeting.
It is extremely rare that you are touched (again let alone hugged or kissed) as a customer when you enter any shop or similar.
There is this sort of folklore about Italy that everyone kisses and hugs everyone else.
This is simply not accurate.
If you are introduced to someone (a stranger), it is normal courtesy to shake hands with him/her (and that's it, no hugs, no kisses), as well, unless the other person is an old friend the normal shaking of hands is the normal means of greeting.
It is extremely rare that you are touched (again let alone hugged or kissed) as a customer when you enter any shop or similar.
> If you are introduced to someone (a stranger), it is normal courtesy to shake hands with him/her (and that's it, no hugs, no kisses), as well, unless the other person is an old friend the normal shaking of hands is the normal means of greeting.
In northern Italy, most of the times. In southern Italy, kissing is much more common and it's often used even in formal environments. Shaking hands it's seen as polite but cold.
The stereotypical Italian is, for many reasons, the southern Italian, hence the kissing meme and other exaggerations that really do not apply to northern Italy.
In northern Italy, most of the times. In southern Italy, kissing is much more common and it's often used even in formal environments. Shaking hands it's seen as polite but cold.
The stereotypical Italian is, for many reasons, the southern Italian, hence the kissing meme and other exaggerations that really do not apply to northern Italy.
Well, no.
Again, we are not talking of old friends, we are talking of strangers.
Even in the south (I lived in sicily almost 15 years) it is not at all common.
Again, we are not talking of old friends, we are talking of strangers.
Even in the south (I lived in sicily almost 15 years) it is not at all common.
Why are we talking about strangers when the context was a restaurant manager greeting customers? Every decent restaurant that's been open for any length of time has a large number of regular customers.
And - again - regular customers are NOT normally hugged or kissed by the restaurant manager as a "standard" form of greeting, UNLESS they are - besides regular customers - also "friends" (and even that is not "common").
> If you are introduced to someone (a stranger), it is normal courtesy to shake hands with him/her (and that's it, no hugs, no kisses)
Are you sure you aren't extending the culture of northern Italy to all of Italy?
When I lived in Rome/Naples, it seemed like with almost everyone I met we shook hands and did the "air kisses" (not a real kiss but you still lean in close and touch cheeks).
It didn't ever happen to me with restaurant owners, sure, but then again I never really interacted with anyone other than the waiter/waitress/cashier. I could see it happening in a super small hole-in-the-wall mom and pop type restaurant though.
Are you sure you aren't extending the culture of northern Italy to all of Italy?
When I lived in Rome/Naples, it seemed like with almost everyone I met we shook hands and did the "air kisses" (not a real kiss but you still lean in close and touch cheeks).
It didn't ever happen to me with restaurant owners, sure, but then again I never really interacted with anyone other than the waiter/waitress/cashier. I could see it happening in a super small hole-in-the-wall mom and pop type restaurant though.
I am from Rome, the cheek kiss is common amongst people who know each other, and sometimes it applies "transitively" (e.g. a friend's partner which you don't know), but it is definitely not done when meeting random people at work.
You could be kissing someone on the cheek coming in your restaurant if you are familiar with them, but it's not very common.
You could be kissing someone on the cheek coming in your restaurant if you are familiar with them, but it's not very common.
>Are you sure you aren't extending the culture of northern Italy to all of Italy?
Yes, I am pretty sure, as a matter of fact I am more familiar with non-Northern Italy habits, as I am Italian (from the center and living in the center) but I have lived years in the South and also some time in Rome and near Naples.
Again I am not talking of people you know and are friend with, I am talking of:
1 - people that have just been introduced to you
2 - normal greetings between people that meet in commercial or professional environments
The case of:
>I could see it happening in a super small hole-in-the-wall mom and pop type restaurant though.
can surely happen, but it is not common/everyday as the folklore might lead to believe.
Yes, I am pretty sure, as a matter of fact I am more familiar with non-Northern Italy habits, as I am Italian (from the center and living in the center) but I have lived years in the South and also some time in Rome and near Naples.
Again I am not talking of people you know and are friend with, I am talking of:
1 - people that have just been introduced to you
2 - normal greetings between people that meet in commercial or professional environments
The case of:
>I could see it happening in a super small hole-in-the-wall mom and pop type restaurant though.
can surely happen, but it is not common/everyday as the folklore might lead to believe.
Based on context in the article, it seems to me that the owner is probably not talking about his interaction with customers, but that in his private life.
Another Italian here. The situation is far from dramatic. Yes, being forced at home unless necessary is an inconvenience, but damn worth the risk of catching the virus or worse infecting others. We can work from home, and this for many of us is a first and indeed something we can leverage when things go back to normal. We can still go to the doctor, or grocery shopping, bars and restaurants are still open.
This kind of reporting seems counterproductive. A more helpful headline would be something like, “In locked down Italy, life is mostly normal.” The body of the article is OK, but the tone seems intentionally negative when the same facts could easily have been presented hopefully.
One of my biggest concerns is that places in the United States, or other countries, will adopt aggressive social distancing policies early, while the number of cases is low, and then the backlash against those policies will be that “this is hell, and the virus isn’t even affecting that many people.” That can lead to pressure to drop the policies prematurely when the virus is nowhere near contained yet.
This is a great opportunity for responsible journalism to strike a tone of optimistic “we are all in this together, it is very serious, but if we all do the right thing we should be OK.” Fear mongering on the one hand, or dismissal and backlash on the other, are both extremely harmful — But good for Clickbait and selling ads. We really need the media to resist that during this emergency.
One of my biggest concerns is that places in the United States, or other countries, will adopt aggressive social distancing policies early, while the number of cases is low, and then the backlash against those policies will be that “this is hell, and the virus isn’t even affecting that many people.” That can lead to pressure to drop the policies prematurely when the virus is nowhere near contained yet.
This is a great opportunity for responsible journalism to strike a tone of optimistic “we are all in this together, it is very serious, but if we all do the right thing we should be OK.” Fear mongering on the one hand, or dismissal and backlash on the other, are both extremely harmful — But good for Clickbait and selling ads. We really need the media to resist that during this emergency.
The real problem is in the hospitals, and for some enterprises who will really have a loss in these weeks (everything about tourism, for example). One of the biggest downsides is that people are not allowed to visit relatives or families in other cities/villages, even if a few kilometers away.
We've been promised discounts, taxes, even free subscriptions for ebooks... this lockdown is not so bad, the important is that people really understand why it has been implemented (people here in Italy tend to overreact for every news - it's always apocalyptic).