It doesn’t work like this.
[ETA: I seem to have trouble with the BBS, likely to the use of the “Summary”/“Hide details” feature. I copy/pasted my written reply, postet the shortest possible form (see above) and will try to edit it im here.]
First of all, a week would not be sufficient, as you surly will have noticed based on the research published on the infections. I urge you not to talk about one week, because this will resonate with some people. Just forget “one week”.
Re:epidemiologists. Well, you are not wrong. However, you are also not right. Epidemiologists DID say we need a lockdown. They also opened up a discussion about how to get out of it. Please see my sidenote 2 below about it. I think this is just a distraction from my main point:
The general problem with your approach is that we are in a developing situation, and while a shit-ton of research is quickly hurled onto the internet, we still don’t know much about the virus, the infection, treatments, and even infection events. So, you are basically asking a scientist to evaluate a lot of known unknowns and unknown unknowns and develop a hard and clear goal. Which is a terrible idea.
What we do know is that we can flatten the curve, as it has been done. What we do know is that an R0 below 1, if estimated correctly (and that is a big if, even in countries like South Korea or Germany which have large testing capacities - see below) should bring the epidemic to a nearly constant level. A level which then can be started to manage. And this is what actually happens, driven by far more diverse expertise than that of epidemiologists. (I really hope based on expertise, and not on the gut feelings of people in power!)
In regard to estimating R0, there is a very interesting study from the team of Christoph Fraser breaking down the components for modellign R0 into asymptomatic, presymptomatic, symptomatic, and environmental. (It is, by the way, one of the starting points of the Bluetooth contact tracing initiative people have high hopes about and which I am very sceptical about from a purely technological POV.)
One key sentence from this:
Our infectiousness model suggests that the total contribution to R0 from pre-symptomatics is 0.9 (0.2 - 1.1), almost enough to sustain an epidemic on its own.
That means even if everyone having the even the mildest of symptoms would stay isolated, and you add the 0.1 of modelled asymptomatic spread, you would have an epidemic which would at least stay at the current level. Add some environmental infections (surfaces, whatever) and you will have growth.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/04/09/science.abb6936
That said, this is a modelling study. It is one of the best available, but it is still based on preliminary data.
Sidenotes
This study, by the way, massively influenced policies in the UK and the US.
Fraser and his colleagues have been heard. Which is kind of amazing.
Whatever you can say about politicians being to slow in their response before, the reaction to this was lightning fast compared to everything until then. I was and am still of the opinion that we need to be very careful even to blame the biggest political asshats for the pandemic because of their decisions before they had studies like Feretti et al.
You could say it’s the same carefulness I am trying to defend when someone like you asks to have a clear goal or guideline. In hindsight, many of the measures not taken should have been taken. Others will likely turn our to be non-effective. Hopefully not harmful, or to harmful.
However, without knowing enough, we are in the dark, often, an only can base our decisions on preliminary data. There is no one clear answer. R0 is just one metric, and even R0 isn’t perfectly understood despite the study linked (and further studies).
Bottom line: demanding a clear set of criteria in the current situation is not helpful. It puts politicians in an impossible situation, and if they ask virologists and epidemiologists for their opinion, this puts them between a rock and a very hard place.
