It's obviously tighter there than outside, but folks are pretty close in cities too.
But whatever. I built a case as to why it's a problem if we don't mitigate, and why mitigating was apparent in the changes to the data, and why mitigating has greatly affected the outcome. If others want to build the case that none of this mattered and we just crapped away an entire year for no good reason, be my guest.
I'll say my peace, there's no point in arguing, no one will change their mind. I never looked at any models because despite possible good intentions, they were gonna go "worst case scenario" and be used like they have on VN, to declare the entire thing a less than a big deal. Of course the models were going with worst case, it's the most prudent way to get the action needed.
We all knew what the reaction here would be if it worked and that's fine.
Really don't care if the efforts are appreciated or not, they helped, tremendously. It doesn't get any more basic than - cut the food supply, starve it to death. It's literally the most basic and proven of almost anything.
The quicker the isolation, the better the results. Exactly how it happened in US cities, exactly how it's worked across the globe.
If that's seen as a coincidence,
cool. Don't need the actions to be appreciated, just need them to work.
So far, they seem to be and that's all that really matters.