Trying to see a bright side . . .

OK I was thinking today--trying to come up with some sort of positive take on all this.  It seems like, at least in the developed countries, there might be a silver lining to the fact that the infrastructure slows down.  We are worried that everyone will stay home and not go to work for fear of catching the BF, right?  Well, that would be bad inasmuch as there would be less services and goods . . . BUT wouldn't it be a blessing in disguise (for those of us who have prepped, anyway)?  In 1918, wasn't part of the problem that people went about their daily lives because they thought this was just like the ordinary flu, failed to stay inside,  and thus continued to infect one another?  In this case, we are getting so much hype that it seems in the more developed countries we would know to stay home.  Of course, not everyone can choose not to show up for work--but a lot fof people will stay home.  If even 20% of the population holes itself inside during the waves, then it seems like that alone wuld severely slow down the virus.  From what I understand, H5N1 is not any easier that the regular flu to contract--just more deadly once you DO get it.  It can't barge into our front door, you know.  We have to have contact with infected people in order to catch it.  So it seems that if a portion of our nation stays in (the preppers and the scared, etc) then that would slow the virus down substantially.  Also seems that shows like Oprah and the very fact that N95s are flying off the shelves is encouraging.  We didn't have these benefits in 1918.  Just a thought.  Even if this thing goes south, maybe it won't go as far south as it did in 1918 .. Any thoughts?  Agreements?  Disagreements? 

Hi RotroShaggy - Can I make a suggestion without sounding like a grammer Nazi. Paragraphs - it makes the post easier to read.

Personally I think that however much people think they are prepared - they won`t be prepared for everything. People will still head out.