- Re: But then you're not taking account of the deaths Archived Message
Posted by walter
on April 28, 2020, 10:18 am, in reply to "Re: But then you're not taking account of the deaths "
|
Morning Willem In the middle of an emergency (or the start) you can't make assessing the damage to the nth degree of accuracy (and giving weight to arbitrarily small doubts) top priority. It's a judgement. I guess it takes two to 'go on', but the bare figures are severe enough that they should be enough to run with until there is something better. The numbers are so high that even moderately effective measures can save a lot of people. They shouldn't be derailed lightly IMO. "I'm not sure why I should propose or suggest what to do" It's pointless to criticize if you don't have a better idea. Anyone can point out imperfections in governments and politics. You have suggested alternative scenarios but if the lockdown is reducing deaths then lightening the lockdown to some extent would cause deaths to that extent. A smarter kinds of lockdowmn maybe? What about segregation of the time outside so that vulnerable people can go out without encountering loads of healthy people they might get the virus from, or give it to. The idea is already used in some shops, why not outside. That would protect the vulnerable and create a kind of barrier, but I'm not sure much much it would slow the spread among healthy people; I think it would be worth doing because there are few real drawbacks. But who knows what better ideas there might be if we stop arguing about the accuracy of the data that are driving the emergency. Cheers |