4 ms·
Wuhan disagrees with your argument much more than it supports it. The Chinese response in Wuhan -- after the failure of the initial attempts to suppress any new
by thaumaturgy 7y ago
Wuhan disagrees with your argument much more than it supports it. The Chinese response in Wuhan -- after the failure of the initial attempts to suppress any news of the virus -- were swift, draconian, and competent. They locked everything down, heavily restricted travel, erected 16 temporary hospitals (just for that region alone), and pumped a ton of medical supplies in to it.
So the argument that follows from that is, "these are the measures required to achieve fewer than 3200 deaths."
- m0zg 7y agoWhich is something I explicitly pointed out. Shit like this isn't going to fly even in the UK, let alone in the US, so they seem to be acknowledging this simple fact and thinking of what they realistically can do in the absence of such "draconian" lockdown abilities. Which I think is smart. Especially if you consider that _any_ lockdown can't last for very long for economic reasons. A month or two at most, after which you start over. Lather, rinse, repeat, until you build up herd immunity.
- tigershark 7y agoSo in your opinion voluntarily causing in the best case close to 1M deaths is smart. I’m sure hitler would probably agree completely with you.
- oezi 7y ago... Only when you enact it at 400 cases (January 23rd) for a city of 15m or region of 55m (couple days later). Germany and France are at 4000 cases, so even draconian lock-down of the entire country might end up with 32.000 deaths each.