3 ms·
I strongly disagree with the statement, that we have "too few sick" here in Germany. With the lockdown, we managed to just keep the health system from being com
by _ph_ 7y ago
I strongly disagree with the statement, that we have "too few sick" here in Germany. With the lockdown, we managed to just keep the health system from being completely overloaded in the most infected regions. But that already at the price of postponing non-urgent medical procedures. So yes, there are a few free beds in hospitals still, but we might still need them.
What is not accounted for is, that supplies (masks...) are still scarce and more importandly, most medical personal is working at an unsustainable intensity. There is plenty of reason of desiring even less sick people.
The reasons for reducing the lockdown are practical, social and economic. The lockdown is hard on many people, depending on their social and living situation. Especially in dense cities, most people don't have housing which was designed to be confined to it for many weeks. And apart from that, people want to go out, want to meet other people again. Need to do shopping for clothing, get a haircut. Also, we should try to keep the economy from collapsing.
The trick will be to reduce the lockdown while keeping the minimum safety in place and without too many people acting reckless and endangering the population again.
- luckylion 7y ago> I strongly disagree with the statement, that we have "too few sick" here in Germany. We want to be close to maximum capacity (but just under) though, and we're not. If "the curve" is too flat, it gets drawn out much more than necessary, and nobody should fool themselves into thinking that this can be a permanent setup. You'll need martial law if you want to confine everyone to their homes for 12+ months.
- _ph_ 7y agoThat is why we have to find a way out of the lockdown: because, as I wrote, you can't confine people to their home for too long. But not because we have "too few sick". If you are playing towards herd immunity: it doesn't look like we are getting there with "acceptable" infection rates. The disease is too nasty for that. So we have to reduce the lockdown in a way so that the infection rate does not increase significantly.
- chvid 7y agoIt is the same "problem" here in Denmark; massive lockdown and overcapacity for COVID19 treatment. The current level of lockdown is unmaintainable as this virus is probably going to be here for a year or two. However it is very hard for our politicians to say: It is too expensive to save these lives - other lives are cheaper to save. In a way the media coverage has been so effective that people actually do not want the restrictions lifted.
- _ph_ 7y agoIf enough people stay careful, it is easier to lift the restrictions. As the grocery stores stayed open during the lockdown, we can see that it is reasonable safe to interact with other people, if the minimum distances are obeyed and proper hygene is used. After this model, most other shops should be allowed to open again as long as people keep their distances. Not sure what to do about the previously crowded shopping streets in the city centers. Perhaps there, only half of the shops should be allowed to open on alternating days.
- Dahoon 7y agoYou clearly live in a different Denmark than I do. Maybe you read too much Ekstra Bladet. We are following the curve just as planned - not over and not under. There are no "overcapacity" and the lockdown isn't "massive" at all. Only a tiny percentage of shops are closed down and the rest isn't close to what a lot of other countries are doing. Stop spreading FUD and try to appreciate we have a system that is working great in this crisis.
- chvid 7y agoThanks for the insults. You can follow the writings of our ex pm Lars Lokke who says something similar to what I wrote.