3 ms·
Yeah, I don't see the point of crushing the curve in developing countries where it's not feasible to elevate substantially medical capacities. Where many people
by dirtyid 7y ago
Yeah, I don't see the point of crushing the curve in developing countries where it's not feasible to elevate substantially medical capacities. Where many people's ability to support themselves is a day by day process not paycheck to paycheck. It makes no sense to shut down hard other than political optics - all the rich countries are doing it therefore there's an expectation and pressure for leaders in these countries to as well, even though the outcomes will not be the same. Cure is worse than the disease territory. Developing countries with demographics that skew young might actually do better with herd immunity approach.
- arel 7y agoThe point is avoiding mass death. They care about their families lives too and not just economics. It's not a 'political' choice or about 'optics'. It's also not just 'old' people who are dying. It affects 50+ year olds in not insignificant numbers. It depends whether you prioritise health or economics. You can balance health and economics and choose to prioritise one _before_ the other. It does however requires the political will to support the economy (and the poorest) whilst health care is prioritised to buy time during the exponential phase.
- dirtyid 7y agoThis is all theoretically true, but my inclination is that healthcare cannot be prioritized in a meaningful way within a meaningful time frame in many countries. I would love for India to succeed, but it seems incredibly unlikely that they can delay mass deaths for the time it will take to roll out a vaccine, because it does not seem possible for India to elevate medical access to comparable levels with developing countries per capita in the same time frame. So this delay is just heaping on unnecessary economic damage which in many ways is linked to health. Either way, I wish them the best.