3 ms·
It certainly should have been more focused and surgical. There are so many ways it could have been handled better. But, simply nobody made preparations for any
by JeremyNT 7y ago
It certainly should have been more focused and surgical. There are so many ways it could have been handled better. But, simply nobody made preparations for any of them in advance.
By the time NYC locked down, the virus had likely already been spreading unimpeded for weeks. The only possible short term solution was the population-wide lockdown, which "fixed" the issue in that it stopped the immediate disaster from becoming even worse. In nursing homes already infected, it was simply too late at that time.
The fact that the lockdown was required is evidence of a colossal failure on the part of our society. Our infrastructure should have been able to target this more precisely and we (the US) specifically squandered a huge advantage we had in that we had time to clearly see the progress of the virus overseas before it arrived, but did nothing useful with that time.
Even after all of this, few steps have been made to make the transition from "shut it all down" to a strategy that involves broad testing and targeted protection of vulnerable populations. It seems people are resigned to keeping the daily death rate steady and eventually just letting all vulnerable members of the population contract the virus and die.
- chiefalchemist 7y agoBut NYC (and surrounding areas, including North NJ, Long Island, et al) is not the whole country. It's not every city. In fact, it's relatively fringe. Lessons to be learned? You bet. Of course. But we took a semi-effective - again, despite the lockdown nursing homes continue to be a significant contributor to deaths - and applied it _everywhere_. Certainly, it's now reasonable to look at other options. But that's not happening. It as if the "cure" isn't going to lead to deaths as well. That's naive.