3 ms·

A full lockdown would have to include hospitals, firefighters, EMTs, cops, powerplant operators, food distribution, etc. And unless you quarantined every perso

A full lockdown would have to include hospitals, firefighters, EMTs, cops, powerplant operators, food distribution, etc. And unless you quarantined every person individually (and did a perfect job, at that), two weeks is not sufficient. Several months at least. And even then, the odds of successful containment are pretty low.

cfmcdonald 7y ago
It seems that several countries have been very successful in containing the virus, starting with China. The U.S. has been very lax in its response to this virus, and now many people seem to be excusing that with the assumption that, well, it was impossible to contain in the first place.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  It is unfair to compare a western democracy with a totalitarian government. China has options that we have collectively decided we don't want to have.
  - cfmcdonald 7y ago
    Okay, let's compare it to Australia then. Or South Korea, or Taiwan. p.s. I don't think Americans collectively decided anything about what options we would use to combat the virus. The federal executive branch effectively decided to do nothing, or nothing coherent and consistent, and states have individually scrambled to come up with their own responses, with varying levels of effectiveness.
    - james_s_tayler 7y ago
      New Zealand also doing well with our lockdown!
peterwoerner 7y ago
What's that kung fu line, walk on the right side of the road you are okay, walk on the left side of the road you are okay, walk in the middle you get smashed. We can decide to take the loss and let most people get infected, or we can be super aggressive about lockdown and contain it. Instead, we seem to have a compromise which is seems to take the loss, but slower with a porous lockdown which will have to last indefinitely. Now the other worlds are imagined in my head, so this may not be the case, but it is hard to look at e.g. New Zealand and not be frustrated by America's response.

cfmcdonald 7y ago

It seems that several countries have been very successful in containing the virus, starting with China. The U.S. has been very lax in its response to this virus, and now many people seem to be excusing that with the assumption that, well, it was impossible to contain in the first place.

rootusrootus 7y ago
It is unfair to compare a western democracy with a totalitarian government. China has options that we have collectively decided we don't want to have.
- cfmcdonald 7y ago
  Okay, let's compare it to Australia then. Or South Korea, or Taiwan. p.s. I don't think Americans collectively decided anything about what options we would use to combat the virus. The federal executive branch effectively decided to do nothing, or nothing coherent and consistent, and states have individually scrambled to come up with their own responses, with varying levels of effectiveness.
  - james_s_tayler 7y ago
    New Zealand also doing well with our lockdown!

peterwoerner 7y ago

What's that kung fu line, walk on the right side of the road you are okay, walk on the left side of the road you are okay, walk in the middle you get smashed. We can decide to take the loss and let most people get infected, or we can be super aggressive about lockdown and contain it. Instead, we seem to have a compromise which is seems to take the loss, but slower with a porous lockdown which will have to last indefinitely. Now the other worlds are imagined in my head, so this may not be the case, but it is hard to look at e.g. New Zealand and not be frustrated by America's response.