3 ms·

let's not get sidelined on the same minutiae over and over again. lockdowns could have, and should have, been replaced with 2 simple rules: 1. either physicall

let's not get sidelined on the same minutiae over and over again. lockdowns could have, and should have, been replaced with 2 simple rules: 1. either physically distance or wear a mask around groups of strangers, particularly inside. 2. if you get sick, self-quarantine (and go see a doctor). that would have been 99.9% of the reduction in transmission risk for 0.1% of the cost of lockdown, with a bonus of providing time for medical workers and epidemiologists to provide care, mitigations, and develop containment strategies (like tracing). the reasons we haven't boil down to news-fueled panic/anxiety crossed with political calculation, with a bonus of shifting the losses to the disadvantaged.

apatters 6y ago
Exactly this. These are facts that have never changed and were known from day one: 1. Because the virus is spread mainly through droplets, the risk goes down if you keep your distance from other people. 2. Because the virus is spread mainly through droplets, the risk goes down even more if everyone (especially those with symptoms) wears a mask. Since day one, since before the disease had even left China, the WHO was clear on all these points, the CDC followed shortly after, with one partial exception, which was the mask recommendation. (On masks, the WHO said from day one that anyone who was potentially infected should wear a mask; they initially advised against population-wide mask wearing due to supply.) Masks and distancing could have and should have been rolled out the day the first COVID-19 case washed up on American shores. Both could have been enforced through stiff penalties on noncompliant businesses (no masks, no distancing, you get shut down for 30 days). They were already in use in South Korea which did a great job of getting the disease under control. The Korean strategy worked better than the American strategy. Less death, less economic damage. Why did America screw up so badly? Pure hubris and incompetence on the part of Americans, starting with American leaders on both sides of the aisle. The war on COVID-19 was being waged and it was being beaten on the other side of the world, but myopic Americans were too preoccupied with themselves to watch and learn. It's as simple as that. Poor leadership, panic and nationwide myopia.

apatters 6y ago

Exactly this. These are facts that have never changed and were known from day one: 1. Because the virus is spread mainly through droplets, the risk goes down if you keep your distance from other people. 2. Because the virus is spread mainly through droplets, the risk goes down even more if everyone (especially those with symptoms) wears a mask. Since day one, since before the disease had even left China, the WHO was clear on all these points, the CDC followed shortly after, with one partial exception, which was the mask recommendation. (On masks, the WHO said from day one that anyone who was potentially infected should wear a mask; they initially advised against population-wide mask wearing due to supply.) Masks and distancing could have and should have been rolled out the day the first COVID-19 case washed up on American shores. Both could have been enforced through stiff penalties on noncompliant businesses (no masks, no distancing, you get shut down for 30 days). They were already in use in South Korea which did a great job of getting the disease under control. The Korean strategy worked better than the American strategy. Less death, less economic damage. Why did America screw up so badly? Pure hubris and incompetence on the part of Americans, starting with American leaders on both sides of the aisle. The war on COVID-19 was being waged and it was being beaten on the other side of the world, but myopic Americans were too preoccupied with themselves to watch and learn. It's as simple as that. Poor leadership, panic and nationwide myopia.