3 ms·

You’re proposing “aggressively protecting old and vulnerable people”. ...so does that not mean a strong lockdown for those people? > and lack of economic colla

by jmull 6y ago

You’re proposing “aggressively protecting old and vulnerable people”. ...so does that not mean a strong lockdown for those people? > and lack of economic collapse In your model you’re calling for a strong lockdown of 30% of the population. How is that not going to have a powerful negative impact on the economy? Also, as a practical matter, I doubt society will accept a strategy that minimizes the impact of covid-19 on one group of people at the expense of another group of people when the other group of people are politically powerful (and, not incidentally, a great number of various types of leaders are part of the other group).

bitcurious 6y ago
> You’re proposing “aggressively protecting old and vulnerable people”. ...so does that not mean a strong lockdown for those people? > In your model you’re calling for a strong lockdown of 30% of the population Why ask a question and then assume an answer? Precautionary measures for the elderly can be food delivery, direct financial support, free N95 masks, free healthcare, priority vaccination, etc.
- jmull 6y ago
  Food delivery and direct financial support don’t protect people from getting covid by themselves. They would help people isolate... so you’re still talking about locking people down to protect them. Free N95 masks would help to the extent it increases the number of people wearing them. But that’s hardly aggressive. Aggressive would be mandating that old/vulnerable people wear masks (which is another form of lockdown). Free healthcare would help with the financial situation of those that get the virus and survive, which isn’t exactly the goal. Priority vaccination... well, there is no safe and effective vaccine. Maybe that will be a good path six months from now. But if we had one, the goal would be to vaccinate everyone. Priority would be nice, but would ultimately only shorten the months-long window for infection (vs those without priority) by a matter of weeks. So that would be helpful, but not a game changer.

by jmull 6y ago

bitcurious 6y ago

> You’re proposing “aggressively protecting old and vulnerable people”. ...so does that not mean a strong lockdown for those people? > In your model you’re calling for a strong lockdown of 30% of the population Why ask a question and then assume an answer? Precautionary measures for the elderly can be food delivery, direct financial support, free N95 masks, free healthcare, priority vaccination, etc.

jmull 6y ago
Food delivery and direct financial support don’t protect people from getting covid by themselves. They would help people isolate... so you’re still talking about locking people down to protect them. Free N95 masks would help to the extent it increases the number of people wearing them. But that’s hardly aggressive. Aggressive would be mandating that old/vulnerable people wear masks (which is another form of lockdown). Free healthcare would help with the financial situation of those that get the virus and survive, which isn’t exactly the goal. Priority vaccination... well, there is no safe and effective vaccine. Maybe that will be a good path six months from now. But if we had one, the goal would be to vaccinate everyone. Priority would be nice, but would ultimately only shorten the months-long window for infection (vs those without priority) by a matter of weeks. So that would be helpful, but not a game changer.