3 ms·

> 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 cal

• 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.