4 ms·

no, it's really the government pushing infections to the periphery, so that it gets credit for visible action rather than meaningful effect (i.e., lowering deat

no, it's really the government pushing infections to the periphery, so that it gets credit for visible action rather than meaningful effect (i.e., lowering death rates permanently without throwing half the population into severe distress). that's exactly the empty effort we should hold against politicians, especially when so much harm has blindly been brought to bear along with it. it's unrealistic to expect families to social distance from each other for months on end for a pandemic of this severity (~0.5% fatality rate heavily skewed to the aged, as opposed to the 1918 flu with ~10-20% fatality rate across the age spectrum). so the most impactful, and realistic, action to materially lower infection/death rates is to alter our behaviors around private social gatherings only (distance or mask indoors). focusing our efforts there would be spending our collective goodwill budget wisely, as opposed to the pointless political theater around masks and restaurants. instead, all of the focus has been on curtailing public settings (easier for the government to control), where only a small minority of transmission is happening (moreover, public behaviors changed without needing government intervention). it'd be farcical if it weren't so tragic.

xapata 6y ago
> only a small minority of transmission is happening [in public settings] Well, wouldn't that be because public settings are more controlled, as you said? It seems strange to suggest wearing a mask at home, in private, but not in public. Or did I misread?
- clairity 6y ago
  no, the only policy we needed is to either distance or wear masks when visiting in private with those outside your household, not at home with family (which no one would do) or in most public settings (which are already very low risk because exposure in space and time is vanishingly low). that would focus our attention and effort on the most impactful situations, not the ineffective shotgun approach we have now.

xapata 6y ago

> only a small minority of transmission is happening [in public settings] Well, wouldn't that be because public settings are more controlled, as you said? It seems strange to suggest wearing a mask at home, in private, but not in public. Or did I misread?

clairity 6y ago
no, the only policy we needed is to either distance or wear masks when visiting in private with those outside your household, not at home with family (which no one would do) or in most public settings (which are already very low risk because exposure in space and time is vanishingly low). that would focus our attention and effort on the most impactful situations, not the ineffective shotgun approach we have now.