10 ms·

How about actively sanitizing areas, and only quarantining the vulnerable, while only shutting down controlled areas with evidence of the virus? Is that not saf

by proc0 6y ago

How about actively sanitizing areas, and only quarantining the vulnerable, while only shutting down controlled areas with evidence of the virus? Is that not safe enough for these numbers? The real question is: why is this "safe" side shoving down their "solution" down everyone else's throat? At what point does coercion becoming a solution? "DO AS I SAY OR ELSE", is really the problem here, and not the virus. People are surviving, and are building antibodies, this is not an apocalyptical virus that we have to completely shutdown and obey.

rualca 6y ago
> (...) and only quarantining the vulnerable, (...) Because the epidemic spreads by infecting everyone, and the more widespread it becomes the more saturated health services will be and the more likely is that the more vulnerable elements of society will be affected. And the odds that you are infected drop radically from almost certain to highly unlikely if everyone around you just acts responsibly and just follows basic precautions such as wearing a mask, washing their hands, practice social distancing, and whenever possible practice social isolation. Think about it for a second. What do you think is the attack vector of, say, nursing homes? Do you believe it's the senior citizens who are already confind there, or everyone else who they are in contact with?
- proc0 6y ago
  > everyone else who they are in contact with? That is not a quarantine. Quarantining the vulnerable means they don't come in contact with anyone who may be in contact with the general public. Are the options really shut everything down OR millions of people die? We're supposed to think there is high risk everywhere, while the ones who made the rules are constantly breaking them. Efforts could have gone into instant detection of the virus in an environment, and effective measures to quickly quarantine people in targeted areas, you know more creative solutions that actually don't destroy the lives who are not really at risk.

by proc0 6y ago

rualca 6y ago

> (...) and only quarantining the vulnerable, (...) Because the epidemic spreads by infecting everyone, and the more widespread it becomes the more saturated health services will be and the more likely is that the more vulnerable elements of society will be affected. And the odds that you are infected drop radically from almost certain to highly unlikely if everyone around you just acts responsibly and just follows basic precautions such as wearing a mask, washing their hands, practice social distancing, and whenever possible practice social isolation. Think about it for a second. What do you think is the attack vector of, say, nursing homes? Do you believe it's the senior citizens who are already confind there, or everyone else who they are in contact with?

proc0 6y ago
> everyone else who they are in contact with? That is not a quarantine. Quarantining the vulnerable means they don't come in contact with anyone who may be in contact with the general public. Are the options really shut everything down OR millions of people die? We're supposed to think there is high risk everywhere, while the ones who made the rules are constantly breaking them. Efforts could have gone into instant detection of the virus in an environment, and effective measures to quickly quarantine people in targeted areas, you know more creative solutions that actually don't destroy the lives who are not really at risk.