4 ms·

Specifically: no lockdown. Why it has better outcome? From the data we know that for vast majority of people who get infected it will be either asymptomatic o

by matz1 6y ago

Specifically: no lockdown. Why it has better outcome? From the data we know that for vast majority of people who get infected it will be either asymptomatic or only have mild symptoms and the serious case/death is skewed towards the elderly. Lockdown cause harm. The virus cause harm. More people suffer from lockdown than the virus. At the minimum doing nothing different than the government already done in the past would lead better outcome than what we currently have. If you want to do something, then there are many ways that are not lockdown, that can be done such as: - increasing healthcare capacity/funding when needed - accelerate development of better treatment - accelerate vaccine development - do not test everyone, so much wasted resource spent on this. - media campaign to educate people about the actual risk of covid - increase campaign on exercise, healthy diet, outdoor activities. That's pretty much what I would do if I'm in power.

Silhouette 6y ago
So you're proposing a natural selection strategy that would, on the evidence so far, probably kill around 1 million people in this country alone and possibly cause long-term health consequences that we don't fully understand yet for millions more who get the virus but don't die of it? And that's still making the implicit assumption that the greater number of people getting the virus and therefore greater number of opportunities for new mutations to develop don't make things any worse, for example by evolving a mutation that severely affects other demographics in the same way that the current known variations of the virus affect elderly or otherwise vulnerable groups and/or that can withstand the treatments and vaccines we have available so far. And it's also making the obviously false assumption that the NHS has the resources to offer the best possible care to everyone who does get the virus in your scenario, and that care for others with serious conditions is not compromised causing further suffering and loss of life. I don't think most people would agree that such a strategy is either ethical or likely to be more effective at controlling the virus than the lockdown measures, under the present circumstances.
- matz1 6y ago
  >So you're proposing a natural selection strategy that would I didn't say that, I listed multiple measure that can be taken. What I'm saying is, if for some reason the government refuse/unable to do those, at the minimum no lockdown is better. >on the evidence so far, probably kill around 1 million people 1 million out of how many ? How many million people who going to suffer from lockdown? >that we don't fully understand yet Right, its not fully understood yet, so its not a justification to implement a measure that is harmful for million of people such as lockdown. >or example by evolving a mutation that severely affects other demographics in the same way that the current known variations of the virus affect elderly or otherwise vulnerable groups and/or that can withstand the treatments and vaccines we have available so far New mutation generally evolve into something that spread more easily but less deadly. >And it's also making the obviously false assumption that the NHS has the resources to offer the best possible care to everyone I never made assumption that the NHS has the resources to offer the best possible care to everyone. >I don't think most people would agree that such a strategy is either ethical or likely to be more effective at controlling the virus than the lockdown measures, under the present circumstances. I acknowledge that everybody has their own preference, if you like to live in the place with lockdown then to each their own. I'm just trying my best to everybody people I know. If I can choose I would much much prefer to live where the government handling this without lockdown. I ready to move to place with less lockdown, if the government in my place decided to increase the lockdown. That being said I think each of us lives in their own preferable place is probably only thing that going to work for both of us.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by matz1 6y ago

Silhouette 6y ago

So you're proposing a natural selection strategy that would, on the evidence so far, probably kill around 1 million people in this country alone and possibly cause long-term health consequences that we don't fully understand yet for millions more who get the virus but don't die of it? And that's still making the implicit assumption that the greater number of people getting the virus and therefore greater number of opportunities for new mutations to develop don't make things any worse, for example by evolving a mutation that severely affects other demographics in the same way that the current known variations of the virus affect elderly or otherwise vulnerable groups and/or that can withstand the treatments and vaccines we have available so far. And it's also making the obviously false assumption that the NHS has the resources to offer the best possible care to everyone who does get the virus in your scenario, and that care for others with serious conditions is not compromised causing further suffering and loss of life. I don't think most people would agree that such a strategy is either ethical or likely to be more effective at controlling the virus than the lockdown measures, under the present circumstances.

matz1 6y ago
>So you're proposing a natural selection strategy that would I didn't say that, I listed multiple measure that can be taken. What I'm saying is, if for some reason the government refuse/unable to do those, at the minimum no lockdown is better. >on the evidence so far, probably kill around 1 million people 1 million out of how many ? How many million people who going to suffer from lockdown? >that we don't fully understand yet Right, its not fully understood yet, so its not a justification to implement a measure that is harmful for million of people such as lockdown. >or example by evolving a mutation that severely affects other demographics in the same way that the current known variations of the virus affect elderly or otherwise vulnerable groups and/or that can withstand the treatments and vaccines we have available so far New mutation generally evolve into something that spread more easily but less deadly. >And it's also making the obviously false assumption that the NHS has the resources to offer the best possible care to everyone I never made assumption that the NHS has the resources to offer the best possible care to everyone. >I don't think most people would agree that such a strategy is either ethical or likely to be more effective at controlling the virus than the lockdown measures, under the present circumstances. I acknowledge that everybody has their own preference, if you like to live in the place with lockdown then to each their own. I'm just trying my best to everybody people I know. If I can choose I would much much prefer to live where the government handling this without lockdown. I ready to move to place with less lockdown, if the government in my place decided to increase the lockdown. That being said I think each of us lives in their own preferable place is probably only thing that going to work for both of us.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]