3 ms·

"By contrast, in the EU, we have land borders without border checks." That's the thing you change.

• rob74 6y ago
  Well, that's easier said then done. First, you have lots of people living in one country and commuting to work over the border. Second, the economy is so integrated that closing the borders or even introducing border checks leads to major economic disruptions. Third, in democratic countries you'll have those pesky people asking you if all these limitations are really necessary and not an undue restriction of their constitutional rights, so it will probably end up before the supreme court... The basic problem i see with "Get to Zero" is that it's an extreme position, and politicians always tend to find a compromise in everything they do. So unless you can get everyone to agree to this goal, it's simply not realistic in a democracy, regardless of the scientific merit.
  • rdiddly 6y ago
    Sure sure, everybody has heard all those arguments. What's new here is the idea, and it's hard to argue with, that living with waves upon waves of infectious disease, on purpose, for years, is itself an extreme position that unduly restricts the economy and personal freedom, for longer than a proper lockdown would. And it also kills more people, and something ought to be said about their right to life & liberty.