4 ms·

I don't know why you're waffling on about this. The topic in question is an attempt to stage an event with zero coronavirus. I am simply saying that you cannot

I don't know why you're waffling on about this. The topic in question is an attempt to stage an event with zero coronavirus. I am simply saying that you cannot test your way into a 100% safe event in a country that has high prevalence. You seem to be talking about how to reduce prevalence in the country and shoe horning in your own opinions about people for the sake of feeling good about yourself. Two different topics.

YZF 6y ago
That's not what you said though: "There is no way to completely avoid the coronavirus whilst interacting with other humans unless it's simply not prevalent in your area (e.g. Australia, NZ)." <snip - here you did say something about events but your generalization on top seems overriding> "I don't understand how an intelligent person couldn't simply derive this from first principles, it's been eleven months or so now. Do they exist in a different world to the rest of us or what? Most people I know, unless they're barricaded inside, have pretty much accepted that they're going to get it, the last study I read indicated that 1 in 4 individuals in the UK have already been infected." If you simply said what you're saying in your reply I'd simply upvote that and not argue, since yeah, that's a pretty good observation, you can't test your way into a 100% safe event, sure. Probably just a miscommunication.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]