3 ms·

Israel is not a good example. Lockdown application here is very uneven. They have nothing to do with the virus and are mainly used by politicians in power to su

• tinus_hn 6y ago
  Ah, so the no true lockdown isn’t strict enough.
  • mcguire 6y ago
    "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
  • DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    "Lockdown" can mean anything from closing pubs to mandating that nearly everyone stay home 24/7. There's no great mystery here. The virus primarily spreads in indoor settings where people breath the same air. A lockdown is only effective to the extent that it stops people from getting into those situations. Closing pubs will reduce transmission a bit, but not nearly as much as telling everyone to stay home.
• JamisonM 6y ago
  The poster is not engaged in a good faith argument so there isn't much point in explaining these sorts of details. My observation has been that in Canada and the UK any sort of selective or regional restrictions have been extremely ineffective and they offer evidence to people who would like to make bad-faith arguments about the power of restrictions. My opinion is that two things appear to work to get you manageable levels of COVID-19. The first is broad restrictive measures over very large geographical areas that actually reduce time indoors with other people and compel mask use (some of the Canadian provinces did this well). The second is simply letting the epidemic reach levels that scare people into changing their behaviour (many US states).