3 ms·

Is this science driven or emotion driven from the other side? If virus is airborne and can spread without symptoms, are you saying younger age group does not ge

by vaidhy 6y ago

Is this science driven or emotion driven from the other side? If virus is airborne and can spread without symptoms, are you saying younger age group does not get the virus or does not show the symptoms? If they do get the virus, then they can spread it. The closures were to prevent the virus from spreading and I do not understand why the measures used to contain it are a mistake. From the OP, it seems clear that virus is airborne, spreads in clusters and people spread it before showing any symptoms. I am open to suggestions on what are the alternative ways of stopping the spread?

galaxyLogic 6y ago
You are right. I think we are being gas-lighted. It's not about whether the current restrictions are the best or not. It's about whether anything should be done at all as evidenced by critics' lack of concrete proposals of what they would do instead. Presumably nothing.
- mardifoufs 6y ago
  So doing something so disruptive is better than doing nothing even if we end up with the same result anyways because... At least we did something? Even if that's true, I keep hearing that argument and I think I'll keep hearing it a lot in the future which makes sense as we try to justify what happened. But it's not based on reality considering that the anti lockdown side had a pretty clear plan: quarantine those most vulnerable, spend any fraction of the enormous resources we spent on locking down everything on making sure to provide for those people. That way we could've also focused the testing capacity & PPE on a lot less people, making it that much easier to isolate them from the virus. Instead of allocating thr same amount of resources regardless of how at risk someone was. You can disagree with the position but I'm not sure how you could argue that it's "doing nothing".

3 ms·

Is this science driven or emotion driven from the other side? If virus is airborne and can spread without symptoms, are you saying younger age group does not ge

by vaidhy 6y ago

galaxyLogic 6y ago
You are right. I think we are being gas-lighted. It's not about whether the current restrictions are the best or not. It's about whether anything should be done at all as evidenced by critics' lack of concrete proposals of what they would do instead. Presumably nothing.
- mardifoufs 6y ago
  So doing something so disruptive is better than doing nothing even if we end up with the same result anyways because... At least we did something? Even if that's true, I keep hearing that argument and I think I'll keep hearing it a lot in the future which makes sense as we try to justify what happened. But it's not based on reality considering that the anti lockdown side had a pretty clear plan: quarantine those most vulnerable, spend any fraction of the enormous resources we spent on locking down everything on making sure to provide for those people. That way we could've also focused the testing capacity & PPE on a lot less people, making it that much easier to isolate them from the virus. Instead of allocating thr same amount of resources regardless of how at risk someone was. You can disagree with the position but I'm not sure how you could argue that it's "doing nothing".