5 ms·
The difference would be that there would be a clear outcome - many quick deaths, and a relatively simple solution - change it's trajectory or blow it up. Afaik
by bserge 5y ago
The difference would be that there would be a clear outcome - many quick deaths, and a relatively simple solution - change it's trajectory or blow it up.
Afaik, everyone did follow lockdown orders in the first few months.
Then it became clear that the death rate isn't worth worrying about - yes, for the majority, 1-3% is clearly not enough. If it was 10%, if corpses were littering the streets, I bet the attitude would be completely different.
Then the conflicting messages started. Do this, do that, but not for these guys, they're essential or something. And not the rich, they can still travel. And you are vaccinated but still can get infected.
The governments didn't even try that hard, no one got forced, even now no one's forcing vaccination.
So the majority just stopped giving a fuck.
- protoman3000 5y ago> The governments didn't even try that hard Exactly. My impression was that there were no contingency emergency plans, every action was always only reactive and never preventive. I still can’t understand how it is not possible to immediately impose lockdown measures after clear signs of rising infection numbers in order to quickly and swiftly prevent further escalation. Instead, at every wave again and again we had the same discussions and officials were starting to develop new emergency plans 4 weeks into exponential infection rates. These are our elected officials and they are incompetent. It is our responsibility, our fault.