3 ms·
I honestly belive a 2-3 week lockdown would have slowed down the spread if we didn't have bunch of idiots doing their best to not comply. Someone did a compute
by zibzab 5y ago
I honestly belive a 2-3 week lockdown would have slowed down the spread if we didn't have bunch of idiots doing their best to not comply.
Someone did a computer simulation of this, showing that just 1-2% running around and spreding the virus was enough to undo the effects.
So here we are now, almost 2 years later and the family business you pretend to protect have lost costumers, their business and maybe also few family members. Things would have gone so much better if we didn't have these "freedom lovers" dragging their feet, damaging the economy and in the end filling up ICU beds while waiting for their Herman Cardon award.
- raxxorrax 5y agoThat is wrong if you don't mean a complete lockdown in a way that we shut down any infrastructure, even what is declared necessary. That would theoretically eliminate any infectious disease with a shorter lifetime. It certainly isn't the fault of freedom lovers or any single group. This is blaming the other team and basic tribalism.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoThen we should try our public officials for being stupid enough to think that 100% compliance was feasible.
- disambiguation 5y agodo essential workers make up less than 2% of the population? it's hard to imagine this was ever realistic without extreme invasive tracking + quarantining of infected individuals. What also comes to mind the Randal Munroe's "What if - Could we eliminate the common cold if we all self isolated long enough?" In theory yes, but the severe degree of isolation and spreading required would likely not parse well with supply chain economics .. which given not everyone grows their own food, is also required to live. edit: there's also news now of COVID spreading to deer and possibly other animals, making this scenario even less viable.