15 ms·
>no clear success in any strategy whatsoever What is your measure of success? I think for most governments it is preventing hospitals from being overrun and de
by burntbridge 5y ago
>no clear success in any strategy whatsoever
What is your measure of success? I think for most governments it is preventing hospitals from being overrun and depleted of nurses and doctors through infection. Also allowing time to get the population vaccinated and hence protected. Can't speak for the USA but in Australia we are nearing 95% double vaccinated, the measures to control the virus are broadly supported by just about everyone in spite of what you might hear.
- betwixthewires 5y agoAnd is it working?
- spookthesunset 5y agoIt doesn't matter. People have convinced themselves these measures must work or "the experts" wouldn't have recommended doing them. The reality is they are participating in a giant uncontrolled experiment. There is probably a reason no society ever attempted to do this in the past (and probably will never do it again in the future). It doesn't work, and if it did, the benefits are so minute that they don't outweigh the immense societal costs. The very fact that people can legitimately question the efficiency of lockdowns means they aren't worth it. For lockdowns to be worth the cost their effect should be so apparent and dramatic that any reasonable person looking at the data would see it was worth it. If you need PhD level math to discern the difference between your control and test groups.... it means even if lockdowns work they aren't worth the cost.
- betwixthewires 5y agoMy question was a response to "what's your measure of success?" My measure of success is not how many people are vaccinated, how hard it is to travel, or any of the stuff I was responding to. I want to know if it works.