4 ms·

Based on people I've discussed this with their explanation is: The data doesn't support lockdowns and madates for the masses. Deaths are typically a select subs

Based on people I've discussed this with their explanation is: The data doesn't support lockdowns and madates for the masses. Deaths are typically a select subset of the population. Hospitalizations much the same. Using a one size fit all solution - when surgical solutions are more appropriate -makes them suspect. Please don't shoot this messenger. I'm just providing context that tends to be missed elsewhere. p.s. fwiw, there were these in the past week or so: https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-health-pandemics-united-nations-fcf28a83c9352a67e50aa2172eb01a2f https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-heal... https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211122-could-mrna-make-us-superhuman https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211122-could-mrna-make-... Both of those certain raise a reasonable eyebrow.

nicoburns 5y ago
Aside from ethical concerns around shutting a subset of the population out of society to benefit others, that presumes that a selective approach would be effective, and that it is feasible to segregate the vulnerable and non-vulnerable populations. Do you have any practical suggestions as to how that might be implemented? As a I believe that’s why it hasn’t been attempted.
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  Again, I'm just the messenger. But the gist I get is this: locking down select subsets (of high risk individuals) is doable simply because locking down everyone is doable. But speaking for myself, the fact that early on there were such a ridiculous number of deaths in retirement homes (primarily in NY, NJ, PA and CA) never smelled right to me. We had data - openly mentioned in the media - about Italy and the elderly and yet the same thing happened here? It's been all down hill since then.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > locking down select subsets (of high risk individuals) is doable We can’t convince an idiot minority to spend five minutes getting a shot. We’re supposed to trust them to confine themselves at home?
    - chiefalchemist 5y ago
      You don't understand the problem, do you? Nor do you understand you're part of that problem. It's - by definition - is a pandemic of everybody. Anyone who suggests otherwise is suspect. Those ppl fuel the discontent. The fact that they're allowed to furthers the divide. The phrase that comes to mind is: "Divided we fall." An absolute truth if there ever was one.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rajin444 5y ago
  It's shutting out a tiny elderly subset for the benefit of all vs shutting down all for the benefit of a tiny elderly subset. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but your ethical concern should be 2 sided.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    What is the proposed method of actually isolating the most vulnerable parts of society? I don't see how you do it in any meaningful way (At the very most vulnerable end, they are dependent on lots of people that are less vulnerable...).
    - metamet 5y ago
      To that point, my grandma's retirement home was as well locked down as possible. But you know who didn't take it seriously? The staff who worked there and brought COVID in, which ended up killing her. There's no way of isolating them without isolating their staff, their families, everyone they interact with. With a virus as contagious as COVID, there doesn't appear to be a way to target portions of the population effectively.
      - DenisM 5y ago
        The staff could work like oil rig workers - in month-long shifts. Get quarantined for a week on the way in, do your shift, go home to your family. Not pleasant, but doable and a lot simpler than placing everyone's life on hold.
        chiefalchemist 5y ago
        An improvement in testing (accuracy + turnaround time + cost) would also help significantly. But there's been little talk in investing in such a tool. That strikes me as a red flag. Instead, we're betting on the jab, and apparently that's not working out well. At all.
      - nicoburns 5y ago

nicoburns 5y ago

Aside from ethical concerns around shutting a subset of the population out of society to benefit others, that presumes that a selective approach would be effective, and that it is feasible to segregate the vulnerable and non-vulnerable populations. Do you have any practical suggestions as to how that might be implemented? As a I believe that’s why it hasn’t been attempted.

chiefalchemist 5y ago
Again, I'm just the messenger. But the gist I get is this: locking down select subsets (of high risk individuals) is doable simply because locking down everyone is doable. But speaking for myself, the fact that early on there were such a ridiculous number of deaths in retirement homes (primarily in NY, NJ, PA and CA) never smelled right to me. We had data - openly mentioned in the media - about Italy and the elderly and yet the same thing happened here? It's been all down hill since then.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > locking down select subsets (of high risk individuals) is doable We can’t convince an idiot minority to spend five minutes getting a shot. We’re supposed to trust them to confine themselves at home?
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    You don't understand the problem, do you? Nor do you understand you're part of that problem. It's - by definition - is a pandemic of everybody. Anyone who suggests otherwise is suspect. Those ppl fuel the discontent. The fact that they're allowed to furthers the divide. The phrase that comes to mind is: "Divided we fall." An absolute truth if there ever was one.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rajin444 5y ago
It's shutting out a tiny elderly subset for the benefit of all vs shutting down all for the benefit of a tiny elderly subset. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but your ethical concern should be 2 sided.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  What is the proposed method of actually isolating the most vulnerable parts of society? I don't see how you do it in any meaningful way (At the very most vulnerable end, they are dependent on lots of people that are less vulnerable...).
  - metamet 5y ago
    To that point, my grandma's retirement home was as well locked down as possible. But you know who didn't take it seriously? The staff who worked there and brought COVID in, which ended up killing her. There's no way of isolating them without isolating their staff, their families, everyone they interact with. With a virus as contagious as COVID, there doesn't appear to be a way to target portions of the population effectively.
    - DenisM 5y ago
      The staff could work like oil rig workers - in month-long shifts. Get quarantined for a week on the way in, do your shift, go home to your family. Not pleasant, but doable and a lot simpler than placing everyone's life on hold.
      - chiefalchemist 5y ago
        An improvement in testing (accuracy + turnaround time + cost) would also help significantly. But there's been little talk in investing in such a tool. That strikes me as a red flag. Instead, we're betting on the jab, and apparently that's not working out well. At all.
    - nicoburns 5y ago