3 ms·
It’s the old no true lockdown argument; if the lockdown fails it’s because it wasn’t tough enough or because it was followed or enforced strictly enough. An ea
by tinus_hn 5y ago
It’s the old no true lockdown argument; if the lockdown fails it’s because it wasn’t tough enough or because it was followed or enforced strictly enough.
An easy fallacy to handwave away the possibility that the lockdown strategy just doesn’t work so well. Which is kind of obvious if you think it through; either the result is you eradicate the virus completely or the lockdown just delays the inevitable. And it should be clear by now that eradication is simply impossible and from very early on in the pandemic was just never going to happen.
- sharken 5y agoVery true, but if you can delay the inevitable long enough to get a substantial part of the population vaccinated, then there is value in that. However, that strategy fails when you don't have access to the vaccine.
- tinus_hn 5y agoIf you consider the few months of protection granted against severe disease, and not against infection, good enough and believe it’s possible and wise to keep giving people more and more ‘boosters’, and believe the risks of vaccines and an infinite list of boosters remain smaller than the risk of the disease itself and, should one choose to implement a mandate, the cost of losing the right to decide for yourself if you want the vaccine/boosters or not.
- sharken 5y agoI was only addressing the situation where nobody is vaccinated and the vaccine is being distributed. With booster shots it should never be an option to shut down society.
- landemva 5y agoYes, the argument that it would have worked _if_only_ is similar to the Marxist argument that it would have worked if only all countries had gone full Marxist. Top-down government control of economy and medicine rarely achieves the stated goals.