2 ms·

I see, sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't know enough about the UK response to make a well-reasoned reply, except it sounds like a very strange decision t

I see, sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't know enough about the UK response to make a well-reasoned reply, except it sounds like a very strange decision to me. I suppose it could have been a form of pre-emptive triage to avoid hospital overload? It's always been my view that lockdown was the only response sufficiently effective to actually stop the spread in its tracks, and that's been proven in countries that locked down earlier, like Norway(at least in the first wave). The problem is that stopping the pandemic globally would more or less require a globally coordinated lockdown, which was never going to happen because we're just not at that level of internation cooperation in general, and it only takes one reckless government like Trump's or Bolsonaro's so ruin it for everyone. And it would probably be untenable for economic reasons as well.

katkatkatkatket 4y ago
>it sounds like a very strange decision to me. I suppose it could have been a form of pre-emptive triage to avoid hospital overload? Yes, it is very strange. In March 2020, we were promised a global pandemic the like of which had never been seen before, with the young and old alike dropping dead in the street. Despite it very quickly becoming apparent that this was not the case, the general response, public messaging, and state of mind for many continues as if that were true. >would more or less require a globally coordinated lockdown It would also require borders to be sealed shut to allcomers, which is not something that most Western countries are used to enforcing.