3 ms·
It's probably not as cut and dry as we'd like it to be. How do you weigh a number of children with hepatitis vs people missing out on care because hospitals are
by elric 4y ago
It's probably not as cut and dry as we'd like it to be. How do you weigh a number of children with hepatitis vs people missing out on care because hospitals are overwhelmed with covid patients (in a world where there were no lockdowns)? Can we confidently say "lockdowns were bad because X children got ill and only Y people would have suffered from hospital-collapse"? Or the reverse?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jl6 4y agoI agree, it's difficult to evaluate, and I think we would benefit from recognizing the difficulty, and acknowledging that there were a lot of sound arguments being made both for and against lockdowns, and that the decision was a grave one. I supported the initial 2020 lockdown, and I lament that it did not come sooner, but I also don't hurl vitriol against those who delayed the decision, because I know that their motivation was not malice, but balancing the totality of needs.
- hammock 4y agoYou could be right. How much of the reported hospital overwhelm was due to children being admitted with primary Covid infection?