3 ms·
But isn’t that how retrospectives work? The initial reason for imposing the measure isn’t the point. The point is to understand whether the measure was effect
by dent9876543 3y ago
But isn’t that how retrospectives work?
The initial reason for imposing the measure isn’t the point.
The point is to understand whether the measure was effective.
- adamredwoods 3y agoKids were not affected by the virus as much as adults, so why did the article call it out? It was the passing of the virus to elder adults that the shutdown was trying to prevent.
- dent9876543 3y agoBecause the effect doesn't really become significant until middle-age, and while the slope rises fast from there, it was always understood to be something that all but the oldest of immune systems could handle. The shutdown was initially to protect health services from becoming overwhelmed. Although it was later re-interpreted as you suggest, that was never a purpose grounded in either good science or evidence. Although it would have been hard to protect the virus from spreading to the middle aged, we could very easily have limited its spread amongst the oldest and most vulnerable. The size of the group is much smaller, and it would have been easier. "All" it needed was for people to focus their protection efforts. As it was, we tried to protect everyone. It was a waste of resources, and far worse than that, it failed to provide substantial protection to anyone.