|
|
|
|
|
by zuminator
2250 days ago
|
|
Let's not lose sight of the reason why lockdowns were advised in the first place. Absent the data from widespread testing, the spread of the disease was consistent with two epidemiological models -- low-contagion/high-mortality and high-contagion/low-mortality. In the latter model, there's not much to be done to stop the disease from infecting the population at large, and not that much that needs to be done, since the vast majority of people will emerge unscathed. But in the former model, it matters tremendously -- doing nothing will slowly but surely result in vast loss of life but quarantines can stop the disease dead in its tracks. Therefore the most cautious course of action, from a public health perspective, was to assume the former and proceed with a regime of extreme social distancing. Unfortunately doing so had dire economic consequences. |
|