Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Your obviously didn’t even bother to look at the link. If you did you will have seen that it was not an “internet story” but a scientific paper written by the “ Members of the Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases (CMMID) nCoV working group and published by the “European Centre for disease prevention and control
I know you’re Cable Forums Junior Virologist but these guys definitely out rank you.
|
You will find that many different things, in isolation, aren’t considered effective. That doesn’t mean that combined with other measures they aren’t somewhat effective.
I know it’s quite big picture and that can be a struggle for some that get stuck in pedantry but closing schools “isn’t effective”, ending mass gatherings “isn’t effective”.
The obvious point being if we had a 100% effective method of preventing spread we’ve had done it now.
Lockdown measures are the aggregate of “ineffective measures” aiming to get to 100% effective. The article points to 44 out of 100 infected passengers being identified. Presumably, even an armchair analyst such as yourself would rather identify them than let them out into central London for the somewhat limited time and effort it would cost compared to say, the Chancellors support package and a 35% drop in GDP?