Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
It's not me bursting a blood vessel here, jfman. I am going to let you take a spell to calm yourself.
I have made my views perfectly clear for most people but you are either not understanding them or you are deliberately trying to send me up.
I also understand what you are saying. However, I don't think any amount of arguing will resolve the differences between us on this.
I guess we will soon see what doesn't work and what does.
---------- Post added at 14:16 ---------- Previous post was at 14:08 ----------
This is why the lockdown was introduced, to flatten out the statistics. So we agree on that.
Where we diverge is that you say (if I interpret you correctly) that the lockdown should continue to avoid deaths.
However, it won't. The virus will still claim its victims, but not so quickly.
Would it not be better to protect the vulnerable and let herd immunity do its magic with the healthier population, ensuring that the vulnerable are among the 20% who escape its impact? That's what I am advocating.
That way, we minimise the impact and get the economy going again.
However, whether even that would succeed is debateable. The elderly in care homes are dying in great numbers, despite being given as much isolation as is practicable. However maybe, just maybe, we can protect the vulnerable in their own homes.
|
No, that idea is of no more value now than when it was dismissed out of hand by going into lockdown.
There's nothing magic about 250,000 deaths. I have to say I find some of your use of language here utterly appalling.