Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Strategies “not put to the test”’ often fail at the desk based assessment. Either because they’re impractical, unworkable or frankly laughably bad.
4% of the population and 50,000 deaths. So are 800,000 deaths acceptable to get to 80% for a level of long term immunity that’s unknown?
|
41,000 dead, but let's not quibble over your 20% uplift. and of those only a very small number had no other contributing factor in addition to Covid.
I'm saying that we know the is a much lesser impact to the generally fit, not obese, younger (say u50 but not ltd to that) population.
Instead of Lockdowns which are just to much of a blunt instrument, These people should be able to go about their business, whilst still undertaking mitigations, if they are infected ride it out, it is unlikely they will die, or overwhelm the NHS.
Meanwhile all at risk groups should continue to shield.
Quote:
|
As I’ve said before if any of these ideas were any good someone, somewhere would be putting them to the test and having neither the health nor soggnificant economic impacts. Yet, nobody does.
|
We can't all be visionaries
Quote:
In decades to come people will look back and ask why with all of human accomplishment to date they couldn’t keep 7 billion people apart as much as possible for 3 months give or take but instead accepted years of uncertainly and economic failure.
Madness.
|
we tried the 3 months is up. time to think differently.