Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees
Because you're changing people's behaviours and how they can interact, person A catches virus but doesn't go to work (ie a restaurant) because it's shut, they therefore don't have a significant chance of passing the virus onto colleagues B,C & D and onto customers E-Z
It's called chains of transmission.
|
Absolutely.
Now let's go to the next stage and examine what happens when the lockdown ends.
---------- Post added at 16:50 ---------- Previous post was at 16:46 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees
No, he's not, allowing the virus to run riot from day one would have done significantly more damage to the economy than lockdowns ever have. We also would not have a health system anymore.
the belief that the same amount of people would be infected & that we would experience the same levels of hospitalizations & deaths regardless of iwe locked down or not, is at best dumb ignorance and at worst a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation.
|
Where are you coming from?!!
Yes, the lockdowns were imposed to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. But where do you get the idea that when the lockdown ends, it doesn't all start up again? Did you not notice the second wave? Or the third...
I think the scientists are all agreed that lockdowns delay, rather than prevent transmission.