Jesus H Christ! One year into this bullshit it it hasn't sank in, yet!!? CASES ARE NOT DEATHS. An outbreak at the LTC facility is a tragedy while an outbreak at a high school is a shrug of the shoulders. They are NOT the same. The framing of the public policies based on the infection rates is the moron's solution.
X-Files;13330635 said:
The problems with this dangerous strategy is it failed in Sweden.
Sweden has way more total deaths than their 3 Nordic neighbours (Norway, Finland, Denmark) combined while Sweden has a 50% larger population than the 3 of them combined. And Sweden is no better off economically. Clearly hard lockdowns, as occurred in those 3 nations, were the superior choice to Sweden's soft voluntary isolation approach.
"Sweden dead = 5,918
Norway dead = 278
Finland dead = 346
Denmark dead = 677"
High risk people can't "stay away" from others who are infected because they have to work, eat, get medicines, go to clinics & hospitals, live in care homes, & live together with others who are not high risk.
Ladeda;13331136 said:
To eat, shop, get meds they can use the designated hours already set up for them.
That won't keep them from being infected from others who are infected at places where they get food, groceries, medicine, clinical or hospital care. And many such places have no "designated hours".
Ladeda;13331136 said:
Hospitals and doctors would have the same precautions being used currently.
Clinics & hospitals are where high risk people & low risk people congregate. So your plan for them to "stay away" from each other is not going to work. It's going to fail on multiple fronts, in multiple places. Not only in clinics & hospitals, but in grocery stores, work places, sidewalks, public transit, long term care homes, people's personal residences, etc.
With your plan to let low risk people do whatever they please, even more of them will end up sick & in hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, etc, so even more risk for high risk people going to those places.
Ladeda;13331136 said:
As for work, tough call, I suppose if they can prove they are truly high risk, they should have option to not work and get unemployment, but at reduced rate, not inflated rate.
With many, if not the vast majority, of countries worldwide that is simply not available and or not an option governments are willing to implement.
Ladeda;13331136 said:
Obviously if in a home or where ever the nurse / aides would need to take precautions..
Yet deaths continue there even under stricter conditions than you would prefer. You would allow people to do whatever they please, putting those nurses at greater risk of infection, which means the high risk people under their care are at higher risk of death because of your irresponsibility.
Ladeda;13331136 said:
They don't need to eat at restaurants, go to sporting events, concerts until they feel safe. But why keep younger, healthier citizens from doing those things.
See above. What the irresponsible do in acting less safely affects others who are at high risk. Studies prove this. That's how pandemics work.
Furthermore if younger healthier people do whatever they want & get infected, many of them will get sick & fill up hospitals putting a strain on them & risking them being overwhelmed.
Ladeda;13331136 said:
They same politicians who impose the strictest restrictions even know it's safe to do those things if healthy, even if they try to trick the gullible into being scared to death.
-Newsom in Cali
-Whitmers husband in Mich
-Mayor Kenny in Philly
-Governor Murphy in NJ
All despite telling the citizens under their control that it's not safe to eat out. That is putting others in danger as well. Each of them has been caught eating out with their families against their guidelines.
What hypocrites do is irrelevant. Because person A says its wrong to murder but does it himself is not a justification for doing what is wrong or an excuse for you to do the same.
To err is human. We're all sinners.
www.ctvnews.ca
www.blogto.com
