Rightwing sociopathic quacks like @BjornLomborg: are ALWAYS on the wrong side of things precautionary, (including climate).
Saying "no worse than the flu" was ignorant 3 months ago; saying it after data from the past few weeks is outright malfeasance.
@Twitter blocks fakenews.https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1248666930313134083 …
-
-
Sure. But given the nature of fast-spreading infectious disease and our lack of good data, the risks are v asymmetric. Letting the genie out of the bottle is catastrophic; a marginal week of lockdown is “merely” awful. The only way to escape this trap & reopen is via mass testing
-
If it was difference between catastrophic and a couple of weeks of strong lock-down, you're right. But if lock-down needs to be very long, not at all clear. Interesting, Norway did cost-benefit analysis of strong/not-so-strong and found latter betterhttps://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1248287357457047555 …
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
This is the difference between Denmark/Norway/much-of-the-world and Sweden, which has still managed to stay below hospital capacity, but where the lockdown will be much less costly
-
Sweden is, by far, the best model. Common sense approach with far less destructive economic effects.
#OpenUpAmerica - Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
So random testing would allow to gauge where and how much lockdown is needed
-
Yes. Until we can vaccinate, if we want to reopen the economy, we need systematic mass surveillance testing and privacy-busting contact tracing. Seehttps://twitter.com/paulmromer/status/1248712889705410560 …
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.