What I want to argue is that 'lockdowns' can never be justified because any ostensible justification for them is *self-nullifying*, in the sense that it must necessarily invoke a context whose severity is such that the 'lockdown' would not help. But, I don't have the intelligence
If you want to make it sound all proper you'd have to create a few fn based on Rt - how much "lockdowns" reduce Rt versus how much Rt goes down from people changing behavior to avoid. Put a value on cases prevented and a cost on the "lockdown". Flawless large calculation
-
-
What you seem to be getting at is that Rt would have to be high for a mild disease for lockdowns to appreciably change Rt in comparison to how people would choose to adapt but since the cost to a lockdown is high you're going to end up with a wasteful lockdown or a pointless one
-
The only thing that can change is if you could actually get Rt below 1 - then you could eliminate the virus entirely but people won't comply unless the virus is really scary or you're willing to act like China did.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.