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
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.
-
-
china had spread. they just lied about it
-
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I tend to disagree - it's not actually hard to drive the virus to extinction and that USG and its clients can't because of an insane ideology is an indictment of them but there's no way to know for certain since every source of information is tainted.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Think I’d add: the difficulty of sustaining Rt<<1 via ‘lockdowns’ isn’t merely that ‘people won’t comply’ out of stubbornness. People *can’t* comply w/full ‘lockdown’; they would literally die. For better or worse we have a way of life leveraged to an interconnected society.
-
Lockdown defenders might then say: oh c’mon we don’t mean FULL lockdown, we’ll allow ‘essential’ stuff. Ok then, bye bye R<<1. Self-nullifying
- 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.