It is absolutely stunning to observe how the scientific community has reacted to the public health aspects of the pandemic. When the fog clears, one of the consequences of the pandemic will be public distrust in science and scientists.
-
This would be a very bad strategy. Probably you also don’t know what Spiked is, or its history. Have a look at the Wikipedia article:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_(magazine) …
I am curious to know why you think it is a bad strategy. The key is to minimize mortality by the end of the pandemic.
-
-
The difficulty is twofold: firstly it’s not implementable. Secondly it definitely wouldn’t minimise death or economic damage. It’s better to try to implement implementable strategies. I’ve advocated a South Korean type response from the start, it’s certainly doing better than UK.
-
“Definite” how? It will absolutely minimize economic damage as more people will be employed, and fewer small businesses will close permanently. Do you understand macroeconomics? It’s also completely implementable if familiar practice responsible quarantine of vulnerable members.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Because it is impossible to completely isolate care homes/over 70s from the rest of society: it sounds like an attractive idea and advanced economies like Sweden and the Netherlands have tried it (and failed miserably)
- 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.