At first the thesis was to flatten the curve, which I agreed with. Hammering down our economy every 2 months to try containment is not that. In the last 3 weeks 15 million people were put out of work. That will keep going up. This kills far more people than the virus, imo.
I think right now we need a stricter national lockdown (the semi-strict lockdown hurts the economy almost as much as a stricter one, and gives not much more joy so we might as well just shift to a stricter one that kill the virus faster), but after that we can switch to one for
-
-
-
After the first lockdown they don’t have to be national if you test competently.
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
sensitive groups only. With that said, I think that would only be suitable if: 1. We are confident the virus does no long-term damage (unclear) 2. Young people living with old people realize that they may kill their (grand)parents when they come home (does gov't have a
-
responsibility to protect them?) 3. There are fantastic controls placed on old folks' homes. Our government hasn't shown it has the competence to pull off 3, 2 is a permanent problem, and 1 is unclear. Therefore, yeah maybe in the future, but not now.
End of conversation
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.