2/ Interestingly, this is right around the time that we start to undo the lock-downs. This leads me to think that the unlock-cases-surge-relock scenario that we've all mostly assumed for a month or more is exactly what we're going to see. Since the goal of the lockdown >>>
-
Show this thread
-
3/ was never "let the virus burn out", but was instead "let our hospitals not be overwhelmed by a wave", the actual number of deaths and the actual schedule of opening up seem to be well in tune with that expressed goal.
1 reply 1 retweet 20 likesShow this thread -
4/ On this topic, I've got some folks (friends) suggesting that I'm a covid-maximalist. They think that I'm saying that the virus is ultra deadly and that I want lockdowns to continue forever. I've had others suggest that I'm a minimalist and don't want prudent norms. >
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
5/ Really, I'm just a guy who's observing data. I really don't have any opinions about what policy should be. I'm fairly allergic to "policy" in the first place. I'm taking care of my own garden, and I don't presume to take give gardening instructions to others.
1 reply 2 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
6/ (metaphorically, that is; my homesteading book has lots of literal garden instruction!)
4 replies 1 retweet 22 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @MorlockP
>the goal of the lockdown was never "let the virus burn out", but was instead "let our hospitals not be overwhelmed by a wave" There was no goal of the lockdown. There was no coherent strategy expressed by any authority at the time of the lockdown. +
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie @MorlockP
... any more than "get out of the house right now" is a coherent strategy for putting out a forest fire. The lockdown were an emergency action to try to stop the spread, which authorities had very reluctantly at that time recognized was a real threat. +
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @random_eddie @MorlockP
Finding, explaining, and pursuing a strategy to deal with the disease *long-term* would come later. And it has. There's emerged two clear paths - mitigate, avoid overwhelming hospitals, and develop herd immunity; and suppress, contain, and eradicate.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @random_eddie @MorlockP
To the extent that any authorities have yet chosen one of those to paths, they've chosen eradication. A very few have chosen herd-immunity. To say that we can loosen restrictions now because the hospitals won't be overwhelmed "which was the goal" is advocacy, not reality.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @random_eddie
> To say that we can loosen restrictions now because the hospitals won't be overwhelmed "which was the goal" is advocacy, not reality. no, it's not remotely advocacy, and you're choosing to be an asshole >>>
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I'm saying that if policy X wants to do Y when Z occurs, and Z is occurring in a week and Y seems to be occurring in a week too, then that seems to be well timed, by the light of the policy I don't know if Y is a good idea, and I do not endorse X you're trying to pick a fight
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP @random_eddie
by intentionally reading my as endorsing some policy when I EXPLICITLY SAID that I don't care about policy and don't endorse any policy I'm not sure why you're doing this, but wish you would stop.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.