Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips
The vulnerable = 33%-50% of the population. How do you protect them without impacting the rest of the population?
|
There's a DEFCON 2 level, and a DEFCON 4 level, and they should not have the same levels of restrictions. (Nor is DEFCON 2 33-50%, and I'd argue even DEFCON 4 isn't but that would be a sidebar.)
We've decided as a society that keeping our economy going at 80% & letting 100% of people have the option to have a social life is more important than 1% of people dying. I actually agree with that side, and I've been pointing out since week 1 of lockdown that people weren't going to accept this without a definitive end point, but the bigger point is that it doesn't matter which side you or I come down on, because the decision has already been made by society. The theoretical arguments are over, the cat is not going back in the bag, and we can pretend we're a virtuous person because we're opposed to the fact the country is opening, or we can try to focus our efforts on making sure 500,000 old people die instead of 1,000,000.
How many more died in New York alone because of Cuomo's EO that nursing homes couldn't turn away COVID positive patients? How many more have died since because we're not focusing on that? (The county Charlotte is in has had a spike in deaths this past week mostly because there were outbreaks at 2 separate nursing homes.) Most importantly, how many more will die because the only age segregation we'll even discuss is once that limits the least vulnerable people instead of the most vulnerable ones?