
 Originally Posted by 
superquag
					 
				 
				......
If true, the danger of the virus may have been greatly exaggerated by the media, and shelter in place orders/lockdown policies could potentially cause more damage than they prevent... "
Discuss.
			
		 
	 
 These ideas simply fail to come even close to the documented data. There is no question that we are dealing with a new virus that is very dangerous because it is extremely infectious, has a long incubation period, and a fatality rate of around ten times that of influenza. It has no known treatment.
The correct way of dealing with this sort of epidemic has been known for hundreds of years, and history has shown that those jurisdictions that use lockdowns and movement restrictions suffer both fewer deaths and less economic damage. 
But we do not even have to go to history. All we have to do is look at the situation for jurisdictions that have used lockdowns (early) and compare them with those that have said "its a media beatup", its no worse than flu", its a Democratic hoax". 
For example, compare Australia with the state of Texas - about the same population - Texas has ten times the number of deaths.
The only  people who push these ideas are either those who think that the theory of infection and mathematics does not apply to them, or those who think that their wellbeing benefit outweighs someone else's life.
It is not a choice between lockdown with economic and social problems as a result, and life as it was, but a choice between lockdowns and far greater loss of life, even worse social and economic problems as a result of the loss of life and the breakdown of the medical system. You just have to look at Italy or the situation developing in the US, or Brazil, or Indonesia, and compare it to the situation in Australia, or NZ, or South Korea or Taiwan.
				
			 
			
		 
			
				
			
			
				John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
			
			
		 
	
Bookmarks