Quote (thesnipa @ Apr 1 2020 12:36pm)
The choice without the hindsight we have now was binary. mitigating actions, or herd immunity. it was the talk of worldwide policy for maybe a week.
you're just using hindsight to say "well of course it was only a .01% chance that it would happen because of course no large number of nations would have gone the herd immunity route". whereas at the time the media was presenting a "heres what happens if the world does that".
whether it was ever a chance that all nations would go the herd route or not shouldn't matter, it was partially due to those headlines and forecasts that so many nations started mitigating risks even before their governments made policy. less trips out, less gatherings, hand washings, sanitizing shared spaces, etc. none of these were govt mandated before they were implemented initially.
again, you're so hungry to demonize the media that you can only see the "here's what to expect" context, and not the "here's what could happen if we do nothing so start doing something now" context.
and maybe you're also forgetting that you openly wished for a nation to try full herd immunity. if u were a leader of a country you'd be shoveling boomers into furnaces right now.
Not really. At that time we already shut down schools, travel was plummeting, etc, which is precisely why i got annoyed by the 'if you do nothing here is some scary af number of people that will die' when government was already taking steps for the last week or two.
Early on we did have some countries that wanted to take the herd immunity route like Brazil and UK. I have no problem admitting that i was probably wrong and the social distancing/shutting everything down will lead to less death and maybe herd immunity is not the best course of action for massive countries.
This post was edited by ofthevoid on Apr 1 2020 12:10pm