Quote (Thor123422 @ 26 Jul 2020 02:39)
Lockdowns aren't the best way to actually prevent the spread. They're the last-ditch effort when you refuse to do anything else and the most expensive method. If we had taken the WHO's testing protocol instead of insisting on developing our own, had started mandatory production under the presidential emergency powers (that took Trump a very long time to use, and he only mandated ventilators from like one company) and he hadn't actively undermined the efforts to contain spread we would be in a much better place.
Like, yeah, he got a bad roll, but he made it as bad as possible by literally only making bad moves.
Most of those other countries you keep talking about also had to use lockdowns, despite not refusing to do anything.
I think I did a bad job communicating my point clearly, which was in response to what you said earlier:
Quote
"If Trump had taken adequate action we probably still wouldn't be South Korea, but we could at least be Germany."
First, I dont think that you would be as well off as Germany. The outbreak in NYC seemed very nasty and abrupt, even by covid standards, while Germany seems to have gotten relatively lucky when you compare the timing of its outbreak, the timing and strictness of its countermeasures as well as the evolution of its daily case numbers with surrounding European countries.
Second, the situation in Germany seems to be starting to slip, like in the big majority of industriaized countries. So it's easily possible that Germany/France/Japan/Australia/Israel/Spain/etc. are only lagging behind the development in the U.S. by a month or so. It's easily possible that the contrast between the US and the other first world countries will be far less stark in 2-4 weeks than it currently is.
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.