11–20 of 68 posts
Seeing as all these terrible economic outcomes would happen whether or not the virus infected the population, I think this is a pretty solid win and a poor article title.
I don’t understand how people can see a global response and repercussions like this and then politicize their local government’s attempt to keep the R0 below 2.5.
lethality was grossly overestimate and subsequent decision built off not only partial and incomplete data, but flat out wrong.
would full lock down have been the best course of action? probably still so. but the extent and duration and especially now follow up actions seem extremely exaggerated.
there's quite a difference in Italy for example from the "hundreds new cases a day" in march, with a unknown size pool of undetected cases, and "hundred new cases a day" but everyone else is fine and contact tracing will find the rest.
the issue is political because the GDP and welfare budget are intertwined. and then there's the big hairy issue with schooling.
the world isn't black and white and fighting the virus can't be the sole priority for six months, let alone one or more years.
but both now and yesterday people with a wide view of the issue were basically ostracized and chased away as if they were flat earther or antivaxxer.
it's about time people start questioning what is the long term plan and if the previous decisions were data driven or scare driven.
Seeing as all these terrible economic outcomes would happen whether or not the virus infected the population, I think this is a pretty solid win and a poor article title.
Covid is a win for nobody, not even the countries who kept it out. It's good that they kept it out, because it saves lives, but the economy takes a hit either way.
It sounds to me like the answer to the question is Yes, they won as best as they could have. When most of your GDP depends on tourism and exports, you lose a significant chunk of revenue due to the external effects of COVID-19 on your customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Covid is a win for nobody, not even the countries who kept it out. It's good that they kept it out, because it saves lives, but the economy takes a hit either way.
In what world is "economy takes a hit" not a win over "economy takes a hit and tens of thousands of people die"?
This article's casual collusion of winning in terms of not losing any lives to the virus and winning in terms of the tourist industry taking a hit is crass, at best.
"Economy taking a hit" is just an euphemism for real tragedies, like people losing their jobs, their homes, not being able to pay for healthcare, etc. I read that there was a spike in suicides since the beginning of the lockdowns for those very reasons.
So now you can weight number of lives saved from COVID vs number of lives destroyed by lockdows, and only then you'll know if they were worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what world is "economy takes a hit" not a win over "economy takes a hit and tens of thousands of people die"?
My concern is about the exit strategy. Most countries don't expect to eradicate the virus for decades, if ever, and vaccines are expected to be only partially effective. After months and potentially years of keeping the virus out, will these countries ever be able to switch and decide it's safe to let the virus in?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Covid is a win for nobody, not even the countries who kept it out. It's good that they kept it out, because it saves lives, but the economy takes a hit either way.
In what world is "economy takes a hit" not a win over "economy takes a hit and tens of thousands of people die"?