daswede wrote:
ex-runner wrote:
So what you are saying is that medical care is pointless? Hospitals are useless? Everyone who catches it should stay at home and either die or survive?
Perhaps you would give this advice to your parents or other elderly family who might catch the virus?
The whole point of a lockdown is to reduce the max load on the hospitals, so that there are beds available should patients need them. If everyone catches it at the same time they would be coughing themselves to death in the corridors.
Yes. Your doom and gloom scenario didn't play out in Sweden. Try again.
What?
That is exactly what was happening in more densely populated cities and towns in other countries before the lockdowns, such as China, NYC and Italy.
I am quite clearly stating that Sweden is not the example country that all other states should follow, because the sparse population, large outdoor spaces and high standards of health mean that it has no relevence to dense, overcrowded cities whose population spend 99% of their time indoors (work, subway, block of apartments).
Milder precautions might have worked in Sweden (although the numbers don't really show that), but they certainly do NOT work in dense cities.
A lockdown absolutely works in slowing the spread of a virus. We have seen that in all countries. Nowhere did a lockdown cause cases to increase. However, I recognise that only buys you time; time which you can use to better treat patients and time to learn about the disease and beat it.
So what the anti-lockdown people are really saying is "I think it's fine to sacrifice many people in order to avoid economic downturn". That's your opinion, and it is an ethical discussion.
But don't act like science supports the idea that no lockdown is better from a human health point of view. It doesn't. Let's have the real discussion you want to have.