05-06-2020, 09:33 AM
(05-06-2020, 09:19 AM)baggy1 Wrote: Ok - so taking away the 'science' and the personality behind all of this, what approach would you have taken? So far today you've used a questionable piece of data and focussed on a single scientist / advisor to argue your point, there are many other advisors involved in the decision making. And I would say that the vast majority of the population understand why we are locked down like this at the moment as it is in the best interests for everyone.
What would you have proposed? Just carry on without any restriction? or is there a half way house that you would suggest?
The only other way was testing on a national scale but at the start when we abandoned testing communities broadly the usual suspects were decrying this method as a waste of time. This is where apologists for those they ‘believe’ in are dangerous because they close down scrutiny of decisions that run contrary to what their football ahem political team do. Instead the criticise those for asking the questions.
The elephant in the room is we couldn’t do the Test Test Test method as we didn’t have the resources to do so. So lockdown was the only solution unless people are still trying to advocate the Herd Immunity / Take it in the Chin nonsense.

