22 upvotes, 3 direct replies (showing 3)
View submission: Why is focused protection/The Great Barrington Declaration so controversial?
I had someone on another sub tell me that focused protection was an impossible pie in the sky plan as the elderly/immunocompromised still needed health care and there was a chance that they could be exposed to Covid when leaving home! Even with testing the risk was too great, so supposedly we needed lockdowns to reduce it enough.
Comment by henrik_se at 27/01/2025 at 04:07 UTC
17 upvotes, 1 direct replies
was an impossible pie in the sky plan as the elderly/immunocompromised still needed health care and there was a chance that they could be exposed to Covid when leaving home!
...as opposed to what actually happened when only ~70% were locked down, because it turns out we couldn't lock everyone down?
Always remember that the counter-argument to focused protection is that society *magically* can achieve 100% lockdown, and that such a lockdown would stop the spread, and focused protection is obviously worse than that *magical, hypothetical* alternative.
Comment by Huey-_-Freeman at 27/01/2025 at 03:33 UTC
13 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I mean they are right that elderly people won't live on another planet, but that's why those who come into contact with them often , like healthcare professionals, have a key responsibility in focused protection
Comment by marcginla at 27/01/2025 at 23:10 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
an impossible pie in the sky plan as the elderly/immunocompromised still needed health care
That strain of argument always infuriated me. "It's too hard to selectively protect elderly people, so we're just going to shut down all of society instead." As if that's actually *easier*?