Comment by henrik_se on 27/01/2025 at 04:07 UTC

18 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)

View submission: Why is focused protection/The Great Barrington Declaration so controversial?

View parent comment

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.

Replies

Comment by SunriseInLot42 at 27/01/2025 at 14:12 UTC

6 upvotes, 0 direct replies

Nah, less than 70%. There’s way too many people who have to be *at work* for the laptop class to sit on their asses at home and virtue-signal about it. Without the people at work, the lights go out, the water shuts off, the deliveries stop, and the whole farce never happens.