But are those being ignored (not sure about the Amoeba bit)? Do we routinely mock those who say smoking is bad? Do we ignore traffic fatalities by ripping seat belts and air bags out of vehicles? Are autonomous vehicles widely derided as not useful?
The response absolutely needs to be proportionate to the risk. I never said anything different. In fact, in NYC most of the city is open again, because the impact and risk have been reduced -- by taking the virus seriously and a broad segment of the population are taking steps to protect themselves and others. What's more, widespread testing and tracing enable us to identify outbreaks and limit their spread.
I don't see that as overreaction. I see it as taking a public health issue seriously and engaging the populace in mitigating/minimizing it.
>If you say none, do you agree that the measure still needs to fit the threat? Stopping driving would eliminate the cause of death, but it would cause other problems.
I didn't say anything even approaching that. Please don't try to put words in my mouth.
Some preventive measures are clearly justified. Wearing a mask requires little more effort than wearing a seat belt and refusing to wear one is pretty childish at this point.
Losing precious time with family is a lot harder and a sacrifice few people would consider making in the face of traffic fatalities.
I agree. In fact, I've had to come to the realization that I may never be able see and hug my ailing mother ever again, as she lives on the other side of the country.
I hope that isn't the case, but it may well be so.
The point is that we didn't ban smoking or driving. We did ban being close to other people.
Not being close to other people is the most effective measure to stop this pandemic. Wearing a mask while sitting in a badly ventilated room with many others is considered high risk by most experts. While the lockdown let the infection numbers collapse the mask requirements showed little impact so far.
So banning being close is what happened and helped.
Actually, we did. Especially in places where masks are currently required. When was the last time you could just light up a cigarette or cigar (or a joint for that matter) in a restaurant, bar, shop or other indoor venue?
I bet that kids born today will not consider wearing a mask when you're sick to be this outrageous affront to freedom, since they'll be used to it by the time they grow up.
That's very different than forcing everyone to wear masks all the time just in case anyone is ever sick.
Maybe I should have used: In case you say none
> I didn't say anything even approaching that. Please don't try to put words in my mouth.
Neither did GP umvi say anything approaching
>>> [...] 200,000+ deaths in the US doesn't constitute something serious and worthy of attention and efforts to mitigate/minimize the impact [...]
Since we all now agree that no mitigation measures are bad and total measures are bad, we’re back to arguing what is the right middle ground.
How about social distancing, mask wearing, basic hygiene, widespread testing/tracing, keeping the sick away from the healthy, limited restrictions in areas with outbreaks/clusters, etc.?
You know, the stuff that the public health experts have been recommending throughout?
I'm not sure that there's really much argument to be had that such measures (given that they've been pretty much standard procedure for disease outbreaks for decades) are appropriate and effective.
I thought 8 months ago experts agreed that paper masks were useless for the general public.
30? years ago herd immunity was an agreed approach for measles. 10 months ago it was the general approach to the common cold in kindergardens.
EDIT: I personally think that pebbles in the shoes would be more effective than masks because it would make people stay at home even more.
Herd immunity, to my knowledge, has never developed for the common cold, because there are several hundred viruses responsible and they're rather changeable. The general approach, as I recall it, was, "we can't do anything about it, but it doesn't kill too many people, and those at risk can get flu and pneumonia vaccinations."
And herd immunity for measles is due to vaccination. If measles were a novel disease, you would be seeing lockdowns that make San Quentin look open and free.
Out of curiosity, how many deaths do you consider little enough to be ignored? 400,000? (Smoking) 35,000? (Traffic accidents) 5? (Amoeba infecting the brain)
If you say none, do you agree that the measure still needs to fit the threat? Stopping driving would eliminate that cause of death, but it would cause other problems.