Re:Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed ...
by orangecat on Friday November 13, 2020 @01:15PM
(#25085490)
it skips over the hard part of how "Focused Protection." is actually implemented
That's a reasonable criticism, but I would point out that the "responsible" strategy of trying to force entire populations into quarantine has not survived contact with reality either.
A worker at a care facility spread it to a set of vulnerable people
The worker should have been living on site, or if that's not possible seeing literally nobody outside of their job. And we should be paying them huge amounts of money to compensate for that disruption.
The volume of support is of course dubious as the only requirement for saying that a "medical professional" was signing it, was a check box on a web form.
the challenge I see with the declaration's approach is that (AFAIK) it skips over the hard part of how "Focused Protection." is actually implemented.
It's super easy to write a web page saying that we should use "focused protection" to avoid heavy loss of life to Covid, and much much harder to design and implement a workable strategy.
This article actually demonstrates that problem. A worker at a care facility spread it to a set of vulnerable people. How would "focused protection" have stopped that? There may be an answer, but I don't see that information from the Great Barrington declaration.