The notion that a graduated quarantine protocol couldn't possibly contain an exception for elderly, obese, or immunocompromised school personnel and caregivers is entirely a feature of your own speculative fantasy. Maybe you should take it over to Twitter. I hear they're friendlier to such gimmickry there. Maybe get a rat-pack going, and…
The notion that a graduated quarantine protocol couldn't possibly contain an exception for elderly, obese, or immunocompromised school personnel and caregivers is entirely a feature of your own speculative fantasy.
Maybe you should take it over to Twitter. I hear they're friendlier to such gimmickry there. Maybe get a rat-pack going, and ratio anyone you can tag as The Enemy with a snark barrage comprised of similar scenarios, with extra hyperbole on top.
What you mock as "second-guessing", others refer to as medical review and risk assessment. For example this panel, which includes Martin Makary, MD, of Johns Hopkins University. https://www.c-span.org/video/?524736-1/centers-disease-controls-handling-covid-19# The written transcript is atrocious, worse than worthless (unless someone has cleaned it up since I've read it), but it makes for a thought-provoking listen.
At the very outset of the breakthrough of SARS-CoV-2 to the outside world in March 2020, I read an article that included comments by an unnamed Australian observer, giving his advice about the best way to stop the epidemic in its tracks: give $50,000 to every household in the country (131 million, in the US), in return for staying completely Wuhan-style locked down for a couple of months. The cost would have been a bit over $6 trillion.
At the time, I thought that was a really drastic recommendation. As it happens, we ended up disbursing around 2/3 that amount in cash handouts anyway, while locking down the country less effectively for a considerably longer expanse of time. (The NYT says it's more like 5/6 the amount https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/11/us/how-covid-stimulus-money-was-spent.html )
We'll never know if Total Quarantine in return for for $50,000 would have worked. It might be worth modeling something like that in advance, though, in case of the next breakout of an epidemic virus.
The notion that a graduated quarantine protocol couldn't possibly contain an exception for elderly, obese, or immunocompromised school personnel and caregivers is entirely a feature of your own speculative fantasy.
Maybe you should take it over to Twitter. I hear they're friendlier to such gimmickry there. Maybe get a rat-pack going, and ratio anyone you can tag as The Enemy with a snark barrage comprised of similar scenarios, with extra hyperbole on top.
What you mock as "second-guessing", others refer to as medical review and risk assessment. For example this panel, which includes Martin Makary, MD, of Johns Hopkins University. https://www.c-span.org/video/?524736-1/centers-disease-controls-handling-covid-19# The written transcript is atrocious, worse than worthless (unless someone has cleaned it up since I've read it), but it makes for a thought-provoking listen.
At the very outset of the breakthrough of SARS-CoV-2 to the outside world in March 2020, I read an article that included comments by an unnamed Australian observer, giving his advice about the best way to stop the epidemic in its tracks: give $50,000 to every household in the country (131 million, in the US), in return for staying completely Wuhan-style locked down for a couple of months. The cost would have been a bit over $6 trillion.
At the time, I thought that was a really drastic recommendation. As it happens, we ended up disbursing around 2/3 that amount in cash handouts anyway, while locking down the country less effectively for a considerably longer expanse of time. (The NYT says it's more like 5/6 the amount https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/11/us/how-covid-stimulus-money-was-spent.html )
We'll never know if Total Quarantine in return for for $50,000 would have worked. It might be worth modeling something like that in advance, though, in case of the next breakout of an epidemic virus.