Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the lockdowns-were-supposed-to-be-just-one-part-of-defense-at-depth dept.

Economists warn of 'widespread costs' from lockdown:

Blanket restrictions on economic activity should be lifted and replaced with measures targeted specifically at groups most at risk, say economists.

[...] They argue that while the extent to which the lockdown contributed to a subsequent slowing in the rate of new infections and deaths is not easy to estimate precisely, it seems clear that it did contribute to these public health objectives.

However, they say it is "very far from clear" whether keeping such tight restrictions in place for three months until the end of June when they began to be lifted was warranted, given the large costs. They say that the costs of carrying on with such a lockdown are likely to have become significantly greater than its benefits.

Debate over the global dilemma continues.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:22PM (1 child)

    by slinches (5049) on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:22PM (#1028748)

    For one, it isn't two weeks. It would be two weeks as many times over as there are people who are cohabiting that location that have any symptoms (months in some cases). And those who realize they are sick after the quarantine starts would not be able to seek care, since they likely won't have the necessary medical professionals and services available to them without breaking isolation.

    Quarantine only works if you can quickly identify and collect the sick people into an area where they can be treated and isolated from the rest of society. The lockdowns were never intended or able to stop the spread, only limit it to prevent overwhelming the hospitals. For the most part, we can call that a success. Continuing the lockdowns on people with the lowest risk while there's excess hospital capacity available might delay a few deaths, but it also incurs huge costs on society in terms of the economics, mental and emotional wellbeing and delays the development of immunity/resistance within the population.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:28PM (#1028890)

    Incorrect. You do not isolate individuals, you quarantine areas, and wait for that area to reach a herd immunity, to stop being a locus of spreading infection. Or, you go Medieval, and burn the entire neighborhood to the ground. Preferably from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.