 |
| With h/t to PN |
This is dramatic proof of what I’ve been saying for some time: that the lockdowns are not effective. What is effective is protecting the most vulnerable, ie, the elderly and especially elderly with pre-existing conditions. For the rest of us: disinfect, distance and mask.
It’s what makes me think that the recent reimposed lockdown we have here in Hong Kong is useless. Why close pools, when we know that there’s not been a single case of transmission from a swim at your local? Reason for no infections at pools is simple: chlorine, open air and sunlight (UV) combine to kill the germ. And schools? well, we know they’re pretty much immune, so why close them also? All that is happening because the public wants it, because the public believes what the governments around the world have been telling them, that this virus is extremely dangerous (it isn’t: the Case Fatality Rate is between 0.2 and 0.4%) and that it can easily transmit (it can’t, except in specific circumstances, which we’re getting better at identifying).Here you have another case of the New York Times running a “narrative” rather than the news, when it says that we must “learn lessons” from Sweden. Yes we must, but not the ones the Times wants us to learn: viz, that lockdowns are a must. The lessons we must learn are that we do better when we count on people’s innate good sense to do the right thing, as long as we are clear on what that is: namely: distance, mask and disinfect. And protect the elderly, especially those with preexisting conditions.
Oh dear.... we are being Covid-clobbered, and not in a good way.
Link
