California: Oh yeh… hold my beer
- Thread starter fsumc
- Start date
Apparently it’s new. But even if it was last year how would those numbers justify that response?
If it was March of last year that might be more reasonable because you’re trying to prevent something before it happens. If you could check a pandemic in a region and let it die out before it spreads outside that region you can avoid the whole pandemic. But if they’re basing that off of that level of a resurgence, theoretically that’s less helpful, though the thought process is the same. It’s incredibly aggressive, could be argued is overkill but if it prevents another wave then it’s not the worst idea. Let’s see if it works.
Can’t agree with you on that. If the lockdowns were successful why are they needed again? If the lockdowns were not successful what is the point in doing it again?
One 80 year old man who likely had other health conditions dies and they press the reset button. Going to destroy their economy and people’s livelihoods over something that isn’t very deadly to begin with. They are literally repeating all the mistakes everyone made last year.
Confirmed it is a new lockdown.
No you have to understand the concept of a lockdown. Lockdowns can be successful if they are early and incredibly aggressive and limited. If you can extinguish a virus before it spreads outside of particular area they are successful. Long-term lockdowns once the virus is already spread to far are pointless. You notice a small number of cases that may be why they’re trying this. Whether I would do it or not or whether it’s going to be successful is another story.
Where have lockdowns ever been successful in preventing/stopping a pandemic at a state level? I think we all fully understand the concept of a lockdown having lived through the past year, but where has a government ever stepped in fast enough to prevent one when you’re talking about closing down national and international borders?
See the original SARS infection and see Ebola outbreak’s historically. It is possible.
And both of those with a mortality rate around 50%. Australians can do what they want, it’s their country but treating a 1% mortality rate the same as a 50% mortality rate after watching the lockdowns fail last year would be infuriating. The comparison to Ebola and SARS lockdowns would make more sense if COVID-19 had been eradicated the first time and there was a fresh starting point. There has been no reset, it is still with us worldwide. I hope normal Californians are ready because this insanity looks right up their alley.
You realize that Covid is also SARS, Just a different version. And actually higher mortality rate works in your favor when you attempt to shut things down because it tends to kill its host before the host can spread it. Anyway I’m not advocating it I’m just saying it has worked before. Will it work here, I’d say unlikely because of how infectious COVID19 is, but it’s their choice to try.
Last edited:
Yes I do know that. And again, catching something early makes sense for a lockdown. I’m giving you props on that point. My rebuttal to that is we are almost two years removed from that “early on point” where this version of SARS could have been effected. The toothpaste is out of the tube. If a state tries to redo last year all hell will break loose here even in the most liberal states.
Get what you’re saying, good points. but A new surge can sometimes be prevented by a lockdown particularly an island nation/continent like Australia but it’s so infectious is incredibly unlikely to work. I don’t think I would try it anymore but that’s just me.
Similar threads
