Which is the more reasonable approach a society might take in the outbreak of epidemic: 1. To quarantine the sick, and take reasonable precautions to stop those who are identified as vulnerable from contracting the illness. 2. To attempt to “control the virus” by preventing millions of healthy people from having contact with other healthy people.
by Rob Slane via TheBlogMiore.com
To any society prior to 2020, it would have been obvious that the first approach is not only logical and proportionate, but the one least likely to have other unintended and highly destructive consequences.
However, to my continued astonishment, many in our society not only believe that the answer is the second, but they somehow believe it to be based on established science.
Now I understand that many who support Lockdown will object to my characterisation of their position. They will say that it is deliberately misleading, since it talks about healthy people, and does not mention the sick. Such objections founder, however, on this undeniable fact:
Lockdowns are, by their nature, an entirely untargeted and indiscriminate approach to a health issue, and the prohibiting by law of millions of healthy people from having contact with other healthy people is a feature, not a bug of a policy that was untried and untested before it was first implemented by the Chinese Communist Party in January last year, then copied by many Governments around the world thereafter.
For some reason, many Lockdownists seem to think that the onus is on Lockdown opponents to disprove their position. But as Dr Malcolm Kendrick points out in his excellent piece – Does Lockdown Work or Not, this is the opposite of how things are supposed to work: