Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Towney007, post: 3549815, member: 5832"] Yeah I agree w/ most of this. I don't get people that think this was going to end before June. Every chart everywhere had us ramping back up around early to mid June, and that seemed optimistic to me. And i'm a pretty hard-line supporter of us doing this as long as it's sustainable. But I do that understanding that this isn't a solution by any means, whatsoever and just in terms of communicating to the public, here; the idea with the lockdown is that we were going to do this to flatten the curve and make it more manageable for hospitals so that we could treat it more effectively over the long-run; understanding that a vaccine was way far off in the future and that we'd likely incur spikes over the next few years. Never at any, one point - was this ever 'shut everything down until we find a cure.' Those are two entirely different things - and I feel like like a lot of the rhetoric being flung back and forth has sorta lullabied pro-lockdown leaders into policy positions that support more of a 'we're doing this until we're cured' as opposed to what the original intent was. The idea that extended lockdown is even possible as a form of sustainable policy - to me - is a non-starter. Potentially catastrophic damage and civil unrest are baked into it. Humans are top of the food chain because we work together to accomplish a variety of tasks - from food, hunting, killing, shopping, playing, you name it... We're social animals. This idea that people are going to miraculously kick 100 million years of instinctive and learned human behavior overnight because some scientists and bureaucrats have some peer reviewed research papers is 100% JUST as bonkers and unrealistic as thinking we should open the economy right this second. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach