This viewpoint is the one the authorities provide. I know it, Paul. It is a question of spreading the epidemic over time in order to avoid hospital overcrowding.
But what I have written above is not a fallacy, because about 1% of deaths among the infected people is what we can expect in the end on average, containment or not. And above all, there are other criteria to take into account than the virus.
For example, how many people will be made precarious by the economic consequences of these measures? How many will have psychological after-effects? How much time in the lives of young people is going to be sacrificed, when they risk practically nothing?
In other words, the measures are taken as if there was only one criterion, the number of deaths and the impossibility of treating the patients, as if there were no alternative, and as if any means had to be accepted for this purpose.
The impossibility to treat is partly due to the negligence of politicians: hospitals were already overloaded, at least in France, before the epidemic began, so obviously the slightest surplus of patients is a catastrophe.
There are alternatives, such as setting up country hospitals, for example in municipal wards, with respiratory equipment and requisitioning general practitioners.
Finally, even if there were no alternatives, the idea that the end justifies any means is completely questionable. Why not also prevent everyone from having access to public places, under the pretext that public places are the places where terrorist acts are perpetrated?
Positions regarding the management of the epidemic, although politicians try to present them to us as rational and the best, are filled with arbitrary and questionable implicit criteria.
Rather, I have the impression that the rulers of each country hope that, at the end of the epidemic, they will not have to present a death toll that is worse than the others. Taking risks with original solutions is out of the question for them. Containment imposed almost everywhere is imposed not because it is the best solution, but because it is a conventional easy position that they can all align with. Aligning with each other is their method. And also, exercising power over the citizen is what motivates a politician, it's combining business with pleasure.
My opinion is that individual liberty should not be prohibited for any pretext, and certainly not in the name of an epidemic that only causes 1% of deaths among those infected, many of whom are already at the end of their lives. It is up to each individual to limit his or her risks by his or her own choices, and up to the politicians to inform them and to size up the healthcare system.
Author
Topic: Dislodge your brain! (Read 23028 times)
