#61 ·
Chris Williams said:bluemason3
That comparison simply doesn't apply here. Not at all...
A more appropriate analogy might be this: imagine someone has a massive ulcer or a deep wound on their leg—severely inflamed tissue that could lead to sepsis. Most doctors tell them, "To be safe, you need to amputate the leg." That would certainly heal the ulcer and eliminate the danger. However, a small minority of doctors argue—since you'll lose the leg anyway, let's just try treating the ulcer instead. So, what I am questioning is whether amputation is actually better than treatment, based on the arguments provided to me. I don't need a PhD in anything to exercise basic common sense.
And now, governments are fueling mass hysteria and madness by locking people under house arrest. Life has come to a standstill; they are amputating the economy, gutting industry, and threatening the very foundations of an already fragile global economy, even risking social order itself. They risk famine and poverty, potentially bankrupting nations, all just to reduce what is claimed to be high mortality.
"Claimed," because so far, the death toll relative to 7 billion people isn't even particularly high compared to the seasonal flu. As a consequence of these decisions—the scale of which we can't even fathom—we will be living in a post-Corona era for years, much like the person who had to have their leg cut off because most doctors insisted it was the only way to deal with an ulcer.
Regarding an approach that avoids amputating everything everywhere, and why I find the alternative more logical: look at South Korea. They didn't shut down their entire economy; they implemented a different model. I won't go into too much detail, but you can see it here.
And then look at Sweden, which barely does anything at all, yet their numbers are similar to countries where citizens are forced to hide in their apartments like mice while police drive them back home if they dare to take a walk in the park.
We only have about 4 million people here, a tiny nation with a population roughly the size of two neighborhoods in Tokyo (which has 34 million people). When Alma is asked why they aren't testing more, as the Koreans do, she philosophizes that it's pointless and disagrees with the method, claiming it's not the right way. You don't need a doctorate to see that the Korean approach yields results, while she just talks in circles without providing real arguments for why we should amputate our legs instead of saving them. A monkey just does what a monkey sees.
That’s a different story. Obviously, people have varying opinions on the best response, but the real issue is there's too much debate over whether sepsis is actually going to be a factor.
If 9 out of 10 doctors tell you there's a high probability of sepsis, while only 1 out of 10 says there's no chance, which side makes more sense to lean on?
If we had clear answers regarding virus lethality, transmission methods, climate responses, mutation potential, or even mortality rates, the debate would be much easier to navigate. But we aren't there yet. So much remains unknown, and updates happen daily. Given how critical everything is, these updates often lack the rigor of established research because they haven't gone through the usual slow verification processes. It's easy to see people jumping to conclusions here.
I'm not claiming our approach is necessarily better than Sweden's—time will tell—but there’s no reason to assume the opposite either. When you're dealing with this many unknowns, it isn't illogical to choose the risk of being overly cautious rather than underprepared.
Regarding those two countries, we could argue that Sweden's population is generally more disciplined and inclined to trust authority and follow guidelines compared to Mediterranean countries like Italy. It’s possible they stuck closer to non-binding recommendations, whereas Italians dealt with mandatory lockdowns (much like most Germanic or Northern regions, there is actual research on social cohesion and trust in government that supports this. We saw with Corona that places like Germany or even parts of East Asia responded better to the epidemic than Italy, Spain, or the USA...).
Still, I'm not convinced that means there isn't a difference. I don't follow it closely, but from what I've read, their situation looks worse than their neighbors, and they've started considering stricter measures too.
We'll see.
The Korean model just isn't applicable here; it's already too late, plus it's questionable how many countries actually have the infrastructure to pull off such massive testing. Generally, the market is facing a shortage of tests, and not every nation has the same medical, scientific, or industrial capacity relative to its population. From what I can see, the testing methods themselves are still constantly evolving.
I know a few cases, including one in my own family, where people were highly likely to be carriers but refused testing once symptoms appeared. One person only managed to get tested by running a fever and testing positive.
Clearly, we had a limited supply of tests and a very selective approach. The Medical Association even complained and pushed for more extensive testing, but the question is how feasible that is when there is a global shortage, making them both hard to find and expensive. And let's face it, we aren't exactly the world's medical hub or the wealthiest nation on earth.
