Quote:
Originally Posted by Liam-
Surely the amount of people that have died is a good place to start holding them to account?
|
Only if the number of deaths massively - and proportionately to population size and density - outweighs deaths elsewhere
at the end of the crisis. Since - and I know we all wish this was not true - we're barely in the beginning phases of the total toll of Covid-19 there's absolutely no way we can assess the overall damage or how it stacks up in comparison to other approaches. We're trying to compare nations right now when we have no idea what the eventual outcome is going to be, and comparing it based on ongoing data is utterly meaningless. For example, if a country that managed to completely nip the covid-19 infection in the bud this month suffers a complete economic collapse in a year's time as a result, and a more measured approach could have mitigated that, then a "as few immediate deaths as possible at all costs" approach will have been absolutely the wrong approach. Thus, comparing current death figures? Utterly pointless, one-dimensional "pop" outrage in a situation that's going to involve a decade or more of layer upon layer of complexity.
We're already seeing cancer patients slipping through the net and countless other unforeseen complications... we're less than two months in. We have no idea what this looks like in 6 months. "Not good" is probably an understated estimation.