Originally Posted by
Sam Ting Wong
I actually agree, maybe we should explore ways to isolate risk groups. I also share your scepticism about Chinese statistics.
However, there are two flaws in your argument, with all due respect.
First, you reject the right of any government to restrict movement of its citizens, in principle. How can you then order members of the risk group to self- isolate?
Second, you did not address the problem of hospitalization. Your ratio of 0.6% is a mortality rate. A free movement of the remaining 99.4% of the population, as you suggest, would still cause the collapse of any health system.
The US has, for all intensive purposes, free movement with a few states and cities as exceptions. Yes, the infections (and testing rates) are high, yet the hospital systems are nowhere close to being overwhelmed. In fact, many are laying off staff (the opposite of all hands on deck). There have been instances of potential hospital capacity problems (ie NYC, NJ, Houston, etc.); but those have been managed well imo. In those instances, perhaps restrictions are appropriate???
As to your other point, if the 0.6% wants to gamble with their life, that is 100% their choice. Most of those I know are being quite careful without having to be told.