Originally Posted by dantheman
I seem to recall some on this forum saying 4 or 5 weeks ago that the priority was protecting the elderly (almost at all costs) and the idea being poo-poohed ...
Of course we're not the ones in power, but still.
Oh yes, right, poo... It's the "at all costs" part that's the problem. Still I'd think more could have been done, practically everywhere. But in any case, you can't justify lockdowns by the need to protect the elderly when they don't.
And no we're not in power, but we do elect those who are and might at least expect to have some attempt made to explain a strategy to us, and some interest shown in our reactions to it.
Under the circumstances I'm not sure that "Leadership" is quite the right word for that, but something has certainly been missing.
Originally Posted by John Cantelo
Nor am I sure how long such a system could be sustained without staff being so fatigued, mentally and physically, that they could not do their job.
Yes, ultimately I suppose this is the problem. In fact nothing really works or can be sustained long enough, it's just one bad idea after another. If we get that far, just wait until they try testing and contact tracing via smartphones, and see how many are willing to download that, or to isolate because Google says they may have been near someone for a few seconds. All this reminds me very much of the monkey who can't get his hand out of the cookie ("safety") jar.
This is why the Swedes look pretty clever to me.