So I'm watching a video which I'll post later when I'm done but I had to share this part about Argentina. As you know I have hypothesized that everyone gets infected at some point. The vast majority will survive unscathed, a small percent will have serious reactions that will linger and an even smaller percent will die sooner rather than later (as in we all die, it's just a matter of when and how).
Of interest here is whether "lock downs" work. I have been against lock downs because of the huge disruption it causes. I think people should be free to make their own decisions based on their risk tolerance. I do think that the government should have spent the energy and time to acquire and setup extra facilities in case they were needed for patients, but that government lock downs were and are antithetical to a free society. But even further, history shows us that isolation is not a good idea. Recall that much of the eradication of the American native population was due to the fact that they had never been exposed to certain European, well better put, "Old world" diseases. Isolation can be deadly.
Lastly, if the virus was that contagious then going back to my original point, it's only a matter of time since all air circulates and there is no hiding from air. Also, while people can be cautious, eventually you slip up. Infect surface is touched, face is touched, and you're sick. Matter of fact, I had one of those yesterday when I accidentally poked myself in the eye. I suppose I'll know the effects of that in the next few days.
Anyway, so the argument has been that lockdowns prevented infections. Well lets
look at Argentina:
Argentina has been under lockdown since March 20, though restrictions were previously relaxed in many parts of the country.
On July 17, Fernandez announced a plan for the country to gradually return to normal life in several stages. Outdoor recreation was permitted and shops, hair salons and some professional services re-opened earlier in Buenos Aires earlier in the month. The capital has one of the highest concentration of new cases, along with the province of Buenos Aires.
Most office buildings and restaurant dining rooms remain closed and public transportation is restricted for those without government permission.
Argentina is in the middle of it's winter. Exactly when respiratory viruses are most active. Now look, they've been on lock since March 20. It's now August 1. That's 4 months.
The South American nation has seen its caseload spike in recent weeks and recorded a record daily tally on Thursday with 6,377 new cases. There are now 185,373 confirmed cases and 3,466 deaths, according to the latest government data.
What a spike. If lock downs somehow "eradicate" the virus then this spike should never have happened. They relaxed some rules after 3 months of lock down and still. As a matter of fact Argentina has as more cases than 46 US states and had more new cases than every US state except Florida.
Sweden by the way (as of this writing), has reported, 80k total cases, no new deaths today and a total death count that is ~2/3 that of Argentina and Sweden had no official lockdown policy although the people did their own thing and did change behavior based on their own risk tolerance, like adults should be allowed to do).
If Sweden can have such a result with no hard lockdown while Argentina can have the result it did WITH a harsh lockdown, it is CLEAR that lockdowns have no effect on the eventual case and death rate other than to prolong and compound the misery.
