Restaurateurs file class action suit against PM, others, demanding 50 million baht

[GrandPapillon]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

Your really not that bright as slowing down and buying time is the same thing. That was the main strategy for lockdowns making sure that health care did not overflow. We seen countries where it happend also Thailand where people died on the street. That is what lockdowns are for slowing it down until enough vaccinations have been given. Most countries go out of lockdown once a certain number of people had vaccines. 

 

Nobody ever said lockdowns were a solution they were just there to slow stuff down. That is what every government said. They did  not see it as a solution. If you thought that you must have missed a lot of stuff.

 

Buying time and slowing down is the same. When in a battle an unit needs to buy down it has to slow down the enemy until other measurers are in place or until stuff has been doen.

you have a very short memory, even a shorter attention span. The original lockdowns were for a "zero-covid" policy to stop the "virus", just go read the different world leaders speech back then.

 

Eventually when they realized that didn't work, and to "appease" the population in their silly solution, they use a better and more valid reason, the ICU beds, but that was back in late 2020 and early 2021. We had already 3 months of hard lockdowns and a new "underlying" wave rising that we thought was impossible because of the hard lockdown. How that failed!!! again. Only silly Australia and NZ still didn't get the memo ????

 

What lockdowns didn't do was to stop the overflow of patients in ICUs, it was too late. Studies are trying to determine if lockdowns did slow down the ICUs overload, but even that it's not clear in the stats, the ways they were collected and calculated, we think now the virus might have a natural cycle of ups and downs when circulating in a moving population. Ramdom dots simulation in tech labs for virus spread re-created that "phenomenon".

 

Buying time was to "put the population" on hold when they tried to figure out what to do next.

 

If it wasn't for the vaccine, world leaders would have use seasonal "lockdowns" as the only solutions, like in the middle age. That just speaks volume about our capacity to face a natural disaster of that amplitude. Our stupid politics and our knee jerks reactions means we can't.

 

Lockdowns failed on every level, and they were buying political time for leaders, not the virus or the population, and at a very high cost for small businesses and poor people. Like we see now in Thailand.

Edited September 29, 2021 by GrandPapillon

[GrandPapillon]

5 hours ago, steven100 said:

how wrong you are,  Lockdowns do reduce transmission of the virus.

no they don't, they simply delayed it, it's impossible to stop that transmission, nature always win

[jacko45k]

23 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

no they don't, they simply delayed it, it's impossible to stop that transmission, nature always win

You argue semantics....

[GrandPapillon]

1 hour ago, jacko45k said:

You argue semantics....

semantics is exactly why the wrong decisions are made, when "stop" doesn't mean stop, and "slow down" actually means postponing the infection. The virus is going to contaminate X % of the population and it will, lockdowns or no lockdowns. The only question is should it be over 3 months or 18 months?

 

Thank god we have the vaccine, or else, useless lockdowns would be back on the menu.