> The article’s authors are losing sight of the original justification for the lockdowns: “flatten the curve” was about preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed.
i think you've lost sight of what flattening the curve was about. flattening the curve, from the beginning, was giving up. it was about accepting that we weren't and still aren't prepared for the virus, and that tons of people would get sick and die. at the moment, the deaths is a rather sickening 100,000+. the "flattening the curve" movement was an acceptance of this and was just meant to spread out the sick and deaths over time. meanwhile, other countries successfully managed the virus where they didn't even have to flatten the curve. they squashed it.
because then, in the end, the fact that the u.s. flattened the curve could be seen as a successful handling of the virus, when it was anything but.
it is still a legitimate threat in the u.s., while other countries came out of lockdown much, much sooner with much less cases and deaths.
i think you've lost sight of what flattening the curve was about. flattening the curve, from the beginning, was giving up. it was about accepting that we weren't and still aren't prepared for the virus, and that tons of people would get sick and die. at the moment, the deaths is a rather sickening 100,000+. the "flattening the curve" movement was an acceptance of this and was just meant to spread out the sick and deaths over time. meanwhile, other countries successfully managed the virus where they didn't even have to flatten the curve. they squashed it.
because then, in the end, the fact that the u.s. flattened the curve could be seen as a successful handling of the virus, when it was anything but.
it is still a legitimate threat in the u.s., while other countries came out of lockdown much, much sooner with much less cases and deaths.