" 'Why stop at decades of lockdown? Why not centuries of lockdown? Nothing like a ridiculous Strawman argument to prove a point, eh?'
And this is where there is a divide. I could be wrong, but it appears that most people here are against a lockdown. That masks, contract tracing, and other non-intrusive efforts are sufficient to contain the spread. That's good, because lockdowns will only work within a society that is willing to accept the costs of a lockdown, regardless of how long it goes on. And that's a more significant cost than has been seen in the history of out country. But there is no point in locking down to reduce numbers, only to re-open and have the numbers go up again.
#138 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2020-10-22 11:42 AM"
The divide is your presenting 'decades of lockdown' as a position that anyone has offered.
Suggest you look up what the term 'Strawman' means.
Whether people are for/against a lockdown is irrelevant as to the effectiveness of using that as an option (which, BTW, is the topic being discussed). To put it another way: Mother Nature really doesn't care what people "like".
The point of a lockdown is to disrupt the propagation and expansion of the virus. Obviously, the number will go down during a lockdown and (likely) will go up when the lockdown is lifted (duh!). However, by disrupting the propagation, one can possibly reduce the propagation of the virus to a much lower level. Your (implied) claim that the virus will simply come back to the same level after the lockdown is lifted is not supported by evidence. This is not a philosophical discussion. There are plenty of actual examples to give guidance.
It's amazing how President Trump, who has never worked in a stadium, can so easily move goalposts.