Quote:
Originally Posted by zx10guy
In my opinion, option 1 should have been what was done. It's a lot easier to control a smaller at risk population than to lock down everyone with the large population and land mass of the US.
|
I wonder what the qualifications would be for "healthy" people? BMI? Have you smoked? Have you ever had CVD? Immunocompromised? Do you do drugs? What age?
How would you define "isolate"? Self-quarantine? Or law mandated house arrest? Special camps to house people in separate from the "healthy"?
"It's a lot easier to control a smaller at risk population than to lock down everyone with the large population and land mass of the US." - this is easy to
say until you actually start to think of how you would actually implement it. Sure, you could "control" a small group of people based on classifications set by a governing body, but that is a slippery slope because controlling people isn't the difficult part, actually choosing who to control is, and I'm not talking about the act of choosing, I'm talking about the difficulty in being right, and the consequences of drawing a line between people who can and people who can't.