Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia
There is no clear, black and white answer to the question you ask. I'm not looking to debate what should have/could have been done differently. I will say that the draconian measure taken have most likely prevented more deaths from occurring in nursing homes/retirement communities. What seems clear to me is that once the virus is able to take hold in a populated place, it spreads very quickly, much quicker than a normal flu virus. No nursing home/retirement community can be completely sealed off as staff are coming and going. My take is that the widespread closures and social distancing efforts have helped minimize staff and employees from getting the disease and spreading it in nursing homes. The young, healthy people are the carriers. I'm not trying to answer your bigger question "was it worth it?". Looking at how quickly the virus spreads in close knit communities like nursing homes and retirement communities, I think it is safe to assume the virus would have spread quickly if cities and mass transportation had not made changes. Again, was it worth it? Some say yes, some no.
|
I appreciate your thoughtful answer. My feeling is that if we placed more of our efforts on protecting, isolating, quarantining the most vulnerable, rather than taking this approach with everyone, we may have yielded better results. I would have preferred dealing with this virus as we traditionally have dealt with them. We will never know if this approach would have worked. To me, it doesn't appear this approach worked.