I live in Florida. Our lockdown lasted for like 2 or 3 months. Then everything reopened. Other parts of the country were locked down much longer. O also have friends and family in Hungary in Israel, both places faced very long lockdowns. I think Israel was practically in lockdown for a whole year or something like that.
I live in Florida. Our lockdown lasted for like 2 or 3 months. Then everything reopened. Other parts of the country were locked down much longer. O also have friends and family in Hungary in Israel, both places faced very long lockdowns. I think Israel was practically in lockdown for a whole year or something like that.
Yet, none of these places dated better than Florida. They were predicting that Florida will be the next hot spot, everybody dying on the streets etc and none of this happened. For me, this is already a proof that we did the right thing.
But there are other considerations too. You are talking about outliers who can't mingle because of age or health condition. They should be accomodated. However, why don't we talk about outliers in the other direction? What about those kids, for example , who live in abusive situations and the school is their only safe place? What about kids whose only real meal during the day is the school lunch? What about kids who - instead of being safe in the classroom - were out in the streets doing mischief and trying drugs? You can't claim on one hand that you worry about vulnerable people, while ignoring that vulnerable people exist on the other side too.
I live in Florida. Our lockdown lasted for like 2 or 3 months. Then everything reopened. Other parts of the country were locked down much longer. O also have friends and family in Hungary in Israel, both places faced very long lockdowns. I think Israel was practically in lockdown for a whole year or something like that.
Yet, none of these places dated better than Florida. They were predicting that Florida will be the next hot spot, everybody dying on the streets etc and none of this happened. For me, this is already a proof that we did the right thing.
But there are other considerations too. You are talking about outliers who can't mingle because of age or health condition. They should be accomodated. However, why don't we talk about outliers in the other direction? What about those kids, for example , who live in abusive situations and the school is their only safe place? What about kids whose only real meal during the day is the school lunch? What about kids who - instead of being safe in the classroom - were out in the streets doing mischief and trying drugs? You can't claim on one hand that you worry about vulnerable people, while ignoring that vulnerable people exist on the other side too.