CV and mad panic behaviour

[kruddler]

Minor changes to established mores, laws etc. are not to be compared to absolutes. No Australian politician to my knowledge has ever advocated wholesale removal of cars from the streets and they never will, although there are benefits to doing so, and they would be obvious. What you do see is a nip and tuck approach, such as small sections of the CBD where cars are not permitted (many cities have had this for ages), reduced speed around school zones etc.

Histrionics don't help anyone. You can quibble about whether the speed limit should be 40, 38, 21 kmh, but you can't quibble about the fact that they make cities safer.

I'm sure citizens of many cities around the world are enjoying the cleaner air that comes from being forced to work form home, another unintended benefit of covid control measures.

lol....way to miss the point.

Let me explain because i must be making my point too subtley.

Lockdown = good because less people die from covid ......is 1 point of view.
Lockdown = bad because more people die from suicide, are financially ruined etc etc from the results of lockdowns.

IMO, looking at lockdown = good because less people die from covid is very much oversimplifying things.
Look at the ripple effect that has on the people, the businesses, the city and the country that has occurred from these lockdowns. Even compare that with other states and their lockdowns.
It is not SIMPLY about how many people are NOT dying from COVID because of lockdowns.

Now, the analogy was this. If it is SIMPLY about deaths directly from Covid and nothing else matters, then, again, that is an oversimplified view.
Looking at that view in another scenario...
Speed limits are dropped to save lives. It works, no arguments. If we drop it by more....it will save more lives. If we ban cars altogether, it will reduce lives lost from car accidents to zero. So, if its just about death toll, ban cars. However, there is a reason we don't.....its just not practical.
Someone, somewhere said that 40 zones are a comfortable compromise between saving lives and being practical. If you asked someone else, they probably would've come up with a different 'magic number' other than 40, lets say 50. A third person more cautious person may have yet another number, say 30. Its all based on a persons point of view on what they are trying to achieve and how practical (or not) that arbitrary number is.
Some people, say the '50' guy, may take into account the financial aspect of slowing cars down too much as not being practical.
The '30' guy points to saving more lives.....but doesn't take into account that people would need to be on the roads for longer (they can't go as fast) which means more cars on the road at once, and more traffic as a result. Also be away from home and family for longer.
Unintended consequences directly related to the 'choice' of speed and what they were trying to achieve (lower deaths from cars) but not realising that it meant more time away from home which could lead to more stress etc etc.

So back to lockdowns....someone somewhere made a judgement on when and for how long we should go into lockdowns. Clearly that view is different to those of the other states. Victoria has been in more lockdowns that everyone else combined i believe...and by a fair margin IIRC.
So.....is it not possible that the people who are deciding on lockdowns have gone overly cautious and are putting people under more stress than is really required for the sake of minimal improvement in deaths from covid....and at the same time causing more deaths from unintended consequences of these lockdowns?

In short, focussing on deaths from covid at the expense of everything else is overly simplistic and flat out wrong IMO.