You've said variations of that theme consistently. The other week you were saying instances of flu shouldn't be tolerated.
You want a fundamental shift in attitude from everyone in society for something we've tolerated for generations as acceptable in return for a normal social life. What you're asking for isn't going to happen. People will long term wash their hands more and be more aware of vaccination scheduling, that's about it, as we live in a liberal society.
As soon as people can legally go gigs without a mask, they'll go gigs without a mask - will that kill ten more people than if everyone at gigs wore masks, from flu/COVID etc? Sure.
Is that a valid trade-off? Yes. Absolutely yes. We can't prevent every death from every thing, nor should we even try.
That's what Whitty is saying and indeed what they're doing by opening up slowly. You're against that, whilst saying you're for it at the same time.
This is some bizarre crap, even by your standards (which are pretty bloody high).
For a start, that post you edited down to the bit you thought backed your argument didn't say what you claim above it did - at all (in fact the bulk of it talked again about the need for an effective test, trace and isolate system to prevent further disasters). To be an effective system, it would have to pick up illnesses quickly, confirm what they are and what the risk posed is, and have people wait until that can be done (which would be a day or two, unless something bad was detected).
Just doing that - so not enforcing masks on everyone in crowded areas, not even making everyone wash their hands (both of which are sensible), just being vigilant around what is happening in terms of what viruses are in circulation in the country and being able to intervene if we have to - might save a few thousand flu deaths a year, as the result of being able to do it (which we cannot now).
It would also mean that when a wave of this comes around that the then-current vaccines have a problem with, or when the next pandemic comes along, we'll be able to pick it up ourselves and take measures to contain it whilst we ca without waiting a couple of months for another country to make a partial report to the WHO. We won't have to lockdown the country, people will still be able to "go gigs" without a mask, and we are much less likely to have tens of thousands of people dying when they probably didn't have to.
Finally this:
That's what Whitty is saying and indeed what they're doing by opening up slowly. You're against that, whilst saying you're for it at the same time.
... is just utter garbage. I am not for or against them opening up fast or slow; my argument is, has been for months, that we need a system that can detect and contain outbreaks. We don't have one. Whitty appears to think that we can let this spread because it is less likely to hospitalize or kill people. That is what I was opposing.
