Elizabeth Cox is an
education specialist. In today’s Ted Talk Elizabeth is trying to introduce us a
few ways to fight with coronavirus. She shows us how these solutions affect the
society. Which way is the best? Let’s find out.
Questions:
1. What in your opinion is the best strategy?
2.
What do you think about the first strategy? Is this moral or not?
3.
Do you think that all countries should
manage their own strategy? Or maybe it has no sense without cooperation in the
era of the globalization?
4.
Do you respect imposed limits and
restrictions?
Comments
I think that the best strategy is the one, they highlighted in a video. The first one, as they said, would take a lot of lives, and I believe that we don't know enough about the wirus to be sure that You can't get sick again. The third one is impossible because each country considers the safety of their own people, and their own businesses. This option would kill a lot of small companies, and may cause a lot of financial problems around the world.
2. What do you think about the first strategy? Is this moral or not?
I don't think it's moral. If we let the wirus spread so much, people who wasn't in a great danger (like children, and young, healthy people), would start dying out. What's more, we don't know if this method may give a positive result, so the risk if definitelly too high.
3. Do you think that all countries should manage their own strategy? Or maybe it has no sense without cooperation in the era of globalization?
It would be best to think of a one strategy and try to force the rules upon all the people around the world, but as I said in point 1, it's impossible.
4. Do you respect imposed limits and restrictions?
Yes, I think it's crucial to stop meeting in large groups, and wear a mask whenever you can't keep the distance form people. It's the simpliest method to try to avoid getting sick, and it's really unreasonable for me, that some people still don't understand it.
2. I don't think it's moral. Letting people die just because can never be moral. Especially if we have other options with which we might avoid unnecessary deaths.
3. Well, I think the best option is to have some common rules for every country and some more specific to the area(depending on the numbers for each region).
4. I do. I don't think it's that hard to follow them. And if by following them I can be sure that I won't infect unintentionally any elderly people that just happened to be on the same bus/shop as I am, I am willing to follow them. I think of it as a part of the social responsibilities we all have.
Do you respect imposed limits and restrictions?
2. I don’t know. I think that it is some sort of natural selection to eliminate the ones, that would struggle to survive and leave the ones that would manage to face this pandemic again, if it were ever to happen. But it’s easy for us to say that it may be a good idea as long as we are not the ones that have to face the consequences – watch our relatives die, face health support shortage or face the fear of what would happen next. I do get why this idea is considered and thought to be good, but I have no idea how I would react if it was really true. On the other hand, … it’s kind of a solution that we are going to face in a few months considering the number of infections.
3. As I am not a specialist, I consider it to be a quite tough question. It would be great if we could all unite and search for standardized, unified strategy. However, I don’t think it could be possible considering the facts that development of the counties, especially when we talk about health service, varies.
4. Yes, I do. I take this situation very seriously. Not only because I don’t want to gamble with my life, but mostly because I don’t want to be responsible for the life of others, especially my relatives.
3. I agree that common decision among all countries is impossible. But maybe joint strategy within UE or USA would be possible? Members of UE should restrict the UE's law above all. Maybe some top-down decision could be a better strategy?
4. It's really nice to read your comment. I'm wondering what do you think about the behaviour of elderly people. We, young people are not so suffered to the risk but because of the collective responsibility and concern about relatives - especially elderly people restrict all limits. Unfortunately I more often spot that the riskiest group don't care about virus and limits, for example they don't respect Hours for seniors in shops and markets. What do you think about this phenomenon?
Some countries have opted for the first strategy. I'm not sure, but I think Sweden did something similar. I believe their decision was justified and well-thought-out. Morality at such moments should be replaced by calculation of profits and losses.
There can be significant differences between countries that are even close to each other. Compulsory vaccinations in Poland have made our situation better than in the countries that did not introduce these vaccinations many years ago. Such small differences can create huge losses. I would say that communication between countries should be mandatory, but unifying strategies is a bad idea.
I am writing this comment while im in an informal quarantine. I am awaiting the result of the commercial PCR test at the moment. I always followed all the prescribed precautions and limited my presence in large groups. My parents' tests are both positive.
2. This strategy is immoral and means that authority takes human life for nothing. At the present time, the government should be focused on helping businesses, healthcare and people. We can put other things aside. We cannot leave people to their fate.
3. All countries should forget about existing conflicts and help each other as much as they can. Especially since it is very much easier thanks to the high globalization. Surplus resources that we can help with should be distributed to countries that need help.
4. I always wear a mask and wash my hands. I don't party, I follow the rules of isolation and take care of my loved ones.
2. I think that first strategy described in video is not moral at all. It places other values like economic growth above human life. This strategy seems dangerous specially to older people and people with other health problems.
3. In my opinion single coordinated global response to SARS-CoV-2 would allow us to beat this virus quickly. That of course is my idealistic response. The more realistic scenerio would be at least some level of cooperation between countries, which I haven't seen.
4. Yes, I respect both the rules introduced by polish government, as well as other rules that experts talk about.
It’s immoral to care less about some people just because of money and political issues. I know it’s hard, but we shouldn’t be endangering anyone the way we don’t want to be endangered. Of course, sometimes you just can’t save someone, but putting people in danger on purpose in the name of the “stronger survives” rule is just cruel, and unnecessary.
I don’t think letting all countries have different strategies is a good idea. There can always be some migration between the countries, you cannot possibly block every inch of the borders, especially in big countries. If it was possible to flee from China to western Europe in the beginning of this year, when there were already no flights between China and the rest of the world, it’s always possible to get out of the less restricted area to the more restricted one. Everyone should stick to one strategy, at least that’s what I’d see as the best solution.
Of course I respect them. It’s not only about the fact that I don’t want to get sick, because I cannot predict how my organism is going to handle it. It’s also about some social responsibility. You’re not alone in this world, there are not only your relatives and friends around you. It’s not only about the fact, that I have 60yo parents and 91yo grandmother. It’s not only about the fact that my boyfriend is under the high risk category. But also because of my neighbors, an elder lady I help reach something in the store, it’s also the guy passing me by on the street that might have diabetes or asthma. I’m not only privileged as a citizen, I also have responsibilities.
I feel sorry for you! How are you feeling? What about the result? Was it easy to make a test? How long did you have to wait?
Majority of the countries adopted the second strategy. A pandemic lasts almost a year with predictions to two or three years. Do you think that maybe more stricted strategy with limits to overall lockdown could produce results faster?
2. The first strategy to achieve global immunity to the virus is flawed because people will start to die not only from the virus but also from the healthcare overload. The theory that hundreds of millions of people will die is flawed from the start and should by no means be chosen as a strategy to fight the virus. I think the theory is not moral and nothing justifies its application.
3. The authorities of each country should be able to decide on their own strategy because they are free countries and nobody should impose on them the decisions they are to make. Despite the lack of a warrant, I believe that the authorities of each country should put the health of citizens first and adopt a strategy that is good for the public and not for the government or the country.
4. I comply with all restrictions, except for wearing a mask in the car when I am traveling with friends with whom I have seen myself in person without masks recently. I have been wearing the mask in public spaces since the beginning of the pandemic and I believe that everyone should follow the restrictions.
2. It is not humane. However by looking at those numbers at the beginning of winter season an opinion rises, that this is actually the case. Everyone will probably get infected at some point.
3. It depends on the strategy. I personally think that for example in Poland restrictions that are going to be implemented soon are too tight. That won't help so much and won't justify loss in economy of the country and citizen well-being.
4. If countries will again start to restrict flights - I think it will be a dumb move. Virus already spread to every country. And as everyone could see for themselves last spring, banning flights didn't help so much. Unfortunately that will probably the case in Poland. However I think that mandatory mask on the face is a good restriction.
3. What about UE? Poland and the rest of the members agreed to respect UE's law above their own. If UE shouldn't impose decisions which make countries combat in a common way against coronavirus?
3. If you were able to change the restrictions, what would you do?
Inventing a vaccine would be the best strategy.
2.
I wouldn't say it's moral. A lot of more vulnerable people would hurt from this approach.
3.
In my opinion cooperation is very important in such an impartant case as a global pandemic. Without closing the borders the pandemic would have much more drastic effects.
4.
Yes, I do. I think it's important to do so, so collectively we can minmize the spread of the deadly virus.
In my opinion we have two good strategies, first and second from the video. Why first? It would be effective and fast only if we find a way to isolate the weak and the old people. The virus mortality rate among healthy and young people is very low. If I'm not mistaken, mortality is lower than that of the flu. The second way to control the virus is most reasonable but for many years we will live in fear and crisis.
2. What do you think about the first strategy? Is this moral or not?
As I said before I think it's moral under certain conditions that would be very difficult to implement. Generally it's not moral but it's probably the most effective way to goodbye virus and also the most risky way defeat the virus. Every government in the world can't afford such a risk.
3. Do you think that all countries should manage their own strategy? Or maybe it has no sense without cooperation in the era of the globalization?
Cooperation of all countries could be the key to success. Unfortunately it's impossible so we are left with guessing. The world is ruled by business and money, not the will to help yourself.
4. Do you respect imposed limits and restrictions?
Yes, I think it's responsible and the only correct approach. We must unite and cooperate because it's only way to deal with problems. However, that it is very difficult to breathe in a mask after more than 15 minutes. The only solution is to leave houses only if we have to.
2. In such a difficult time, it's hard to talk about morality. We can question each of these methods. We don't know enough about the virus. The postponement also involves a significant number of victims, and we cannot forget about other diseases that have not disappeared. We must try to combine strategies and find the best way. The first method has casualties like any of the listed ones. However, in this comparison, it seems to be the least moral, because it does not carry anything that would help in the fight against the pandemic in the future.
3. There is no doubt that cooperation is needed. Through cooperation, we can use our knowledge and share solutions that have proven themselves. In my opinion, each country should test different solutions based on different experiences, cultures, technologies available and the people living in them. We are different, so one method may not be universal for everyone. However, there must be common rules that, if followed, will guarantee less virus transmission around the world. Therefore, let's cooperate and learn from each other
4.Of course, I follow the limits and restrictions. It is very important as a society to help doctors and scientists in this difficult time. If we can do anything, this is what I think we need to do. It is difficult and also has mental health consequences, but I hope that by taking care of ourselves and others, we will help fight the virus completely.
The first method was used in Sweden and if you look at the Swedish death ratio it really scares. I think that this method is the worse one and least moral.
In my opinion is that we are facing a global issue so we should fight with it all together, all countries combined. This is the only way to defeat the Corona Virus.
Of course I follow the limits and restrictions. I have always a mask on me when I am leaving the house. Rules need to be followed in order to limit the virus transmission. Some of the restrictions of our government I find weird for example closing forests, but I hope that the current restrictions will provide a good result.
Well, the provided video answers stated question. I'd like to comment on the first one. I don't understand how could anyone assume that it is sound, because it ignores or assumes some other goal of medicine, which is, as far as I know, saving human lives.
What do you think about the first strategy? Is this moral or not?
Oh... As mentioned above, no it is not. When somebody's goal is achieved by the cost of someone's life, it is not moral.
Do you think that all countries should manage their strategy? Or
maybe it has no sense without cooperation in the era of the globalization?
It is a global issue, so we need global solutions. It doesn't matter if the country x managed to eradicate the virus if most of the rest of the world is full of it. I'd argue there are a few examples in the history in which one country/tribe or any civilisation was able to flourish by their own without interaction with some other society.
Do you respect imposed limits and restrictions?
Sure, I'm trying to be well-informed and spend most of my days in my home. I don't meet with anyone apart from my family.
Wish you all good health!
I have an impression that other countries strategy doesn’t affect us, as long as we stay home and care for each other.
2 / I believe that this is one of the most radical and most logical options for solving problems.
3 / I think every country should act according to the circumstances
4 / Yes, I respect all restrictions. It seems to me sometimes even too much.
2. What do you think about the first strategy? Is this moral or not?
3. Do you think that all countries should manage their own strategy? Or maybe it has no sense without cooperation in the era of the globalization?
4. Do you respect imposed limits and restrictions?
1. I believe that proven and safe solutions are the best even though they might not be the fastest, hence I agree that the vaccination strategy is the best way of fighting the pandemic.
2. I think it balances on the edge of morality - it takes into account death of the weakest in order to stop spread of the virus as quickly as possible. I think it is not optimal as the case of Sweden shows.
3. In my opinion, every country introducing different solution would make no sense.
It would lead to disorganisation and could extend the time needed to end the pandemic. I believe that in the times od globalization, all countries should cooperate and work on mutual solution - through technological advancements (i.e vaccines), that can be used in other scopes in the future.
4. I do, I am aware that these restrictions are necessary, although not all of them are thoroughly analysed and seem like quite spontanous.
I agree with delay&vaccinate strategy. As a civilization we get to the point that we know that it helps and works and its the best way to create group ressistance to the viruses.
2. What do you think about the first strategy? Is this moral or not?
I dont think that it is moral. Allowing a lot of people to die and mainly the weakest ones is not something that we created civilization in the first place.
3. Do you think that all countries should manage their own strategy? Or maybe it has no sense without cooperation in the era of the globalization?
We have never been in situation like this. Nowadays we can do things that has never been possible to do. Comunication and will to help should be worlds priority.
4. Do you respect imposed limits and restrictions?
I respect and partially agree with them. I dont agree with things that are not based on reaserches but are make because someone told so.
Locking down country completely would ruin its economy and could cause global crisis, so I do not think that is a proper approach. Also, we should keep in mind that discovering vaccines for new diseases takes no less than 2 years and I would say that is a too long time for country to be lock downed. On second hand the first approach is too radical and could lead to many deaths and devastation of healthcare system so in my opinion the best strategy is between first and second so racing through it with minimal restrictions.
2. What do you think about the first strategy? Is this moral or not?
The first strategy may not seem as moral, but I think in long term it could bring more benefits than second option. The second choice also affects people health but instead of psychical we get mental problems like depression symptoms related to being isolated from other people or not going out enough. Of course, that is the case when human body can gain immunity (full or partial) to disease after going through it.
3. Do you think that all countries should manage their own strategy? Or maybe it has no sense without cooperation in the era of the globalization?
I think it would be best if the countries would cooperate with each other (obviously), but I do not think that it is achievable at all. Every country values their own independency and its own decisions, also many governments are corrupted and try to get some gains out of this pandemic at people's cost.
4. Do you respect imposed limits and restrictions?
I respect some of them, only the ones that for me are reasonable, for example wearing mask in public transport. I do not really see the need for me wearing a mask when I am goin for a walk in a non-crowded district. Usually, I walk without mask and put it on only when I cannot pass someone with a somewhat long distance.
In my opinion, the best way for society to fight the virus is the highlighted one in the video.
2. What do you think about the first strategy? Is this moral or not?
It's definitely not moral. The way of fighting should try to defend every citizen, regardless of age and health condition.
3. Do you think that all countries should manage their own strategy? Or maybe it has no sense without cooperation in the era of globalization?
Each country should have its own strategy to deal with the virus (social discipline is different in each country). The global part should only be about flights and trade.
4. Do you respect imposed limits and restrictions?
Yes, I do. I believe everyone should do this, regardless of their views on the fight against the virus.
In my opinion, in an ideal world the third option ("crushing" the virus) would probably be best, but only if we develop a vaccine simultaneously (a mix of second and third option really). In this way we would limit the number of casualties present, possibly destroying the virus in a few months and if that wouldn't work we'd delay it as much as we could while waiting for a working vaccine.
2. What do you think about the first strategy? Is this moral or not?
Knowingly accepting people's death as a result of your choice or decision is never moral. Unfortunately, governments have to do it all the time, especially now. It doesn't even have to be such a big decision as choosing one of three strategies for the whole pandemic, but it could be as little as choosing the range of restrictions in force. I know it sounds brutal, but due to overpopulation and climate changes, first option while horrible could be even beneficial in other ways. Luckily we have no guarantee of it working (we're not sure whether a person can be reinfected as of now) and we don't know if the society would survive after the pandemic with such colossal losses. Thusly it's not really an option right now.
3. Do you think that all countries should manage their own strategy? Or maybe it has no sense without cooperation in the era of the globalization?
I think because the pandemic affects the whole globe unanimously and also because of globalized travel and overpopulation we should make a unified front against the pandemic free of national and political frictions. While it might be not entirely just and equitable for all countries, the virus doesn't distinguish us from one another and neither should we.
4. Do you respect imposed limits and restrictions?
Yes, as much as i can, it's in everone's interest to do so.
I think that the second strategy makes the most sense.
People should reduce the time they spend outside their houses to a minimum to prevent spread of disease. This solution would give time to the scientist to produce vaccine. Of course we would have to assume that people would willingly wait inside for a long period of time, and as this year has already proven most of the people don't see the long term advantages of this solution.
First strategy might not be moral, but it makes some sense. Making people immune systems fight the disease would probably be effective. On the other hand, this method wouldn't be socially just. High classes could just sit throughout the crisis while lower classes would be the ones risking their lives.
I believe that countries should find common ground in the fight against the coronavirus. United actions would not only prevent the spread of the virus, but also allow scientist from around the globe to exchange information about vaccine more freely.
I try to respect the restrictions as much as i can. I don't leave the house if i don't have to, and even if i do, i always wear mask and gloves. I think behaviour like this is crucial if we want to return to our regular lifestyle as fast as possible.
Honestly I am a big fan of the third strategy. I don’t feel confident enough to judge how that would affect economics of each country, so maybe total lockdown might affect other spheres significantly, but I believe it would help to cope with pandemic. Obvious obstacle is stated in the video – this option requires absolute cooperation of all the countries worldwide. Actually any option would work if it was financially beneficial for everyone, but this is not the case since it’s all about the safety but not the money.
2. What do you think about the first strategy? Is this moral or not?
It sounds similar to theory of natural selection – the strongest will survive. This way isn’t “polite” or “moral” enough for nowadays. Everybody has their rights for life, so as I think we should fight for everyone.
Maybe it will work but this way seems too old, people invent a lot of things to keep their lifes easier and modern, so it shouldn’t be a big deal to invent vaccine for COVID-19.
3. Do you think that all countries should manage their own strategy? Or maybe it has no sense without cooperation in the era of the globalization?
Cooperation is looks like more smart way nowadays, and I guess when everybody will cooperate with everybody people may work more effectively and faster, every country have their own developments which can be improve and maybe it gonna work.
4. Do you respect imposed limits and restrictions?
More of them yes, for example to keep your face with mask, it’s very polite and easy to do this.
I don’t even know any of rules which should be canceled right now, because it’s emergency situation for whole world that our governments can try to denied sharing of this virus in any ways they can invent, maybe in future we will be prepare for this kind of situations and we will keep in mind what we should to continue and which not.
I think that the second strategy is the best for the reasons stated in the video. First one doesn't work, because there are cases of people getting infected more than once and third one is too difficult to implement and doesn't give us a vaccine that may be needed in the future.
2. What do you think about the first strategy? Is this moral or not?
I think that it is both immoral and ineffective. People seem to forget that not only people infected with coronavirus would die, but also people with other health problems, because healthcare system would be overloaded with so much people with covid-19, that there wouldn't be enough beds in the hospitals.
3. Do you think that all countries should manage their own strategy? Or maybe it has no sense without cooperation in the era of the globalization?
The cooperation would be great but it is really difficult to achieve, because in the moment of crisis each nation thinks about themselves.
4. Do you respect imposed limits and restrictions?
Most of them, yes. But some of them are so stupid that they seem like random ideas without any research, e.g. closure of forests.
The second one, mentioned in the video. Of course it is the longest one, but it's the one that protect the most lives.
2. What do you think about the first strategy? Is this moral or not?
I think it's immoral. It has nothing to do with emphaty. We have to cooperate to kill this virus. We should think about everyone - younger and older, healthier and sicklier.
3. Do you think that all countries should manage their own strategy? Or maybe it has no sense without cooperation in the era of the globalization?
I think all countries should cooperate in some way, but they souldn't execute the same strategy as long as every country has different geological, social etc. conditions. It would be great if all countries cooperate with inventing vaccine and after that spread it to everyone (without being greedy)
4. Do you respect imposed limits and restrictions?
I try to be even more careful than the restrictions of government are. I'm not in the group of risk but i respect other people lives so I try leave home only in necesary ssituations (food shopping etc.), I always wear the mask and I often use a antibacterial gel. To be honest, sometimes I meet with my friends, but only with the closest one and with respect to sanitary restrictions.
2. I think it's the worst strategy we could possibly have. Considering how advanced our medical care is, it is highly immoral to choose this strategy.
3. I want to believe, that we should deal with the pandemic globally. Unfortunately, it's not realistic, there's no way that all countries would be willing to cooperate, so managing our own strategy is our best bet.
4. I do, even if I don't agree with all the restrictions, I respect them so that we can slow down the spread of the virus.
First strategy is definitely the fastest one, but in my opinion it’s simply not working as intended. That’s because we still know too little about covid19, and we can’t give proper care to people who need it, but most important is the fact that we have no idea if we can’t be infected one more time. What if covid19 mutates so fast that we have the next mutation even now?
If every county decided to delay and vaccinate, that would be the best decision. If everyone would choose their own strategies we might find a situation, where one country beat covid19, and other it still fighting. Then, the first country opens their borders, and people from the second one arrive, because it’s safe, isn’t it? We can now imagine how viruses can spread again and again. The only way to beat the global pandemic is to fight side by side and end at the same time.
Restrictions are to help us, people, so if you do not respect restrictions, you hurt yourself, and your friends, your family. Yes, I do restrict limits, because I know, it’s helps stop the pandemic.
First strategy is very stupid, still we don't know that when someone acquires permanent resistance after recover or how long this resistance is. Second problem with this strategy and this virus is that it very fast make hospital full. We cannot forgot about people who have others problems with health like persons with cancer. They need doctors and hospitals and when all of them take care about patients with COVID they will be dead soon.
I thing that all countries should cooperate against this virus. Governments should establish common rules, like restrictions on borders, limitation in international planes and help each other, for example one of UE country have more problems other which have some places in hospital helps them.
Yes I respect them but I think our government don't have any idea what they should do in this situation so a lot of restrictions make no sense or causes economy disaster, for example we get high new infection ratio when we open schools and first of all government should close again schools and after that when situation still will be bad try to do something more. In current situation a lot of people lost theirs job for no reason.
In my opinion such an approach is not moral. Every life should be valued the same and every life should be fought for.
I think there is no point in establishing one strategy, because we still don't have any that has improved the situation. For now it is better to focus on trying many things to find something effective.
Yes, I follow the rules for the most part. Only when I run, it is without a mask, but I avoid people with a big gap.
Jakub Kisiała
The first strategy was actually deemed as immoral by WHO themselves. There was a proposal to accept this strategy and was rejected. Even before reading about it, my views were no different - it's not a way to fight a virus. It's just not feasable for our communities.
I think it's okay for different countries to apply their very own strategies of fighting the pandemic, as long as they agree on the basics of the approach and of the problem. Every country is different - they mainly make money from different sources and can optimise for very different aspects. It's okay to have a different strategy as long as it achieves the same outcome. One person, team or even an organisation would not be able to come up with a strategy feasable for every distinct country.
I do respect the restrictions, but it's very easy to get lost in all the misinformation being carried around right now. Because of this, I sometimes make mistakes regarding those.
2) The first strategy is the worst-case scenario. The collapse of the health service leads to a large number of deaths. Most deaths are not due to the virus but to other diseases such as cancer. In my opinion, it is immoral.
3) I think that cooperation between countries despite globalization is not possible. Every country is different, and the virus spread in every country with different delay. Thanks to the use of different strategies in countries, we can draw conclusions which strategy is the best and what actions are the most effective.
4) I think following the restrictions is an individual matter. Several of my friends did not take the restrictions seriously and fell ill with COVID. I personally follow the restrictions because I can work from home, but some people don't.
I think the "delay & vaccinate" strategy is the best but if the vaccine is effective enough and with no side effects.
2. What do you think about the first strategy? Is this moral or not?
I don't see how letting people perish in mass would be moral. I think it's not but it's an option but an immoral one.
3. Do you think that all countries should manage their own strategy? Or maybe it has no sense without cooperation in the era of globalization?
It would be better if all countries could adopt the same strategy but it's not easy to control how certain people view things.
4. Do you respect imposed limits and restrictions?
I try to respect it but some times I forget some things.
It might sound funny to say but there is no good strategy at all. All people as individuals are capable of understanding the situation. Sadly they are getting used to it and starting to ignore the restrictions and/or even forget about what is happening around becoming the source of the local problem.
2. What do you think about the first strategy? Is this moral or not?
I do think it's immoral. The scenario I wish won't happend.
3. Do you think that all countries should manage their own strategy? Or maybe it has no sense without cooperation in the era of the globalization?
It's hard to tell as we still don't know everything about the virus and how he coexists in different habitats. It would be best to have a global tactic against it yet it sounds impossible to achieve. And we must not forget about the differences in each of countries. Where something is normal, might not be accepted 300km away.
4. Do you respect imposed limits and restrictions?
I do respect them as much as i can. But i still must go to work till my workplace decided to go full remote
1. I believe that the strategy of isolating and waiting for a vaccine is the most sensible. It is very important to follow the restrictions against the spread of the virus.
2. I believe that the first strategy is not humane. Many people die in this strategy, mainly the sick and those with weakened immune systems. This strategy also puts finance and economics at risk worldwide, so it is the worst possible strategy. What if the virus reactivates? This strategy is useless.
3. Yes, they respect the restrictions imposed, but I think some of them are pointless. For example, putting on a mask in public spaces when no one is around.
I think that the best strategy is the second one. And I think that video also shows that this strategy is the best.
2. What do you think about the first strategy? Is this moral or not?
Well, it is definitely not moral. You basicaly let thousands of people die. How is that moral in any way?
3. Do you think that all countries should manage their own strategy? Or maybe it has no sense without cooperation in the era of globalization?
Sure, it would be the best, but as pointed in the video it is not possible.
4. Do you respect imposed limits and restrictions?
Yes, it's a little bit cumbersome but I'm getting used to it. We all have to adapt to new reality in order to make it stop quicker.