Quote:
Originally Posted by MITCHAY
Lol Dan Andrews is copping a lot of **** and rightly so ...
|
.. and why exactly would that be?
Should he perhaps be just locking up the 1 in 4 people that aren't staying home despite having tested positive and thus being infectious?
Or, to be more accurate, should he just lock up anyone that tests positive as we have no way of knowing who can and can't be trusted?
Or better still, if they are old and useless anyway, why not just short circuit the whole slow process and send them to the knackers yard?
(Although that wouldn't help much when 64% of cases are under 50 and even 50% under 40).
How about we just send all positive cases to a purpose built camp (the Germans had some designs in WWII that we could use) that is guarded by the military?
It absolutely gives me the you-know-what when people are happy to pass judgement from the cheap seats without having to face the delicate balancing act that modern politics requires. I don't envy anyone having to make the final decision based on all all the expert advice because you can absolutely be guaranteed two things:
1. The benefit of 100% hindsight will always prove you wrong; and
2. There's bound to be some dilettante on the internet that would have done a better job.
I didn't vote for the man but I've seen nothing that either he or his CMO have done that causes me concern.