Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I would be on board with the UK plan if it was more proactively protecting the at risk population.

Why aren’t large events stopped? I get one infected person won’t infect a whole stadium... the main thing for me is people from all over go to these large events and so there is a high risk of introducing the virus to new areas by having them.

There should be more testing and local alerting. It would keep people on their toes and help individuals be more aware of potential risk around them.

At risk groups should be making use of social distancing at a minimum.

Even with this it seems risky. That said I understand the approach and reasoning. The implementation - so far - seems half baked and risky as hell.




And now more details of the plan are trickling out - over 70s being advised to stay at home (but not yet), etc.

At every point people will ask, "if cancelling large events/closing schools/WFH would have helped, why didn't you announce it weeks ago instead of now?"

Plus, it isn't as if people are actually keeping calm and carrying on. Their shopping has been disrupted, half their friends are staying home (despite no government advice to do so), they can't visit their doctors in person any more, and everybody is stuck to the news. Productivity in offices has dropped due to the anxiety and uncertainty, and I don't think Boris' "life goes on as normal for now but that may change later" speech late Friday has done anything to prevent that.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: