I would argue that we can’t look at that as the deaths were far too high regardless of closures. no Essentially, we don’t know how many deaths could have been avoided through thougher methods. Germany’s death rate was still far higher than it needed to be even if Europe as a whole also failed.
I feel like you only read half my comment each time.
You will always reach a point of diminishing marginal returns with measures taken, and you have to evaluate the impact of the measure against it’s effectiveness.
The argument is that school closures likely did not contribute sufficiently to justify their extent of implementation, meaning you probably would have wanted a few more people dying to avoid the shortfalls in children’s education and socialisation that you have now. The ends, in retrospective, arguably did not justify the means.
I would argue that we can’t look at that as the deaths were far too high regardless of closures. no Essentially, we don’t know how many deaths could have been avoided through thougher methods. Germany’s death rate was still far higher than it needed to be even if Europe as a whole also failed.
I feel like you only read half my comment each time.
You will always reach a point of diminishing marginal returns with measures taken, and you have to evaluate the impact of the measure against it’s effectiveness.
The argument is that school closures likely did not contribute sufficiently to justify their extent of implementation, meaning you probably would have wanted a few more people dying to avoid the shortfalls in children’s education and socialisation that you have now. The ends, in retrospective, arguably did not justify the means.
No, they did. The ends reduced the death rate and hence justified what was done.
You are not reading my comments. The closures did not reduce deaths/infections by enough to justify having them, that is the argument.
And that argument is silly