I'm not disagreeing with the harm of lockdowns. But one of the reasons why governments claim to need lockdowns is to keep occupancy in hospitals manageable. Without lockdowns there would be a large influx of patients that hospitals wouldn't be able to handle. So some people would needlessly die. Did I miss the part in the podcast where they discuss this scenario? Because to me this would be valid reason for lockdowns.,(reply>), targeted protection they are talking about might have been enough to reduce the number of hospitalisations without wider lockdowns, however I think the reason for broader lockdowns could have been logistical, I am not sure how can you effectively isolate and separate endangered people, older people, or people with health issues when they live with other people who would be more likely to bring home the virus if everything just went on as normal, then how do you effectively determine the lines, which preexisting conditions and what age groups to protect and isolate, how do you justify the deaths of those unprotected outliers which are statistically rare but still happen if you don't provide protection for them and require them to keep going to work and expose them self to the virus.,(reply>), This to me is the primary argument for lockdown that was out fourth. "Flattening the curve." Which makes sense. I was waiting for this to be addressed in the interview as well. Did I also miss it?<br><br>There was still a lot of interesting and informative points made, but without an answer to the hospital occupancy crisis, I can see why advocating for the gbdeclaration would be dangerous.,(reply>), ✛①⑥⑥⑨ ②⑤⑧ ④③⑥③