zlacker

This ^^^ so very much. Think of it like infosec angle: Yes, it's interesting to identify and neutralize hostile actors, but the 100% more effective solution is to have defense-in-depth and system resilience in place - because you control that, but you can't control the external actors unless you have a god-complex.

>>r00fus+(OP)
What sort of defence in depth can work against a virus that's been engineered to infect humans very easily, and which can only be stopped by shutting down the world economy and waiting months or years for vaccination? I think the last year has proven comprehensively that we simply cannot implement any sort of defence in depth and need to try very hard to eliminate these problems at source. Just like we do with chemical and nuclear weapons. We don't wait to clean up the damage afterward, because the damage is so horrendous.

>>esja+Z1
How about reasonable health insurance without employment requirement?

The defense is NOT to stop the virus (unrealistic defense solution) - it's to make sure we can withstand/resist it so things like vaccines can be put into place so we can go back to some sort of normal (e.g. New Zealand)

The USA (only major western country without healthcare) was unique in how many deaths we had. 90% of those were unnecessary.

>>r00fus+t9
Many European countries have better health insurance and higher deaths per capita than the USA. They also had severe lockdowns, and are now entering a third wave while being way behind the USA on the vaccine rollout.

>>r00fus+t9
USA was not unique and isn't even in the top ten for deaths per capita. Plenty of lockdowns happened in Western Europe and yet Portugal, UK, Belgium and Italy all had higher rates than the US.