Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF
Prohibition may have prevented some people from getting alcohol some of the time, but a mandate short of locking everyone up (Hi Adder!) to prevent home brewing, would have required a panopticon of state surveillance to prevent it.
LessinManchester.
|
That's a facile assessment for a respected Times reporter. It is true that a mandate short of locking everyone up will not preclude spread. But it will decrease and slow spread. It will also knock down viral load being spread. If one is infected with a smaller viral load, he has a better chance of not acquiring or being able to fight off covid. If he gets hit with a faceful of virus from a pack of non-maskers on an elevator or in a subway, he's going to have a more intense infection.
TL;DR: What looks revelatory is upon closer inspection making the perfect the enemy of the good. Or otherwise rotated, an argument in the absolute on an issue entirely of degree.
