"Giết gà dùng dao mổ trâu"

-----

Ethan Yang challenges Michael Hiltzik’s assertion that lockdowns “saved lives without harming economies.” A slice:

This is congruent (đồng dạng) with a study published by a team of Stanford researchers that compared 8 lockdown countries with two counterfactuals, South Korea and Sweden. The study found that there are certainly benefits to implementing policy interventions (can thiệp chính sách) but the benefits of aggressive policies such as lockdowns compared to less intrusive (xâm phạm, xâm nhập; bắt người khác phải chịu đựng mình) policies undertaken by South Korea and Sweden are minimal. This is without factoring in the collateral damage and the fact that in some contexts, lockdown policies may actually increase caseloads because they force people to gather in private residences, which are often less well-ventilated (không được thông hơi tốt) and more cramped (sự câu thúc, tù túng, gò bó).

This brings us to what is hopefully an emerging consensus that lockdowns, for whatever isolated marginal benefits they provide, are essentially swinging a sledgehammer to kill a spider.

Bài trước: Ai là người chịu trách nhiệm?