COVID-19, the Kaasschaaf (cheese slicer) approach versus Vulnerability approach.

Wathelet puts up some really good points, but then fails to avoid the trap of the Kaasschaaf approach, the Cheese Slicer approach.

If governments have to reorganize they usually apply the Kaasschaaf approach. Meaning all the resources of the involved departments are cut with relatively the same amount. An easy approach, because everybody suffers the same. It prevents the governement from having to look for the real problems and then to provide the right solutions. As said easy to do, but dumb. If a company would do the same it would go bankrupt in a short time. Allso the big multinationals although this takes much longer.

The Lockdown approach is typical a Kaasschaaf approach. Locking up everybody without distinction. Easy decided, doesn’t need a thorough distinctive approach. So less trouble and politicians are not vulnerable to mistakes, while purposely ignoring the Vulnerability phenomenons.

All these kind of politicians, the MSM and the so called experts don’t show true care of people. A general Lockdown bankrupts the country’s economy and their citizens and doesn’t solve the infection problem fast enough, see Italy. Dumb again and disastrous.

The Vulnerability approach doesn’t ignore the multiple distinctive phenomenons like age, pre-existing medical conditions, asymptomatic infected, lung vulnerabilities by polluted air and/or smoking, obesity, polluted job location, distinctions between persons in contact with, suspected of, mild symptoms, severe symptoms and in need of hospitalization.
The Vulnerability approach is focused on these phenomenons. Thus separating and/or monitoring and medical conditioning these distinctive groups in order to save their lives. With everybody wearing a FFP2 face mask, provided by the government. Not vulnerable people work and social normally. Everybody is tested. Those who enter the country are put in quarantine, temporarily.

China, South Korea and some others executed the Vulnerability approach mostly and with great success. Like separating different groups in different locations. Both China and South Korea tested vigorously and stimulated and relied on shared responsibility, apps and punished those who ignored their instructions.
In both countries the government demanded people to wear masks and everybody did this, included every politician, since example behavior stimulates following. Something that Western politicians obviously don’t understand.

China has hardly any new domestic infection arising. South Korea did the same as China but without locking down a major thing, except forbidding big gatherings. Resulting in a huge success.
China locked down Wuhan and then only 50 other cities. Mainly because China was trying to understand what was going on. The rest of this immense country continued its economic activities nearly as normal. So people kept their jobs.

Italy shows that the Kaasschaaf Lockdown approach only results in more and not less infected persons especially the Vulnerable ones. Wathelet finds that locking up the family and infecting all is an acceptable risk factor. To me it is playing Russian roulette, irresponsible.

Moreover, it is clear by now that that every “corona-death” implies 1000 to 1500 infected persons. So with 1000 deaths there are over one million people infected. For Italy with nearly 11,000 deaths it means that 11 to 16 million people are infected. A general lockdown can impossible contain millions of symptomatic and asymptomatic people and still growing.

On top of this, the COVID-19 virus will return one way or the other, mutated or not. So it is only wise to develop a herd community while protecting and medical conditioning the vulnerable ones.

Ron,
The answer is damaged lungs. So very susceptible for pneumonia diseases.

In Wuhan and the North of Italy the air is heavely polluted. North Italy even more than Wuhan. So the longs of people young and old are damaged. The older the more damage to the lungs due to being longer exposed to air pollution. So also for this reason a higher death rate.
Iran is different: A lot of men over the age of fifty five suffer from forbidden chemical warfare agents used on them by the Iraqi army during the Iraq-Iran War (1980-1988). All these men have damaged lungs, a known phenomenon in Iran.

So a population in any area being for a long time exposed to air pollution have likely damaged lungs. Therefore more susceptible for COVID-19. That applies too to people working in a place that is heavily air polluted, for instance by dust.

Excellent article! Chapeau!

Everybody should read these facts of the truth, in order to erase the propaganda stored in their mind.
Put in there by more or less malicious news sites like the New York Times, Asia Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC and other main US and European news sites. Although, a few of their journalists beg to differ.