I mean, comparing countries with it's peers is what you should do. I could also have taken Argentina, Bulgaria, or Russia, but at the end you'll see that Germany did fairly well.

I think the question is somewhere how much death we accept against the impact of avoiding it. In this case, as I said before, there seems increasingly the opinion that school closures as a measure did not have the impact that justified its extent of use.

[–] rjs001@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would argue that we can’t look at that as the deaths were far too high regardless of closures. no Essentially, we don’t know how many deaths could have been avoided through thougher methods. Germany’s death rate was still far higher than it needed to be even if Europe as a whole also failed.

[–] arbitrary@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like you only read half my comment each time.

You will always reach a point of diminishing marginal returns with measures taken, and you have to evaluate the impact of the measure against it's effectiveness.

The argument is that school closures likely did not contribute sufficiently to justify their extent of implementation, meaning you probably would have wanted a few more people dying to avoid the shortfalls in children's education and socialisation that you have now. The ends, in retrospective, arguably did not justify the means.

[–] rjs001@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, they did. The ends reduced the death rate and hence justified what was done.

[–] arbitrary@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are not reading my comments. The closures did not reduce deaths/infections by enough to justify having them, that is the argument.

[–] rjs001@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago

And that argument is silly