Or perhaps the wording was off as their (my) reason to copy-paste most if it from something they wrote a minute before that on another and highly relevant thread.
If I'd explain it as using cofferdams ( temporarily structures) to raise the water instead of the traditional lowering. Is that better for you?
I'm 100% sure that using simple solutions to hard problems is not always thought off when something is not used in it's "traditional" sense.
Sometimes outsiders give another POV that could be actually useful. And sometimes it isn't.
No need to get rude for that... Perhaps try some constructive feedback on why it shouldn't work next time? :)
PS. Before you misinterpret my words again. I'm saying that the concept is simple ( raising the water level), not the execution of it. Since on this scale every solution is harder to execute.
Can you ask him what he thinks about using cofferdams for raising the water level ( instead of lowering it).
I'm actually curious in hearing potential problems or ( if it would be plausible) a raw estimation of duration ( since you mentioned 20 weeks, that's a huge timeline).
Edit: I don't know anything about this subject. So it's interesting to learn/ask some stuff I wouldn't encounter otherwise.
> Of those not admitted to hospital, 20-30% experience at least one enduring symptom around one month later and at least 10% three months later;
Still, not "very low"...