Tweet
You want to get in a debate about individual responsibilities vs social resposibilities and the role of society? WWII cost fewer American lives than COVID over a longer period yet most people were willing to accept sacrifices to achieve a common goal. You pay taxes doncha? Why?
There is no one simple answer, man, different societies and different sections within a society have different ideas about their responsibilities towards their fellow citizens... however that's kinda the point of representative democracy... we elect leaders, they make decisions for us and then we got someone to blame when it all goes to shit..
Problem with just letting everyone make their own mind up in this circumstance is that it effectively penalises the older members of society and the infirm or those with health conditions for the benefit of the the younger and healthier. It also increases the rate of spread and runs the risk of more people becoming infected at once which can reduce the number of successful outcomes and be harmful for everyone.
Quite clear data from around the world shows that those countries who have locked down swiftly and hard have had the fewest infections, fewest deaths and long term complications... course this has to be weighed against the damage done and potential earnings loss, mental health and other problems including suicides and potentially fatal domestic abuse, which is why such policies have been most effectively used in countries with a more robust Social Security net than in the US.
So yeah, sure, there's a legitimate debate over the optimal policy but it surely isn't anything to do with '********' just being cowardly simpletons as your post above suggests. You also - whether deliberately or not -drastically understate the potential dangers of COVID as you might understand if you read some of the accounts just on here. On average the case fatality rate amongst younger age groups is more like 0.1% not 0.01 percent as you state. And that other 99.9% percent don't have 'no real issues' - as many as 10% may have chronic fatigue for weeks or months or potentially permanent lung scarring both of which can leave them incapable of work.
And if you're an old fart like me, middle aged with lungs already damaged from smoking and pneumonia (I still get flashbacks - like drowning in daylight, thrashing around on the hospital bed desperate to suck in some air. Not an experience I'd care to repeat) your likely outcomes are far far worse. Granted I may not be particularly deserving of a longer life, but I was kinda hoping to see my boys through school.
There is no one simple answer, man, different societies and different sections within a society have different ideas about their responsibilities towards their fellow citizens... however that's kinda the point of representative democracy... we elect leaders, they make decisions for us and then we got someone to blame when it all goes to shit..
Problem with just letting everyone make their own mind up in this circumstance is that it effectively penalises the older members of society and the infirm or those with health conditions for the benefit of the the younger and healthier. It also increases the rate of spread and runs the risk of more people becoming infected at once which can reduce the number of successful outcomes and be harmful for everyone.
Quite clear data from around the world shows that those countries who have locked down swiftly and hard have had the fewest infections, fewest deaths and long term complications... course this has to be weighed against the damage done and potential earnings loss, mental health and other problems including suicides and potentially fatal domestic abuse, which is why such policies have been most effectively used in countries with a more robust Social Security net than in the US.
So yeah, sure, there's a legitimate debate over the optimal policy but it surely isn't anything to do with '********' just being cowardly simpletons as your post above suggests. You also - whether deliberately or not -drastically understate the potential dangers of COVID as you might understand if you read some of the accounts just on here. On average the case fatality rate amongst younger age groups is more like 0.1% not 0.01 percent as you state. And that other 99.9% percent don't have 'no real issues' - as many as 10% may have chronic fatigue for weeks or months or potentially permanent lung scarring both of which can leave them incapable of work.
And if you're an old fart like me, middle aged with lungs already damaged from smoking and pneumonia (I still get flashbacks - like drowning in daylight, thrashing around on the hospital bed desperate to suck in some air. Not an experience I'd care to repeat) your likely outcomes are far far worse. Granted I may not be particularly deserving of a longer life, but I was kinda hoping to see my boys through school.
Comment