4 ms·
I agree, as alarming as it sounds I think we'd need something much higher than a 2% fatality rate to justify completely giving up our civil liberties. If anyth
by sodafountan 7y ago
I agree, as alarming as it sounds I think we'd need something much higher than a 2% fatality rate to justify completely giving up our civil liberties.
If anything it should be the elderly and vulnerable that are forced to isolate while the rest of society slows down for awhile, but even that I think is too egregious at this point.
- redisman 7y agoYou're not gonna get 2% fatality rate without serious quarantine measures. That rate assumes you can get all the serious cases to the ICU and into a ventilator. If you let it grow exponentially, we need to start imagining what is the fatality rate basically without any hospital care. Scaling hospitals will be absolutely impossible once the cases start heading into six and seven figures.
- selimthegrim 7y agoImperial College doesn’t think that’s going to do enough good
- mokus 7y agoLincoln used marshal law during the civil war and even that was deemed unconstitutional in some areas. As long as there are functioning civil courts, marshal law is not considered justified, as I understand it.
- schoen 7y agoIt's "martial" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/martial#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/martial#English) rather than "marshal" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marshal#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marshal#English). The two are homophones, but the first means 'military' and the second is a particular rank or role within an army or government.