3 ms·
>I’ve talked to a lot of folks in the past few weeks who aren’t laughing at all over what might be an overreaction. It's a no-win situation for a lot of people
by basscomm 7y ago
>I’ve talked to a lot of folks in the past few weeks who aren’t laughing at all over what might be an overreaction.
It's a no-win situation for a lot of people with a certain mindset. If we take extreme measures and the infection is worse than predicted, then they'll say that everyone should have done more.
If we take extreme measures and 'flatten the curve' enough so that the hospitals aren't overwhelmed and the number of deaths is lower than expected, then they'll say that all those measures were an overreaction to something that turned out to not be that bad. Even though that was the desired outcome of taking those extreme measures in the first place.
There is also a worryingly-large number of people that will insist that everything is overblown, everything is fine, et cetera, until they (or someone they know personally) is impacted. Until then all these things are happening to 'someone else' and can be ignored.
- guscost 7y agoYou’re not even acknowledging the third possibility: if it doesn’t turn out “that bad” and the extreme measures don’t make much of a difference. This is the possibility I would be super pissed about, not the other two. Unfortunately, in either “not that bad” outcome it’s going to be very hard to prove which one it is, which of course won’t stop a bunch of folks from parading around and bragging about how they saved the world. I’ve seen this pattern more than once in my short time alive. But assuming what we all hope, that one of the “not that bad” scenarios plays out, the difference this time will be that many millions of lives will have been directly ruined because of those extreme measures.