3 ms·

This argument is not worth responding to. You are arguing that our economy should be protected before people are protected. It is disgusting, and I'm tired of r

This argument is not worth responding to. You are arguing that our economy should be protected before people are protected. It is disgusting, and I'm tired of rehashing the same disgusting crap over and over. If you really think that the economic effects outweigh the loss of life this virus can and will cause, all I can do is be glad that all you have is your ability to express your opinion, not the ability to do anything about it. Thank god for that. Finally, and yes I'm quoting myself here "If you do not have another solution that keeps people alive, kindly be quiet; you have nothing important to say." > Kindly keep the nasty comments about trying to dissuade me from discussing these important topics to yourself. This is absurd; you're responding to me. And this isn't a discussion, these are opinions, with no facts to back them up. I simply find these opinions disgusting, as they do not prioritize keeping people healthy and alive.

z3t4 7y ago
You also have to take into account what might happen if millions of people loose their shit. People that have nothing to loose are dangerous. Never underestimate stupid people in large groups.
chrisco255 7y ago
We lose 30K+ people a year to car accidents, but we keep the roads and cars moving, because we accept that the collapse of those systems would cause more hardship and suffering and death than the systems themselves. We know lung cancer kills a lot of people, as well as liver disease, but we continue to allow for alcohol and cigarettes to be sold, because we know that the pain and suffering of enforcing the laws against those things is more expensive than the diseases themselves. We make all kinds of trade-offs in society. I'm arguing for: protecting the vulnerable and supporting them financially through the crisis but enabling the large bulk of our 20-50 year old workforce to keep the lights on by going back to work and engaging in commerce. That can involve all sorts of compromises with regards to hygiene, but it has to happen. We have tons of debt as a country, there are real systemic risks to continuing like this indefinitely.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

z3t4 7y ago

You also have to take into account what might happen if millions of people loose their shit. People that have nothing to loose are dangerous. Never underestimate stupid people in large groups.

chrisco255 7y ago

We lose 30K+ people a year to car accidents, but we keep the roads and cars moving, because we accept that the collapse of those systems would cause more hardship and suffering and death than the systems themselves. We know lung cancer kills a lot of people, as well as liver disease, but we continue to allow for alcohol and cigarettes to be sold, because we know that the pain and suffering of enforcing the laws against those things is more expensive than the diseases themselves. We make all kinds of trade-offs in society. I'm arguing for: protecting the vulnerable and supporting them financially through the crisis but enabling the large bulk of our 20-50 year old workforce to keep the lights on by going back to work and engaging in commerce. That can involve all sorts of compromises with regards to hygiene, but it has to happen. We have tons of debt as a country, there are real systemic risks to continuing like this indefinitely.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]