4 ms·
This whole article was pretty...odd to me. I felt like it spread disinformation to glorify Sweden's decision to not implement lockdown. The decision to not su
by jpdb 7y ago
This whole article was pretty...odd to me.
I felt like it spread disinformation to glorify Sweden's decision to not implement lockdown. The decision to not suspend civil liberties is a complicated one, so I don't want to go into it; but lines like, "Stay at home if you feel sick," are EXTREMELY dangerous because much of the danger of COVID-19 is due to people being asymptomatic for such a long time, meaning people potentially transfer the disease to others even though they don't feel sick.
- raducu 7y agoOn one hand I wish nobody harm. On the other hand I'm sick and tired of the highly polarized modern world where you see idiots opposing common sense things such as vaccination -- maybe those people really need to suffer the natural consequence of their stupidity; swedish people seem to have a lot of common sense built into their society, so maybe, hopefully this decision won't negatively affect them.
- danielrpa 7y agoI hear what you are saying, but quite frequently it's not stupidity, just ignorance. It is true that in a highly connected world anyone could educate themselves on the benefits of vaccines, but it can be hard to overcome long held beliefs (passed down through education) or peer pressure (in communities that reject certain scientific facts). All that I'm saying is that while these people might now learn through pain and suffering, I don't really feel they all deserve it.
- raverbashing 7y agoIt's the Spectator, every article there seems to be mega polarized and agenda pushing Still, "Stay at home if you feel sick" is the opposite of dangerous. It is the negation of that phrase that's dangerous: "don't stay at home if you don't feel sick"