4 ms·
First, because they live with people who aren't at risk and if those people go about their lives it defeats the purpose. Second, if everyone not explicitly at
by gdulli 7y ago
First, because they live with people who aren't at risk and if those people go about their lives it defeats the purpose.
Second, if everyone not explicitly at high risk went about their normal business, some percentage of them would still need medical attention and the hospitals would run out of beds, leaving some to die.
- sergiotapia 7y agoSo, you live with people that are at risk, you can stay home too! Second: That's the nature of nature. If you want, you can protect yourself, stay home!
- gdulli 7y agoAnd what happens when you, with your good judgement, decide to protect yourself and stay home, and then you have an unrelated treatable condition but die because no hospital could take you because they're all busy dealing with all the Coronavirus patients who were left to their good judgement and didn't stay home?
- sergiotapia 7y ago1. Your hypothetical isn't a possibility. The numbers do not reflect that possibility, not even close. 2. Even if it were a possibility, it's that vs. shutting down peoples lives for a very long time. "Is your life worth my liberty?" - that's something we fundamentally disagree on.
- objectivetruth 7y agoIf you have proof that it's impossible for the US healthcare system to be overloaded and shut down during a pandemic, you should publish! NEJM, Lancet, Journal of Infectious Diseases: I know there are a LOT of doctors and public health officials who'd love to see your evidence!