3 ms·
> “...because the simple fact is that even without government-enforced lockdowns, many (perhaps most) people won't return to a normal level of activity if they
by clairity 7y ago
> “...because the simple fact is that even without government-enforced lockdowns, many (perhaps most) people won't return to a normal level of activity if they don't feel safe doing so.“
you’re underestimating the pain that many americans are feeling after just a few weeks of (soft) lockdown. it’s not that people want to be unsafe, it’s that their livelihoods are in grave danger if the lockdowns last for months. many people are willing to take some risk now that the pandemic hasn’t turned out to be plague-levels of badness that some initially feared. few people are economically secure enough to say ‘no’ to opening back up sooner rather than later.
- ceejayoz 7y agos/willing/forced
- tempestn 7y agoAll the more reason why extensive testing, allowing them to go back to work safely, would be great!
- perl4ever 7y ago"many people are willing to take some risk now that the pandemic hasn’t turned out to be plague-levels of badness that some initially feared" Without expressing an opinion of my own, how can you write as though from a twilight zone without causal relationships? I mean, you, or anyone, can doubt that the lockdown is necessary. You might be right! But you must acknowledge and challenge the causal connection between the lockdown and "not plague levels of badness". Comments that just ignore the possibility creep me out, because I can't imagine what the writer is thinking, except maybe "wishing will make it so".