3 ms·

Generally speaking? it's probably a good idea to delay opening things back up until we know the full extent of the virus, yes. If the antibodies only confer sho

Generally speaking? it's probably a good idea to delay opening things back up until we know the full extent of the virus, yes. If the antibodies only confer short-term protection and people could get reinfected again (as some indications have shown), it MIGHT be a bad idea to reopen the economy and pave the way for a second wave of the virus, you know? Just throwing that out there. If you think things are bad now, do you honestly think things would get better if we had to go through this again because we decided to stop early? Though given you seem to be peddling the idea that this is all a conspiracy by activists to keep us at home forever, I'm willing to bet you're not going to engage this point with any sort of good faith.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
You say it's a conspiracy theory, but you agree we should stay at home until the "full extent of the virus" is known, and long-term effects by definition aren't going to be visible any time soon. Do you have a plan for how we could discover such things faster than a year or two?
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  I asked the OP to tell me what the long-term effects of the virus are given that they said for most of the population, the virus is not that serious. They haven't provided that information yet, so I'm going to assume they don't have it. I do not have that information either. Until we (and 'we' as in medical professionals) figure out the best way to deal with the virus and any potential effects in the long term then yes, we should stay at home. Because there's still a lot of unknowns.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    That's the position I would describe as "we should stay at home forever". I'm glad we could get onto the same page that my conspiracy theory was indeed true! When people in future conversations insist that your proposals are a strawman, I'll make sure to step in on your behalf, and explain that some people really do think we should be required to stay home for the indefinite future.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

You say it's a conspiracy theory, but you agree we should stay at home until the "full extent of the virus" is known, and long-term effects by definition aren't going to be visible any time soon. Do you have a plan for how we could discover such things faster than a year or two?

fzeroracer 7y ago
I asked the OP to tell me what the long-term effects of the virus are given that they said for most of the population, the virus is not that serious. They haven't provided that information yet, so I'm going to assume they don't have it. I do not have that information either. Until we (and 'we' as in medical professionals) figure out the best way to deal with the virus and any potential effects in the long term then yes, we should stay at home. Because there's still a lot of unknowns.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  That's the position I would describe as "we should stay at home forever". I'm glad we could get onto the same page that my conspiracy theory was indeed true! When people in future conversations insist that your proposals are a strawman, I'll make sure to step in on your behalf, and explain that some people really do think we should be required to stay home for the indefinite future.