2 ms·

> Yes - "Survival of the fittest" Are you suggesting that people who have the ability to isolate themselves at home while still earning a living are somehow "f

> Yes - "Survival of the fittest" Are you suggesting that people who have the ability to isolate themselves at home while still earning a living are somehow "fitter"? As I suggested before, your argument as a whole amounts to nothing more than the woman who waves the sign saying "I want a haircut". Is your life more important than your barber or stylist's? If not, why are you asking them to risk it for you?

umvi 7y ago
No, I'm suggesting those that are most vulnerable to covid-19 (old, immuno-compromised, etc) will die off in the first wave and won't be around if there is a second wave. You can't die twice. Thus the mortality rate would plummet.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  And, that's exactly why we're sheltering in place. Which do you value more: those peoples' lives, or corporate profits?
  - umvi 7y ago
    Ok, that's a bit of a loaded question, and also a false dichotomy. Obviously economic stability is more valuable than lives to a certain extent because it generates wealth for generations. I don't think you grasp the gravity of the economic situation. It's not just "corporite profits" being lost. Tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs, businesses, livelihoods, etc, and that number is growing every day. The vast majority of Americans are not software engineers that can work remotely. A paltry $1000 stimulus check isn't going to help the millions of poor feeling the economic pressure. Many will commit suicide before this is over.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      No, it is not a false dichotomy. You are literally saying we need to open up now. doing so will kill people: all the best available research says so. Why do you not acknowledge this? Again, I ask: which do you value more, lives or profits? I think I know which, and you simply don't want to say it. Again, I don't give a shit about capitalism. Do you understand that?

umvi 7y ago

No, I'm suggesting those that are most vulnerable to covid-19 (old, immuno-compromised, etc) will die off in the first wave and won't be around if there is a second wave. You can't die twice. Thus the mortality rate would plummet.

pmiller2 7y ago
And, that's exactly why we're sheltering in place. Which do you value more: those peoples' lives, or corporate profits?
- umvi 7y ago
  Ok, that's a bit of a loaded question, and also a false dichotomy. Obviously economic stability is more valuable than lives to a certain extent because it generates wealth for generations. I don't think you grasp the gravity of the economic situation. It's not just "corporite profits" being lost. Tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs, businesses, livelihoods, etc, and that number is growing every day. The vast majority of Americans are not software engineers that can work remotely. A paltry $1000 stimulus check isn't going to help the millions of poor feeling the economic pressure. Many will commit suicide before this is over.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    No, it is not a false dichotomy. You are literally saying we need to open up now. doing so will kill people: all the best available research says so. Why do you not acknowledge this? Again, I ask: which do you value more, lives or profits? I think I know which, and you simply don't want to say it. Again, I don't give a shit about capitalism. Do you understand that?