4 ms·
Your whole argument relies on the faulty notion that the lockdown prioritizes "saving lives" over the economy. This simply isn't true, and I'd argue that lockd
by Johanx64 6y ago
Your whole argument relies on the faulty notion that the lockdown prioritizes "saving lives" over the economy.
This simply isn't true, and I'd argue that lockdown will directly or indirectly kill more people than it will "save".
In other words, saving economy is about saving lives, and less to do with "profits".
And then it becomes a matter of who gets to decide which set of people dies - "the old and the weak" or - in arguably greater numbers - everyone else (while their liberties get stripped away in the process).
Mind you, lockdown doesn't solve the problem, but only slows it down, namely the amount of people it will save is arguably rather small compared to numbers of people who will die from the economic damage.
- pmiller2 6y agoWhere is your research paper showing this?
- Johanx64 6y agoDo you question the premise that: a) economic depression will directly or indirectly kill people b) lockdown doesn't "solve the problem" - it merely slows it down We can argue all day about exactly numbers of how many people will get killed by the economic damage, but if you want to take away rights and opportunities for people to provide for themselves and their families, the onus is on you to prove that the lockdown will save more people than it will kill. And at the end of the day - it's still a question of which set of people is going to die - whatever those numbers might be.