3 ms·

A lot more people than you realize are willing to sacrifice them to get the economy (and normal life) running again. They just don't talk about openly in stark

A lot more people than you realize are willing to sacrifice them to get the economy (and normal life) running again. They just don't talk about openly in stark terms, for obvious reasons.

luckylion 7y ago
Everybody is willing to do so, the difference is only when. Some may think we should "sacrifice" them immediately, because living without a mocha latte grande whatever just isn't okay, but if we'd face mass starvation, I'm pretty sure that everybody would agree that we can't keep going. Of course, that's unlikely, but let's not pretend that there's some (sane) group of people out there, that actually say "under no circumstances may any life be put in danger, ever".
- apatters 7y ago
  It is simply incredible that you've reduced the argument for lifting lockdowns to "getting a mocha latte grande whatever." I have never seen an argument made in such bad faith before. The US has just suffered its largest job losses in history. The people who lost these jobs skew heavily toward lower income brackets and little or no savings. The losses are still growing. How can you say something like this with a straight face?
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > It is simply incredible that you've reduced the argument for lifting lockdowns to "getting a mocha latte grande whatever." I have never seen an argument made in such bad faith before. It's meant to be the worst possible reason to end the lock down, with "otherwise everybody dies" being the best possible reason. Everybody falls somewhere between these extremes. I just wanted to make clear that there is no sane position that responds to the worst possible circumstances by saying "lives must not be lost because of Covid-19, but I'm fine with them being lost because of our reaction to Covid-19". My personal opinion is somewhat close to yours, I believe. I'm aware that a massively shrinking economy has severe real world consequences.

A lot more people than you realize are willing to sacrifice them to get the economy (and normal life) running again. They just don't talk about openly in stark terms, for obvious reasons.

luckylion 7y ago

Everybody is willing to do so, the difference is only when. Some may think we should "sacrifice" them immediately, because living without a mocha latte grande whatever just isn't okay, but if we'd face mass starvation, I'm pretty sure that everybody would agree that we can't keep going. Of course, that's unlikely, but let's not pretend that there's some (sane) group of people out there, that actually say "under no circumstances may any life be put in danger, ever".

apatters 7y ago
It is simply incredible that you've reduced the argument for lifting lockdowns to "getting a mocha latte grande whatever." I have never seen an argument made in such bad faith before. The US has just suffered its largest job losses in history. The people who lost these jobs skew heavily toward lower income brackets and little or no savings. The losses are still growing. How can you say something like this with a straight face?
- luckylion 7y ago
  > It is simply incredible that you've reduced the argument for lifting lockdowns to "getting a mocha latte grande whatever." I have never seen an argument made in such bad faith before. It's meant to be the worst possible reason to end the lock down, with "otherwise everybody dies" being the best possible reason. Everybody falls somewhere between these extremes. I just wanted to make clear that there is no sane position that responds to the worst possible circumstances by saying "lives must not be lost because of Covid-19, but I'm fine with them being lost because of our reaction to Covid-19". My personal opinion is somewhat close to yours, I believe. I'm aware that a massively shrinking economy has severe real world consequences.