4 ms·

>So just checking, at what point do you believe a lockdown is reasonable? When covid causes more deaths than every other cause of death combined? Because that's

by htnsao 6y ago

>So just checking, at what point do you believe a lockdown is reasonable? When covid causes more deaths than every other cause of death combined? Because that's just a month away. I think lockdowns of the entire population does more harm than good. I say protect the vulnerable and let the rest self-isolate if they feel the risk is warranted. After all this ain't the Black Death plague, it's a bad cold that has a zero effect on most that get it. Basically we've reverted to centralized control of the economy so it's failing like communism. >>1 person net is added to the population of Brazil every 21 seconds. That's the real emergency. >I see no reason to consider this an emergency. It's an ecological emergency, take a look at the Amazon. >I'm sorry you feel this way. I wish you happiness and peace in these hard times. Yeah you're real smug working for Google aren't ya. Tell that to all the business owners, unemployed workers, and starving masses.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> Yeah you're real smug working for Google aren't ya. Tell that to all the business owners, unemployed workers, and starving masses. If you feel the need to lash out at someone, I'm a better target than those facing more hardship. But yes, while I'm fortunate, I know many people who aren't in as stable a situation, most of them however recognize the necessity of that hardship. It's an unfortunate situation yes, but the alternatives aren't better. > After all this ain't the Black Death plague, it's a bad cold that has a zero effect on most that get it. You're right, it's more like the Spanish flu, which killed 3% of the world's population at the time, or 180 million people today. That's not a sacrifice we should be willing to make. > Basically we've reverted to centralized control of the economy so it's failing like communism. No. This is comically incorrect. In some sense there is more centralized economic control sure, but well first of all that isn't communism, but second of all, that centralized control is succeeding at its goal, which is to reduce the death toll of the virus. You may not share the same value system, but that's Ok with most people, who don't value profit over lives. Granted this would be easier to bear for everyone if the US had a stronger social support system. > It's an ecological emergency, take a look at the Amazon. I don't see how deforestation in the amazon, which usually has to do with comsumerism in places like the US, has anything to do with the population of Brazil. > I say protect the vulnerable and let the rest self-isolate if they feel the risk is warranted. I read this as you saying you want some of the most vulnerable populations among us to sacrifice their safety and quality of life for the rest of us, while you yourself are unwilling to do the same for them. Is that correct?
- htnsao 6y ago
  >If you feel the need to lash out at someone. People have to start speaking up against the overly politically-correct or we end up in situations like the current lock-down. >It's an unfortunate situation yes, but the alternatives aren't better. You can look at Sweden and see that is not true. Only .03% of population has died. That is 3% of 1%. [0] It's not as if deadly flu's and other nasty diseases that people have to avoid naturally are not going around all the time anyway. >You're right, it's more like the Spanish flu, which killed 3% of the world's population at the time, or 180 million people today. That's not a sacrifice we should be willing to make. It's not killing 3% of the population. More like 3% of 1%. ~60M people die every year worldwide. Coronavirus barely moves the needle. >I don't see how deforestation in the amazon, which usually has to do with consumerism in places like the US, has anything to do with the population of Brazil. I live in the Amazon. Humans are like a plague of locusts, cutting down all trees and killing everything that moves. Deforestation is mainly from the poor doing slash and burn. And from people just trying to earn a living (the wrong way), more and more of them every day. (FWIW I'm here showing a better way. ie reforestation) >So you want some of the most vulnerable populations among us to sacrifice their safety and quality of life for the rest of us? But you're unwilling to do the same for them? That feels rather selfish to me. No I said protect the vulnerable and let the rest self-isolate if they feel the risk is warranted. As in, don't bring the virus into old folks homes. You talk as if you think the common cold disappears after people hide in their houses for awhile. And as if the world can go on shut down indefinitely. Going on 8 wks of shut down here and it's a joke. Idiots copying the stupid. [0]: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > You can look at Sweden and see that is not true. Only .03% of population has died. That is 3% of 1%. [0] The capitol of sweden is being hit as hard as NYC. And that's despite many social distancing measures in place. The idea that sweden isn't being impacted negatively is wishful thinking. > It's not as if deadly flu's and other nasty diseases that people have to avoid naturally are not going around all the time anyway. The resignation that shit's bad, so we should let it get worse is fatalistic and untenable. > And as if the world can go on shut down indefinitely. Indeed it can't, no one is proposing that.

by htnsao 6y ago

joshuamorton 6y ago

> Yeah you're real smug working for Google aren't ya. Tell that to all the business owners, unemployed workers, and starving masses. If you feel the need to lash out at someone, I'm a better target than those facing more hardship. But yes, while I'm fortunate, I know many people who aren't in as stable a situation, most of them however recognize the necessity of that hardship. It's an unfortunate situation yes, but the alternatives aren't better. > After all this ain't the Black Death plague, it's a bad cold that has a zero effect on most that get it. You're right, it's more like the Spanish flu, which killed 3% of the world's population at the time, or 180 million people today. That's not a sacrifice we should be willing to make. > Basically we've reverted to centralized control of the economy so it's failing like communism. No. This is comically incorrect. In some sense there is more centralized economic control sure, but well first of all that isn't communism, but second of all, that centralized control is succeeding at its goal, which is to reduce the death toll of the virus. You may not share the same value system, but that's Ok with most people, who don't value profit over lives. Granted this would be easier to bear for everyone if the US had a stronger social support system. > It's an ecological emergency, take a look at the Amazon. I don't see how deforestation in the amazon, which usually has to do with comsumerism in places like the US, has anything to do with the population of Brazil. > I say protect the vulnerable and let the rest self-isolate if they feel the risk is warranted. I read this as you saying you want some of the most vulnerable populations among us to sacrifice their safety and quality of life for the rest of us, while you yourself are unwilling to do the same for them. Is that correct?

htnsao 6y ago
>If you feel the need to lash out at someone. People have to start speaking up against the overly politically-correct or we end up in situations like the current lock-down. >It's an unfortunate situation yes, but the alternatives aren't better. You can look at Sweden and see that is not true. Only .03% of population has died. That is 3% of 1%. [0] It's not as if deadly flu's and other nasty diseases that people have to avoid naturally are not going around all the time anyway. >You're right, it's more like the Spanish flu, which killed 3% of the world's population at the time, or 180 million people today. That's not a sacrifice we should be willing to make. It's not killing 3% of the population. More like 3% of 1%. ~60M people die every year worldwide. Coronavirus barely moves the needle. >I don't see how deforestation in the amazon, which usually has to do with consumerism in places like the US, has anything to do with the population of Brazil. I live in the Amazon. Humans are like a plague of locusts, cutting down all trees and killing everything that moves. Deforestation is mainly from the poor doing slash and burn. And from people just trying to earn a living (the wrong way), more and more of them every day. (FWIW I'm here showing a better way. ie reforestation) >So you want some of the most vulnerable populations among us to sacrifice their safety and quality of life for the rest of us? But you're unwilling to do the same for them? That feels rather selfish to me. No I said protect the vulnerable and let the rest self-isolate if they feel the risk is warranted. As in, don't bring the virus into old folks homes. You talk as if you think the common cold disappears after people hide in their houses for awhile. And as if the world can go on shut down indefinitely. Going on 8 wks of shut down here and it's a joke. Idiots copying the stupid. [0]: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > You can look at Sweden and see that is not true. Only .03% of population has died. That is 3% of 1%. [0] The capitol of sweden is being hit as hard as NYC. And that's despite many social distancing measures in place. The idea that sweden isn't being impacted negatively is wishful thinking. > It's not as if deadly flu's and other nasty diseases that people have to avoid naturally are not going around all the time anyway. The resignation that shit's bad, so we should let it get worse is fatalistic and untenable. > And as if the world can go on shut down indefinitely. Indeed it can't, no one is proposing that.