5 ms·

I'm going to call your straw man. My sex life is obviously not worth the lives of millions of people, but how many times have you caught the flu, in your life?

I'm going to call your straw man. My sex life is obviously not worth the lives of millions of people, but how many times have you caught the flu, in your life? How many people have you infected? The flu kills older people too, so how many lives did you put at risk? Could you actually be indirectly responsible for one or more deaths without knowing? How can you quantify every time your activity has put the lives of other people at risk? Here we're talking about the mental health and wellbeing, the livelihood and life work (eg small businesses) of billions of people, being sacrificed in the hopes that this will save hundreds of thousands. You can argue that this is for the greater collective good, but how do you put a value on lives, or on everyone's mental health? For the sake of argument, how much is the lifespan of the average American due to job losses, foreclosures, bankruptcies, etc.? What kind of effect will isolation have on young children, who are being told that they can't play with other kids their age, during critical phases of their brain development? I think it's perfectly fair to ask where we draw the line as to what is too much government control in the name of protecting the collective greater good. How much do you think your government should be allowed to control your life in the name of the greater good?

pvg 6y ago
I don't follow, which one of these is supposed to be the strawman of mine you are 'calling'?
- crocodiletears 6y ago
  I wouldn't call it strawmanning, but your response bypassed his broader point, by fixating on one element of his personal anecdote which seems petty without the full context of his concerns. The previous paragraph had a more societally-oriented critique of lockdown measure, and the fact that the disruption has caused him and ostensibly two others so much distress as to seek prescribed medication in order to cope with it is far more salient within the latter paragraph, imo.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
ohgodplsno 6y ago
We're talking about a "flu" that, even with _heavy_ travel restrictions, has a death rate of about 1%, going up to 10% on the over 65. We're talking about a "flu" that is so contagious that, even with orders to stay at home, manages to keep itself alive through new infections easily and we're struggling to get the R0 down. We're talking about a "flu" that has, in a matter of weeks, completely overwhelmed every single health system in the world. Your relativization of your fellow citizens as just a matter of numbers and "how old will they die anyways?" is absolutely heartless. These are actual people, with families, friends and close people. Not just numbers on the John Hopkins charts. But hey, what could happen if you reopened ? After all, New York only had to deal with a shortage of medical equipment, medical personnel being exhausted and overworked, a need to bring cooling trucks just to hold the dead bodies. Combine that with the fact that the moment your health system gets overwhelmed and cannot treat other illnesses, those deaths will go through the roof. It's not a crazy theory. It's something epidemiologists have studied for a while, and we have seen its effect with cases in Europe, where deaths not related to Covid-19 have gone up, because we couldn't treat heart diseases, other pulmonary diseases, etc. Oh, and, an overwhelmed medical system also leads to a shutdown of other parts of your precious economy. People will not go to work because being injured means you cannot be treated. Half of construction gone. Half of any job that involves dangerous conditions gone. And how many other jobs will that destroy ? This lockdown is a necessary evil, and the best option we have. So, yes. The government has every right to protect millions of citizens from dying. You can handle staying home. I know it's hard at times, and I truly hope that you will get better. But it's not complicated. Sit. at. home.
- tachyonbeam 6y ago
  > has a death rate of about 1% We don't know what the actual death rate is, we need more antibody studies to figure that out. > "how old will they die anyways?" I didn't say that, you did. > These are actual people, with families, friends and close people. Yes, and hundreds of millions of people with families, friends and loved ones are suffering in many ways because of the lockdown. I don't know how many depressions, foreclosures, broken marriages and boarded up small businesses one saved life is worth, but there's a tradeoff being made. FWIW, I am staying home. I get my groceries delivered and leave the house about once or twice a week. I try to distance myself from people on the sidewalk, etc.

pvg 6y ago

I don't follow, which one of these is supposed to be the strawman of mine you are 'calling'?

crocodiletears 6y ago
I wouldn't call it strawmanning, but your response bypassed his broader point, by fixating on one element of his personal anecdote which seems petty without the full context of his concerns. The previous paragraph had a more societally-oriented critique of lockdown measure, and the fact that the disruption has caused him and ostensibly two others so much distress as to seek prescribed medication in order to cope with it is far more salient within the latter paragraph, imo.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

ohgodplsno 6y ago

We're talking about a "flu" that, even with _heavy_ travel restrictions, has a death rate of about 1%, going up to 10% on the over 65. We're talking about a "flu" that is so contagious that, even with orders to stay at home, manages to keep itself alive through new infections easily and we're struggling to get the R0 down. We're talking about a "flu" that has, in a matter of weeks, completely overwhelmed every single health system in the world. Your relativization of your fellow citizens as just a matter of numbers and "how old will they die anyways?" is absolutely heartless. These are actual people, with families, friends and close people. Not just numbers on the John Hopkins charts. But hey, what could happen if you reopened ? After all, New York only had to deal with a shortage of medical equipment, medical personnel being exhausted and overworked, a need to bring cooling trucks just to hold the dead bodies. Combine that with the fact that the moment your health system gets overwhelmed and cannot treat other illnesses, those deaths will go through the roof. It's not a crazy theory. It's something epidemiologists have studied for a while, and we have seen its effect with cases in Europe, where deaths not related to Covid-19 have gone up, because we couldn't treat heart diseases, other pulmonary diseases, etc. Oh, and, an overwhelmed medical system also leads to a shutdown of other parts of your precious economy. People will not go to work because being injured means you cannot be treated. Half of construction gone. Half of any job that involves dangerous conditions gone. And how many other jobs will that destroy ? This lockdown is a necessary evil, and the best option we have. So, yes. The government has every right to protect millions of citizens from dying. You can handle staying home. I know it's hard at times, and I truly hope that you will get better. But it's not complicated. Sit. at. home.

tachyonbeam 6y ago
> has a death rate of about 1% We don't know what the actual death rate is, we need more antibody studies to figure that out. > "how old will they die anyways?" I didn't say that, you did. > These are actual people, with families, friends and close people. Yes, and hundreds of millions of people with families, friends and loved ones are suffering in many ways because of the lockdown. I don't know how many depressions, foreclosures, broken marriages and boarded up small businesses one saved life is worth, but there's a tradeoff being made. FWIW, I am staying home. I get my groceries delivered and leave the house about once or twice a week. I try to distance myself from people on the sidewalk, etc.