3 ms·

> I can see from the hundreds of downvotes I've received in the past two months that very few people are considering the larger picture for society. I call that

by wsatb 6y ago

> I can see from the hundreds of downvotes I've received in the past two months that very few people are considering the larger picture for society. I call that selfish. This is quite the accusation. I think everyone is well aware of the long term impact of this lockdown, but when you start thinking of that 21k as real people: your brother, your sister, your niece, or your nephew, your best friend, shit gets real fast. If it's selfish to not want my loved ones to die because our economy and healthcare system is so woefully flawed and unprepared, then I guess I'm selfish. Maybe we'll learn something this time, but probably not.

hedora 6y ago
The WHO is predicting 1 billion people will starve this year. Over 800 million of that is attributed to the COVID response. If you divide out the numbers, for each person the global lockdown saves from COVID, it will starve 100. I’m not the sort willing to torture a hundred innocent strangers (and kill dozens) to save one of my loved ones. Either people are not “well aware” of the impacts of the shutdown, or we have radically different ethical standards.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  >the WHO is predicting 1 billion people will starve this year This simply isn't true and it undermines your argument. The UN and WHO estimate that the virus will push an additional 100-250 million people into an at risk category of starvation. This category already has ~850 million people in it every year, of which 3-5 million actually starve. This is horrific, and there is no need to exaggerate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation
shadowprofile77 6y ago
Yes you are selfish, and admittedly emotionally irrational as well. If your only criterion is that you do not want your loved ones to die because something else that affects millions and is in fact necessary for millions of others to continue living decently goes on, then you're implicitly stating that a vast number of sometimes risky things should stop because there is a non-zero (and in many cases of things commonly done) higher-than-covid-death possibility that one of these things will kill some loved one of yours. Now you're welcome to your personal, selfish and emotionally charged view of course but public policy and rules that affect billions of human beings cannot be decided on the slimmest margins of possibility that someone somebody else loves will die. Doing so will in any case indirectly or directly cause somebody else that someone else loves to die. The global economic depression we seem to have unleashed at this point will also very, very likely cause misery and death for hundreds of thousands if not millions of other people who are the loved ones of someone who does not want them to die. Now, the lockdowns that have been the case so far were in large part based on what are looking more like over-inflated initial estimates of mortality for the virus, so based on precaution derived from these initial estimates, it was understandable that they were implemented even if they had their own risks, but now if the mortality rate of the virus is indeed much lower than previously expected, it's only irresponsible to continue with lockdown measures that cause tremendous harm of their own for many reasons. Least of all should they be continued because there's always a handful of people like you who say "But my loved ones, I don't care about anything else no matter how minor the risk to these people I know"..
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 6y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned here. No more of this please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
redis_mlc 6y ago
> when you start thinking of that 21k as real people: your brother, your sister, your niece, or your nephew, your best friend, shit gets real fast. The population of the USA is 300 million people. Policy has to consider those 300 million, not one nephew. Doctors are already warning that there will be more suicides than corona deaths if this lockdown isn't ended.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

by wsatb 6y ago

hedora 6y ago

The WHO is predicting 1 billion people will starve this year. Over 800 million of that is attributed to the COVID response. If you divide out the numbers, for each person the global lockdown saves from COVID, it will starve 100. I’m not the sort willing to torture a hundred innocent strangers (and kill dozens) to save one of my loved ones. Either people are not “well aware” of the impacts of the shutdown, or we have radically different ethical standards.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
>the WHO is predicting 1 billion people will starve this year This simply isn't true and it undermines your argument. The UN and WHO estimate that the virus will push an additional 100-250 million people into an at risk category of starvation. This category already has ~850 million people in it every year, of which 3-5 million actually starve. This is horrific, and there is no need to exaggerate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation

shadowprofile77 6y ago

Yes you are selfish, and admittedly emotionally irrational as well. If your only criterion is that you do not want your loved ones to die because something else that affects millions and is in fact necessary for millions of others to continue living decently goes on, then you're implicitly stating that a vast number of sometimes risky things should stop because there is a non-zero (and in many cases of things commonly done) higher-than-covid-death possibility that one of these things will kill some loved one of yours. Now you're welcome to your personal, selfish and emotionally charged view of course but public policy and rules that affect billions of human beings cannot be decided on the slimmest margins of possibility that someone somebody else loves will die. Doing so will in any case indirectly or directly cause somebody else that someone else loves to die. The global economic depression we seem to have unleashed at this point will also very, very likely cause misery and death for hundreds of thousands if not millions of other people who are the loved ones of someone who does not want them to die. Now, the lockdowns that have been the case so far were in large part based on what are looking more like over-inflated initial estimates of mortality for the virus, so based on precaution derived from these initial estimates, it was understandable that they were implemented even if they had their own risks, but now if the mortality rate of the virus is indeed much lower than previously expected, it's only irresponsible to continue with lockdown measures that cause tremendous harm of their own for many reasons. Least of all should they be continued because there's always a handful of people like you who say "But my loved ones, I don't care about anything else no matter how minor the risk to these people I know"..

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dang 6y ago
Personal attacks will get you banned here. No more of this please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

redis_mlc 6y ago

> when you start thinking of that 21k as real people: your brother, your sister, your niece, or your nephew, your best friend, shit gets real fast. The population of the USA is 300 million people. Policy has to consider those 300 million, not one nephew. Doctors are already warning that there will be more suicides than corona deaths if this lockdown isn't ended.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]