4 ms·
It’s still insignificant in comparison to even 1918 pandemic - and minuscule even, with population growth since then.
by sheeshkebab 6y ago
It’s still insignificant in comparison to even 1918 pandemic - and minuscule even, with population growth since then.
- Touche 6y agoWhat's your point?
- sheeshkebab 6y agoThe point is people are talking about revolutions and other destructive world collapse nonsense over a decease that’s slightly more risky than seasonal flu.
- Touche 6y agoIt's not "slightly" more risky than the flu, nice try. And I'm not sure what revolution you are talking about.
- shawabawa3 6y agoThe 1918 pandemic didn't have basically every country in the world undergoing quarantine measures to reduce the spread - in fact its existence was actively suppressed due to wartime press controls
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoWe didn't really understand a whole lot about flus and pandemics back then, and the majority of the world was much poorer, leading to a global response like we're seeing in Brazil, for instance. Additionally, there was a war on for a bunch of it, which impacted things. Like, I actually think that lockdowns are a reasonable approach as a pandemic control strategy. I think it's a reasonable tradeoff against the potential deaths. Note that this is completely conditional on the existence of a proper social security network, which supports all the people who can't work from home.