3 ms·
I disagree, I think that the lockdowns are a net good. Mitigating the virus' spread while researching vaccines and treatments makes sense and will save lives.
by wyldfire 6y ago
I disagree, I think that the lockdowns are a net good. Mitigating the virus' spread while researching vaccines and treatments makes sense and will save lives.
You could make the case that lockdowns are not a net good but I think you will have a really hard time convincing anyone that the harm that comes is like the harm of experimenting on humans.
- thepangolino 6y agoHow can you already define those lockdowns as being a net good without any idea of their long term effects, both health wise and in a sociological aspect. The way I see it, lockdowns have divided populations to a greater extent than any other current issue.
- monadic2 6y agoLockdowns seem to be the most effective tool we have at reversing infection rate. They also don't need to take forever if combined with contact tracing. What other tools is the US willing to consider? Apparently virtually nothing.
- neverminder 6y agoSo far from various sources I've read, prognosis of social and economic consequences range from bad to devastating. Right now many governments still maintain schemes like furlough, but that particular dam will break soon.
- francisofascii 6y agoI partially agree for the reasons you stated. But if you concede that, say a 5 year lock down would certainly be a net negative, at some point the net good turns into a net negative. I think we are getting close to that inflection point.
- ryandrake 6y agoTo play devil's advocate, a 5 year lock down would only be a net negative if we failed to fix the systemic economic problems that make it negative, e.g. the lack of a safety net for people who cannot work. All the agonizing over the economic impacts of stay-at-home is ironic in light of the fact that we spent decades gutting safety nets and deliberately building a society that requires you to go to work or die.