4 ms·

There are definitely people who think both of those things are true, but you could also argue that the economic damage would have been the same and also that th

There are definitely people who think both of those things are true, but you could also argue that the economic damage would have been the same and also that there would have been other costs (e.g. losses to individual autonomy, lost social connections / harms to community, resulting stress and trauma, etc. etc. )

twblalock 6y ago
> but you could also argue that the economic damage would have been the same I really doubt that. Look at how people were behaving until the day the lockdowns began. Look at how people are behaving now. They aren't afraid of going to bars and restaurants and shops. There is no good reason to believe that they wouldn't have behaved the same way the entire time, if the lockdowns had not intervened. It's obviously true that the economy would have been damaged with or without the lockdowns. It's entirely different to claim that the damage without lockdowns would have been as bad as the damage with lockdowns.
- watwut 6y ago
  Restaurants are waaay emptier then they used to be. What are you talking abou?
  - twblalock 6y ago
    They aren't entirely empty though, are they? Yet during the lockdowns it was illegal to go to restaurants. Some customers are better than no customers. Ask any restaurant owner if they would prefer lockdowns to the current state of affairs. Again, it's not like the economy would not have been damaged either way, but it's obvious that the lockdowns made the economic damage worse.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    OTOH we're ordering in like never before
mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
@twblalock - can't reply to your reply so replying here instead. I also doubt it and wouldn't argue it myself, I was just pointing out that making that argument need not imply that you think there are no other costs, i.e. those arguments are not equivalent.

4 ms·

There are definitely people who think both of those things are true, but you could also argue that the economic damage would have been the same and also that th

by mandelbrotwurst 6y ago

twblalock 6y ago
> but you could also argue that the economic damage would have been the same I really doubt that. Look at how people were behaving until the day the lockdowns began. Look at how people are behaving now. They aren't afraid of going to bars and restaurants and shops. There is no good reason to believe that they wouldn't have behaved the same way the entire time, if the lockdowns had not intervened. It's obviously true that the economy would have been damaged with or without the lockdowns. It's entirely different to claim that the damage without lockdowns would have been as bad as the damage with lockdowns.
- watwut 6y ago
  Restaurants are waaay emptier then they used to be. What are you talking abou?
  - twblalock 6y ago
    They aren't entirely empty though, are they? Yet during the lockdowns it was illegal to go to restaurants. Some customers are better than no customers. Ask any restaurant owner if they would prefer lockdowns to the current state of affairs. Again, it's not like the economy would not have been damaged either way, but it's obvious that the lockdowns made the economic damage worse.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    OTOH we're ordering in like never before
mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
@twblalock - can't reply to your reply so replying here instead. I also doubt it and wouldn't argue it myself, I was just pointing out that making that argument need not imply that you think there are no other costs, i.e. those arguments are not equivalent.