3 ms·
It was created by a Koch "economic policy think tank"[2], who regularly argues against climate change[3], the minimum wage, and social safety nets, and isn't fo
by Someone1234 6y ago
It was created by a Koch "economic policy think tank"[2], who regularly argues against climate change[3], the minimum wage, and social safety nets, and isn't focused on medical arguments, but rather economic well-being. It stretches credibility to suggest their primary interests are for the poor all of a sudden.
The argument is also predicated on there never being a working vaccine, and herd immunity being the primary mechanism of eventually ending the COVID-19 pandemic/lockdown[0].
> [0]Sunetra Gupta, an infectious disease epidemiologist, has been a critic of the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic lockdown strategy, arguing that the cost is too high for the poorest in society.
That's an economic argument, not a medical one.
Considering at least two vaccines are coming out of stage III trials[1] and may be widely available as early as summer 2021, I'd prefer to wait for that, rather than a scheme hatched by economically interested individuals who want to sacrifice a lot of people for essentially more wealth.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine#Vaccine_candidates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine#Vaccine_candi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_for_Economic_Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_for_Economi...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_for_Economic_Research#Climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_for_Economi...
- jMyles 6y agoYes, Sunetra Gupta, that rabid death cult capitalist.
- k4l3 6y agoIf the poorest in society can no longer buy food or medicine, the problem becomes very medical very quickly.
- Someone1234 6y agoWhich is where social safety nets, socialized medicine, and a stronger minimum wage come into play, but this same economic think tank as argued against all of them. They've been on record, numerous times, arguing against benefits to the poor/poorest, and now suddenly we've meant to believe that they're looking out for the poor when it also benefits the wealthiest for the poor to sacrifice themselves? Seems more than a little disingenuous if you look at whom we're discussing here.
- newcomputer 6y agoStealing from people to help the poor is very different from helping the poor by granting wider freedoms to the entire population. It's not hypocritical to support the latter but not the former. Your argument basically boils down to: "Rich people refuse to slit their throats to give blood to the poor, therefore rich people aren't allowed to complain that lockdowns hurt the poor." It's intellectually dishonest and morally repugnant.
- kevin_b_er 6y agoBut the concept is run by Libertarians. The philosophy is rooted in the belief that avarice is greatest good. They don't actually care about the poor.
- verdverm 6y agoYou might consider that economic policies effect health decisions and people's mental wellbeing, and that in making such a consideration find that they are not orthogonal issues.