4 ms·
You compare sending humans to the moon with a pandemic. Same with WW2. Staying out of WW2 didin't guarantee you safety, quite the opposite. There are still man
by thefounder 6y ago
You compare sending humans to the moon with a pandemic. Same with WW2. Staying out of WW2 didin't guarantee you safety, quite the opposite.
There are still many unknowns about the virus impact on health so telling people they should take a chance because it might not be worse than working remotely seems a bit inresponsible.
Governments should either impose lock-downs until they find a vaccine or develop ways to "live/work" with the virus(i.e strict measures, keep the virus under control etc), though it's hard if we can't/don't even want to wear a facemask and commander in chief claims the virus is a hoax.
- stickfigure 6y agoLockdowns don't guarantee safety either; the virus is still out there. And the consequences of lockdowns are material, with a lot of hard-to-quantify downside risk - the black swan case could be "second great depression leading to WW3". It's not obvious which position is the responsible one.
- thefounder 6y ago>>It's not obvious which position is the responsible one. I think the responsible position would be to provide the people with a safe environment where they can work and live. Perhaps also working a bit on the inequality issue. It's clear to me that with or without the lackdowns the worst affected are the already poor people working in the front line.