5 ms·

In the scale of destroying the lives of billions of people it was a pretty efficient tick

• nkozyra 6y ago
  I'm not sure of your number or the actual impact, but yes, it's going to cost something whether you do it or not.
  • easytiger 6y ago
    I guess some people just want to see the world eviscerated by this, and some don't.
    • nkozyra 6y ago
      That's a false dichotomy. This is obviously a balance, and someone will be upset (or sick or worse) no matter what choices are made. I'll say this - all of the resulting pains are temporary except one. Maybe we should continue to be thoughtful of that as we battle what is a temporary struggle.
      • easytiger 6y ago
        It's not a false dichotomy.some people are indeed happy to see our way of life destroyed.
        • nkozyra 6y ago
          That's really not a good faith argument. It's a dire situation with no good solution. Ascribing grand malice diminishes that. It's reductionist.
          • easytiger 6y ago
            Perhaps revisit the start of this discussion. Lockdown will not frustrate the virus regarding any long term objective.
            • nkozyra 6y ago
              > Perhaps revisit the start of this discussion. For what? People who side on curtailing a public health crisis do not want the economy to collapse. To claim a lockdown is ineffective is to deny the transmissivity of airborne viruses.
              • easytiger 6y ago
                > To claim a lockdown is ineffective is to deny the transmissivity of airborne viruses. Good thing I didn't claim that then