4 ms·

> If you care for your own health but not for the health of the people in the community you live in, then this makes perfect sense. It's not that I don't care

> If you care for your own health but not for the health of the people in the community you live in, then this makes perfect sense. It's not that I don't care for the health of others, it's that I care more about the health of 98% of the population ( including mine and that of people I know ) that are more or less invulnerable to the virus than about the health of people that would die ( for the most part ) within the next few years from just about any cause, and that are not currently enjoying any quality of life nor contributing to society. It's a matter of proportionate and rational response. See Focused Protection. I am for throwing everything we got for minimizing those deaths, up to a certain point and within what is reasonable.

jmartrican 6y ago
So in the US we at over 350k deaths. If left to run rampant that number will increase by maybe a factor of ~10. So you saying that the vaccine, if given to everyone, will kill more than 3 million people?
- Felony_Fred 6y ago
  Not at all. I wasn't arguing against the vaccines but against blanket lockdowns ( EDIT : I guess that was really not clear, since I was initially arguing about that, my bad ). I have reservations about the vaccines, but on a voluntary basis, it seems to make a lot of sense that the people in the at-risk demographics and those in daily direct contact with them should get it. The damage from the lockdowns however could be equal to or worse than the damage they seek to prevent. This damage not being limited solely to loss of life but also including that. This is not even a marginal opinion, as per my previous comments, it is backed by many scientists and the WHO itself. Feel free to swarm the karma out of me for clarifying that ( not necessarily directed to parent comment ).
  - foogazi 6y ago
    > The damage from the lockdowns however could be equal to or worse than the damage they seek to prevent. Maybe Anyway, if we all get the vaccine and the 95% effectiveness we wouldn’t need the lockdowns The lockdowns have already happened- nothing you can do about them now - we have 3 vaccines ready to go What is your stance on the vaccines?

jmartrican 6y ago

So in the US we at over 350k deaths. If left to run rampant that number will increase by maybe a factor of ~10. So you saying that the vaccine, if given to everyone, will kill more than 3 million people?

Felony_Fred 6y ago
Not at all. I wasn't arguing against the vaccines but against blanket lockdowns ( EDIT : I guess that was really not clear, since I was initially arguing about that, my bad ). I have reservations about the vaccines, but on a voluntary basis, it seems to make a lot of sense that the people in the at-risk demographics and those in daily direct contact with them should get it. The damage from the lockdowns however could be equal to or worse than the damage they seek to prevent. This damage not being limited solely to loss of life but also including that. This is not even a marginal opinion, as per my previous comments, it is backed by many scientists and the WHO itself. Feel free to swarm the karma out of me for clarifying that ( not necessarily directed to parent comment ).
- foogazi 6y ago
  > The damage from the lockdowns however could be equal to or worse than the damage they seek to prevent. Maybe Anyway, if we all get the vaccine and the 95% effectiveness we wouldn’t need the lockdowns The lockdowns have already happened- nothing you can do about them now - we have 3 vaccines ready to go What is your stance on the vaccines?