4 ms·
> You just basically said, lockdown = bad consequences, non-lockdown = good consequences I'm sorry but your comment shows that you did not read my comment. Ple
by anonytrary 6y ago
> You just basically said, lockdown = bad consequences, non-lockdown = good consequences
I'm sorry but your comment shows that you did not read my comment. Please read:
> deviating even just slightly from what the government has chosen to do
> nuanced approach to re-openings is simply too difficult to get right and therefore untenable
What part of "deviating just slightly" and "nuanced approach" implies a complete inverse approach? I think you are straw-manning me, sorry. I never said that the solution was to not have lockdown at all. You can re-read my comment again if it helps. I implied that a nuanced approach and a slightly less restrictive approach would be better. It seems that my comment regarding people unwilling to have a nuanced conversation proves true again.
- greggman3 6y agoMaybe you shouldn't have said "the lockdown had disastrous consequence" because the obvious retort is "compared to what"
- anonytrary 6y agoYou seem to continue putting words in my mouth. What's up with that? Here's what I said: > other solutions should be tried because the current one clearly has disastrous consequences Given the context of my other comments, you seem to have reached the wrong interpretation, and are still unwilling to entertain a conversation about what a milder lockdown looks like.