3 ms·

>I've literally done all of the things you listed in the past month. Additionally, I'm at the gym 5x a week. If you're safe/responsible, there is absolutely no

>I've literally done all of the things you listed in the past month. Additionally, I'm at the gym 5x a week. If you're safe/responsible, there is absolutely no reason you can't do 99% of the things you want. The reason I'm not doing those things isn't because I can't. I'm at practically zero risk now that I've been vaccinated. The reason I'm not doing it is because I don't want to be around people like you. In 6 months from now, when there's no excuse to not be vaccinated, that will be a different story. But people going about normal life right now as if nothing were happening are the reason we're seeing 4,000 deaths a day in the US, and they are objectively bad human beings.

mikem170 6y ago
Almost every country in the world is seeing similar per-capita death rates, about 1 in 1000 people so far, skewing much towards the old and/or already unhealthy. Some perceive this as a high risk and would be happy to impose a police state on everyone to stop the pandemic. Others perceive this as a low risk to themselves and don't want to give up a year or two of their lives to lockdowns. Who gets to decide? I'm a big believer on not unnecessarily imposing on other people. I think it's fine that you want to self-isolate. That is not my choice. I hope you can respect that.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  It's not a binary choice between sacrificing the most vulnerable people and long periods of social distancing (the US has not ever really had anything resembling a lockdown, maybe your country has if you are from elsewhere; in the US we have had weakly enforced shelter in place orders and business closures). In the US, smarter choices could have resulted in less death and a more robust economy. Just some leadership and resources devoted to contact tracing could have made a huge difference in how things went after May.
  - mikem170 6y ago
    Were there any states that did real lockdowns or contact tracing? If not, then perhaps the political will did not exist to do so. There certainly is disagreement on such things. If peoples of so many states could not agree on more drastic measures, it would not have been right to impose them from above. Also the constitution limits what the federal government can do in this regard.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Yes, the opposition to prudent measures that would have saved lives and helped the economy is mind boggling and frustrating. And you don't need to impose something from above to lead.

mikem170 6y ago

Almost every country in the world is seeing similar per-capita death rates, about 1 in 1000 people so far, skewing much towards the old and/or already unhealthy. Some perceive this as a high risk and would be happy to impose a police state on everyone to stop the pandemic. Others perceive this as a low risk to themselves and don't want to give up a year or two of their lives to lockdowns. Who gets to decide? I'm a big believer on not unnecessarily imposing on other people. I think it's fine that you want to self-isolate. That is not my choice. I hope you can respect that.

maxerickson 6y ago
It's not a binary choice between sacrificing the most vulnerable people and long periods of social distancing (the US has not ever really had anything resembling a lockdown, maybe your country has if you are from elsewhere; in the US we have had weakly enforced shelter in place orders and business closures). In the US, smarter choices could have resulted in less death and a more robust economy. Just some leadership and resources devoted to contact tracing could have made a huge difference in how things went after May.
- mikem170 6y ago
  Were there any states that did real lockdowns or contact tracing? If not, then perhaps the political will did not exist to do so. There certainly is disagreement on such things. If peoples of so many states could not agree on more drastic measures, it would not have been right to impose them from above. Also the constitution limits what the federal government can do in this regard.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    Yes, the opposition to prudent measures that would have saved lives and helped the economy is mind boggling and frustrating. And you don't need to impose something from above to lead.