3 ms·

What about the damage of not having a functional healthcare system? The only reason that the death rate is so low is because people can get to hospital and get

by mantap 6y ago

What about the damage of not having a functional healthcare system? The only reason that the death rate is so low is because people can get to hospital and get treatment. If we just let the thing rip then hospitals would have to start having policies of not providing care to people with covid-19, or we just say goodbye to the concept of emergency care in general.

zpeti 6y ago
Please don’t make out like my comment is some black and white anti lockdown comment. It’s not. It’s not saying let’s not lockdown. It’s saying there are serious consequences on the other end. That many people who still have their livelihoods and happiness dismiss as “misinformation”
- cerebellum42 6y ago
  Have you read the link? This is not about dismissing the genuine plight of people affected by the lockdown. This is about actual, literal, disinformation being spread. We need to weigh the consequences of restrictions against the consequences of not having those restrictions, and this kind of disinformation is simply trying to tip the scales by diluting the factual basis on which we all make that assessment with lies.
tinus_hn 6y ago
One does not preclude the other. Governments should be obliged to cover 100% of the damage caused to businesses and employees by their measures. Instead of having businesses foot the government bills.
- cerebellum42 6y ago
  And why do you think this should be strictly a "government bill"? I think it's a lot more nuanced than that. One perspective would be to say this is a cost all of society needs to pay as a whole (in which case everyone simply pays it in taxes at the end) or you could say "we just require your business to behave in such a way that it doesn't end up killing people, you pay the cost for it". These are the extremes of course, but we need to figure out where we fall on that spectrum.
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    Because the government is the party deciding on the restrictions. If the government has to pay the price there’s a chance they’ll keep that part of the equation in mind. If they can just brush it off by having others foot the bill, they’ll simply make the choice which minimizes the impact that can be directly attributed to them. Which definitely is not always the right choice. It’s just so much easier to chant for safety whatever the costs if you don’t have to pay the bill.
    - cerebellum42 6y ago
      Just to be clear, I think it's within the responsibility of the government to pay for much of the hardship incurred by lockdowns to help get society and the economy as a whole through it halfway intact; but I do not think that applies to _everything_. Two examples: If a Business is closed due to lockdown - there should be government assistance to compensate. Buying masks for employees and changing interior layouts to allow for safer interactions, to comply with new regulations - cost of doing business. This alone: >Because the government is the party deciding on the restrictions. is not a valid reason to me. We don't (or at least I don't) expect the government to pay for every impact of new environmental legislation either even though they ultimately pass the legislation.

by mantap 6y ago

zpeti 6y ago

Please don’t make out like my comment is some black and white anti lockdown comment. It’s not. It’s not saying let’s not lockdown. It’s saying there are serious consequences on the other end. That many people who still have their livelihoods and happiness dismiss as “misinformation”

cerebellum42 6y ago
Have you read the link? This is not about dismissing the genuine plight of people affected by the lockdown. This is about actual, literal, disinformation being spread. We need to weigh the consequences of restrictions against the consequences of not having those restrictions, and this kind of disinformation is simply trying to tip the scales by diluting the factual basis on which we all make that assessment with lies.

tinus_hn 6y ago

One does not preclude the other. Governments should be obliged to cover 100% of the damage caused to businesses and employees by their measures. Instead of having businesses foot the government bills.

cerebellum42 6y ago
And why do you think this should be strictly a "government bill"? I think it's a lot more nuanced than that. One perspective would be to say this is a cost all of society needs to pay as a whole (in which case everyone simply pays it in taxes at the end) or you could say "we just require your business to behave in such a way that it doesn't end up killing people, you pay the cost for it". These are the extremes of course, but we need to figure out where we fall on that spectrum.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  Because the government is the party deciding on the restrictions. If the government has to pay the price there’s a chance they’ll keep that part of the equation in mind. If they can just brush it off by having others foot the bill, they’ll simply make the choice which minimizes the impact that can be directly attributed to them. Which definitely is not always the right choice. It’s just so much easier to chant for safety whatever the costs if you don’t have to pay the bill.
  - cerebellum42 6y ago
    Just to be clear, I think it's within the responsibility of the government to pay for much of the hardship incurred by lockdowns to help get society and the economy as a whole through it halfway intact; but I do not think that applies to _everything_. Two examples: If a Business is closed due to lockdown - there should be government assistance to compensate. Buying masks for employees and changing interior layouts to allow for safer interactions, to comply with new regulations - cost of doing business. This alone: >Because the government is the party deciding on the restrictions. is not a valid reason to me. We don't (or at least I don't) expect the government to pay for every impact of new environmental legislation either even though they ultimately pass the legislation.