5 ms·
No, that's not a lot. It's only 1%. Much less than the cost of lockdowns. Obviously less than 150% of the population gets infected in real life.
by anoncake 5y ago
No, that's not a lot. It's only 1%. Much less than the cost of lockdowns. Obviously less than 150% of the population gets infected in real life.
- barbazoo 5y ago> No, that's not a lot. It's only 1%. Much less than the cost of lockdowns. Apart from the fact that I can't fathom how you could say that 1% of an entire country's population is "not a lot", do you have a source for how many people died as "cost of lockdowns"? I see this being regurgitated a lot but I doubt that more people died due to lockdowns/restrictions than from Covid19 itself.
- anoncake 5y agoEveryone lost more than one year of their life. That alone outweights any benefit.
- barbazoo 5y agoWhat do you mean by "lost"? As far as I know we still lived, albeit in more or less restricted circumstances. I would suggest taking a step back and reevaluating if the past year really has been worse than dying.
- anoncake 5y agoIt absolutely has.
- barbazoo 5y agoDying is objectively worse. Don't get me wrong but just in case you're not in a good place, please find somebody to talk to about this. Friends, family, your family doctor, a mental health hotline, anyone. Heck, contact me if you feel like you're out of options, base64 encoded email aGFja2VybmV3c2NvbnRhY3RAZmFzdG1haWwuY29tCg==
- anoncake 5y agoBeing dead is worse in that it doesn't end, yes. But that year was not worth living.