3 ms·

I know it's not considered cool to say, "I told you so", but I did :) So we've had almost two years of business and social destruction for nothing. We will al

by a0-prw 5y ago

I know it's not considered cool to say, "I told you so", but I did :) So we've had almost two years of business and social destruction for nothing. We will all get this virus and let's just hope a variant that evolves to escape vaccine induced immunity doesn't also become much more dangerous.

maxerickson 5y ago
'nothing'? Also, the global pandemic would have done lots of business and social destruction regardless of what path government responses took.
- a0-prw 5y ago
  Yes, 'nothing'. We are all going to get this virus eventually, with or without vaccines. And, no. The virus would have killed mostly retired, sick people, initially creating a burden on health systems, then releasing a fair amount of inheritance to younger heirs, and lightening the burden on health systems by creating relatively younger, healthier populations This virus would have benefited us as a whole, if we hadn't interfered, just as a deer population does better with natural predators around. But we think we can live forever, and we think we can outsmart nature. Nothing new there.
  - gitanovic 5y ago
    This is not a direct critique (i.e. I am not saying that you're wrong), but this line of thinking is rather unpopular these days, and possibly with good reason: it can easily conflate into eugenetics and many of the problems we already faced in 20th century. Unfortunately social dynamics are a complexity layer on top of the already complicated layer of nature itself. We all are after-all moist machines with a brain (and these 2 things have very complex and convoluted feed-back loops) The last line is actually wrong in my opinion, we did outsmart nature in many senses: we can fly, go underwater, stop bacterial infections that would have killed us, became de-facto apex predators, despite we are rather weak animals... therefore depending on how you keep the score, I'd say that we are actually winning against nature.
tiahura 5y ago
You’re mostly right, however there does seem to be some sense in using hospitals move towards full capacity as a trigger to require masks, lockdown, etc.

by a0-prw 5y ago

maxerickson 5y ago

'nothing'? Also, the global pandemic would have done lots of business and social destruction regardless of what path government responses took.

a0-prw 5y ago
Yes, 'nothing'. We are all going to get this virus eventually, with or without vaccines. And, no. The virus would have killed mostly retired, sick people, initially creating a burden on health systems, then releasing a fair amount of inheritance to younger heirs, and lightening the burden on health systems by creating relatively younger, healthier populations This virus would have benefited us as a whole, if we hadn't interfered, just as a deer population does better with natural predators around. But we think we can live forever, and we think we can outsmart nature. Nothing new there.
- gitanovic 5y ago
  This is not a direct critique (i.e. I am not saying that you're wrong), but this line of thinking is rather unpopular these days, and possibly with good reason: it can easily conflate into eugenetics and many of the problems we already faced in 20th century. Unfortunately social dynamics are a complexity layer on top of the already complicated layer of nature itself. We all are after-all moist machines with a brain (and these 2 things have very complex and convoluted feed-back loops) The last line is actually wrong in my opinion, we did outsmart nature in many senses: we can fly, go underwater, stop bacterial infections that would have killed us, became de-facto apex predators, despite we are rather weak animals... therefore depending on how you keep the score, I'd say that we are actually winning against nature.

tiahura 5y ago

You’re mostly right, however there does seem to be some sense in using hospitals move towards full capacity as a trigger to require masks, lockdown, etc.