4 ms·

> No, they inflict massive negative externalities on society through healthcare. Good thing the US doesn't have socialized healthcare and private insurers gene

by hnbad 5y ago

> No, they inflict massive negative externalities on society through healthcare. Good thing the US doesn't have socialized healthcare and private insurers generally exclude preexisting conditions. > Classic Safety-ism. Even today, 20 years after 9/11 and we are still paying a ludicrous price for this logic. Funny how the "safety-ism" after 9/11 was pushed by the Republicans and now the Republicans are complaining about Democrats pushing safety measures against Covid. Except y'know most of these measures actually drastically reduce transmission (tho I agree some are ill-conceived, like I'm not sure curfews do anything but encourage people to meet indoors where transmission risk is significantly higher). Banning shampoo bottles was mostly theatrics. Bonus: > no one knows what the effect will be of kids wearing masks all day I'm going to avoid the bait to reference mask wearing in Asian countries, but sure: that sounds like an important reason to crack down on Covid hard and fast rather than go back an forth on half-assed policies and artificially expand the duration of the crisis and risk a perpetual cycle of masks and vaccinations as poorer communities keep generating resistant mutations. So I take it you support the mass production of vaccinations and free distribution to developing countries to bring down infection numbers world-wide and protect the US from foreign mutants? If perpetuating this pandemic could traumatize an entire generation of children, maybe this should be considered a national defense emergency and the US should invest a few more billions and rally its allies to do the same. Open up the patents to also get the countries on board that are distrustful of US-supplied vaccines. Or are you trying to argue that Covid isn't that bad or that it's better if we let children catch it because they have a lower mortality?

chitowneats 5y ago
"lower mortality" Try nearly zero. Much lower than other common pathogens like flu and RSV. Which is why the UK is not recommending mass vaccination of teenagers aged 12-15, or any children younger. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58438669 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58438669 This is why many argue that the focus on covid in children is largely about the irrational fears of parents and educators who have not seriously looked at the data.
- nautilius 5y ago
  What a propaganda piece. “many say”, etc. Stop spreading lies like the lower COVID mortality compared to flu. It’s disgusting. Stop lying about what the article says, it’s not about the national recommendation of a country (that famously botched their response). “Nearly zero” means nothing for societal outcome, certainly for mortality. What is the number of people infected, “nearly zero” of which die? Then these numbers become meaningful.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    Did you even read the article from the BBC? We are talking about rates of death in children, not the general population. More children have been shot in Chicago in the past year than have died from covid in the entire country. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9979619/More-children-shot-Chicago-died-COVID-19-nationwide.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9979619/More-childr... I'm finished communicating with you. You're not participating in this discussion in good faith.
    - nautilius 5y ago
      I certainly hope you’re finished communicating your blatant lies to other people as well - it would in fact save lives.
      - chitowneats 5y ago
        Have any actual rebuttal to the statistics I'm posting? Or are you just going to keep blowing hot air? I assume you're embarrassed that you're so confused about the data.
        nautilius 5y ago
        Your lies started with the mortality claims that are easily debunked with a 5s Google search, and you spewing these lies already frames everything else you’re saying afterwards. For your second point, after you torture what the article actually says into a alleged national policy of the UK, I suggest you read up on exponential growth. It reminds me of the discussions in this country in March 2020, when everything was written on the wall, but people looked at absolute numbers and proclaimed that it’s not going to be a problem. See, if you were simply lying about how expensive your car is, I couldn’t care less. But it’s propaganda pieces like yours that kill people, currently at a rate of half a 9/11 per day, all of it completely avoidable.
rkk3 5y ago
> Funny how the "safety-ism" after 9/11 was pushed by the Republicans and now the Republicans are complaining about Democrats pushing safety measures against Covid. So your answer is to go sophist ad-hominem, by putting me in a group you find unfavorable rather than addressing the content of what I said. Am I letting the terrorist win or am I killing grandmas ? therefore you can justify x. > Except y'know most of these measures actually drastically reduce transmission This is very un-specific, but aside from vaccinations & living in a country with island like borders, very little has been definitely shown to reduce spread. > maybe this should be considered a national defense emergency and the US should invest a few more billions I'm not especially against that, even though I do think that unfortunately in practice these things risk end up just being vehicles for cronyism rather than tackling the core issue.

by hnbad 5y ago

chitowneats 5y ago

"lower mortality" Try nearly zero. Much lower than other common pathogens like flu and RSV. Which is why the UK is not recommending mass vaccination of teenagers aged 12-15, or any children younger. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58438669 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58438669 This is why many argue that the focus on covid in children is largely about the irrational fears of parents and educators who have not seriously looked at the data.

nautilius 5y ago
What a propaganda piece. “many say”, etc. Stop spreading lies like the lower COVID mortality compared to flu. It’s disgusting. Stop lying about what the article says, it’s not about the national recommendation of a country (that famously botched their response). “Nearly zero” means nothing for societal outcome, certainly for mortality. What is the number of people infected, “nearly zero” of which die? Then these numbers become meaningful.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  Did you even read the article from the BBC? We are talking about rates of death in children, not the general population. More children have been shot in Chicago in the past year than have died from covid in the entire country. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9979619/More-children-shot-Chicago-died-COVID-19-nationwide.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9979619/More-childr... I'm finished communicating with you. You're not participating in this discussion in good faith.
  - nautilius 5y ago
    I certainly hope you’re finished communicating your blatant lies to other people as well - it would in fact save lives.
    - chitowneats 5y ago
      Have any actual rebuttal to the statistics I'm posting? Or are you just going to keep blowing hot air? I assume you're embarrassed that you're so confused about the data.
      - nautilius 5y ago
        Your lies started with the mortality claims that are easily debunked with a 5s Google search, and you spewing these lies already frames everything else you’re saying afterwards. For your second point, after you torture what the article actually says into a alleged national policy of the UK, I suggest you read up on exponential growth. It reminds me of the discussions in this country in March 2020, when everything was written on the wall, but people looked at absolute numbers and proclaimed that it’s not going to be a problem. See, if you were simply lying about how expensive your car is, I couldn’t care less. But it’s propaganda pieces like yours that kill people, currently at a rate of half a 9/11 per day, all of it completely avoidable.

rkk3 5y ago

> Funny how the "safety-ism" after 9/11 was pushed by the Republicans and now the Republicans are complaining about Democrats pushing safety measures against Covid. So your answer is to go sophist ad-hominem, by putting me in a group you find unfavorable rather than addressing the content of what I said. Am I letting the terrorist win or am I killing grandmas ? therefore you can justify x. > Except y'know most of these measures actually drastically reduce transmission This is very un-specific, but aside from vaccinations & living in a country with island like borders, very little has been definitely shown to reduce spread. > maybe this should be considered a national defense emergency and the US should invest a few more billions I'm not especially against that, even though I do think that unfortunately in practice these things risk end up just being vehicles for cronyism rather than tackling the core issue.