4 ms·
I have hundreds of them. Watch this post get blasted into /dev/nullian. 1a) There never should have been a Covid lock-down, nor should there have ever been a
by LinuxBender 5y ago
I have hundreds of them. Watch this post get blasted into /dev/nullian.
1a) There never should have been a Covid lock-down, nor should there have ever been a vaccine created.
1b) People's income tax rates should be based on how healthy they keep themselves and how healthy they eat, their lack of smoking and drinking and if they are parents, how healthy their children eat and how much exercise all of them get.
- throwaway210222 5y agoYeah, I wouln't post this under my real name either.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- fsflover 5y agoSounds like it would require a huge surveillance apparatus. Oh, wait...
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago1a) The former I can understand an argument for even if I disagree with it. The latter seems balls-out ridiculous though; are you against vaccines in general or just ones for diseases that kill a lot of people? 1b) I'm going to guess you're from a country with a socialized health care system?
- oceanplexian 5y agoThe idea that a leaky vaccine might create selective pressure to encourage a more resistant COVID virus isn’t all that far fetched. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have created the vaccine but a few months of clinical trials isn’t going to answer the right questions.
- White_Wolf 5y ago1a - Lockdown wise - 100% with you - Don't put all society on hold to protect the vulnerable. Protect the vulnerable and leave everything else alone; vaccines - should of been created but give only to those that wish it or those "at risk" and only after proper testing. Don't use everyone as lab rats. 1b - Yes please.
- junon 5y agoThe whole "vulnerable vs. non-vulnerable" debate is null once you actually understand how viruses work, though. The whole point of preventing spread was to also prevent mutation/variants - the same reason why everyone getting vaccinated is important.
- lamontcg 5y agoThere was proper testing of vaccines. You only ever need six months of it. https://bostonreview.net/science-nature/andrew-l-croxford-long-term-safety-argument-over-covid-19-vaccines https://bostonreview.net/science-nature/andrew-l-croxford-lo... And its a myth that the virus only affects some neat tidy subpopulation like those over 70. Places like Idaho are rationing care in their hospitals where the ICUs are full of unvaccinated younger COVID cases. Care for COVID patients is also resource intensive and requires weeks in the ICU which makes its impact on the hospital system disproportionately high for every single case. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/17/1038180254/all-the-hospitals-in-idaho-are-rationing-care-because-of-covid-19-surge https://www.npr.org/2021/09/17/1038180254/all-the-hospitals-... Doctors are now deciding who is going to die by denying people medical care because there isn't enough to go around and practice the kind of triage that that we haven't even practiced in war zones for a long time.
- bloodyplonker22 5y agoI believe the topic of this thread was to post contrarian ideas, while also implying that they would be at least somewhat smart ones.
- oceanplexian 5y agoOn (1a) I’m sure the vaccine argument will rile folks up but here we are in 2021, with half of the population fully vaccinated, and cases and deaths are at similar or greater levels as they were for most of 2020.
- hhmc 5y agoWell yes, but who is dying, the vaccinated or the unvaccinated?
- indrax 5y agoI agree with incentivizing health in general. Doing so without providing healthcare seems wrong. Doing so through income tax rates is muddling the issues. The rich would hire dieticians and trainers just to save money. If public health is actually a priority, those kinds of services would be subsidized.