3 ms·
These are handwavey dismissals based on unfounded assumptions. You can’t simply compare place a to place b because there are no two places that differ in just
by tinus_hn 5y ago
These are handwavey dismissals based on unfounded assumptions.
You can’t simply compare place a to place b because there are no two places that differ in just that one aspect.
You can’t just conclude lockdowns have no downsides because an unquantified ‘very few’ places had ‘lengthy restrictions on seeking medical care’. If you state that you assume that is the only reason which simply is an unfounded assumption.
A very simple basic fact is that if you lock down sports facilities, which happened in a lot of places, people will get less fit and thus more susceptible to COVID with a bigger chance of dying. I don’t think there is anyone who would deny that. But if you lump all excess mortality together, the resulting deaths will be an argument for more lockdowns.
- acdha 5y agoI find it interesting that when you toss out speculation it’s apparently to be treated as a given but when I describe what actual experts do it’s hand waving. Good day.
- tinus_hn 5y agoSpeculation is never a given, but in your opinion speculation that doesn’t align with your views is to be simply dismissed as impossible. Recognizing the difference is called ‘nuance’. And guess what, if you presumably describing what your favorite ‘actual experts’ are saying is handwaving, the logical explanation is that the thing you are describing is handwaving. Which, if you can look critically at the ‘actual experts’ really is quite a fair description of most of what they do. Pretending the problems with your “solution” don’t exist and dismissing them as speculation or similar basic, hollow invalid reasoning, that is handwaving.