3 ms·

After it already went endemic, and the transmissiblity went through the roof. Not sure why that is hard to understand. If this virus killed 95% of people would

After it already went endemic, and the transmissiblity went through the roof. Not sure why that is hard to understand. If this virus killed 95% of people would you be arguing against lockdowns? I think most people can agree that its one of those to little to late situations in china and they need to reconsider at this point, but that doesn't make what they are trying to do wrong.

mk81 4y ago
PKop 4y ago
People that think the spread of this coronavirus could ever have been stopped, let alone without destroying social fabric, mental health and causing an economic depression/hyperinflation are insane.
- StillBored 4y ago
  The 95% thing was a hypothetical. But lets rephrase it a bit. Lets say another virus is discovered tomorrow, how high would the mortality have to be before you were to accept all those effects you list? And lastly, how high would it have to be before you would accept actually shooting people who violated quarantine procedures? With the understanding that a statement like never, could mean the extinction of humanity (a valid choice I guess).
  - landemva 4y ago
    > shooting people who violated quarantine procedures? In the actual circumstance in the real world, animals would need to be culled because it passes between deer and cats and humans. Maybe we start shooting cats and deer now? No more pet cats.
  - PKop 4y ago
    I shouldn't have even added them because I still don't think a coronavirus type of infection that is (or will evolve to become) so contagious can actually be stopped, and I'll stand by that main point. Especially something that is so drastically over represented in the sick, old, and obese but not the young and healthy. Why is it justified to shoot healthy strong young people, privileging the interests of the comorbid group? In a situation where again, they're going to get sick anyways? What if we just shot the old and fat people and then everyone could stop worrying about covid? To answer you, who knows, but much much much higher than 0.2% death rate for under 50's etc. I think what China's doing is wrong and foolish, but maybe their citizens like being locked in their apartments for such a trivial disease, who knows?
- mcronce 4y ago
vimwizard 4y ago
>If this virus killed 95% of people would you be arguing against lockdowns? This is the dumbest argument I've ever seen made on here. If it killed 95% of people, no sane person would be arguing because it becomes obvious that you are in danger. If 1.1% of the population dies and you don't have any of the health risks coinciding with mortality from the virus, then you have little reason to put your life on hold, unless you're unlucky and don't realize you have some unidentified health issue, which at that point, is a rounding error. I guess if you're on the side doing the coercing then, yeah, at that point you probably think you're saving everyone from themselves.
- kaba0 4y ago

mk81 4y ago

PKop 4y ago

People that think the spread of this coronavirus could ever have been stopped, let alone without destroying social fabric, mental health and causing an economic depression/hyperinflation are insane.

StillBored 4y ago
The 95% thing was a hypothetical. But lets rephrase it a bit. Lets say another virus is discovered tomorrow, how high would the mortality have to be before you were to accept all those effects you list? And lastly, how high would it have to be before you would accept actually shooting people who violated quarantine procedures? With the understanding that a statement like never, could mean the extinction of humanity (a valid choice I guess).
- landemva 4y ago
  > shooting people who violated quarantine procedures? In the actual circumstance in the real world, animals would need to be culled because it passes between deer and cats and humans. Maybe we start shooting cats and deer now? No more pet cats.
- PKop 4y ago
  I shouldn't have even added them because I still don't think a coronavirus type of infection that is (or will evolve to become) so contagious can actually be stopped, and I'll stand by that main point. Especially something that is so drastically over represented in the sick, old, and obese but not the young and healthy. Why is it justified to shoot healthy strong young people, privileging the interests of the comorbid group? In a situation where again, they're going to get sick anyways? What if we just shot the old and fat people and then everyone could stop worrying about covid? To answer you, who knows, but much much much higher than 0.2% death rate for under 50's etc. I think what China's doing is wrong and foolish, but maybe their citizens like being locked in their apartments for such a trivial disease, who knows?
mcronce 4y ago

vimwizard 4y ago

>If this virus killed 95% of people would you be arguing against lockdowns? This is the dumbest argument I've ever seen made on here. If it killed 95% of people, no sane person would be arguing because it becomes obvious that you are in danger. If 1.1% of the population dies and you don't have any of the health risks coinciding with mortality from the virus, then you have little reason to put your life on hold, unless you're unlucky and don't realize you have some unidentified health issue, which at that point, is a rounding error. I guess if you're on the side doing the coercing then, yeah, at that point you probably think you're saving everyone from themselves.

kaba0 4y ago