22 ms·
It’s now less dangerous and therefore more permissible, since Covid is no longer a major threat to society (china aside).
by jakeinspace 4y ago
It’s now less dangerous and therefore more permissible, since Covid is no longer a major threat to society (china aside).
- goldenchrome 4y agoYou’ll have to excuse my language: bullshit. We had the data back in 2020 to know that covid wasn’t a huge threat. It was harmful to very old people with existing underlying health issues. The average age of those who died was older than the life expectancy, and we shut down the world for that. The danger was in people’s minds and that was stoked aggressively by nearly every major institution we have: the government, the medical field, the media, and the tech companies. Each of them benefited from promoting fear.
- jakeinspace 4y agoI’m sorry, I forgot the lives of people over 75 aren’t worth anything.
- goldenchrome 4y agoChildren are the future. We must protect and elevate them above all. Locking them up did much more harm than good, and it also strained their parents immensely, the people who are in their prime earning years. Old people could have been even more protected while the rest of us continued on living. The emergency money could have been spent on providing more services to the elderly. Instead they were locked up with little help. In 2021 40% of Covid deaths were in nursing homes. And finally, if you’re past the life expectancy and you know you may only have a few years left, would you spend it locked away isolated from your friends and family, or would you try to make the most of it, knowing that whatever happens you’ve made it further than most already? Many elderly were interviewed and were upset by the lockdowns for this reason. The average covid victim was in this very situation. Why did we take away their agency in their final years?