6 ms·
You mean sleight, not slight. That’s no slight on you, anyone can make a slight mistake. That said, the way you put it sounds cruel. Is it your claim that a cu
by nindalf 2y ago
You mean sleight, not slight. That’s no slight on you, anyone can make a slight mistake.
That said, the way you put it sounds cruel. Is it your claim that a cull wasn’t necessary or that not culling would have left more birds alive long term?
- _heimdall 2y agoYes, I did mean sleight. Thanks for the correction there. My claim was more simple than either option you gave. My claim is that the virus didn't kill 6 million. Those deaths would be attributed to the proximal cause of whomever decided they needed to be culled. I'd also argue there's a longer timeline culpability for anyone who decided to raise flocks of birds in such terrible conditions as is found in industrial bird operations. Though yes, I would be surprised if every bird in those facilities died from the flu had they not been culled. We don't know nearly enough about how the virus spreads, especially in the context of large scale industrial operations, to predict how many birds in the region would have died without the culling.