3 ms·
>Lockdowns saved lives, even though they caused huge disruptions. The problem with this argument and op's is that they're starting from different baselines. Th
by Loughla 2y ago
>Lockdowns saved lives, even though they caused huge disruptions.
The problem with this argument and op's is that they're starting from different baselines. This next sentence is not meant to be as judgy as it sounds I'm afraid.
But your context is that lives are worth more than economic problems. The counterpoint that exists is that other people's lives aren't a valuable as my livelihood and income.
This is why rational debate breaks down so very quickly. We don't even have the same starting point anymore, let alone view of the facts at hand.
- munchler 2y agoI think one can make a rational argument that the cost of the lockdowns was not worth the lives saved. I probably wouldn't agree with that argument, but I'd certainly hear it out, especially with regard to the impact on children's education. The problem is that the current administration isn't interested in (or perhaps capable of) making rational arguments at all.
- conception 2y agoI just want to point out that America could have blunted the impact the lockdowns had on children, the government just chose to do nothing. It wasn’t a requirement of the lockdowns, it was a choice.
- bethekidyouwant 2y agoWas the last one? In quebec we were under curfew for two years.