| EricHiggin said: Since it's been decided by the professionals, that the here and now is more important and relevant than the foreseeable future, are we actually saving lives, or just trading them by pushing back and shifting the deaths? |
The countries that have effectively stopped the Coronavirus have saved lives. (I.E. Australia and New Zealand.)
| EricHiggin said: For example, what about the life saving medical research and treatments that are being held back or have been put on hold due to the lock down? What about the people who are known to only have so much time left, who were hoping/expecting those treatments to be ready in time to save their lives? How many of these people are now going to die because the professionals chose to shut things down to save some people in the present? How many will die due to contracting covid 19 itself, which puts them over the edge, when they could've fought it off and lived after being treated? There are many more examples of how people may die in other ways due to this lock down. |
Australia had one of the strictrest lockdown measures in the world.
We also have a working vaccine that has proven to be effective on mice with the potential for mass-distribution in just a few months.
Not bad for a nation that relies on "socialism" with a universal healthcare system.
In short, your argument holds no ground.
| EricHiggin said: If the near or even distant future isn't worth worrying about, then why for example, should anyone bother saving money? If for all you know, you may be dead tomorrow, why bother having money in the bank? What if every single person was just days away from being flat broke? Would that be a good message for the professionals to put out to the public? Don't bother saving money because the future isn't certain? $250 account limit lock downs going forward because why have more? What about the potential future consequences of a decision like that? |
This is a slippery slope argument which is a logical fallacy.... Thus your argument can be discarded.
| EricHiggin said: While I don't necessarily think that some are simply virtue signalling when it comes to how much they care about saving lives, I also don't think the overall picture is being taken into account, which makes it seem like some may care less than they actually do. It doesn't appear all that clear which choice is better or worse, if either. Maybe this way ends up saving more lives, maybe it doesn't. We won't really know until later, in the future, so it's pretty hard to say anyone is definitely right or wrong. |
This meme me feels like your argument.
| EricHiggin said: It's a worldwide problem though, and was almost certainly going to be that, one way or another. So expecting a reasonable amount of cooperation worldwide would actually be an unreasonable assumption. If more was known about the illness, then perhaps, but based on the scenario, cooperation was highly unlikely. |
Yes it is a world wide problem and technology came about that helped removed the distance issue decades ago.
| EricHiggin said: All we know is what we know so far, which doesn't tell the full story. Will we ever get the full truth about everything anyway? How can we be so sure if we don't have extremely reliable numbers coming from open sources? |
Often people are told the truth and choose to ignore it anyway... I mean, we have been educating people that the world is a globe and yet there are people who believe it to be flat.
Some individuals believe everything is a conspiracy irrespective of the evidence that contradicts their views.
The issue with the numbers game is that some countries report things differently as they have different due-process, what needs to happen is that in a few years time when we have collated all the available evidence is get someone to number crunch. (Which will happen regardless of what we think anyway.)
| EricHiggin said: Some think the protests are stupid because it's just making the lock down last longer, but who really thinks that's going to stop them? It's not as simple as sit down and shut up and do as we say. Everyone needs to find a reasonable balance, which is easier said than done. The smart thing would be to have as little restrictions as possible, while containing the spread as much as possible. If you've gone so far that the people don't care and will spread it through protests, then you need to adjust to find a new balance point. The world is not static. |
It is stupid.
And it is as simple as people need to sit down, shut up and play some video games.
I don't know why it is such a hard thing for Americans to follow? Other countries have been extremely successful with amazingly compliant populations.
Protesting against the Coronavirus means that people are not going to adhere to social distancing, which means the virus will spread much more readily... It's like that supid woman who refused to follow social restrictions and assumed she would be immune because she is "protected by Jesus's blood". - In the end, she got the virus because she refused to follow health directions.
| EricHiggin said:
This is part of the future problem. The economy won't be going back to normal quickly, and the more time this drags on, the more non Covid 19 related deaths it will lead to eventually. Another flu season, and the possibility of Covid returning with a vengeance, would through more lock downs and further economic decline, lead to more and more non Covid 19 related deaths. |
Correct the economy won't. And the Government needs to support the population to minimize the impact at every level.
| EricHiggin said:
Whether we are doing the right thing overall can't be known for certain, as we can't know the future. I would actually say the lack of cooperation could be looked at as a positive. Odds are if everyone did the same thing, we wouldn't have chosen the optimum strategy. By many nations taking different approaches, we should have a better idea of which strategy works best. Which would hopefully lead to more lives saved in the future because of it, the next time we have to deal with something like this again. |
You need to look at the examples where countries have done it right... You have thus far put a plethora of arguments on why the USA should open up and put forth it's economic ambitions over life...
But you haven't yet recognized the countries that have done the opposite and have made the right decisions.
And yes there will be a "next time" that something like this will happen... Because this already is the "next time" - We had the Swine Flu, Bird Flu, Ebola and more... Clearly those lessons have fallen on the USA governments deaf ears.
| LurkerJ said: Like many others, you seem to be happy to draw the lines between being a decent human being and an asshole, and it wasn’t hard to guess that the line starts where you good deeds stop. Here, let me a draw a line: Good for you being a charitable person, but that’s not really an accomplishment when we live in the first world. Think long and hard about the life that you’re living and how much money, time, effort you waste while people literally die of hunger. You are really not doing enough to make this world a better place and prevent famine, welcome to the club. |
You really want a list of what I do for other people? Fine then.
* I donate to charities to feed the homeless and poor.
* I cut people out of vehicles that have been in a vehicle accident.
* I scale down 200 feet high cliffs to rescue people from the bottom.
* I run into the burning building to pull a parents trapped child out while everyone else is trying to escape.
* I stand between towns and cities and raging bushfires.
* I venture out to sea to pluck people out of the Ocean after their boats have sank.
* I respond to toxic spills/leaks in Hazmat that could silently kill allot of people.
* I will jump into a small blow-up boat and travel down swift water rivers to rescue people.
* I dangle from a rope at the end of a helicopter to rescue people stuck in flood waters.
* I crawl in confined/restricted spaces with compromised atmospheres to rescue animals and stuck people.
* I dig through collapsed rubble/buildings to pull people out after a building collapse/earth quake.
I even respond to incidents involving the Coronavirus... Last week, I responded to a child who was stuck underneath a train.
And I also do more than that... Now compare it to what you do... And ask if I need to do more for humanity.
I think I do plenty to make this world a better place... But if the best argument you can put forth is to question my ability to help others... It makes me question your motives.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
