LurkerJ said:
Not really sure what you're trying to tell me. Kind of sick of responses that take pieces of my general point and go "AHA, YOU'RE WRONG HERE". and? But even then: 1. I think at this point it's clear that any gathering can turn into a superspreading event, the movie crew will go home to their families and visit their friends and transmissible cycle won't be as small as you make it out to be. 2. Her place is for leisure and the movie crew is saving lives? and I agree it's apple vs oranges comparison, but the point wasn't to validate her claims or invalidate them anyway. There is an argument to be made that not enough is being done worldwide to stop the virus, you need drastic measures and restrictions free stimuli to be able to fairy ask people to stay home. Otherwise, big businesses will go grow bigger and the majority will go poorer and the fuck all attitude will continue to be as mainstream as it is now. |
Don't be so defensive. I addressed the points the woman made in the video, not anything you wrote.
That's why I wrote "about the video".
1. An infected movie crew member is still far better than an infected random dude at a bar. The infected person can be traced sooner, for example due to regular testing arranged by the employer or just by calling in sick which would probably be the point where the employer would send that person to get tested. Also it's a lot faster to contact the people the infected was in contact with.
2. Another case of apples vs. oranges. The movie crew is working. So is the bar owner, but the bar has guests whereas the movie crew doesn't. The proper comparison would be between the bar owner and the owner of an open air cinema.