Obi-Wan Nihilo wrote:But more to the point, even if it's insanely contagious, it's not very lethal. Pink Eye is insanely contagious, but so what?
I don't understand how you keep missing the point. Pink eye doesn't threaten the integrity and availability of our health care system.
Obi-Wan Nihilo wrote:Because that's not my position, no matter how much you'd like it to be.
That's what you said: "I'd rather have 10,000,000 Americans die from this rather than see the government take our rights away."
Obi-Wan Nihilo wrote:Zarathustra wrote:The argument: Do you think overwhelming our health care system would have been a crisis, even if 10 million people didn't die, or not?
Maybe that's your argument, it's not mine.
It's the reason for the current measures. If it's not "your argument," it's only because you're not arguing the issue at hand, but instead some strawman figment about death toll and pink eye.
Obi-Wan Nihilo wrote:But I'll play along. I don't think we were ever at risk for that. In certain high-density areas it's an issue, for the majority of the country it's not.
Based on what?? The "numbers" that you say we don't know? There's nothing special about New York, except population density. The rest of the country doesn't have some special immunity. What is happening there could have happened everywhere else, except slower. The reason it *didn't* happen is because of the extreme measures we've taken, not some imaginary "it's not that big a deal" logic you back up with unspecified numbers. You've literally been making the same argument back when only 20 people had died. The numbers are meaningless to your points. 10 million or 20, the argument is the same, and it's not based on what's actually happening. Even with the extreme measures we've taken, infections are still going up, and our health care infrastructure is being stretched to the max--in some places. Without the extreme measures, many orders of magnitude would have been sick and flooded the hospitals.
Obi-Wan Nihilo wrote:. . . when it became clear that this virus wasn't as lethal as initially feared (which is a good thing, not sure why you keep arguing against that), the feds and the states should have changed the way they were dealing with it.
You keep saying "it's clear," but I've outlined how your logic isn't clear at all. You are free to make it clear, but you don't. You just keep repeating how clear it is.
I'm not arguing against the virus not being as lethal as thought. As I've said
over and over, I'm not really considering lethality at all. I just don't think you've proven your point. Has nothing to do with whether it's good or bad, and you won't find a single quote where I've said otherwise.
Now, with that said, I do think it's time to move forward and get the economy going again.
Obi-Wan Nihilo wrote:The argument: The average lifespan in the US is 78. 75% of the fatalities from this virus are people over 65, with 50% of the total fatalities coming from those over 75. The vast majority of the remaining 25% had additional risk factors (smoking, obesity, other medical issues) that made them at-risk. Do you think that putting 22,000,000 (and counting) people out of work, making it a crime to be in a group of more than 10, and all the other extreme reactions were warranted?
Based on that criteria, no I don't think it's warranted. But, again, that's not the criteria I've repeated stated, and it's not the reason why the government(s) took the actions they have. So, it's not "the argument."
I don't think I've gone into any detail about which measures I support/do not support. I've only spoken in general terms. So . . . I think it's appropriate for the government to shut down schools and mass attendance events like sports and concerts. I don't think it's okay to outlaw groups of 10 or more. I think if people want to have private parties or gatherings, that's no one's business. Church? The government should have absolutely no say. However, I think businesses are different. I think the government has the power to regulate the economy, especially if it's putting people in danger. It already does this, in myriad ways.
I don't know about everywhere else, but here in Tennessee businesses started closing, operating under "carry out only," and sending employees to work from home WEEKS before the government made them do it. I think most of the economic harm would have happened anyway, on a strictly voluntary basis. Therefore, for multiple reasons, I think you present a false choice when you ask, "Was this worth it?" The government actions aren't the main reason it happened, and the risks you list weren't the things we were trying to avoid. Your entire argument is a strawman.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.