New goal: when people say "but we have to consider the economy...," don't let them trail off. Make them finish the sentence. Make them do the math on how many people they're advocating death for Make them confront their own true nature Make them say it out loud
-
Several other ideas have been floated such as quarantine for the more vulnerable, opening up antibody testing to identify carriers earlier, etc. I’m not specifically advocating for any single approach. I’m saying any of the serious arguments are about minimizing impact.
When we get antibody testing, we can and should talk about using it that way Meanwhile: how many people will die if we quarantine only the most vulnerable? What do epidemiologists estimate? A true cost-benefit analysis requires specificity
-
-
We won’t answer those questions if you treat the argument the way you are. Once again, my point is that you’re just calling people monsters and refuse to acknowledge we all want the same thing: less human suffering. We can reasonably disagree about how to get there.
-
Ok but I'd like to understand what were disagreeing about. You'll notice that, although I've accused the wealthy of advocating quarantine relaxation for the sake of their stocks, I'm not saying that in this tweet
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.