Laura Jedeed (Misanthrophile)

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

I’ll finish it. You have to consider the economy tanking creates more human suffering than taking a more conservative approach to containment. You act like the argument isn’t about minimizing the impact on people and I have no idea why.

Ok, so what are the alternatives? What does it look like when we "consider the economy"? Can you get specific? (I promise you everyone is worried about the economic impact of this, by the way)

What exactly is a more conservative approach to containment?

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.

You act like the only other argument is “fuck 2 million people, I want to be rich” and that’s not the case. Representing other arguments as anything but “I don’t think this method minimizes suffering” is absurd.

All I want to do is talk about how other methods do that, and what they would look like in terms of body count. Surely there's nothing wrong with that conversation?