I have repeatedly said I am not advocating for any particular strategy. I’m not that kind of scientist. I have repeatedly said treating any other argument as monstrous is deliberately misrepresenting the point. I don’t know why you want to pin me to any other argument.
-
It is literally the same conversation. People will die either way. Questioning whether all indirect costs, including loss of life, have been directly calculated is completely fair.
It's definitely not the same conversation. The scale is very different. Car crash victims do not overwhelm hospitals and lead to spiraling mortality rates. Old and immunocompromised people do not disproportionately die in car crashes regardless of whether they're in the vehicle
-
-
Also, we definitely have dialogue about car crashes. We have speed limits, drivers tests, and so on. We have stats on how many people die under different conditions, and we change policy based on those stats
-
You’re making my point for me. There is a sliding scale that doesn’t involve an all or nothing approach. Okay, some speed limits but not too slow because it’s not worth it. You can drive, but not if you’re too dangerous because you’re young, drunk or have bad record.
- 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.