Laura Jedeed (Misanthrophile)

That’s certainly a friendlier tone. It would be fair to mention the severity of the life and death scale. I still think it’s a strawman. All serious arguments are about reducing the scale of the suffering.

Yes, both sides are using those words and I think most of them even mean it. But one side is talking about numbers of people who will die based on epidemiologist assessments and the other side, as far as I have seen, is not

I just want you to say it. I want everyone who thinks a relaxation makes sense to say it. Tell me how a quarantine relaxation for the sake of the economy will minimize human suffering when epidemiologists say it won't.

Tell me how saving the economy will save more lives than letting it tank and avoiding 10% mortality rates like we're seeing in Italy We need specifics to have this conversation because the outcomes will be very fucking specific

We could stop every motor vehicle death tomorrow if we got rid of every car. But as a society we don’t because we recognize that there are myriad benefits to having motor vehicles including often saving people’s lives. We all handle that calculus without this level of dialogue.

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