Saying today that we shouldn't be worried about the coronavirus outbreak because the flu kills many more people every year is like saying on 9/11/2001 after one plane hit that we shouldn't be worried about terrorism because more people die from airplane mechanical failure.
-
Yes, absolutely. There are definitely positive actions the government can take, and public health crises are one of the most important areas for them to act, but we do often let our guard down on government intrusion when panicking
Sure, but you’re not arguing that we shouldn’t panic because it may result in extreme government action right? It’s possible to be concerned about the virus while at the same time remain vigilant against government oversteps.
-
-
Just to clarify as I reread your question: no, I’m not arguing against panic. I’m simply arguing against over reaction or ineffective reaction, and to always be thoughtful about potential externalities and unintended negative consequences of large scale government action
-
Word. Always wise.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, that’s exactly my perspective. Panic is justified, but still be thoughtful and cautious
-
Agree with you totally. It may be wise to see what happens. It may not. Either way I don't see temporarily restricting travel to and from China as much of a violation of civil liberties.
- 1 more reply
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.