You do understand that following the pattern of similarly lethal flus opening back up too early will result in a second peak? Please look up the history of the Spanish Flu outbreak.
-
-
Replying to @loudpenitent @skroobler and
Our understanding of germ theory, medical technology, and societal ability to share information instantly gives us a huge leg up on the capabilities society has in the late 1910s. There is also emerging evidence that the virus is not as deadly as originally thought.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DemocratsCongr2 @skroobler and
There's a *lot* of evidence suggesting it is in fact quite deadly. Look just get out and say it: Do you want thousands of people to die unnecessary deaths so you can return to what you consider a normal economy, yes or no?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @loudpenitent @skroobler and
Notice how you switched from hundreds of thousands to thousands. And your question is being posed in bad faith. I haven’t once made it about me. It’s about the greater good of society as a whole. Everything must be taken into account.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DemocratsCongr2 @loudpenitent and
Economic growth has saved more lives than medicine alone by an order of magnitude. Poverty rates down, life expectancy up across the world, less war, food security for billions and more. Long term views are needed when analyzing a complicated issue like this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DemocratsCongr2 @skroobler and
Ok so that's really the answer, then: you believe it is objectively more important to keep the economy as is going, even in the face of a pandemic, and consider the inevitable deaths that will result a necessary sacrifice for abstract progress. Which, fine, it's an ethos I guess
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @loudpenitent @DemocratsCongr2 and
But be *honest* about your motivations and statements: You consider the lives of those who are likely to die from COVID-19 an acceptable sacrifice for the sake of the market.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @loudpenitent @skroobler and
And you consider victims of bad economic conditions (leads to war, suicide, domestic violence, starvation) as expendable in order to possibly save more lives. Which is already a stretch because the goal isn’t to stop people from getting it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DemocratsCongr2 @loudpenitent and
Only because you consider the third option of just giving those people money unacceptable in the long term
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @loudpenitent and
I see it as unacceptable bc printing money to solve economic problems has never worked in the long run. We disagree on whether or not it would work and that’s fine. I could spell out all of the legitimate economic reasons it doesn’t work and your mind wouldn’t change
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
As a wise man once said, "In the long run we are all dead" I mean, getting us out of the Great Depression is a "long run" enough achievement in my book
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.