There are two terms you multiply together to see how effective a lockdown is, one of them being how strict the measures are and the other being how many people are doing it
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Reroot_Flyover and
Unless the effectiveness of your measures is actually 100% or nearly so, the number of people doing it matters a whole lot
1 reply 0 retweets 55 likes -
No NPI is close to "100% or nearly so". None. So....
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
So any measures we do pass need to be as close to universial as possible, and any messaging that any group of people is immune or "doesn't need to worry" is deeply irresponsible
1 reply 0 retweets 82 likes -
Who said any of this? No one is immune save those already infected. But not everyone is at grave risk. This is a fact. We *know* who the vulnerable population is. Focus.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Oh fuck you man You know who's vulnerable? Me I'm not in the "most vulnerable" group, but I'm vulnerable, largely because, to be blunt, I'm fat I do not expect the government to give me money anytime soon to enable me to "fully lock down" while everyone else parties
2 replies 2 retweets 102 likes -
I get it. You're scared. Trying to be delicate here because I don't aim to insult but you realize your ask, right? That healthy people quarantine to protect you from your previous choices (obesity being mostly non-genetic)? This is the definition of moral hazard.
21 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Yeah I do not consent to die, and fuck you
2 replies 3 retweets 154 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @j_hibernicus
I didn't ask you too. Self-isolate.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Reroot_Flyover @j_hibernicus
You gonna give me the money to live in *actual* full quarantine, with airlocked food deliveries and shit? You gonna guarantee your "Reopen America" plan will extend those amenities to everyone who needs them?
2 replies 1 retweet 28 likes
Comprehensive test-and-trace and quarantining only people who are actually infected would be much, much cheaper than quarantining the entire "vulnerable population" But is still apparently way too expensive to even consider
-
-
Turning a *virus* that spreads indiscriminately through a population into a matter of personal responsibility is not a good take. Especially when we don't actually know the long term effects, or which people are likely to get them while others don't.
0 replies 0 retweets 7 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.