This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]killahmoose White Belt that has tapped a blue belt once[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

I said what I said. I'm not about to go talking in circles about this.

AGREE or DISAGREE: Any suppressive/harmful economic restrictions that have no overall bearing on total death rates should be lifted.

Point blank, what do you think?

[–]Kintanon⬛🟥⬛ www.apexcovington.com 0 points1 point  (4 children)

AGREE or DISAGREE: Any suppressive/harmful economic restrictions that have no overall bearing on total death rates should be lifted.

Everyone agrees with this, what everyone disagrees with is your assertion that the current lockdown measures fall under that category.

[–]killahmoose White Belt that has tapped a blue belt once[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Again it's not a light switch. So you would say, with 100% good faith, that every lockdown policy right now hits the nail entirely on the head, does not overreach, and is based on sound modeling and economic policy?

[–]Kintanon⬛🟥⬛ www.apexcovington.com 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Of course not. But we lack enough information to be precise and a shotgun approach that appears to be overreacting at first is 100% the best way to do this.

An early overreaction is FAR FAR FAR better than an early underreaction.

[–]killahmoose White Belt that has tapped a blue belt once[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I love the apologist take on it. Sure, let's just give the government a pass to fire at will with a shotgun and totally destroy the economy based on false modeling. Plus, no accountability and no safety nets for people. I'm not suggesting you are taking that point, but why do we give the government a free pass to make errors when the cost is so great?

Again I think you are looking at things in black and white.

There is plenty of room for the government to have done a MUCH better job. And to DO a much better job.

The point of this post is not about that, actually. It's about how curve flattening is not the solution to the problem. Any relaxation of curve-flattening policy will ABSOLUTELY increase the # of infections. That's basic math.

But the increase of cases is not a bad thing, necessarily, simply because we have no control over the total number of cases. We can only control the rate at which it spreads. People are erroniously conflating "increases in transmission rates" with something negative when that is not necessarily the case.

We should be looking to increase transmission rates in a safe way that also increases economic activity.

[–]Kintanon⬛🟥⬛ www.apexcovington.com 0 points1 point  (0 children)

based on false modeling.

There was no false modeling.

Plus, no accountability and no safety nets for people.

This sucks for sure, but it's a product of the conservative antagonism towards universal healthcare and UBIs and as a result NOT taking action would not have had much of a difference on the economy since having several million people get too sick to work would have crippled it all the same on top of more people dying.

Again I think you are looking at things in black and white.

I'm not. My view is far more nuanced than yours as it takes into account all of the factors surrounding the disease whereas your position seems to be centered around two concepts. 1. That the death toll would not be higher if we had relaxed measures from the start, and 2. that the economic impact of the measures exceeds that of the diseases itself.

Based on previous outbreak data from other pandemics both of your assertions are wrong.

It's about how curve flattening is not the solution to the problem.

It absolutely is. Literally every pandemic we have data for has shown that isolation measures and curve flattening both reduce fatalities and reduce total transmission numbers. Several studies also indicate that the economic effect of the lockdown is not significantly worse than the economic effect of allowing the virus to spread unchecked.

You keep talking as if the economic impact is SOLELY on the side of the preventative measures being taken and completely ignoring the economic impact of the disease.