Quote (thesnipa @ 18 Mar 2020 17:00)
wtf
Honestly, to me it doesn't seem like he's ignoring the quarantine rules. He probably went out to the supermarket or whatever, and chose a full body suit (albeit a very eccentric one) to "protect"(?) himself from the virus.
Did he chose that suit to troll? Perhaps. Seems likely, but then again we've seen all kinds of idiots in the supermarkets these days. At least he wasn't sticking his head inside a plastic bag like these idiots:
Quote (ofthevoid @ 18 Mar 2020 17:15)
I mentioned this before but didn't really go into too much depth. If we think about it, advancement in technology, medicine, dietetics, lifting whole continents out of poverty, etc. has resulted in almost across the board increases in life expediencies. For 99% of history people weren't really expected to live into their 80s or 90s but today it's increasingly becoming the norm as those advances continue.
To me the issue is, as a society, assuming this trend continues and 90s are the new 80s and so on do we as society make the higher life expectancy our baseline and say if this population is affected we will shut down society to prevent it? I mean 50 years ago life expectancy was under 70 and if the covid-19 arose back then, people wouldn't be freaking out considering the death rate is not overwhelmingly higher compared to the flu under 70. Plus the fact that the world wasn't so globalized and interconnected as it is today.
I know it sounds cold, but to me in a way this is natures way of self regulating. We want to be gods and be in control over so many different things but this is just a reminder that no matter what we can't control and minimize all exogenous risks.
We should do what we can to avoid deaths, but we really need to think about the consequences of whatever decisions we make in the long term.
Yes, this would't have been such a huge deal deacades ago. We've become a bit spoilt in that regard. It's not necessarily a bad thing, as it shows how successful our standard of living has become (for the first time in history, the western world isn't accustomed to wars or diseases), but it's dangerous if we let that cloud our judgement in regards to long term consequences.
Even considering that possible lack of rationale, it is not totally clear what we should so. There are strong opinions on both sides.
Quote (Saucisson6000 @ 18 Mar 2020 17:33)
- I was talking about ITALY: 3 weeks after the lockdown there's almost no new case. It's the first area which was locked. Yes it was 3 weeks ago.
- Must have a serious Bias to start to believe China numbers. Even the deads ones.
- Once again you are advocating about pseudo recession argumentation and job loss, which concerns only a small part of workers BTW. Giving it priority to over LIFE.
- And now you are about to say that the 2% deserve to sacrify themselve, that could be considered as acceptable.
Seems like you are a part of these people who show no empathy, and are only changing their mind when they are directly concerned by the problem.
Again, you are just being narrow minded if you really think those wanting to avoid recession lack empathy. They have empathy for the millions of people who will lose their jobs, the parents that will have to carry on with the burden of their kids for several years of adulthood because they won't be able to have enough money to move out, the families that will be evicted because they can't afford either their mortgage or their rent, the people that will suffer the degradation of needed public services and welfare, etc... perhaps it's you that has no empathy for them. Idk, maybe you're lucky to be in a position where your home or job won't be threatened by a recession, but millions of people won't be as lucky, and they too deserve empathy.
Like I've said in other occasions, I personally prefer the korean approach of preemptive testing and isolating only those that test positive, because I have empathy for BOTH the people who will suffer the economic consequences AND the people who are vulnerable to the virus. and the Korean approach seems like a reasonable compromise. Yes, I believe that if it has to be one or the other, I prefer to save the families in danger of suffering severe social and economic consequences, but that doesn't mean I don't feel empathy for those that would suffer from a herd immunity approach.
You thinking it's a matter of black or white, and that there is only one ethical approach is simply being narrowminded. You can claim I'm wrong in the strategy I would chose, and that's fine, but not that what I believe in is immoral or lacks empathy. My stance is essentially driven by empathy, albeit a more utilitarian one than yours.