I've done like a mental tally of people who are the people for and against lockdowns to various extents over the last half a year or so and honestly the results aren't that surprising.

The vast majority of people who are 'for' lockdowns have not generally been negatively impacted by the lockdowns. It's usually people who have middle-class jobs who can work from home or people in the healthcare space who are sick of working more hours or the lockdowns really didn't force them to give up their high 5 digit or 6 digit salaries.

On the other side, you have people who have been deeply hurt by the lockdowns. I sometimes read and watch local news and the loudest voices have been restaurant workers, gym owners, other service sector jobs, so in essence jobs that honestly are considered lower maybe middle-lower if we exclude owners.

Like a cook at a diner, I wouldn't consider middle class, having worked as a cook many years ago.

I think it's easy to be for or against something when you aren't personally invested. You think all these work from home professionals or medical professionals would be for the lockdowns if they were forced to let's say to reduce their pay by 25% to subsidize those most impacted?

The tower of babel ended terribly just as it will the next time

"....Another 18% of Americans say they would be somewhat likely to follow public health officials' advice to stay home for a month, bringing the total inclined to comply to the majority level. But a full third say they would be very or somewhat unlikely to comply, about double the rate seen in the spring."

But yeah, you might be right for America anyhow - could be dead in the middle. I'm curious on the verdict of partial lockdowns compared to full stay at home ones.

i dont disagree, but would add that this stance isn't stagnant. i know people strongly for lockdowns that are now for being wide open, people who were against it that are now for it, people on both sides that are now for incremental opening.

in any case incrementally opening is the best way, its a good tester for how much vaccines will truly stop spread. and yes it does suck that sectors that can't stay in operation for 2 weeks of lockdowns exist and are struggling, this to me tho is a failure of legislation. its politicians not wanting to roll up their sleeves and actually look at who needs the stimulus money the most. they're lazy, they broadcast money far and wide and it goes to people who dont need it, businesses who dont need it, and those that do dont get enough. no one wants to be the bad guy and tell an office worker who never had to stay at home once that they dont get a check because a cook gets 2 checks. no one wants to tell a manufacturer (like mine) that never closed that they get zero checks because a bar gets theirs. if the lockdowns and stimulus were done correctly, under Trump and Biden, there'd be far less anti-lockdown sentiment. and we'd just be left with the "u cant tell me what to do" and "im gonna hug my grandbabies" whackos.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 22 2021 11:29am

scientific data collected show the damage of lockdowns. only a negligent person would argue them at this stage in the game or maybe a criminal mind.

i will ad a link for consideration. not for you, you reject anything that conflicts with your imagination. the link if for any one else reading this post
"Florida Wins the Lockdown Science War - Hands Down - no problemo!!!" (Mirror, by Ivor Cummins).
https://www.bitchute.com/video/T7v0MAdUqaAW/

Am I the only one who thinks that's wrong?

Oh boy, you should never work in a hospital if you think that's anything to be concerned about.

I can accept even more intrusive procedures on infants if it serves their own health. But all data suggests that this age group is at an absolutely miniscule risk from covid and not driving infections among older age groups either. This is basically child abuse which only serves to soothe the anxiety of a certain segment of adults who are paranoid and panicked.

Miniscule risk from Covid, even less risk from the test.

This isn't within 100 miles of child abuse. You're being reactionary.

... says the man who tortured helpless animals for a living.