Quote (fender @ 10 Mar 2020 09:40)
did you just overlook the fact that people from different villages / cities / regions gathering in small rooms, and then going back to their families (like in schools for example), is actually how this shit SPREADS, trying to suggest that's somehow a counter-productive measure (too bad all the experts are so terribly wrong, and don't share your insight and wisdom of how to contain pandemics), or did you deliberately ignore that?
i mean, the fact that you're making some pretty ludicrous and flawed analogies (like between containing a virus without a vaccine in sight, and banning cars) clearly indicates you're doing it on purpose, but i'm really not sure, since it's so ridiculously stupid and dishonest, that it seems very out of character considering most of your other posts here. have you put all your savings into stock, or why are you so completely unreasonable about this? it's really mindboggling.
i mean sure, there certainly are people who are unreasonably hysterical about this, but i don't think that describes most western governments - which are ALL incredibly aware of the economic impact their decisions have. again, italy has plenty of reasons (highest percentage of infected citizens worldwide / with over 450 dead the 2nd most behind only china / 8,000 active cases...) to implement some pretty fucking drastic measures, and as far as i can tell, there is no significant dissent amongst health experts about it - if anything, they are alarmed about the relative passiveness in other nations, still holding mass events in demonstrably infected regions for example.
Yes, I'm aware of that, but it's not a big deal of a virus for the vast majority of the population anyway. Just isolate the vulnerable ones, and let the rest go on with their lives, if they want to.
Quote (Santara @ 10 Mar 2020 02:00)
She's 79, and probably has plenty to fear herself.
The thing is, most everyone knows old people they hold dear (themselves included). I don't worry too much what might happen to myself, my wife, or my children, but I and my wife both have parents in their 70s. If I have to stay home to keep them safe, that's a decision worth considering.
I think we all have loved ones in the vulnerable age, and we don't want to put them under any risk. But the thing is, the economic consequences will be more damaging to the country than the deaths of some people that already had a short life exptancy left. The government needs to protect them by all the reasonable means possible, but not at the expense of ruining the economy or threatening our society's standard of life.
Millions of jobs destroyed, thousands of people losing their homes, health care and education budget cuts, etc.... that's a lot scarier than a virus that kills a tiny fraction of the population.
Again, think about it in war terms... we have no trouble sending dozens of thousands of our youths (the country's future) to danger zones when our national interests are seriously threatened, but we lose our shit when the lives of the elderly are at stake. It's irrational. Of course the government should do what it can to protect them, and instruct the citizens to take precautions in regards to the health of the elderly... but if they start introducing restrictions to economic activity, then the consequences are going to be terrible for everyone, and they will last years.
Honestly, I don't want to go back to 10 years ago, with a 28% unemployment, crazy budget cuts in health and education and public transport, streets full of windows with an "out of business sign" labeled on them, families not being able to pay their mortgages, etc. It has take my country a huge effort to get out of that, and our situation wasn't even comparable to that of Greece for example, that it would be irresponsible on the government's side to throw it all away over this fearmongering.