Hey Guys

submitted by TheBottomLine from files.catbox.moe

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I mean if we had a real plague where like 5% of people were dying, then I would support the lockdowns.

But this flu where 99.4% survive? 3x as bad as a bad flu season? This is not worth locking the world down for.

Especially since it mutates regularly and there will be no vaccine that solves it, just like there is no vaccine that solves the flu, only last year's strain.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I mean if we had a real plague where like 5% of people were dying, then I would support the lockdowns.

If it was communicated through aerosolized then the lockdown would still be pointless.

Also, people would willingly avoid public encounters if 1 in 20 were dropping dead, because the remaining 19 would also be sick AF.

Lockdowns are only useful for hoaxes.

Edit: Also, if people do begin to drop dead, then something significant has changed.

[–]wuzizname 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

70 days. Every time an area has locked down for 20+ days, 70 days later the virus has reached epidemic status again. I was listening to a statistician on talk radio who broke it down, he surveyed every country or area that applied shut downs and in every case the most it bought them was 70 days before the whu flu reached a level where hospitals were being over loaded.

So, instead of taking advantage of those 70 days and doing stuff like.. I don't know, building more hospitals and setting up more treatment facilities the government does nothing and just plans to lock down again. All those trillions of dollars wasted paying healthy people to not go to work instead of being invested in better hospitals and long term health care facilities is infuriating to me.