1) The violence hasn’t “all been in one direction” — that’s just plain dumb to even claim, c’mon dude.
2) The (largely futile) measures in 1918 are poor analogues when:
A) they weren’t worldwide
B) they lasted nowhere near as long
C) 1918 Flu was far more deadly than COVID ever was believably projected to be (especially to under-70s)
1) The violence hasn’t “all been in one direction” — that’s just plain dumb to even claim, c’mon dude.
2) The (largely futile) measures in 1918 are poor analogues when:
A) they weren’t worldwide
B) they lasted nowhere near as long
C) 1918 Flu was far more deadly than COVID ever was believably projected to be (especially to under-70s)
3) You’re obviously right in that this isn’t the first epidemic, which is why countries all had measures in place for pandemic events, and they didnt involve closing schools, forcibly canceling gatherings/events, restricting movement of healthy people (or closing borders), or mandating masks (let alone across the entire healthy population). Why was all of this thrown out the window for COVID-19?
That’s an example from the UK’s influenza pandemic preparedness of 2011.
4) since this isn’t the first pandemic, there are precedents for increases in death (and even over-burdened hospitals in non-pandemic times), but what IS “unprecedented” is the denial of basic fundamental rights to citizens all over, including the dignity of burying your dead and holding a funeral where people can pay their respects. Things are being suspended and banned that haven’t been encroached upon since the days of the Black Death. If you wanna compare those times to modern times as if they’re remotely comparable in terms of threat, be my guest.
5) as you made excuses for them making their “best educated guess” for policies that would be imposed upon everybody, you left out option 3: do nothing. I know it’s not sexy in the age of “we have to do SOMETHING!” But when it comes to massive worldwide shut downs and de facto martial law, it’s entirely possible and should be taken into account without being cast as evil or defeatist that doing that “something” can cause greater harm than doing “nothing”. “Do no harm” is the oath, right? The problem with this war footing you’ve so readily adopted against germs is that, just like in the War on Terror and the War on Crime (we have an EXCELLENT record in our wars against abstract concepts), as soon as people said, “is this a war we should be fighting?” We got treated like terrorist sympathizers or people who want to keep rapists on the streets, and labeled “dangerous”.
6) I gave you my personal objections stated very plainly and earnestly to the measures being taken in the name of combatting a virus, and you instantly talked down to me as if I’m some antisocial nutjob with your links and drawn battle lines for whose side I’m on, based on whatever narrow-minded media outlet shaped your view on reactions to the virus. Certainly doesn’t seem like I’m allowed to question any of it when doing so already gets me lumped in the “degenerate” category in your responses.
1) The violence hasn’t “all been in one direction” — that’s just plain dumb to even claim, c’mon dude.
2) The (largely futile) measures in 1918 are poor analogues when:
A) they weren’t worldwide
B) they lasted nowhere near as long
C) 1918 Flu was far more deadly than COVID ever was believably projected to be (especially to under-70s)
3) You’re obviously right in that this isn’t the first epidemic, which is why countries all had measures in place for pandemic events, and they didnt involve closing schools, forcibly canceling gatherings/events, restricting movement of healthy people (or closing borders), or mandating masks (let alone across the entire healthy population). Why was all of this thrown out the window for COVID-19?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf
That’s an example from the UK’s influenza pandemic preparedness of 2011.
4) since this isn’t the first pandemic, there are precedents for increases in death (and even over-burdened hospitals in non-pandemic times), but what IS “unprecedented” is the denial of basic fundamental rights to citizens all over, including the dignity of burying your dead and holding a funeral where people can pay their respects. Things are being suspended and banned that haven’t been encroached upon since the days of the Black Death. If you wanna compare those times to modern times as if they’re remotely comparable in terms of threat, be my guest.
5) as you made excuses for them making their “best educated guess” for policies that would be imposed upon everybody, you left out option 3: do nothing. I know it’s not sexy in the age of “we have to do SOMETHING!” But when it comes to massive worldwide shut downs and de facto martial law, it’s entirely possible and should be taken into account without being cast as evil or defeatist that doing that “something” can cause greater harm than doing “nothing”. “Do no harm” is the oath, right? The problem with this war footing you’ve so readily adopted against germs is that, just like in the War on Terror and the War on Crime (we have an EXCELLENT record in our wars against abstract concepts), as soon as people said, “is this a war we should be fighting?” We got treated like terrorist sympathizers or people who want to keep rapists on the streets, and labeled “dangerous”.
6) I gave you my personal objections stated very plainly and earnestly to the measures being taken in the name of combatting a virus, and you instantly talked down to me as if I’m some antisocial nutjob with your links and drawn battle lines for whose side I’m on, based on whatever narrow-minded media outlet shaped your view on reactions to the virus. Certainly doesn’t seem like I’m allowed to question any of it when doing so already gets me lumped in the “degenerate” category in your responses.