New york city had 0.25% of their population die, I'd say australia dodged a bullet and can be lumped in with countries that best handled the virus. The low death rate is a consequence of good handling, not "someone fucking up".
How many more people would have to have died for you to feel the response was appropriate?
Surely the number of lives saved is the correct thing to measure against the economic cost. It's hard to compare against a counterfactual, of course -- but look at NYC, look at Italy, look at France.
At what point do we draw the line that a certain number of deaths outweigh a certain amount of human misery or vice versa. In my state they don't even erect a traffic light until a certain number of people have died in that road intersection.
Deaths are one measure. Permanently reduced lung capacity is another. Measuring the costs accurately will take time.
Each community is making those calls as they see fit, hence the variety of guidelines at every level. Would you feel more at ease with a federally mandated reopening which overrides all local authorities?
Well meaning overbearing incompetency seems little better. Has there been a more thorough refutation of the promised land of technocrats than these past couple months?
Technocrats? Business leaders are selected at random by our economy, or are born wealthy. This has been proven over and over in studies.
Your flowery language is designed so that you feel smart. The fact that you started the first sentence with 'overbearing incompetency' and then in the second sentence said 'technocrat' shows the disorganization in language, and demands that we define what a technocrat is.
> Technocracy is an ideological system of governance in which decision-makers are selected on the basis of their expertise in a given area of responsibility, particularly with regard to scientific or technical knowledge.
You are arguing with people with an ideology that doesn't allow them to accept anything other than government policies and actions are malign and counter productive. That's why they won't accept that lock downs and social distancing policies have been effective. Because whatever the government does it's the wrong thing.
These people are fools and you cannot reason with them.
So, before the lockdowns it was observed that if actions are successful then some people will claim they weren’t necessary.
Since you seem to be one of those people - what’s your thinking here? Do you really think those numbers (98 deaths and 16 in ICU) would be exactly the same if no action was taken? What’s your mental model of how that would work?
I read something like this and I think, "this person is a psychopath". So order to "save" the economy (which is a social construct designed to serve the people) you would happily kill a family member? How many would you sacrifice before it was too much?
