This wasn’t always the case. A year ago I publicly advocated lockdowns because they seemed prudent given how little was known at the time about the virus and its effects. But locking society down has become the default option of governments all over the world, regardless of cost.
How is lockdown EVER a good idea? We need to stop with this bullshit of "if it saves just one life, it's worth it", or "it's something new, so we all have to run and hide from it for a year until "Experts™" check it out and tell us it's ok again"
I don't care if 10 million people died, it's STILL not a prudent thing to lockdown, force masks on people and tell people they can't see friends, family or operate a business or have gatherings
I’m a guy who can get a little paranoid with health anxiety sometimes. I was pretty damn scared when COVID-19 first came out. I never advocated for lockdowns though. A man experiences fear, but only a coward takes away the rights of others based on that fear.
Well instead you got a disease that kills off the elderly almost exclusively, and instead of appreciation for life you got stripped freedoms, enhanced government controls, and coming soon new divisions between those that have been vaccinated and those that have not. Congrats?
So wait a minute. When WuFlu was first hitting news of being prevalent in America in March 2020, the very first original figures talked about 3-4% could be possible high number death rate, and it was never distinguished who or what condition the people would be in that would die. So fine, even if you want to counter that of course weaker die during a plague/disease/virus whatever.. so you thought this was a good thing?? And at least 2 other asshole upvoted you?
So if all your older relatives died, well that's a good thing? Be sure to tell anyone older that loves you, that is how you truly felt, assuming anyone like that exists.
What you've stated is a truly fucked up opinion. Why would you want 3% of the population dead? Because overpopulation? Then yeah, like I said before, congrats cause the new world order applauds your reasoning.
Lives are never saved; death is merely postponed. Suppose we lock down the United States of America for merely One Minute. ONE MINUTE. There are 330,138,453 Americans as I post this, according to the US Population Clock that the CDC uses (I don't trust it either, but let's roll with this.) And let's suppose that we did that to "save" ONE LIFE. Let's say that it actually DOES stop someone dying of something that would have actually killed them immediately. Okay. That's a good thing, that someone didn't die, I am on board with that concept.
But now I will take the number of Americans, and divide by 80 (assuming average length of life between men and women, this is a little generous, but it's okay, this is a rough estimate.) And then I will divide by 365, for all the days in the year. And then I will divide by 24, for the hours in a day, and then divide by 60, for the minutes in an hour.
And I find that by locking down the US for One Minute, to save One Life, we have actually wasted time equivalent to the entire lives of 7.851 Americans.
"Oh, but it's spread out among so many people." Irrelevant. All of those people matter just as much as the one person you "saved," right? If we saved Eight people, and cost time equivalent to the lives of 7.851 other people, at least that's a net gain. Because everyone is Equal, right?
And then... was there any OTHER way to save that One Life? Or those Eight Lives? Could we have, perhaps, only put THOSE people into some sort of Medical Lockdown, I'll call it a new word that I'll just make up right now. Uhhhh, let's call it a... Quaaaa... ran... tine! A Quarantine! Couldn't we have just "Quarantined" those vulnerable people who were at risk? That way we could have only had a minimal sacrifice of Life Seconds, for the same gain!
And even supposing we couldn't do that... did the Lockdowns even DO ANYTHING? Was everything conducted PROPERLY? Surely, SURELY, there wasn't some horrible botched system that CAUSED horrendous death by putting those vulnerable people into situations that actually ended their lives, purely for political gain, right???
Lock-down isn't a good idea, but it is necessary, in a way.
But it should last a maximum of 3days-week if a strain is shown to be highly contagious and deadly.
It's purpose was meant to study the effects of a novel virus, how fast it spreads and it's death rate and recovery rate and to give government time to set procedures in place to combat the virus.
But it doesn't mean that businesses should be closed or fined.
It should be used as an excuse to flatten the curve, but just to study something novel in the shortest time possible.
Now Lock-down only becomes a problem when it is used as a Draconian measure to keep people in line and in fear. Imposing lock-down without the people's will and infringing upon their rights, and making lock-down last months is what makes lock-down horrible.
Probably we were naive or the world leaders were naive to keep lock-down for long periods of time, or they were in on the hoax.
Anyway, this is just according to my thinking and deductions. I don't advocate for lock-downs but I think incase of anything novel , it is necessary.
Pro-lockdown fucktards in the United States can never get around the fact that it's not a lockdown if you can still leave your home. Restricting what you can do and where you can go but still permitting everyone to go to the grocery store (typically with reduced hours, increasing congestion) only makes things worse.
How is lockdown EVER a good idea? We need to stop with this bullshit of "if it saves just one life, it's worth it", or "it's something new, so we all have to run and hide from it for a year until "Experts™" check it out and tell us it's ok again"
I don't care if 10 million people died, it's STILL not a prudent thing to lockdown, force masks on people and tell people they can't see friends, family or operate a business or have gatherings
I’m a guy who can get a little paranoid with health anxiety sometimes. I was pretty damn scared when COVID-19 first came out. I never advocated for lockdowns though. A man experiences fear, but only a coward takes away the rights of others based on that fear.
Who wasn’t scared when they were touting 3%, maybe as high as 4%, death toll.
I wasn’t. As a society I think losing 3 to 4% of the population would probably be a good thing.
The new world order is very happy with your thinking comrade!
A disease weeding out the weakest of us giving people an appreciation for life is a lot different than killing off the least submissive.
Well instead you got a disease that kills off the elderly almost exclusively, and instead of appreciation for life you got stripped freedoms, enhanced government controls, and coming soon new divisions between those that have been vaccinated and those that have not. Congrats?
All we got was a bunch of bullshit. A virus that kills people that would have died anyway.
Circling back like circle back psacki
So wait a minute. When WuFlu was first hitting news of being prevalent in America in March 2020, the very first original figures talked about 3-4% could be possible high number death rate, and it was never distinguished who or what condition the people would be in that would die. So fine, even if you want to counter that of course weaker die during a plague/disease/virus whatever.. so you thought this was a good thing?? And at least 2 other asshole upvoted you?
So if all your older relatives died, well that's a good thing? Be sure to tell anyone older that loves you, that is how you truly felt, assuming anyone like that exists.
What you've stated is a truly fucked up opinion. Why would you want 3% of the population dead? Because overpopulation? Then yeah, like I said before, congrats cause the new world order applauds your reasoning.
Lives are never saved; death is merely postponed. Suppose we lock down the United States of America for merely One Minute. ONE MINUTE. There are 330,138,453 Americans as I post this, according to the US Population Clock that the CDC uses (I don't trust it either, but let's roll with this.) And let's suppose that we did that to "save" ONE LIFE. Let's say that it actually DOES stop someone dying of something that would have actually killed them immediately. Okay. That's a good thing, that someone didn't die, I am on board with that concept.
But now I will take the number of Americans, and divide by 80 (assuming average length of life between men and women, this is a little generous, but it's okay, this is a rough estimate.) And then I will divide by 365, for all the days in the year. And then I will divide by 24, for the hours in a day, and then divide by 60, for the minutes in an hour.
And I find that by locking down the US for One Minute, to save One Life, we have actually wasted time equivalent to the entire lives of 7.851 Americans.
"Oh, but it's spread out among so many people." Irrelevant. All of those people matter just as much as the one person you "saved," right? If we saved Eight people, and cost time equivalent to the lives of 7.851 other people, at least that's a net gain. Because everyone is Equal, right?
And then... was there any OTHER way to save that One Life? Or those Eight Lives? Could we have, perhaps, only put THOSE people into some sort of Medical Lockdown, I'll call it a new word that I'll just make up right now. Uhhhh, let's call it a... Quaaaa... ran... tine! A Quarantine! Couldn't we have just "Quarantined" those vulnerable people who were at risk? That way we could have only had a minimal sacrifice of Life Seconds, for the same gain!
And even supposing we couldn't do that... did the Lockdowns even DO ANYTHING? Was everything conducted PROPERLY? Surely, SURELY, there wasn't some horrible botched system that CAUSED horrendous death by putting those vulnerable people into situations that actually ended their lives, purely for political gain, right???
Let's be real. Let's look at this critically.
But it should last a maximum of 3days-week if a strain is shown to be highly contagious and deadly. It's purpose was meant to study the effects of a novel virus, how fast it spreads and it's death rate and recovery rate and to give government time to set procedures in place to combat the virus. But it doesn't mean that businesses should be closed or fined. It should be used as an excuse to flatten the curve, but just to study something novel in the shortest time possible.
Now Lock-down only becomes a problem when it is used as a Draconian measure to keep people in line and in fear. Imposing lock-down without the people's will and infringing upon their rights, and making lock-down last months is what makes lock-down horrible.
Probably we were naive or the world leaders were naive to keep lock-down for long periods of time, or they were in on the hoax.
Anyway, this is just according to my thinking and deductions. I don't advocate for lock-downs but I think incase of anything novel , it is necessary.
We didn't lock down for Aids, even when we didn't know how people were getting it.
Pro-lockdown fucktards in the United States can never get around the fact that it's not a lockdown if you can still leave your home. Restricting what you can do and where you can go but still permitting everyone to go to the grocery store (typically with reduced hours, increasing congestion) only makes things worse.
I will never forgive these people. They must pay.
Closing bathrooms so no one can wash their hands? Makes sense in clown world.
100 pounds of shit in a 50 pound bag.
No shit dumb ass.
No lockdowns unless you impose martial law.