• Awoo [she/her]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I think the best you can do is vaxx as much people as possible and keep more mild restrictions in place like masks in public buildings and such.

    You're talking about policy while ignoring outcomes.

    How many deaths are an acceptable quantity to you exactly? How many families are you willing to ruin?

    Instead of framing this purely in terms of policy you should frame this purely in terms of outcomes and then ask yourself if you think those outcomes are acceptable.

    One thousand? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? How many are you ok with?

    • space_comrade [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Lockdowns aren't just mild inconveniences for all people though. There's a whole bunch of people suffering from depression, anxiety and other mental conditions that probably take it way harder than most. Also people requiring regular medical attention in hospitals have a way tougher time and there's probably gonna be some gaps in the system where some people weren't given the needed attention during lockdowns. The Shanghai lockdown had a bunch of logistical issues like that.

      So how many of those kinds of people are ok to suffer to save how many people from Covid death?

      • VenetianMask [any]
        ·
        2 years ago

        As if death is the only thing to save people from wrt covid.

        Depression and anxiety are terrible but not on the same scale as becoming permanently disabled.

      • Awoo [she/her]
        ·
        2 years ago

        I don't think you really answered my question, you substituted it with another one. I wasn't asking you rhetorically, I was sincerely asking you what you think is an acceptable number of families destroyed?