Please talk to people, not at them. Please don't cancel them for asking questions.
Yes, it's offensively obtuse when people say "it's no worse than the flu". At the same time, I really haven't seen anybody explain why this is wrong. Canceling them doesn't change minds.
Yes, it's offensively obtuse when people say "it's no worse than the flu". At the same time, I really haven't seen anybody explain why this is wrong. Canceling them doesn't change minds.
Yes, yes, I know there's political subtext behind this. Maybe you can't change their minds because this isn't the issue they are actually arguing, that they are instead just defending their side of the political divide.
But it still deserves a response. So I thought I'd write up a few notes.
Note #1: The comparison is apples to oranges. You are comparing flu deaths after a seasonal strain has spread throughout the globe to a disease that's just beginning to spread.
Note #2: This is just as infectious as the flu, which means it grows exponentially. The number of people infected doubles every week. If 1000 people are infected this week, that means 1-billion infected in 20 weeks.
Note #3. Even the flu is a big deal -- if we didn't prepare for it. We prepare by having vaccines and enough hospital beds/equipment to handle an unusually bad season. Without such preparation, the death rate from flu would be much higher.
Note #4. This disease will far outstrip these preparations. Hospitals will fill up, we'll run out of ventilators, and health care workers are going to have to decide who gets the ventilator and who dies.
Note #5. If you contract it, it leaves you more damaged than the flu. Sure, if you are young and healthy, you'll likely get only a mild version. But it'll likely leave behind life-long reduced lung capacity.
Note #6. Every country that has contained it has done so by radical measures, by panic. Thus, the question is not whether we panic, but whether we panic now or panic later.
Note #7. In the end you'll be proven right. Apocalypse will be averted. The death toll will rise to the point everyone stays locked up at home, containing the disease. Spreading might slow in summer. And by next winter we'll likely have a vaccine.
...but that doesn't mean we should not be preparing, such as opening closed hospitals, manufacturing more ventilators, getting tests, and so forth.
Counterargument #1: The cost to the economy will be huge for what appears minor benefits. A total lockdown will throw people out of work, causing mass poverty, which itself costs lives. It's not "lives saved" but "lives saved vs. lives lost".
This is true. But the "lives saved" part of the equation isn't just a few thousand, but millions. Also, the response isn't just things that damage the economy, but other needed actions like preparing hospitals for the wave of infected.
Counteragument #2: Trump's enemies are politicizing this, exploiting the issue to attack him.
Yes, that's true. They'd be doing this no matter how well or how bad he responded. My opinion of Democrats on this issue is as low as my opinion of Trump.
Yes, that's true. They'd be doing this no matter how well or how bad he responded. My opinion of Democrats on this issue is as low as my opinion of Trump.
But their bad behavior doesn't justify Trump's bad behavior. He knows his re-election depends upon the health of the economy in November. He's been downplaying the severity of this crisis, such as in the above tweet, to keep the economy going.
The same thing happens in every other country, where the opposition is attacking the current leaders for their response. Some leaders rise above the political battles and fight the disease. Other leaders fall into the fray and fight their political enemies instead of the disease
In any case, I'm interested in your questions, your disagreements. I promise not to shout you down but listen to how you disagree with me.
