It appears the panic pushers are down to one last scare tactic: long-term effects (there is simply no longer any concern that COVID will grow exponentially and overwhelm hospitals or lead to piles of bodies).
1/5
1/5
If we're going to hold normal life hostage to long-term effects, there are many diseases with much greater prevalence and consequences.
Diabetes, for example. Life-long effects. Should we eliminate that before resuming normal life?
2/5
Diabetes, for example. Life-long effects. Should we eliminate that before resuming normal life?
2/5
Not to mention car accidents. Lots of potential long-term effects from amputations, etc. Should we eliminate car accidents before resuming normal life?
How low should medical/accident risks be before we're allowed to decide for ourselves on our level of risk?
3/5
How low should medical/accident risks be before we're allowed to decide for ourselves on our level of risk?
3/5
At what level of risk to a small number of people is a state of emergency justified?
Clearly this is no longer an emergency, if it ever was.
This is a medical issue, and we have the capability to treat those medical issues.
4/5
Clearly this is no longer an emergency, if it ever was.
This is a medical issue, and we have the capability to treat those medical issues.
4/5
In fact, if we stop limiting the ability of hospitals to treat any medical issues they have the capacity to treat, MANY long-term consequences of MANY diseases will be prevented.
Why is this one potential long-term consequence more important than the rest?
5/5
Why is this one potential long-term consequence more important than the rest?
5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
