I have no problem with people trying to argue that lockdown was entirely justified. It's important that we have this debate to establish whether we should ever do it again.
But what you can't do is claim that the justification for lockdown is the '130,000' people who have died.
But what you can't do is claim that the justification for lockdown is the '130,000' people who have died.
We are not at the beginning of this, debating whether or not to lockdown. We've been doing it for a whole year. We have had stricter measures, for a longer period of time, than almost any other country on Earth. And still, you claim, 130,000 people died from the virus.
This does not help your argument. It helps ours. What you need to be questioning, establishing and the asserting is how many lives have been SAVED by what we've done.
You then need to question, establish and assert how many people have been KILLED by these measures and will be
You then need to question, establish and assert how many people have been KILLED by these measures and will be
killed in the coming years. Then you will have two numbers to compare and this will help you to prove that lockdown was justified. Or maybe it won't (it won't). The completely psychotic reasoning of pointing out how many people died while we were doing the thing that was meant to
prevent them dying, as proof that we got it right, really worries me. I don't think it's healthy for this many people in a society to abandon their critical faculties to this extent. Aside from that, it just makes the debate so incredibly boring.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
