The main problem is that different people have different definitions what pile of corpses actually is.
For me covid is not a big deal and it should have been ignored. And I have came to this conclusion looking at the official data. For a lot of people that are very passionate about masks and lockdowns this is incomprehensible - that I could look at the data and come to different conclusion.
That is the point - for me covid isn't killing many people. It is killing tiny amount relative to the global population and it is usually people that were on the way out.
Which ones again shows how difficult is to argue with someone when your basic axioms, values and definitions mismatch.
and it is usually people that were on the way out.
You haven't looked at the data closely enough if you believe this.
Covid is killing people an average of 10 years early. Most of these people needed no assistance in their day to day life before they died. This isn't the frail, very elderly, population you think it is.
For me covid is not a big deal and it should have been ignored.
In that case, how do you avoid your health system collapsing? The hospitalisation rate for an uncontrolled spread of the virus far exceeds the capacity of any country's health system.
The only option in this case is either to introduce drastic measures to reduce the spread of the virus or accept that very large numbers of people will die at home without oxygen or other medical care.
for me covid isn't killing many people
If you're doing x to suppress y, you can't claim that low y is a reason not to do x. You have to consider how much y would be if you weren't doing x. And that y would be far higher.
Consider the argument that we should not bother with antibiotics because bacterial infections don't kill many people.
Which ones again shows how difficult is to argue with someone when your basic axioms, values and definitions mismatch.
It's interesting that not many people are arguing that huge numbers of people would die without measures and that that would be acceptable. People tend to fall into two groups: either restrictions are necessary to avoid large numbers of death, or that restrictions are not necessary because you wouldn't have large numbers of deaths.
This suggests that the argument is not a mismatch of values, but one of whether the data are correct.
Comments
The main problem is that different people have different definitions what pile of corpses actually is.
For me covid is not a big deal and it should have been ignored. And I have came to this conclusion looking at the official data. For a lot of people that are very passionate about masks and lockdowns this is incomprehensible - that I could look at the data and come to different conclusion.
That is the point - for me covid isn't killing many people. It is killing tiny amount relative to the global population and it is usually people that were on the way out.
Which ones again shows how difficult is to argue with someone when your basic axioms, values and definitions mismatch.
You haven't looked at the data closely enough if you believe this.
Covid is killing people an average of 10 years early. Most of these people needed no assistance in their day to day life before they died. This isn't the frail, very elderly, population you think it is.
I have seen extremely strong amplification of risk by stuff like obesity, diabetes and the rest of the metabolic syndrome buddies.
A lot of the dead were having chronic conditions or were already old.
Turns out a lot of people have heart conditions or diabetes. Doesn't meant they were going to die.
In that case, how do you avoid your health system collapsing? The hospitalisation rate for an uncontrolled spread of the virus far exceeds the capacity of any country's health system.
The only option in this case is either to introduce drastic measures to reduce the spread of the virus or accept that very large numbers of people will die at home without oxygen or other medical care.
If you're doing x to suppress y, you can't claim that low y is a reason not to do x. You have to consider how much y would be if you weren't doing x. And that y would be far higher.
Consider the argument that we should not bother with antibiotics because bacterial infections don't kill many people.
It's interesting that not many people are arguing that huge numbers of people would die without measures and that that would be acceptable. People tend to fall into two groups: either restrictions are necessary to avoid large numbers of death, or that restrictions are not necessary because you wouldn't have large numbers of deaths.
This suggests that the argument is not a mismatch of values, but one of whether the data are correct.