Re:A case for ending lockdown
by arh68 on Thursday April 30, 2020 @10:30AM
(#23031163)
I think your argument is well-written (aside from s/effects/affects/ in effects an extremely limited..) but just not convincing.
I think this part goes way too far presuming intent, really hurts your case without a qualifier.
> Those advocating a policy of containment, and with it, totalitarian-style lockdown, are not doing so based upon scientific evidence, but rather upon superstition and tribalism.
And to be so critical of "omission", the TLDR says nothing of air-to-air transmission while eating, like in a restaurant.
I think this part goes way too far presuming intent, really hurts your case without a qualifier.
> Those advocating a policy of containment, and with it, totalitarian-style lockdown, are not doing so based upon scientific evidence, but rather upon superstition and tribalism.
And to be so critical of "omission", the TLDR says nothing of air-to-air transmission while eating, like in a restaurant.