Definition of "true dichotomy" (plural: true dichotomies): A situation in which two alternative points of view are presented as the only options, because no other are available.

// Example: harsh lockdowns, or get building surplus crematorium capacity

I mean, what's your alternative? Asking the virus nicely not to kill the elderly? Given the nature of Delta and the very low vaccination rate, Australia has limited good options here.

No alternative. Harsh lockdowns are the way to go. After detecting a single COVID-19 case, we should lock everything down [1]. No talking allowed [2]. There are no potential side effects [3]. Welcome to SimCity™

[1] https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-08-12/austra...

[2] https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelPSenger/status/14255164081...

[3] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9884297/Covid-19-...

If a place is no longer safe for some people should the solution be to shut down that place? Or burn down? People lose their business, their job, their home, their savings, go into debt, hospitals are full. At some ratio evacuation should be preferred. Of course one wants to stay where one is but if the price is to see that place destroyed in front of your eyes it doesn't seem worth it.

It seems the person agrees with you by saying "true" instead of "false dichotomy"

I don't, it's funny that the decision to stop __eveything__ to "save lives" can be done at a finger snap, no due process, yet banning __just__ guns (or replace it with just tobacco, fastfood, teflon... other things that kill) seems impossible to get pass debates.