Re:Our model suggests that global deaths remain 5% above pre...
by TechBro8615 on Saturday May 27, 2023 @05:39PM
(#36098611)
I see this argument a lot but I don't understand it. Are you suggesting the dead people would have been grateful for the policies that didn't stop them from dying? Or are you suggesting the policies didn't go far enough, and if the dead people could complain, then we'd be convinced to implement even stricter policies next time?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Our model suggests that global deaths remain 5% above pre...
by dmbche on Saturday May 27, 2023 @05:50PM
(#36098699)
It's not about what the dead would say - it's about the difference in degree between inconvenience and death.
Re:Our model suggests that global deaths remain 5% above pre...
by TechBro8615 on Saturday May 27, 2023 @05:58PM
(#36098774)
The implication of this argument is that if people are dying, the government can implement any policy they want with the nominal intention of "saving lives," and nobody has any right to complain about "inconveniences" because they're not dead, unlike the people who died despite the policies meant to prevent their deaths.
Re:Our model suggests that global deaths remain 5% above pre...
by dmbche on Saturday May 27, 2023 @06:03PM
(#36098812)
While I agree with your statement, I think you might be projecting a little - this is a simple comment, kind of like saying "nothing new under the sun". Not all statements are necessarily prescriptive.
This is used to keep things in perspective when talking about such emotional subjects, not be a final word, I believe
Re:Our model suggests that global deaths remain 5% above pre...
by geekpowa on Saturday May 27, 2023 @05:58PM
(#36098765)
It’s an argument about survivorship bias in any critique of Covid policies that imply Covid response was unnecessarily harmful
My personal pandemic experience was luckier than many . 3 wilderness years of lost time only; of no growth. no loss of business, work , home etc. more importantly I’m alive and so is everyone I love