tresir2012
Former Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2019
- Messages
- 11,156
- Reaction score
- 56,469
Hard choices indeed. The cards have been dealt and we are unprepared for the pandemic.
You refer to sacrificing lives, but I think it is more sacrificing the very small chance that you or your loved ones will suffer permanent loss due to coronavirus. But that is a real concern nonetheless.
The Washington Post commentary is powerful and compassionate. It is hard to argue with the logic, except it makes no mention of the economic cost is of waiting until after we’ve taken common-sense measures to prevent the preventable.
Sally Jenkins says sarcastically- Rather than damage the economy further, we must accept a certain number of coronavirus casualties so the rest of us can go back to restaurants and football games. It’s a false moral equation and a false choice.
Sally is a good and expressive writer. She talks about people going to restaurants and football game instead of people getting back to work to pay their bills. Very effective. She says a moral equation is false, but doesn't present the societal cost of keeping the economy shut to her equation. Her equation isn't really an equation.
I guess everyone will want the flu jab next year so there will probably be a shortage. Anyone over 65 or with an underlying health conditions usually gets offered it but there is no evidence it helps against CV19, although people may think it does.
Regarding if staying in and social distancing was a choice to save lives, we had a week where we were asked to social distance and kids were off school and the majority took no notice, then we got the mandatory lockdown. So in general we are selfish creatures, survival of the fittest, not much social conscience so a lot would not care IMO, until it affects someone they know.
MOO.