- #4,306
atehundel
- 6
- 10
Who is "we"? Because a great many areas of the nation barely closed this spring, if at all. Many places had their shelter or closure orders overturned. Many areas had orders with no teeth, providing no incentive to abide by them (except of course the prospect of controlling the pandemic). Spring break 2020 essentially invalidated your entire arguement, making anything that follows merely a cascade of dreck unrelated to the reality of the situation we are all in. It has been made very clear that if "lockdown" is imposed in one region, determined people will simply visit another region without the restrictions in place to meet their perceived needs. Those people bring the outbreak with them.russ_watters said:Since we've already done a pretty hard lockdown...
The arguements you tote out regarding our supposed kowledge of the possible effects of "lockdown" based on previous events are similarly shaky. You essentially blame 100% of the economic downturn early in the pandemic on lockdowns without considering even obvious additional contributions to that effect. What sort of other things might have taken a toll on the economy, you might ask? How about global uncertainty in the face of an emerging pandemic? How about a gross failure of the highest authority in the land to manage a remotely coherent or even logical strategy in the face of an emerging pandemic? How about the fears that were present relating to a largely unknown and unpredictable disease, do you think they even had the slightest of impact on decisions that tend to drive the market? Your cluelessness is highlighted by the fact that even though large areas of the country more or less stayed the course through the rise of the pandemic, the economic damage and other things like shortages were felt fairly broadly and almost immediately.
We also know that a majority of deaths are in elderly populations (setting aside for the moment whether "overwhelmingly" in this instance may be misapplied or at least not indicative of the whole story). What you seem to disregard is that in addition to there being some number of fatalities in other age groups, there are a great many other ways that the future earning potential of a number of individuals could be affected in both the short and long term by infection. It is reasonable to acknowledge that predictions of the magnitude of this aspect is less knowable with the limited time information has been available than the impact that deaths themselves have had. This is before we even account for the immedate effects of lost productivity as workers become infected and they themself or possibly other workers associated with them cannot perform their jobs.
You need to get serious and stop making mountains out of molehills when it comes to the formulation of your contrarian arguement. You build a lot of big tables on some pretty flimsy sticks, and seem to rely on a wall of text obscuring the weakness of your position. Attitudes that seem to reject what is staring them right in the face is what has gotten the situation in the US to where it is right now. Even now there is widespread percetption that not only have quite grand and extreme measures been already taken, but that fact is being offered as proof that it is not worth taking any exceptional measure since the pandemic continues to spin out of control. This has authorities in both public and private endeavors chasing their tails, as they attempt to both satisfy those concerned that we are racing towards a tipping point whereafter we will see a new level of carnage as well as those individuals who can't appreciate the utter comprehensive failure that is illustrated by the narrative of "well I've changed a lot, I hardly do anything anymore, oh well had dart league the other night, and so and so was over to visit the other day, and yeah this and that at work, and got to go to so and so's wedding reception, yeah cause I wouldn't if it was anyone else's, but..." and so on and so on.