You’re free to go outside.
So what are you whinging about then?
Who’s whinging?
You know what I mean, restrictions will be lifted when it is deemed safe to do so. Until that point there’s fuck all you can do but stay at home and relax
I’m at home and relaxing.
I’m just being edgy bro.
A look at the list of “likes” on the first post on this thread will give you a clue.
The great thing about idiots is you don’t have to work out who they are. They’ll tell you.
Cool. I’m not sure the other lads here are being as ironic as you are.
This is the edgy thread.
Was that the original name?
Not sure. It has been since I’ve seen it.
I haven’t seen much argument that efforts should not have been made or should not be made to slow the spread of COVID-19. Those efforts have to be balanced with keeping some semblance of a functioning society, keep food in the supermarkets, get health care and other essential workers to and from work, get production of essential medical equipment going as we can’t rely on China, etc.
There’s lots of things that need to be kept functioning or even ramped up that involve putting people at risk. Everyone out working is at risk of getting this disease, heath care workers especially, or other essential services. Anyone going to the grocery store or chemist shop is putting themselves at some risk.
What’s being discussed is the impact on society if a lock down were to continue for 2, 3, 6 months or longer. Those that say we must do that are either totally ignorant of the history of when economies collapse, such as the great depression, or actually would like to see total economic collapse so they can claim some kind of victory.
2 Likes
It wouldn’t be a victory but I think it would certainly show capitalism is an utterly failed concept if they choose wealth of the few over health of the majority.
It’s the lives of the great majority we are talking about though, not the few. The wealthy are dying as well you know. These are very complex moral issues, and I’m not sure you are up to facing them rationally.
Would you say lockdowns should be kept in place as long as there is any risk of an old person being infected and dying from this disease?
Have you a link? I’d be genuinely interested in the difference. I’d have thought all round deaths should be higher seeing as we have a killer virus to contend with
Lockdown should be kept in place until such time as we have a handle of this disease by either having the medical capacity to deal with it or finding a vaccination.
A deap seated hatred for human life is at the centre of the “keep going at all costs” capitalist ideology.
1 Like
You could justify a lockdown for the common cold using that logic (I know that’s not what you’re doing).
Lockdown will create health problems too. It’s a balancing act
That wasn’t the question. Do you think lockdowns should be kept in place as long as there is any danger of people getting this disease and dying?
That’s a loaded question. I’ve given you the answer that clarifies my viewpoint on how long a lockdown should last.
The same lads screaming for a lockdown are the same lads screaming to end it and it hasn’t been a few weeks