Yep. Also there have been heart disease and cancer prevention programs for years. Not sure how someone could have missed those.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (170 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
This. Other thing i mentioned is how much more people are willing to do for preventing people to die for covid-19 compared to heart failures/diseases because of higher blood pressures over unhealthy lifestyles etc. It just comes down to utter selfishness because this covid-19 pretty much affects for everyone, but if you're not obese you're most likely safe from dying to those heart diseases so it's "whatever" for these people. That's just an example, but this whole world is full of those.
Nothing but double standards in here.
- - - Updated - - -
People should go ahead and try to prevent all the deaths in this world. Go stop alchoholism, starvation etc. Oh, but because you ain't part of those, it's whatever.
Nothing but double standards in here.
- - - Updated - - -
People should go ahead and try to prevent all the deaths in this world. Go stop alchoholism, starvation etc. Oh, but because you ain't part of those, it's whatever.
Last edited:
I'm not saying people can live in vitiro and each person can protect himself.
For many, its better to take the chance of going out to do your job and going about your life and risk getting the virus. For others it isn't, fine. I get trying to prevent overburdening the healthcare system but I'm not sure i get the Gov't telling people not to go to work or don't go and exercise because they want to protect you, it's for your own good.
... or to protect everyone else (those who consider themselves at risk). Everyone else can continue to take the same measures that the state was mandating for all. Of course its no so simple because as you say, public health is public - there is increased risk of coming into contact with someone infected. That's where your personal responsibility comes in.
And yes, put extra measures in place for the vulnerable. But to keep large parts of the population on lockdown "for their own good" because there are 50 new cases per 1,000,000 per day, I'm not sure i get.
For many, its better to take the chance of going out to do your job and going about your life and risk getting the virus. For others it isn't, fine. I get trying to prevent overburdening the healthcare system but I'm not sure i get the Gov't telling people not to go to work or don't go and exercise because they want to protect you, it's for your own good.
... or to protect everyone else (those who consider themselves at risk). Everyone else can continue to take the same measures that the state was mandating for all. Of course its no so simple because as you say, public health is public - there is increased risk of coming into contact with someone infected. That's where your personal responsibility comes in.
And yes, put extra measures in place for the vulnerable. But to keep large parts of the population on lockdown "for their own good" because there are 50 new cases per 1,000,000 per day, I'm not sure i get.
Imagine thinking the world doesn’t do much about heart disease or cancer lol. Billions, nay, trillions of dollars have been spent on cancer research for treatment and prevention.
- - - Updated - - -
They say exactly what I’ve been saying.
Lockdowns shouldn’t be the primary means of controlling the virus, and are only justified to buy time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance resources, and protect health care workers...
Which is essentially what the initial lockdown was for when we didn’t have any knowledge of the virus and how to control its spread, and were swamping health care systems in hard hit places.
- - - Updated - - -
They say exactly what I’ve been saying.
Lockdowns shouldn’t be the primary means of controlling the virus, and are only justified to buy time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance resources, and protect health care workers...
Which is essentially what the initial lockdown was for when we didn’t have any knowledge of the virus and how to control its spread, and were swamping health care systems in hard hit places.
Liverpool recorded 600 cases per 100,000 people in the week ending 6 October. The average for England was 74.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54499963
Don't know if these stats are anywhere near true but this would make Liverpool the epicentre of Europe during this second wave
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54499963
Don't know if these stats are anywhere near true but this would make Liverpool the epicentre of Europe during this second wave
Well, here's where I differ. One man's God-given right to take care of himself as he pleases is someone else's superspreader event. We are dealing with a balance between conflicting "rights" here. If I am voluntarily wearing masks and social distancing and keeping everything in my business disinfected, some clown who holds 300 people in a packed church in the middle of that stands to shut my business down from a superspreader event.
How is that fair? Why does the careless idiot get to decide my community health standards when I've been meticulous and careful, shutting down my business?
Personal responsibility only goes so far in matters of public health. If one idiot anti-vaxxer sends their measles-addled kids to my school, why do my kids have to suffer from that family's idiocy?
If we relied on personal responsibility, we wouldn't need drunk driving laws. We wouldn't need buyer protections from fraudsters. We wouldn't need health safety standards for the food supply. We wouldn't need police. We wouldn't need sex offenders from being kept out of day care centers.
I don't recall anybody ever suggesting lockdowns were the primary means of controlling the virus. Other than they were a desperate Hail Mary pass ... akin to applying a tourniquet because you don't have some gauze and medical tape.
The trouble is we all knew this because they were last resort measures ... and few nations have bothered to invest into other measures like better testing (or, in the case of the US, dissuading people from testing) and contact tracing.
That's merely silly. Stupid is wearing a plastic bag over your head while jogging.
How is that fair? Why does the careless idiot get to decide my community health standards when I've been meticulous and careful, shutting down my business?
Personal responsibility only goes so far in matters of public health. If one idiot anti-vaxxer sends their measles-addled kids to my school, why do my kids have to suffer from that family's idiocy?
If we relied on personal responsibility, we wouldn't need drunk driving laws. We wouldn't need buyer protections from fraudsters. We wouldn't need health safety standards for the food supply. We wouldn't need police. We wouldn't need sex offenders from being kept out of day care centers.
They say exactly what I’ve been saying.
Lockdowns shouldn’t be the primary means of controlling the virus, and are only justified to buy time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance resources, and protect health care workers...
Which is essentially what the initial lockdown was for when we didn’t have any knowledge of the virus and how to control its spread, and were swamping health care systems in hard hit places.
Lockdowns shouldn’t be the primary means of controlling the virus, and are only justified to buy time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance resources, and protect health care workers...
Which is essentially what the initial lockdown was for when we didn’t have any knowledge of the virus and how to control its spread, and were swamping health care systems in hard hit places.
The trouble is we all knew this because they were last resort measures ... and few nations have bothered to invest into other measures like better testing (or, in the case of the US, dissuading people from testing) and contact tracing.
That's merely silly. Stupid is wearing a plastic bag over your head while jogging.
Why would that shut down your business though? If you and your staff have on masks, sanitize the location thoroughly, wash your hands every 10 minutes and not touch your face, you should be fine.
I don't think there is any disagreement between us here.
I don't necessarily disagree that there should be some level of public control as in the case of 300 person church gatherings. Various activities carry various degrees of risk and reward.
But why close restaurants and pubs, keeping people out of jobs? So grandma can feel safe buying cat food at the grocery? Actually many of those from the most vulnerable groups would still risk their lives going to churches and restaurants if you let them. Why stop them?
I don't think there is any disagreement between us here.
I don't necessarily disagree that there should be some level of public control as in the case of 300 person church gatherings. Various activities carry various degrees of risk and reward.
But why close restaurants and pubs, keeping people out of jobs? So grandma can feel safe buying cat food at the grocery? Actually many of those from the most vulnerable groups would still risk their lives going to churches and restaurants if you let them. Why stop them?