LogFAQs > #939492470

Krazy_Kirby posted...

16.

33.

Your analogy relies on the assumption that driving isn't regulated to minimize the risk for those participating (your position being that nobody should be subject to regulations to minimize the risk of COVID spread). That assumption is clearly false. Basing your entire analogy on a false assumption is going to take more to defend than "unregulated driving would be more dangerous than unregulated COVID spread."

bod2050 posted...

The spread would cause more fatality in a large number of people who are not at risk of this overhyped flu because there's more people who have it but it isn't a risk for them.....what?

There's nobody who isn't at risk at all for this. The risk is much, much greater for the elderly and otherwise unhealthy, but there's no shortage of young, healthy people that have been killed by it, and that rate will only go up if treatment capacity is overwhelmed. Even at a 0.1% fatality rate (which is roughly what it seems to be among low-risk people with treatment), an extra million cases (very easy to end up with without restrictions in place, given how virulent this thing is) is a thousand people dead who would otherwise have been perfectly fine. And that's not taking into account how much higher that fatality rate would be without treatment (which would happen with an extra million cases) or the potential for other long-term health consequences.

bod2050 posted...

their health is their responsibility.

Again, you would rather high-risk people become unable to leave their house for basic things like groceries than suffer some minor inconveniences? Perhaps it wasn't obvious because of how much else was in my post, but this was the primary point motivating the "get over yourself, diva" comment. A position like that cannot be described as anything more defensible than "being a selfish prick."

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.