You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] 23534573? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

You didn't answer the question.

We elected our governors to decide things like this. I think people who are scared of coming out have the right to hunker down, but we can't just keep printing money forever to pay for that.

0
0

[–] 23539196? ago 

Well, that's handy. What I just wrote disappeared when I tried looking at the context. Shitfuk. You want a simple answer to a huge social and medical crisis. I'm baffled by the calculus, and so too are elected and medical people, it would seem. I'm socially trained to believe people with certain credentials, many doctors for example. And completely distrust other people. Pols might fall into the not trust box. Doctors try to lose no one, and that can be a mistake. Politicians try not to lose their friends, and keep an eye toward whether or not it's going to be possible to lie one's way out if the situation goes bad. In my great state, I have never heard a governor campaign overtly on deciding who will live and who will die. I suspect that part of the depth of the problem becomes what happens with the fallout from being wrong. What does a family do when the wage-earner comes home sick? Then the kids or wife gets sick. And now no bills are being paid. Is there a just social remedy? What is the legal remedy for someone who is willing to work, who goes to work, and who is infected by someone who should not have been there? - The money isn't there whether we print it or not. The last great experiment in bailout when banks created imaginary money was just more debt for a government that has been behind since the late sixties.

So, how many people dying v losing positions? 18 and 75. But I guess we have gone beyond that, haven't we.

0
1

[–] 23541901? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

You're willing to sacrifice the general good of 365,000,000 to save the lives of 18 people. That's about .00000005% of the population. That's not rational thinking.