Looking back do you think some corona measures were an overkill?

[PurpleTree]

I think in my country it was ok

we never had a full lockdown

just gyms, cinemas etc closed for a while

masks were mandatory for a while in public transport and stores

no curfew etc

the countries who made masks mandatory outside ets are nuts

 

[UnbornTao]

20 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It is reasonable to err on the side of caution when it comes to a highly contagious novel virus.

Why is the citizenry so stupid?

 

[Yimpa]

The meta lesson of the pandemic is an urgent test to see if humanity is capable of putting aside their differences, working together effectively, and ultimately becoming less selfish and more loving towards each other and the planet they inhabit.

Humans are failing, big time.

[Consept]

18 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

The meta lesson of the pandemic is an urgent test to see if humanity is capable of putting aside their differences, working together effectively, and ultimately becoming less selfish and more loving towards each other and the planet they inhabit.

Humans are failing, big time.

The first couple weeks were ok its just the next 2 years that were a mess 

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, Consept said:

The first couple weeks were ok its just the next 2 years that were a mess 

Ha, yeah. It’s like going through a messy breakup.  The first couple weeks are THIS IS FINE. Then, the next year or so will be riddled with difficult emotions and distorted perceptions of reality, especially if you’re not allowing yourself to process it, and instead avoid or deny it.

[Danioover9000]

@StarStruck

On 2023-10-04 at 4:31 PM, StarStruck said:

I feel like a lot of measures were implemented from fear.

   Because it was a life and death situation for the whole world, and we sort of survived and got away from Covid-19 pandemic luckily. Imagine if instead of Covid-19 we got a mutated, bio-weapon like a Cordyceps fungus that infects human beings and spreads mainly from getting bitten to spores being spread from mutated cordyceps mushrooms. Humanity as we know it, and the social order of various countries would fall apart, the infection would spread too quickly and zombies everywhere that there'd be no time for arguing pro or anti vax or big tech companies or big pharma corruption, there'd be everyone fighting zombies and trying to survive the mutated fungus.

   I hope, and pray, that many groups looking at how the world handled this Covid-19 pandemic learn their lessons, and systemic vulnerabilities, otherwise when an actual world ending pandemic happens, again mutated cordyceps, and various groups mishandle similarly, making historic past mistakes, we'd be screwed.  

[Tanz]

2 hours ago, Yimpa said:

The meta lesson of the pandemic is an urgent test to see if humanity is capable of putting aside their differences, working together effectively, and ultimately becoming less selfish and more loving towards each other and the planet they inhabit.

Humans are failing, big time.

The leadership doesn't show sincerity so that is why a segment of the population is mistrustful.  Maui burned down and the American government keeps sending money to another country. This kind of things happened under republican president and democratic just different stories.  

There hasn't been a president that has united the country in any way since JFK.  

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

9 hours ago, StarStruck said:

It was a “virus” that targeted the old who were already couple of heart beats away from death anyway. 

 Aka real humans who have people who care about them.

[zurew]

9 hours ago, StarStruck said:

It was a “virus” that targeted the old who were already couple of heart beats away from death anyway. 

Stage yellow system thinker strikes again with a profound take .

One would have to be exceptionally myopic and stupid to only care about death as a negative effect and don't count anything else.

I guess we also shouldn't count death where people died because they were not treated with issues outside of covid , because hospitals were flooded with covid patients.

Edited October 5, 2023 by zurew

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

Stage yellow system thinker strikes again with a profound take .

You have to be exceptionally myopic and stupid to only care about death as a negative effect and don't count anything else.

I guess we also shouldn't count death where people died because they were not treated with issues outside of covid , because hospitals were flooded with covid patients.

   My guess for @StarStruck's argument for why Covid-19 was only targeting some with heart disease and cardiac issues, is that he's engaging in a mental hypothetical assuming all else is equal, due to the Covid-19's spiked protein effecting blood cells, he thinks myocarditis is probably bio engineered to target the lungs and hearts of those with weaker immune systems, plus the vaccine,, and those with respiratory and cardiac issues already. Of course, such a stage yellow systemic hypothetical from a stage orange dating PUA guy is profound from within their mind, while either distorting, deleting, or denying deeply the exceptional myopic and stupid take because such a person is in a 'if all else is equal' mental constructed hypothetical, over simplifying an overly complex issue like Covid-19's global effects worldwide. This is probably why open mindedness is more valuable than close mindedness, and engaging in philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, and developmental psychology in good faith communications.

[StarStruck]

36 minutes ago, zurew said:

Stage yellow system thinker strikes again with a profound take .

One would have to be exceptionally myopic and stupid to only care about death as a negative effect and don't count anything else.

I guess we also shouldn't count death where people died because they were not treated with issues outside of covid , because hospitals were flooded with covid patients.

There is a thing called moderation, right? It is not about no policy at all versus going full Stalinism. 

55 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

 Aka real humans who have people who care about them.

I care about them too. But virus outbreaks will happen more often from now on. We can’t afford going in full lock downs to save couple of old people. A lot of people will die from suicide, poverty or some other causes if we keep locking shit down. Sometimes difficult decisions are not easy to take. 

Edited October 5, 2023 by StarStruck

[blackchair]

you are one of world leaders and you have a new plague on your hands, the same magnitude as in medevil times, of course you will panic and overkill it. 

[Consept]

1 minute ago, StarStruck said:

If you panic it is not the job for you 

Scenario: youre the leader of lets say the UK, your most trusted experts from various relevant fields inform of a virus that is imminently arriving to the UK, they predict a worldwide death toll of around 40 million people and around 5 million in your country. As well as the death toll they are not yet clear on the long term affects covid might have on the populations health, which could also be severe. They say the death toll can be curbed by as much as 60% if we take preventative measures such as lockdowns, people have to wear masks etc, but we have to do these asap, any delay will cause the virus to spread more. There are reports of many deaths in China, Italy, Spain and many other countries around the world. 

As a rich country the preventative measures will be possible although they will cost a lot and may affect the economy for the coming years, however the UK will still be one of the richest countries in the world. There will of course be impacts from the lockdowns that come with isolating people from each other, there will also be impacts to those that survive the virus. 

Do you go against the experts opinions and  risk millions of peoples lives and not take the preventative measures, helping the economy but risking more people getting infected and potentially more deaths?

Or do you go with the lockdowns and other preventative measures as advised by your experts, which, if successful will reduce the affect of the virus by 60%? 

(Remember you only have the information available to you at that time)

 

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

7 minutes ago, Consept said:

Scenario: youre the leader of lets say the UK, your most trusted experts from various relevant fields inform of a virus that is imminently arriving to the UK, they predict a worldwide death toll of around 40 million people and around 5 million in your country. As well as the death toll they are not yet clear on the long term affects covid might have on the populations health, which could also be severe. They say the death toll can be curbed by as much as 60% if we take preventative measures such as lockdowns, people have to wear masks etc, but we have to do these asap, any delay will cause the virus to spread more. There are reports of many deaths in China, Italy, Spain and many other countries around the world. 

As a rich country the preventative measures will be possible although they will cost a lot and may affect the economy for the coming years, however the UK will still be one of the richest countries in the world. There will of course be impacts from the lockdowns that come with isolating people from each other, there will also be impacts to those that survive the virus. 

Do you go against the experts opinions and  risk millions of peoples lives and not take the preventative measures, helping the economy but risking more people getting infected and potentially more deaths?

Or do you go with the lockdowns and other preventative measures as advised by your experts, which, if successful will reduce the affect of the virus by 60%? 

(Remember you only have the information available to you at that time)

 

   I tried this hypothetical and presented it to anti vax users, but to no avail. Just watch, him and others are gonna weasel and dodge. It's coming.

[StarStruck]

@Consept at that moment you make a safe bet (policy) but after 1 year it was clear the situation was sustainable and the policy could have been adjusted. There is no rule that says you have to commit to an option for 2-3 years. 

Edited October 5, 2023 by StarStruck

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

50 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

There is no rule that says you have to commit to an option for 2-3 years. 

That's true, but consider that it could've taken 5-6 years instead, if it wasn't for the actions of the governments and people (hypothetically speaking). The fear was that the virus might bounce back stronger if we had lowered our guard too early. I remember that when they removed the mask restrictions for public transport here in Germany, the numbers of new corona cases immediately jumped up for a while, but after that it went all the way back down and eventually regulated itself. However, it's difficult to say if it would've worked out this way if it wasn't for a significant part of the population having received the vaccine. I think that them waiting for enough people to get vaccinated before lowering the restrictions was a totally fair move, based on the information available at that time. So even if not ALL of it was absolutely necessary, I still think that this wasn't overkill. 

Edited October 5, 2023 by DefinitelyNotARobot

[hyruga]

7 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

 

the countries who made masks mandatory outside ets are nuts

 

Not necessarily true.

China (which everyone hates) has a low death count compared to most other big countries due to their draconian measures. The measures may be a huge hit to their economy but they save more lives.

Maybe the pandemic does not affect you that much but if it hits your family or relatives or friends and they die, then the reality will set in and you may wish for a government who is more strict in their approach.

Edited October 5, 2023 by hyruga

[PurpleTree]

2 minutes ago, hyruga said:

Not necessarily true.

China (which everyone hates) has a low death count compared to most other big countries due to their draconian measures. The measures may be a huge hit to their economy but they save more lives.

Maybe the pandemic does not affect you that much but if it hits your family or relatives or friends and they die, then the reality will set in and you may wish for a government who is more strict in their approach.

No

[hyruga]

4 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

No

Yes

[Danioover9000]

@DefinitelyNotARobot

2 hours ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

That's true, but consider that it could've taken 5-6 years instead, if it wasn't for the actions of the governments and people (hypothetically speaking). The fear was that the virus might bounce back stronger if we had lowered our guard too early. I remember that when they removed the mask restrictions for public transport here in Germany, the numbers of new corona cases immediately jumped up for a while, but after that it went all the way back down and eventually regulated itself. However, it's difficult to say if it would've worked out this way if it wasn't for a significant part of the population having received the vaccine. I think that them waiting for enough people to get vaccinated before lowering the restrictions was a totally fair move, based on the information available at that time. So even if not ALL of it was absolutely necessary, I still think that this wasn't overkill.