How is this selfish exactly?
3 Likes
Because he doesn’t understand that his actions can infect others not ok with getting sick and/or dieing. Do you actually not understand that?
Grandparent willing to die for the sake of his progeny. And suggesting many who have already lived the majority of their life, might be willing.
Yes I got it.
4 Likes
The thought he has is nice and noble, agreed.
But in action, it would be very selfish. Just as selfish as the spring breakers partying it up last week.
Not to mention that the country would break, literally break, if we let the virus take it’s course with no precautions. Conservatively, 30% of the population is high risk. It’s a terrible idea anyway you look at it to let the virus run rampant.
I’ve been in recovery for a long time now, and if there is one thing I’ve learned it is this:
People don’t like change.
When faced with the real life choice to either change or die, an astounding number of people will consciously and literally choose death.
I hope things work out ok though fof you and yours.
2 Likes
How did the Party of Family Values end up contemplating the Logan’s Run scenario? Kill off everyone older than X…
1 Like
I agree that this is a fucked up way of thinking. Part of the problem here is that we have two totally opposite ways of dealing with this crisis - shut everything down and let the economy collapse, or just go about our business as usual and let millions die. A middle of the road approach would be a better solution.
I don’t have a specific plan, and even if I did it wouldn’t be acted upon because I’m not some kind of policy advisor, but older people and those with health conditions that put them at risk need to be isolated for sure. Business will suffer regardless of what we do because most people don’t want to go see a movie or hang out in a bar in the middle of an epidemic, but perhaps not shutting down things to the extent that it has been done in certain places could largely spare the economic consequences without risking additional lives.
Right now the grocery stores are the most dangerous place to go, and they can’t shut down or we will all die.
C.R.E.A.M.
Cash Rules Everything Around Me. That’s how.
That doesn’t sound good at all, they likely have the virus and will infect more people.
But the “let the virus run rampant” scenario kills the economy as well. 30% of the population is high risk. 10% will need hospitalization and likely have long term complications. So the economy gets hit in the short-term due to human nature avoiding crowds, and then it gets hit long term with less workers, a sudden increase in housing supply, decrease in workforce, and the MASSIVE medical and disability bills the govt now has to pay.
I’m sure everyone knows this, but an abortion is not the same thing as leaving your house.
At gentlest, an abortion is like tossing a non-swimmer off of a boat in the middle of the ocean. Leaving your house is like, well, leaving your house.
For a lot of people it’s like a very late term abortion.
Like in the 180th trimester.
4 Likes
That’s why I’m not advocating for letting the virus run rampant. People seem to have a hard time understanding that.
Locking down 30% of the population is better than 90-something%
Last I heard, in Italy they said 5% needed to be hospitalized.
My gut feeling is that 5% would be chaos. I think the US system is meant to handle less than 1% (not really sure).
“All abortion must end every life is precious and sacred!”
“Meh fuck haven’t these old people lived long enough? Do you realize how kickass the economy was and that this might make things a bit shitty for a while. Stay inside and avoid large groups for a short bit? Not worth it!”
If the people in group A are saying the same thing as group B how is it different. If you’re telling a woman she must have something done even if it’s going to have a massive financial impact for her how is comparing them off?
For fucks sake we have people who said Obamacare death panels they are gonna kill the old people! Now this people are saying the stock market is going down. Shouldn’t we just kill the old people? Ask them if they will sacrifice for it.
Obviously it’s a bit hyperbole as not everyone is saying those type of things, but you can bet your ass some are.
1 Like
Nothing wrong with this. But in a country where the overwhelming majority of people haven’t had anything resembling a lockdown yet? And we’re already saying the grandchildren are seeing the end of America? Doesn’t this seem like something one might wonder about if we were in month 8 of lockdown?
Doesn’t that seem like the biggest leap ever? Does anyone truly think that even if we locked down until May 1 that it would be the end of America for children? A lot of Americans are working today. Not as much as one month ago but still. We’re already going to go through economic pain. It seems like for some even a stubbed toe when it comes to the economy means its time to figure out who might die.
I guess some will be happy because then we won’t have all those seniors getting social security and Medicare. Those greedy ass entitlements they get. Maybe this is someone like Tucker Carlson’s dream scenario? To the people who call a lot of Americans takers maybe it’s smiles time. A lot of senior citizens aren’t producing.
Love me some greatest hits
4 Likes
5% ICU, 15% hospitalized.
1 Like
Fucked up and he had senior citizens cheering that. Although I am confused when it mentions the terminal ill part for a lot of the article. I do absolutely believe adults should have the power to end their own life in a hopeless situation if they are suffering. If I have no chance of surviving and I’m in excruciating pain I don’t mind being taken off life support.
That seems different than putting the vast majority of people at risk of dying. If his only point was that it costs a lot to keep old people alive then he can fuck right off. It was just hard to tell with with where the article went. If it was in the broader context of people might live forever with the way machines are going that may have been something to discuss when they had no clue where technology is going. I do think what you’re able to do with your life is something most people consider when they think of those things.
Wonder what the vast majority of those seniors discussing it would think the life expectancy of someone in 2019 would be.
1 Like
You’re not stupid enough to not understand how silly what you wrote is.
-
No one(that I know of) is saying that a woman must have something done. Abortions are not mandatory.
-
Those most-at-risk(and even those that are not as high-risk) are 100% welcome and allowed to stay indoors. That is most likely a smart thing for them to do. The problem people have is that nearly EVERYONE is being almost-forced to follow the precautions that are probably a good idea for the at-risk.
-
No one(that I’m aware of) is proposing that old people be killed.
Question: What should be the penalty for someone with Coronavirus or the flu or whatever(he knows he has it) leaving his home? What crime has he committed? What if he walks into a bar and someone in the bar later dies from the illness(and it can 100% be traced back to him), even though he never had any actual contact with the person? What if no one dies, but someone does catch the illness. Should he be charged with attempted murder? Attempted manslaughter?