[danaris]

I'm sorry, what?

"The ruling class has proven that they don't actually care about anyone else"—yes, that's a reasonable message to take away from the past year and a half...

"...So we should stop abiding by all the good medical advice and just party" how the hell do you come to that conclusion? The reasonable conclusion to come to from your first two paragraphs is something along the lines of "So we should protest the politicians who want to deny the science, boycott the companies that are actively making things worse, and push for real societal change that prioritizes human lives and well-being over corporate profits."

You're basically saying, "The very wealthy just want us all to shut up and die, but screw them! We should all get out there and die very loudly!"

[prohobo]

The interventions promoted by the ruling class to "curb the pandemic" have resulted in 20 million people going into starvation in the poorest countries, restrictions and hardships only being placed on the poor in the richer countries, and no resolution in sight.

Meanwhile, half the population has taken it upon themselves to start dehumanizing the rest because of politics, and all the money in society is funneling upwards to the ruling class while small businesses collapse.

What exactly do you not understand about this? There is no "us" in this situation, just division and demands.

[throwawaylinux]

I'm not sure what it is exactly you are unclear on, but that is certainly not what I am saying. I'm saying what I wrote no more and no less. If you want to reduce it to a quip it would be the exact opposite, we should get out and live.

[danaris]

"Getting out", as in going outside unmasked, abandoning precautions, if done en masse, will kill many, many people.

To believe otherwise is, as someone else further down said to another person who, like you, wants to just pretend this is all over, magical thinking.

[throwawaylinux]

There's tradeoffs for everything. We weren't all grandma killing fascists in the previous years for not locking ourselves in our homes and wearing masks and not going to large gatherings and shutting down businesses in response to influenza. Yet the flu killed many many people every year.

We're not hateful anti science bigots for daring to drive automobiles despite that statistically contributing to killing many many people.

There are safe and effective vaccines available and people can make up their own minds to use effective masks and isolate themselves, shut down their businesses, and take advantage of all the online and remote services that now pretty much means they never have to leave their house or see another living person if that is what they choose, and that's fine they can make that choice. That's not the responsibility of everybody else though. This strange collectivism where apparently I am responsible for the choices of others and that I must change my lifestyle to keep you safe is where things are going way off the rails, in my opinion. You keep you safe.

[chimprich]

> We're not hateful anti science bigots for daring to drive automobiles

In most developed countries there are strict rules about driving. You are expected and required to drive according to certain rules to keep other people safe. There are rules for driving because the right of other people to not get injured or killed are considered more important than your right to do what you feel like.

Do you think restricting your right to drive drunk on a pavement is "strange collectivism"?

[throwawaylinux]

> In most developed countries there are strict rules about driving. You are expected and required to drive according to certain rules to keep other people safe. There are rules for driving because the right of other people to not get injured or killed are considered more important than your right to do what you feel like.

Driving your automobile legally on the road is statistically responsible for many many deaths. No two ways about it. That makes your next rhetorical question a failure. You also couldn't address the flu one either.

> Do you think restricting your right to drive drunk on a pavement is "strange collectivism"?

No.