[dqv]

You talk about young people as if in their own world able to act autonomously away from the rest of society. Young people have parents. And they frequently rely on them into their mid-twenties. Many young people lost one or both of their parents from this (and other people they loved dearly). As has been repeated elsewhere, dying isn’t the only thing their parents and loved ones have to worry about having had COVID. The purpose of the lockdowns was to try to prevent this.

And so I can ask the same question, why are you disregarding the harm done to them (them being the young people)?

[kd913]

We have vaccines now, we aren't in the same situation as the beginning of the pandemic.

The purpose of the lockdown wasn't to prevent deaths, it was to prevent the hospital systems collapsing.

[dqv]

>wasn't to prevent deaths

>it was to prevent the hospital systems collapsing

Can you please apply this logic a little further as to what would occur if the hospital systems collapsed? Do you want me to spell it out for you?

[kd913]

Yea, it would have caused more deaths from lack of treatment from additional surgeries, heart attacks and cancers which would have been left untreated. It would have put an absolutely devastating consequence on social care that would have a long lasting impact.

It would have also prevented scaling of health systems due to a distinct and dramatic shortage in staffing and long term backlog.

The decision above was purely economic. You would have to be really stupid to think the people in charge would shut down trillion dollar industries because the parents of some children died.

None of that is what could be derived or implied from your statement you condescending prick. If that is what you were implying, maybe you should get a better grasp of English so that your point could come across clearer.

[dqv]

I apologize for adding unnecessary flame to the conversation. I shouldn't have responded the way I did and should have instead clarified my position. I'm a little tired of reading COVID anecdotes and brought that into my response to you. That's on me.

>The decision above was purely economic.

I think it's hyperbolic to say that it was purely economic. Everything we do has some connection to the economy. Everyone in this thread, including myself, is basically making an economic argument facaded by an emotional one. But to say it's purely economic forgets the connection we have with people and the reason why we want the hospitals to be open for people who need care. A real sort of "collapse" happened for some rural family members. They don't have a hospital for their whole county and have to rely on another county's hospital. After they ran out of beds, the people in that town just had to wait and hope whatever ailment they had could be resolved elsewhere.

Back to the economy, obviously bad mental health has long lasting effects and that has secondary effects on the economy. I'm not so sure the alternative, the one where everything is kept open, would have worked. The "hospitals will collapse" scare tactic was only one aspect of what would have been a much larger collapse. Not just economic, but societal.

>You would have to be really stupid to think the people in charge would shut down trillion dollar industries because the parents of some children died.

You mean the hospitals? With a health system collapse, they just wouldn't be able to handle a lot of cases like you said. It wouldn't shut down in the sense that it would be 100% ineffective, just that