|
|
|
|
|
by ridiskdkfjsl
819 days ago
|
|
‘impossible to’ doesn’t really fit into my idea of the HN crowd. It’s cost/benefit and leaders took the ‘keep the graph going up and to the right next quarter’ approach to the long term risks. Containment is of course possible, it would just take technology improvements for diagnostic tests and education and investment in air quality. The calculation is that saving the years of ill health aren’t worth disrupting the status quo Edit: What’s the difference between sweeping over and always present? Whether we test and report it in the news or not? |
|
And the "chart goes" up is such a strawman, I'm sure there's no real life downside or long term risk to just shut down everything for (2) more weeks... but whatever. That's such a western mentality, that only comes with the privilege of not living in an economically ruined part of the world.
There's a reason why doomers and "zero COVID" proponents are usually in the vast majority white, privileged, urban residents. I'm sure some vague, very broad "long term risks" that we still haven't seen concretely outside of a tiny minority (even if hundreds of millions were infected) are more important than the actual, proven, repeated risks of "charts going down".
In a way there's an odd parallel with antivaxxers who love to claim that in just a little bit more we will see the long term risks that came with the vaccine lol