1/3 of randomly tested people in Massachusetts has antibodies to covid

The quote feature is a very useful thing when you have legitimate evidence to point to.

 

I've quoted you in every post. It's been effective.

 

And in none of them did I say the purpose of lockdowns was to save every life. Find it.

 

Actually all of them did. Very logical progression. You need to review (Particular's posts as well).

 

Then the quote feature is your friend. Show us this logical progression.

 

Why quote again? Go back and review the conversation you, I and Particular. I dare you!

 

Since you are too lazy to, here are my posts relevant to this discussion before your false strawman accusation derailed the conversation.

It is loving to your neighbour to do what you can to keep them from getting sick and dying instead of just saying “oh well, if you die then it was God’s plan”. Is that not true?

The purpose of lockdowns though are to keep health systems from being overwhelmed, which also keeps people from dying. But it is not to save every life because we are incapable of doing that.

 

No, just not wiling to go on a fool's errand, especially when I quoted you in each response for context. I'd rather force you reread the actual arguments. It worked.

It depends. Generally speaking, of course. But it's not loving if you're sacrificing someone else's life or livelihood for another. Destroying Peter to save Paul is not a Christian value.

You have a secure job, and are likely not threatened by this virus nor the recession it's causing. You're not making any sacrifice at all. Instead you're asking others who are vulnerable to a recession to make it.

The point is, it's not a simple cut and dry answer. There may be justification to shutdown for illnesses that will indeed overwhelm our system, and cause widespread systemic problems nationwide.

But as one poster in another thread said, at this point, it's a bit silly, if that's the only viable reason for a shutdown. As Laura Ingraham has been pointing out on her show, the goal posts seem to now be moving. Now, even when it's likely impossible any hospitals could be overwhelmed, we're now worried about flair ups in deaths. Classic moving of the goal posts.

This is the part you are being squishy about. We're not incapable of saving many more lives. We just don't make that the only priority. If we did, we'd bring back the 55 speed limit.

If overwhelming the system is the only viable case, the country could open up fully, right now, immediately. We're past the peak. We could deal with an epidemic probably 10x worse, maybe 20x.

If that's your argument, you need to switch sides.

Also, as many are pointing out, why shut down Kentucky or Main if only one city in the US is overwhelmed? I think SD staying open proves this point. Maybe quarantines of individuals cities would be smarter than shutting down an entire country.

 

So we are clear I have never said the lockdown was to save every life. You created that strawman because your logic cannot make sense of the reason for the continued lockdown

But it absolutely makes logical sense if you look at data instead to talking points. The reason is that crossing a peak does not mean that health systems are out of the woods. Like in Singapore where they already had a peak and now have exponential growth again well beyond their first peak.

Once you relax restrictions, cases will increase again and states need to be ready for that. I’m sure you believe that the US has a lot more capacity. But that is unfortunately only true in places where lockdowns and social distancing have so far protected those communities. Once lifted, that protection is gone.

Underestimating the impact of covid19 is how countries who are struggling now got into that situation.

 

You can look after both lives if your politics allow you to. Australian society is managing that well. And I am happy that we are gradually opening things up now that our first wave has passed (not just the peak).

Still there is much economic loss that would have been even worse if we didn’t shut things down when we did. Saving lives now is saving future lives.

I am fortunate to still be working and helping my patients who are struggling. Our business has also taken a hit and there are many medical practices that are at risk of closure. We don’t charge extra fees on top of Medicare so our drop in attendance has been less severe than other places.

 

You actually did say that in another post, when pressed. You said we needed to show love by making sure people stay alive so they can enjoy their future. You kept referring back to the life issue. I called you on it.

But, just now, you said that we don't save every life because we're not capable of it. "But it is not to save every life because we are incapable of doing that."

No!! That is not why we don't save every life. We don't save every life because it's not morally feasible to save every life. We're fully capable of saving more lives by staying locked down all year. But it would be immoral to destroy the economy for this reason.

The shutdown was never originally about saving every life possible. It was to avoid hospital's being overrun, and it's clear now this will never happen from Covid 19. In fact, no one is even talking about this anymore. They're now talking about flair ups of deaths. Moving the goalposts.

If Georgia has a death flair up, but the hospitals are not affected, do you think that will matter? Hospital crisis is a dead talking point. Kind of like the Russia thing.

NY never came close to being overwhelmed. You know this is true. They were 20K below the lowest projection if the shutdown took place. The ventilator issue is not even mention anymore. They had thousands too many.

You can certainly justify a temporary shutdown at the time. I supported it. Trying to justify it now is morally futile.

 

But your life will not be destroyed. You'd probably admit you're one of the very fortunate ones. I am too. You're not the child of a father who's back on opioids or heroine. Your not set to lose a business you've worked on for many years, which was the sole source of your income.

Bravery is making the sacrifice yourself.

 

Again the quote feature is your friend instead of relying on your memory which has some problems.

 

BTW, is there any semblance of a pro-life movement in Australia? Some good men have come out of there, Ken Ham, Sarfati, etc. But I think they've had more influence in America than Australia.

 

You mean like those who actually die from covid19?

A business that can be rebuilt with support if you are still alive to do it.

Jobs get lost and then you get a new one. Businesses close then a new one opens.
People get depressed, suicidal or addicted to drugs and they get treatment.
If we as a society can support our neighbours through this difficult period then these things will pass.

People die of covid19 then ... they are dead.

This doesn’t mean that the purpose of lockdowns is to save every life but to give our health systems a chance to save as many lives as possible. They can’t do that when they are overwhelmed.

 

You mean like all the health care workers around the world who are risking their lives caring for known or potential covid19 patients?

 

Typical celebrity/privileged response. Do you think it's easy to just up and change your career? Probably depends on your age, the older you are the harder it is. But hey, doesn't affect you. You are bravely asking someone else to take this chance.

And notice you're back to arguing life instead of hospital capacity. It really was never about hospital capacity for you. Just admit it.

 

One state (joblessness) is reversible and we have financial and political ways to fix. Yes it is hard but not impossible.

Another state (death from covid19) is not reversible and we have very few tools to prevent outside of lockdowns and social distancing.

And just because I am arguing about death doesn’t mean that preventing every death is the purpose of lockdowns. But by keeping health systems from being overwhelmed, we are preventing deaths, but not all of them.

 

Again, you'd have to take individual cases. With some it's possible, I would surmise, with some it's not. There are also possible consequences in taking away someone's life-earned career. What about drug abuse? Talk about an epidemic?? Economics often correlate with substance abuse. We have a true heroine opioid epidemic in this country (not sure about you down under folk). The victims are not just the abusers but all those around them. The victims are often children. The demand generated, in and of itself, is very dangerous and deadly for children.

Well, you're arguing that life always trumps livelihood. I say, no, it doesn't. I can agree with a temporary shutdown to prevent the medical industry from cratering. I can deal with social distancing and other regulations that don't completely shut down businesses. But I can't go so far as to say life always trumps livelihood. That will lead to long shutdowns and economic destruction. There is no biblical principle that would support this.