- Re: Don't worry -- you've got your wish now, as have all others keen to lock everyone up nm Archived Message
Posted by Willem
on December 21, 2020, 11:32 am, in reply to "Re: Don't worry -- you've got your wish now, as have all others keen to lock everyone up nm"
|
To stop the extra cancer deaths we have to ensure the hospitals don't fill up So building extra hospitals isn't feasible? (At a fraction of the costs of a lockdown.) If we locked down when science (and the dogs in the street) said we should in march, and also when the science said we should in september (not the gupta/heneghan fossil fuel-adjacent ones), What is "the science" you're hiding behind? Scientsist (like Fauci) telling people masks don't work, then when it becomes compulsory they miraculously do work; WHO saying lockdowns are not recommended, then suddenly they are. All regulations regarding masks (eg not wearing them for longer than short amounts of time for construction workers) all completely thrown out the window. Vaccines, which according to pre-Covid science, take years of trials to be safe, now can be fixed up in a matter of months. Tell me, is this "science"? Or do you pick and choose which of "science" you like? though i am very sceptical about some of the anti-lockdown people in the government/upper class/right wing media suddenly caring about mental health and poor people with cancer, who they spent the last decade shitting on. Sure, and by the same token are you not skeptical of this government, the World Bank, and loads of other "austerity driven" governments who normally put economies first somehow caring about elderly and vulnerable people that they're willing to destroy those economies? If there was no lockdown, do you think the hospitals would be more or less full? And would this create more or fewer cancer deaths? If the answer is just locking down all the old/vulnerable (if that was even feasible), don't the same anti-lockdown arguments still apply to them, or is it just that the old are worth less in the economic balance, as stated in the recent memos leaked from the american government discussion? ('let them be infected')). Even in the spring/summer, we had many empty Nightingale hospitals. The excess cancer deaths came about mostly because people were not getting their appointments, tests, etc. Yes, shielding the old and vulnerable does make far more sense. Yes, they are, on the whole, not so involved in the economy. It's a fact of life. Half the spring deaths occurred in care homes -- which were not being properly safeguarded. In fact, they moved sick elderly patients into them to make way for anticipated Covid patients. Of course, you're not arguing we do this, but my point is that the lockdown didn't keep the old and vulnerable safe. As for the 'let them be infected'. `Them' refers to the general (young) population, as far as I understood. |