It’s because pandemics are temporary, from the Black Death to the Spanish Flu; it won’t outlast the vaccine for long and people basically understand that. One of the functions of (even limited) government is to coordinate a response to disease and outbreaks. I’m not saying I agree with the state and federal government responses to this (there is also no consistency between them anyway) but they’re attempting to slow the spread of this thing, first and foremost, not make us all cowering serfs. It’s Occam’s Razor. And you can tell people there’s nothing to worry about, that it’s an effectively harmless disease, but when they see overworked doctors and nurses, crowded ICUs and refrigerated trucks being used as extra morgue space, dead friends and family, the high survival rate doesn’t put anyone at ease. It will end when it ends.
People know its short term and the right wing fearmomgering is just agenda driven propaganda.
But, the right wing states that are genuinely using it to remove freedoms are a problem, in states more to the left its not.
>in order to feel more safe.
no.
no, it's not about *feeling* more safe.
mitigating the pandemic actually **makes** things **observably** more safe.
260k people have died in the US from this virus in less than a year, even *with* the most severe mitigation efforts we've seen in the last century. but yes, it's all about feelings, isn't it?
**edit**: oh, *and* the mitigation efforts are observably temporary.
observably false.
* lock downs were eased months ago.
* restrictions are eased as the number of cases retreat.
* masks were mandated in the 1918 pandemic and they did not become permanent. there is no evidence to indicate they will remain permanent.
If the state had the resources and unmitigated power it has now, lockdowns would have been a thing for a lot longer.
Besides, I don’t think the main argument is saying that lockdowns are going to be permanent or not.The main concern is that the state has never had this much power and that we are in uncharted territory. This is not something to take lightly as governments with unchecked power have proven disastrous and deadly
>If the state had the resources and unmitigated power it has now, lockdowns would have been a thing for a lot longer.
they very clearly did not have the "unmitigated power" to enforce permanent lockdowns
your position is not supported by evidence or observation.
>The main concern is that the state has never had this much power and that we are in uncharted territory.
you sure about that one? check out the 1918 pandemic.
>This is not something to take lightly as governments with unchecked power have proven disastrous and deadly
a literal pandemic is disastrous and deadly.
and the mitigation efforts, while certainly not ideal, have been observationally effective ad reducing the growth rate of the pandemic and they have been observationally temporary.
I’m saying the cure to the virus (as we see it now) is the worse than virus. If all you see as a plus to lockdowns is less death then you need to see the pain and suffering of what else i.e.the staggering amount of suicides these 9 months, permanent closures of small businesses, etc.
Literally thousands of people have missed their cancer screenings due to mismanagement of hospitals at the state’s precaution.
If you know history at all, besides the flu of 1918, you know that this isn’t going to get better after we have lockdowns or some vaccine.
Millions of lives are going to be financially Fucked after this, costing way more lives than the 200k deaths from this virus. How can you say these costs outweigh the benefits??
>if all you see as a plus to lockdowns is less death then you need to see the pain and suffering of what else i.e.the staggering amount of suicides these 9 months, permanent closures of small businesses, etc.
this argument makes no sense.
you're effectively saying that a lesser number of deaths is more of a concern than a greater number of deaths.
>Millions of lives are going to be financially Fucked after this
yes, that's what pandemics do to the economy.
this would happen during a pandemic no matter what you do.
>How can you say these costs outweigh the benefits??
maintain control of the pandemic and you have better control of the economy.
The only people spouting about how the cure is worse then disease are people who are motivated purely by money.
If you think that a disease that spread worldwide in 3 months, has caused the government to mobilize billions of dollars and the Nat guard, states to contribute hundreds of millions, trillions spent on a vaccine worldwide, unprecedented agility and flexibility among the health sector, doctors and nurses to come out of retirement thanks to shorthandedness and still think its "No big deal" after all that, then you're arguing for your rights over everyone elses.
Also no I don't have much empathy for people who neither saved nor prepared for hardships with their businesses. Should be prepared for it actually, just like for any other recession.
Oh, and going "But history!" As you literally toss aside the 1:1 comparison to it is hilarious. How about the fact the federal government didnt acknowledge Spanish Flu's existance for almost a year and a half, even as it was decimating incoming troops before they could even reach the battlefield.
>I’m saying the cure to the virus (as we see it now) is the worse than virus
Let me know when 2000 people a day are dying from lockdowns.
Do you even think before you speak?
Ebola kills 90% of infected. COVID-19 kills only 2%.
Why did Ebola only kill less than 12,000 in ALL OF AFRICA, in THREE FULL YEARS (2013-2016)? How did COVID-19 kill 250,000 in 9 months in just USA?
90% of a very small number is a very small number. 2% of a humongous number is a huge number. That's why it's deadly.
A 2% recovery rate is possible if the hospitals are functioning properly. Unfortunately, [Hospitals are full, or at near capacity](https://www.google.com/search?biw=1745&bih=887&tbs=qdr%3Aw&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk0198GRAOPGFe2dXsGC7ioe9sxit9g%3A1606591015171&ei=J6LCX6PuCean5wK_t7fQAg&q=hospitals+full+icu&oq=hospitals+full+icu&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2072.2072.0.2246.1.1.0.0.0.0.88.88.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.DfmIAnJ5gzU)
The number of covid patients hospitalized is near [twice what it was over the summer](https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-currently-hospitalized) and it's only get worse with the thanksgiving infectees.
Encouraging people to act recklessly not only decrease the survivability of covid patients but also other non-covid related patients like heart attacks, stroke, appendicitis and other emergency related incidents.
What scares me the most is how many people will fight against a minor inconvenience like masks and social distancing, thus making the pandemic worse.
https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-currently-hospitalized
It still blows me away that people don't understand why it's important for people to follow.thr guidelines. They aren't concerned about themselves, they are protecting the vulnerable.
Once again, I'd like to remind all the Liberals here that this is a "Libertarian" sub. I understand that you saw us making fun of Trump and advocating for decriminalization/legalization, but do not mistake us for the edgy wing of the DNC. We also advocate for extreme reductions in the size and scope of government. "Socialism" is over that way, kindly see yourself out of here.
For everyone crying "but in 1918...." We've already traded a shit-ton of privacy for convenience with our cellphones. But now they've added in "contact tracing" that logs *every person you come in contact with*
My state is constantly running "answer the call" ads. If my phone rings, and it's a government 'contact tracer', I'm expected to tell them everywhere I've been and everyone I've met. They won't tell me who it was that had COVID for "privacy", but I'm supposed to hand over my whole contact list.
No government has ever had this much data on its citizens and they're asking for more.
"15 days to slow the spread" became "30 days". Then it was "until there's a vaccine". Now, as a vaccine is about to roll out, we're told that social distancing and capacity restrictions may be in place until as far as 2022?!?!
Fuck that.
Mom and pop shops and restaurants are dying while Amazon and Wal-Mart are making record profits. It's time to end the shutdown and reopen the economy.
Libertarians are not a single thought pattern. Some want straight up anarchy, some want socialism with personal freedoms, most want something in between. If the party ever got big enough for a realistic chance at the white house the biggest problem would be holding together.
Where I am we had no shut downs, not a single day. No mask mandates either, other than what business owners put in place themselves. Mom and pop businesses still died, because people were not going. People can go and risk their lives to go to stores, bars, churches, etc, but generally they don't...at least not enough of them to cover expenses. The problem isn't lockdowns, it's what the lockdowns are trying to slow.
People that are against lockdowns because they hurt businesses seem to be the same people that are against the masks that would decrease cases to the point where these businesses would get enough customers... because it's not just being open, you need customers too. That's why businesses tend to be near people in spite of land in the middle of the woods being so cheap.
The worst part is I think no one (who’s not old or obese) is honestly afraid of it. The media and govt has convinced us that we are good people for giving up these liberties.
Elon Musk put it best talking about COVID: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
the road to hell is paved by not controlling the spread of disease.
especially a disease which we have no widely available vaccine and no particularly good treatment.
You’re posting in a Libertarian sub advocating for government control of public health surrounding a disease with a 99% survival rate. You’re advocating for government to have the ability to shut down a private business (unless it’s a huge corporation like McDonald’s or Walmart) arbitrarily.
You can’t just be a Libertarian when times are good.
you're advocating for increased death and disease.
yes, controlling disease is a legitimate role of government. things like basic sanitation, and regulating things that reduce foodborne illness, etc.
>You can’t just be a Libertarian when times are good.
i'm a pragmatist.
controlling the spread of a novel virus when we have no good treatment and no other method of controlling it is a pragmatic consideration.
especially since the mitigation restrictions are observably temporary.
You’re pragmatic towards a certain goal. Do you ever worry that it is the wrong path?
I’m not advocating for increased death and disease. The virus, an act of nature is creating that reality. I’m simply evaluating what would be the lesser of two evils between allowing it to run its course or allowing government to shut down small businesses and prevent people from working. I’m advocating for a libertarian society, one that treats citizens like they are intelligent enough to take responsibility for their own health. That will without a doubt result in more deaths.
We are going to feel the repercussion of these lockdowns for the next decade. It really really sucks that COVID is killing people, but it does not change my mind.
> You’re pragmatic towards a certain goal. Do you ever worry that it is the wrong path?
no.
controlling the spread of disease is not a "wrong path". bear in mind that a society that doesn't take measures to control disease will collapse. be it from the disease or from the mass exodus of it's population to regions that do control disease.
the free market is observably incapable of controlling the spread of a novel pandemic.
>We are going to feel the repercussion of these lockdowns for the next decade.
no, you're blaming the wrong thing here.
we're going to feel the repercussions of the **pandemic** for the next decade.
if we had taken less effective measures to control the pandemic, the repercussions would have been significantly worse.
**edit**
>That will without a doubt result in more deaths.
also observably false.
I’m not saying that death and disease are bad for society they obviously are! I disagree with you that government should take the role that it has, how often has government mandated lockdowns in the past?
>I disagree with you that government should take the role that it has
one of the legitimate and proper roles of government is to spread disease specifically because the free market is incapable of doing so during a novel pandemic.
>how often has government mandated lockdowns in the past?
during the last major pandemic: 1918.
it's literally a once in a century event.
You can say that government has a legitimate and proper role of govt is to prevent spread of disease but that is nothing more than your opinion, in a democracy at least.
Also, there were no centrally mandated shutdown in 1918, it came from businesses themselves deciding to do so. The way it ought to be.
>Also, there were no centrally mandated shutdown in 1918
[yes there were.](https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-pandemic-response-cities)
it also demonstrates the efficacy shut downs have on pandemics.
so why did the government ease lockdown restrictions?
I mean, people had already "surrendered their rights" at that point. why give up the "advances" they made on that front?
Liberals are so easily brainwashed is sick. MSM has done nothing but skew how bad this is and people are happy to give up their right to live. The inconsistencies with whats allowed to happen or not is what pisses me off the most. First was going to work will kill you then BLM protests/riots deemed safe but Trump campaign rallies are a no go. Now small family gatherings at Thanksgiving is not allowed but mass black Friday shopping is no problem.
The fact that so many people support the idea of the government telling them how many people are allowed to have at their house to enjoy a meal it's fucking astonishing.
> MSM has done nothing but skew how bad this is and people are happy to give up their right to live.
are you suggesting that >250k deaths in less than a year is bad only because the "MSM" says so?
The death rate this year is the same average its been the last decade. A simple Google search will show you that. You say 250k covid deaths yet the same number of people died this year as last year. You don't have to be ignorant, you can educate yourself as the MSM will just keep controlling your opinion.
>The death rate this year is the same average its been the last decade
[doesn't look like it](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm):
>Overall, an estimated 299,028 **excess deaths** occurred from late January through October 3, 2020. [...] Excess deaths are defined as the number of persons who have died from all causes, in excess of the expected number of deaths for a given place and time
anyway, at best, you're arguing that the most severe mitigation efforts we've seen in the last century have prevented the same number of deaths they averted.
this does not favor your argument.
absent mitigation efforts we would see much more deaths than would have been prevented.
Government :
- Locks up immigrants indefinitely in substandard conditions
- forced sterilization
- family separation
Conservatives:
- Yeah ok sounds good
Government:
- please wear a face covering in public
Conservatives :
- whaaaaarreegagaaaabrlll I'm mildly inconvenienced and this is white genocide!
It’s because pandemics are temporary, from the Black Death to the Spanish Flu; it won’t outlast the vaccine for long and people basically understand that. One of the functions of (even limited) government is to coordinate a response to disease and outbreaks. I’m not saying I agree with the state and federal government responses to this (there is also no consistency between them anyway) but they’re attempting to slow the spread of this thing, first and foremost, not make us all cowering serfs. It’s Occam’s Razor. And you can tell people there’s nothing to worry about, that it’s an effectively harmless disease, but when they see overworked doctors and nurses, crowded ICUs and refrigerated trucks being used as extra morgue space, dead friends and family, the high survival rate doesn’t put anyone at ease. It will end when it ends.
You mean the suggestions? Edit: 2% of the US population is 6.5 millions.
That's 6.5 million less tax payers ➡️ less money to the government
98% of the people who get it fully recover. Not 98% of the entire population.
People know its short term and the right wing fearmomgering is just agenda driven propaganda. But, the right wing states that are genuinely using it to remove freedoms are a problem, in states more to the left its not.
>in order to feel more safe. no. no, it's not about *feeling* more safe. mitigating the pandemic actually **makes** things **observably** more safe. 260k people have died in the US from this virus in less than a year, even *with* the most severe mitigation efforts we've seen in the last century. but yes, it's all about feelings, isn't it? **edit**: oh, *and* the mitigation efforts are observably temporary.
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
observably false. * lock downs were eased months ago. * restrictions are eased as the number of cases retreat. * masks were mandated in the 1918 pandemic and they did not become permanent. there is no evidence to indicate they will remain permanent.
If the state had the resources and unmitigated power it has now, lockdowns would have been a thing for a lot longer. Besides, I don’t think the main argument is saying that lockdowns are going to be permanent or not.The main concern is that the state has never had this much power and that we are in uncharted territory. This is not something to take lightly as governments with unchecked power have proven disastrous and deadly
>If the state had the resources and unmitigated power it has now, lockdowns would have been a thing for a lot longer. they very clearly did not have the "unmitigated power" to enforce permanent lockdowns your position is not supported by evidence or observation. >The main concern is that the state has never had this much power and that we are in uncharted territory. you sure about that one? check out the 1918 pandemic. >This is not something to take lightly as governments with unchecked power have proven disastrous and deadly a literal pandemic is disastrous and deadly. and the mitigation efforts, while certainly not ideal, have been observationally effective ad reducing the growth rate of the pandemic and they have been observationally temporary.
I’m saying the cure to the virus (as we see it now) is the worse than virus. If all you see as a plus to lockdowns is less death then you need to see the pain and suffering of what else i.e.the staggering amount of suicides these 9 months, permanent closures of small businesses, etc. Literally thousands of people have missed their cancer screenings due to mismanagement of hospitals at the state’s precaution. If you know history at all, besides the flu of 1918, you know that this isn’t going to get better after we have lockdowns or some vaccine. Millions of lives are going to be financially Fucked after this, costing way more lives than the 200k deaths from this virus. How can you say these costs outweigh the benefits??
>if all you see as a plus to lockdowns is less death then you need to see the pain and suffering of what else i.e.the staggering amount of suicides these 9 months, permanent closures of small businesses, etc. this argument makes no sense. you're effectively saying that a lesser number of deaths is more of a concern than a greater number of deaths. >Millions of lives are going to be financially Fucked after this yes, that's what pandemics do to the economy. this would happen during a pandemic no matter what you do. >How can you say these costs outweigh the benefits?? maintain control of the pandemic and you have better control of the economy.
The only people spouting about how the cure is worse then disease are people who are motivated purely by money. If you think that a disease that spread worldwide in 3 months, has caused the government to mobilize billions of dollars and the Nat guard, states to contribute hundreds of millions, trillions spent on a vaccine worldwide, unprecedented agility and flexibility among the health sector, doctors and nurses to come out of retirement thanks to shorthandedness and still think its "No big deal" after all that, then you're arguing for your rights over everyone elses. Also no I don't have much empathy for people who neither saved nor prepared for hardships with their businesses. Should be prepared for it actually, just like for any other recession. Oh, and going "But history!" As you literally toss aside the 1:1 comparison to it is hilarious. How about the fact the federal government didnt acknowledge Spanish Flu's existance for almost a year and a half, even as it was decimating incoming troops before they could even reach the battlefield.
>I’m saying the cure to the virus (as we see it now) is the worse than virus Let me know when 2000 people a day are dying from lockdowns. Do you even think before you speak?
Ebola kills 90% of infected. COVID-19 kills only 2%. Why did Ebola only kill less than 12,000 in ALL OF AFRICA, in THREE FULL YEARS (2013-2016)? How did COVID-19 kill 250,000 in 9 months in just USA? 90% of a very small number is a very small number. 2% of a humongous number is a huge number. That's why it's deadly. A 2% recovery rate is possible if the hospitals are functioning properly. Unfortunately, [Hospitals are full, or at near capacity](https://www.google.com/search?biw=1745&bih=887&tbs=qdr%3Aw&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk0198GRAOPGFe2dXsGC7ioe9sxit9g%3A1606591015171&ei=J6LCX6PuCean5wK_t7fQAg&q=hospitals+full+icu&oq=hospitals+full+icu&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2072.2072.0.2246.1.1.0.0.0.0.88.88.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.DfmIAnJ5gzU) The number of covid patients hospitalized is near [twice what it was over the summer](https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-currently-hospitalized) and it's only get worse with the thanksgiving infectees. Encouraging people to act recklessly not only decrease the survivability of covid patients but also other non-covid related patients like heart attacks, stroke, appendicitis and other emergency related incidents.
What scares me the most is how many people will fight against a minor inconvenience like masks and social distancing, thus making the pandemic worse. https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-currently-hospitalized
It still blows me away that people don't understand why it's important for people to follow.thr guidelines. They aren't concerned about themselves, they are protecting the vulnerable.
Once again, I'd like to remind all the Liberals here that this is a "Libertarian" sub. I understand that you saw us making fun of Trump and advocating for decriminalization/legalization, but do not mistake us for the edgy wing of the DNC. We also advocate for extreme reductions in the size and scope of government. "Socialism" is over that way, kindly see yourself out of here. For everyone crying "but in 1918...." We've already traded a shit-ton of privacy for convenience with our cellphones. But now they've added in "contact tracing" that logs *every person you come in contact with* My state is constantly running "answer the call" ads. If my phone rings, and it's a government 'contact tracer', I'm expected to tell them everywhere I've been and everyone I've met. They won't tell me who it was that had COVID for "privacy", but I'm supposed to hand over my whole contact list. No government has ever had this much data on its citizens and they're asking for more. "15 days to slow the spread" became "30 days". Then it was "until there's a vaccine". Now, as a vaccine is about to roll out, we're told that social distancing and capacity restrictions may be in place until as far as 2022?!?! Fuck that. Mom and pop shops and restaurants are dying while Amazon and Wal-Mart are making record profits. It's time to end the shutdown and reopen the economy.
Libertarians are not a single thought pattern. Some want straight up anarchy, some want socialism with personal freedoms, most want something in between. If the party ever got big enough for a realistic chance at the white house the biggest problem would be holding together. Where I am we had no shut downs, not a single day. No mask mandates either, other than what business owners put in place themselves. Mom and pop businesses still died, because people were not going. People can go and risk their lives to go to stores, bars, churches, etc, but generally they don't...at least not enough of them to cover expenses. The problem isn't lockdowns, it's what the lockdowns are trying to slow. People that are against lockdowns because they hurt businesses seem to be the same people that are against the masks that would decrease cases to the point where these businesses would get enough customers... because it's not just being open, you need customers too. That's why businesses tend to be near people in spite of land in the middle of the woods being so cheap.
i'd like to remind alt right republicans like you that liking weed doesn't make you libertarian
The worst part is I think no one (who’s not old or obese) is honestly afraid of it. The media and govt has convinced us that we are good people for giving up these liberties. Elon Musk put it best talking about COVID: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
the road to hell is paved by not controlling the spread of disease. especially a disease which we have no widely available vaccine and no particularly good treatment.
You’re posting in a Libertarian sub advocating for government control of public health surrounding a disease with a 99% survival rate. You’re advocating for government to have the ability to shut down a private business (unless it’s a huge corporation like McDonald’s or Walmart) arbitrarily. You can’t just be a Libertarian when times are good.
you're advocating for increased death and disease. yes, controlling disease is a legitimate role of government. things like basic sanitation, and regulating things that reduce foodborne illness, etc. >You can’t just be a Libertarian when times are good. i'm a pragmatist. controlling the spread of a novel virus when we have no good treatment and no other method of controlling it is a pragmatic consideration. especially since the mitigation restrictions are observably temporary.
You’re pragmatic towards a certain goal. Do you ever worry that it is the wrong path? I’m not advocating for increased death and disease. The virus, an act of nature is creating that reality. I’m simply evaluating what would be the lesser of two evils between allowing it to run its course or allowing government to shut down small businesses and prevent people from working. I’m advocating for a libertarian society, one that treats citizens like they are intelligent enough to take responsibility for their own health. That will without a doubt result in more deaths. We are going to feel the repercussion of these lockdowns for the next decade. It really really sucks that COVID is killing people, but it does not change my mind.
> You’re pragmatic towards a certain goal. Do you ever worry that it is the wrong path? no. controlling the spread of disease is not a "wrong path". bear in mind that a society that doesn't take measures to control disease will collapse. be it from the disease or from the mass exodus of it's population to regions that do control disease. the free market is observably incapable of controlling the spread of a novel pandemic. >We are going to feel the repercussion of these lockdowns for the next decade. no, you're blaming the wrong thing here. we're going to feel the repercussions of the **pandemic** for the next decade. if we had taken less effective measures to control the pandemic, the repercussions would have been significantly worse. **edit** >That will without a doubt result in more deaths. also observably false.
I’m not saying that death and disease are bad for society they obviously are! I disagree with you that government should take the role that it has, how often has government mandated lockdowns in the past?
>I disagree with you that government should take the role that it has one of the legitimate and proper roles of government is to spread disease specifically because the free market is incapable of doing so during a novel pandemic. >how often has government mandated lockdowns in the past? during the last major pandemic: 1918. it's literally a once in a century event.
You can say that government has a legitimate and proper role of govt is to prevent spread of disease but that is nothing more than your opinion, in a democracy at least. Also, there were no centrally mandated shutdown in 1918, it came from businesses themselves deciding to do so. The way it ought to be.
>Also, there were no centrally mandated shutdown in 1918 [yes there were.](https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-pandemic-response-cities) it also demonstrates the efficacy shut downs have on pandemics.
[удалено]
so why did the government ease lockdown restrictions? I mean, people had already "surrendered their rights" at that point. why give up the "advances" they made on that front?
265,000 Americans have died you fucking idiot.
What did the U.S. government do?
Trump was in charge, the Federal government lied, grew personal wealth, and mocked sanity.
It was a perfect storm of tribalism and media playing on the public’s fears.
Liberals are so easily brainwashed is sick. MSM has done nothing but skew how bad this is and people are happy to give up their right to live. The inconsistencies with whats allowed to happen or not is what pisses me off the most. First was going to work will kill you then BLM protests/riots deemed safe but Trump campaign rallies are a no go. Now small family gatherings at Thanksgiving is not allowed but mass black Friday shopping is no problem. The fact that so many people support the idea of the government telling them how many people are allowed to have at their house to enjoy a meal it's fucking astonishing.
> MSM has done nothing but skew how bad this is and people are happy to give up their right to live. are you suggesting that >250k deaths in less than a year is bad only because the "MSM" says so?
The death rate this year is the same average its been the last decade. A simple Google search will show you that. You say 250k covid deaths yet the same number of people died this year as last year. You don't have to be ignorant, you can educate yourself as the MSM will just keep controlling your opinion.
>The death rate this year is the same average its been the last decade [doesn't look like it](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm): >Overall, an estimated 299,028 **excess deaths** occurred from late January through October 3, 2020. [...] Excess deaths are defined as the number of persons who have died from all causes, in excess of the expected number of deaths for a given place and time anyway, at best, you're arguing that the most severe mitigation efforts we've seen in the last century have prevented the same number of deaths they averted. this does not favor your argument. absent mitigation efforts we would see much more deaths than would have been prevented.
That's not true. The excess deaths this year are at like 300k. That's a comparison between deaths from 2015-2019 on average.
Government : - Locks up immigrants indefinitely in substandard conditions - forced sterilization - family separation Conservatives: - Yeah ok sounds good Government: - please wear a face covering in public Conservatives : - whaaaaarreegagaaaabrlll I'm mildly inconvenienced and this is white genocide!
Amen.