• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stupid lockdowns

Advise people to lockdown don't force them. The stupid ones won't, problem solved.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Click to expand...

They have their place when their is a real chance of containing a viral outbreak.

As I pointed out here:

Who here is still glad we didn't do a 2 month, nationwide, hard lock down like China did back in April/May

Asking for a friend.
debatepolitics.com debatepolitics.com

Basically, if you can discover an outbreak at its initial stage, along with the kind of primary vector, then "locking down" (quarantining an entire sector) is the best first step.

Once it has been allowed to spread in multiple unknown directions, then lockdowns don't make much sense.

Instead, isolating and protecting those most at risk from infection, while working on a medical solution, is the next best step.
 
aociswundumho said:
Depends on the cost. If we banned driving we could save ten of thousands lives per year, but it's not worth the cost.
Click to expand...
Eh, think about all the money cities would make on public transportation lol
 
What percentage of death would work for you? .5? .6?

FYI: This is an ugly way to try and thwart the libs.
 
Captain Adverse said:
They have their place when their is a real chance of containing a viral outbreak.

As I pointed out here:

Who here is still glad we didn't do a 2 month, nationwide, hard lock down like China did back in April/May

Asking for a friend.
debatepolitics.com debatepolitics.com

Basically, if you can discover an outbreak at its initial stage, along with the kind of primary vector, then "locking down" (quarantining an entire sector) is the best first step.

Once it has been allowed to spread in multiple unknown directions, then lockdowns don't make much sense.

Instead, isolating and protecting those most at risk from infection, while working on a medical solution, is the next best step.
Click to expand...


This is correct, with the caveat that time is more important than region in a civilization that includes highways and air travel.

But we didn't do any of that. We kinda did, but the usual suspects threw a wrench in it, so we wound up with all the vices of a lockdown and none of the virtues.

Because Americans have absolutely no sense of discipline.
 
Mr Person said:
No way am I clicking a link to a pdf download, especially not when the individual posting it pumps out deadly disinfo regularly.
Click to expand...
LOL proclaiming ignorance as an excuse is silly. But hey, you be you.
 
Chainsawmassacre said:
Lives lost and or ruined vs lives saved. Extended lockdown did more harm than good.
Click to expand...
So, you think losing your business is worse than long Covid or death? The problem I have with armchair reviews of subjects like a pandemic is you really have no idea what you'd do calling those shots, nor what would have happened if you did it your way. In other words, you have the easiest job, talking shit about something you know little about.
 
Ginger Ale said:
So, you think losing your business is worse than long Covid or death? The problem I have with armchair reviews of subjects like a pandemic is you really have no idea what you'd do calling those shots, nor what would have happened if you did it your way. In other words, you have the easiest job, talking shit about something you know little about.
Click to expand...
Lockdowns failed to do anything but destroy the economy. Suicide and drug addiction deaths increased as a result.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Click to expand...
Good for nothing....do you feel locked down?

Outside of some folks working from home......most people I know are living their lives....movies, sports. vacations, going out for meals, shopping, parties.

Mind you, if folks heeded the messages early on instead of trivializing public health requests/demands.....we could have been out of this a whole lot sooner.
 
Scamming people to believe that nanoparticles will be blocked in lockdown conditions is hysterically funny.

But take my word for it , there will be many who fall for it and will seek to defend such a crackpot idea .

I have seen it .

Call me a liar but I truly have .
 
Ginger Ale said:
So, you think losing your business is worse than long Covid or death? The problem I have with armchair reviews of subjects like a pandemic is you really have no idea what you'd do calling those shots, nor what would have happened if you did it your way. In other words, you have the easiest job, talking shit about something you know little about.
Click to expand...

The lockdowns probably killed many more people than they saved. They saved a tiny percentage, according to the OP research. How many died from poverty, depression, drugs and alcohol, isolation? How many old folks wasted away in nursing homes while their children and grandchildren were not allowed to visit them?
 
year2late said:
Good for nothing....do you feel locked down?

Outside of some folks working from home......most people I know are living their lives....movies, sports. vacations, going out for meals, shopping, parties.

Mind you, if folks heeded the messages early on instead of trivializing public health requests/demands.....we could have been out of this a whole lot sooner.
Click to expand...

HOW can anyone possibly prove what would have happened?
 
Monica33 said:
Scamming people to believe that nanoparticles will be blocked in lockdown conditions is hysterically funny.
Click to expand...

Lockdowns work where properly used. Proven many times over.

Monica33 said:
But take my word for it , there will be many who fall for it and will seek to defend such a crackpot idea .
Click to expand...

Facts are facts.

Monica33 said:
I have seen it .

Call me a liar but I truly have .
Click to expand...

No need to.

You have self identified.

Accurately to boot.
 
Captain Adverse said:
They have their place when their is a real chance of containing a viral outbreak.

As I pointed out here:

Who here is still glad we didn't do a 2 month, nationwide, hard lock down like China did back in April/May

Asking for a friend.
debatepolitics.com debatepolitics.com

Basically, if you can discover an outbreak at its initial stage, along with the kind of primary vector, then "locking down" (quarantining an entire sector) is the best first step.

Once it has been allowed to spread in multiple unknown directions, then lockdowns don't make much sense.

Instead, isolating and protecting those most at risk from infection, while working on a medical solution, is the next best step.
Click to expand...
Sure. If the Chinese had locked down the area around the lab where it was released. But here in the US? It was first detected in Washington,. they were locked down. Then cases were detected in Chicago, then Arizona, then NY. All of these were quarantined and locked down. But is was too late by then, wasn't it? It was all over the country
 
Good4Nothin said:
The lockdowns probably killed many more people than they saved. They saved a tiny percentage, according to the OP research. How many died from poverty, depression, drugs and alcohol, isolation? How many old folks wasted away in nursing homes while their children and grandchildren were not allowed to visit them?
Click to expand...
People not going to the doctor/hospital ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom