California no longer under lockdown - people freak out

[CriticalGaming]

What perhaps the anti-lockdown brigade don't realise is the economy takes a beating either way. People stop doing stuff because they are anxious and economic activity slows down. Sick people don't work and decrease economic activity, and dead people cause economic losses, even retireees. Maybe the costs are spread differently throughout the economy with lockdown or mass infection, but we'd be haemmorhaging economic activity either way. The decision for the government is whether it wants to take an economic hit with 10,000 dead, or an economic hit with 40,000 dead. I struggle to understand why the latter is better.

I dunno if that's 100% true. Because most places have taken a lot of precautions in regards to doing business throughout this. Plastic barriers between customers and staff, table spacing in regards to dining, mask requirements, gathering limitations, etc. You're assuming an all-or-nothing type of control, which the pro-lockdown brigade seems to miss. That simply isn't the case, and there are plenty of work arounds to allow for business and schools, to remain in somewhat normal opperations while still doing as much as possible to protect people.

Meanwhile the media tries to paint Covid as a death sentence and it simply isn't. It is dangerous for some people sure, but the vast majority of people who get it recover without even needed to go to the doctor.

We know the people that are at the most risk for Covid. So they should take extra steps personally to midigate their risk. Instead the lockdowns and shutdowns have made it EVERYONE's responsibility to protect those people, often at far greater cost than it would have to make Grandma stay the hell home and avoid bingo night.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You can just copy Japan's strat and not do any lockdowns.

 

[CriticalGaming]

You can just copy Japan's strat and not do any lockdowns.

Japan also wears facemasks for style and fun normally though. And they've had some issues but manage to squash it quickly because the people of Japan have more respect for things in general. Like they will self-quarantine and avoid exposure risks without being told or government demand. Which is why they got away without doing lockdowns because people have the discipline to self control.

Other countries are full of selfish idiots.

I just called myself a selfish idiot.....welp that's pretty much /thread then.

 

[Agema]

I dunno if that's 100% true. Because most places have taken a lot of precautions in regards to doing business throughout this. Plastic barriers between customers and staff, table spacing in regards to dining, mask requirements, gathering limitations, etc. You're assuming an all-or-nothing type of control, which the pro-lockdown brigade seems to miss. That simply isn't the case, and there are plenty of work arounds to allow for business and schools, to remain in somewhat normal opperations while still doing as much as possible to protect people.

Sure. We have had all of these for months. Now take a look at the number of infected and deaths over the last few months - USA, UK, wherever. They are not enough.

Children are less likely to have adverse symptoms and pass the infection on than adults. But at the same time we simply cannot put literally millions of kids in a big infection-spreading paradise that is the nation's school system and not have a fair chunk of pupils get infected and spread it to their families and god knows whoever else, too.

Meanwhile the media tries to paint Covid as a death sentence and it simply isn't. It is dangerous for some people sure, but the vast majority of people who get it recover without even needed to go to the doctor.

The hospitals in my city are full. Totally full. And the only reason they're not brimming over is they're refusing all non-essential services because there no spare staff and equipment to do them. Never mind that being full of infected people means the hospitals themselves are major infection risks. Without the lockdown, the health system would have collapsed in my area. And we had plastic screens, and masks, and alcohol rub, and gathering limitations, and it wasn't enough. So then it's a lockdown.

We know the people that are at the most risk for Covid. So they should take extra steps personally to midigate their risk. Instead the lockdowns and shutdowns have made it EVERYONE's responsibility to protect those people, often at far greater cost than it would have to make Grandma stay the hell home and avoid bingo night.

It is everyone's responsibility to protect wider society, including the elderly. It's part of what civic society is. Old people have rights to do things with their lives just like you do, and it's not okay to imprison grandma in her home for a year just so you can live an inconvenience-free life. Old people need to go out and exercise and shop, too. Lots of old people need carers, and their carers have families and lives and can't be expected to lock themselves away either. Lots of old people live with their children and families, who can't go into total isolation. These solutions you dream of do not exist in the real world.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Children are less likely to have adverse symptoms and pass the infection on than adults. But at the same time we simply cannot put literally millions of kids in a big infection-spreading paradise that is the nation's school system and not have a fair chunk of pupils get infected and spread it to their families and god knows whoever else, too.

Finally a justificiation for smaller class sizes that have been needed in schools for decades now.

I would have split students and had them go to class 2 or three days a week. So for example in an elementary school with 5 grades. I would have had grades 1 and 5 go to school on like monday and Thursday, then have 2 and 4 go Tuesday and Wednsday and have 3rd grade go friday and saturday. Or some sort of variation to split the students up and at least get them with some in-person school so that they dont fall behind as much, if at all.

t is everyone's responsibility to protect wider society, including the elderly. It's part of what civic society is. Old people have rights to do things with their lives just like you do, and it's not okay to imprison grandma in her home for a year just so you can live an inconvenience-free life. Old people need to go out and exercise and shop, too. Lots of old people need carers, and their carers have families and lives and can't be expected to lock themselves away either. Lots of old people live with their children and families, who can't go into total isolation. These solutions you dream of do not exist in the real world.

But someone who know's they are at more risks can take extra precautions that the rest of the population doesn't have too. At risk people already live different lives under normal circumstances, in which they are more careful with where, who, and how the interact. So extending that same idea to people who feel like they are at risk can take more precautions. Simple.

Why should had office of tech support 20-somethings have to stop work entirely because a segment of society they do not interact with ,or even see on a regular basis? I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask the younger people to clean up, wear gloves, and masks, if and when they go visit their elders. Meanwhile the whole world didn't have to stop.

Of course this is fantasy because it obviously didn't happen, and anything we come up with is hindsight based off current experiences. Hindsight is 20/20 after all.

I think if anything, the fantasy of saying "We could have prevent ALL C-19 deaths" is just a dream. This was always going to kill people, but car accidents also kill people and we don't shut the roads down to stop road fatalities. Hell the common cold kills people.

You also have to consider this:

How many people are dying BECAUSE of Covid, versus people who are dying who also HAPPEN to have Covid. Because there is a difference. Someone with heart failure, lung cancer, or whatever is already dying of those issues, is it then fair to say that their death was because of Covid when without it they were going to pass in a short while anyway. Like think about all the nursing home deaths. People in nursing homes are dying and need constant care to stretch that life out as long and as comfortably as possible. Nobody goes into a nursing home, and then gets better and gets to go home. So Covid ravaged those places basically acting as the tipping point for people who were already walking on the cliff.

Which isn't a justification of anything, but it does make the numbers a bit misleading IMO. Run the numbers and see what % of perfectly normal healthy people got Covid and then passed solely because of it. And I would imagine the number is going to be incredibly low.

 

[Silvanus]

Why should had office of tech support 20-somethings have to stop work entirely because a segment of society they do not interact with ,or even see on a regular basis? I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask the younger people to clean up, wear gloves, and masks, if and when they go visit their elders. Meanwhile the whole world didn't have to stop.

Because you interact with people more frequently than you think. It's not just when the 20-something actively goes to meet an elderly relative. It's every time they touch a pole or chair on the train, which is then touched by an elderly stranger. It's every time they put their paws on a packet of something in the supermarket, which is later purchased by an elderly stranger.

Put it the other way. Why should workplaces open when they don't have to? I live in a tremendously wealthy country. We have the resources to allow workplaces to close and for the economy not to collapse if they do. If those resources aren't being allocated, that's a failure of priorities on the part of the government.

How many people are dying BECAUSE of Covid, versus people who are dying who also HAPPEN to have Covid. Because there is a difference. Someone with heart failure, lung cancer, or whatever is already dying of those issues, is it then fair to say that their death was because of Covid when without it they were going to pass in a short while anyway. Like think about all the nursing home deaths. People in nursing homes are dying and need constant care to stretch that life out as long and as comfortably as possible. Nobody goes into a nursing home, and then gets better and gets to go home. So Covid ravaged those places basically acting as the tipping point for people who were already walking on the cliff.

Which isn't a justification of anything, but it does make the numbers a bit misleading IMO. Run the numbers and see what % of perfectly normal healthy people got Covid and then passed solely because of it. And I would imagine the number is going to be incredibly low.

But why do you imagine that? You're just speculating, on the basis of a pretty shaky understanding of how deaths might have been overreported in some places, maybe.

Actual experts-- viral biologists, epidemiologists, and specialists-- have researched it thoroughly and say the risk to life is high. Why pay more credence to speculation than to expertise and research?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Japan also wears facemasks for style and fun normally though. And they've had some issues but manage to squash it quickly because the people of Japan have more respect for things in general. Like they will self-quarantine and avoid exposure risks without being told or government demand. Which is why they got away without doing lockdowns because people have the discipline to self control.

Other countries are full of selfish idiots.

I just called myself a selfish idiot.....welp that's pretty much /thread then.

They also have good vitamin d levels across their population from their diets. Also, Japan's 65+ population makes up 28% of their population whereas in the US, it's 15%. And Japan hasn't lockdowned or exterminated the virus and their numbers are unbelievable. You can let the virus move through the population and not have 100,000+ deaths. Japan's testing and tracing is also abysmal, they don't have some fancy South Korean system in place.

Children are less likely to have adverse symptoms and pass the infection on than adults. But at the same time we simply cannot put literally millions of kids in a big infection-spreading paradise that is the nation's school system and not have a fair chunk of pupils get infected and spread it to their families and god knows whoever else, too.

The whole school situation is a "fiasco". There's no reason to not have kids in schools, it's beyond ridiculous. Closing schools causes far more harm than whatever very little help it affords.

Because you interact with people more frequently than you think. It's not just when the 20-something actively goes to meet an elderly relative. It's every time they touch a pole or chair on the train, which is then touched by an elderly stranger. It's every time they put their paws on a packet of something in the supermarket, which is later purchased by an elderly stranger.

There's very little transmission risk from surface contacts.

"In my opinion, the chance of transmission through inanimate surfaces is very small, and only in instances where an infected person coughs or sneezes on the surface, and someone else touches that surface soon after the cough or sneeze (within 1-2 hours)." - Emanuel Goldman, PhD, a professor of microbiology, biochemistry, and molecular genetics at the New Jersey Medical School of Rutgers University

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Overview

COVID-19 is a new type of coronavirus that causes mild to severe cases. Here’s a quick guide on how to spot symptoms, risk factors, prevent spread of the disease, and find out what to do if you think you have it.

www.webmd.com

 

[CriticalGaming]

Because you interact with people more frequently than you think. It's not just when the 20-something actively goes to meet an elderly relative. It's every time they touch a pole or chair on the train, which is then touched by an elderly stranger

Again those at risk shoudl protect themselves. Portable hand sanitizer, gloves if needed, whatever. The elderly person just needs a few things to keep themselves safe.

And studies have show that the virus is spreading after prolonged close contact with another infected person. They've shown no links to outdoor dining as a spreadingzone for example. Actually saying that people are most likely getting it from their family members.

Then of course the surface touching thing is highly overblown as per the quote shared above my @Phoenixmgs

I live in a tremendously wealthy country. We have the resources to allow workplaces to close and for the economy not to collapse if they do. If those resources aren't being allocated, that's a failure of priorities on the part of the government.

Being from a "Weathly" country doesn't mean your government is sitting on a stockpile of cash like a fucking dragon. they can't just pay everyone a monthly sum and if they did you best believe they would be trying to reopen shit ASAP. It's one thing to look at some of the smaller countries that gave people a monthly allowance, but you then have to ask yourself how much your taxes will increase on the back end of this, because they'll have to make that money up somewhere. And then how will you pay your taxes or for anything when you've out of a job for so long that companies can't survive and they shutdown. You might not have a job to go back to when this is all over and you bet your ass the government aint going keep footing your bill for a second longer than they have too.

Government is almost universally fucked everywhere. I think we've seen that. They've sat too long in positions of power without ever having to make any real decisions that could result in something like a pandemic. And it also shows just how unqualified the people we've elected actually are. They are petty high school kids with god-like power and wealth and corrupt to all hell.

Actual experts-- viral biologists, epidemiologists, and specialists-- have researched it thoroughly and say the risk to life is high

Who's said the risk to life is high? Are they talking on an individual basis? Or general terms of risk throughout the total population? Because the numbers sure don't suggest an sure-fire death sentence if you get covid.

The AARP says that 95% of american deaths were people over the age of 50. https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2020/coronavirus-deaths-older-adults.html

95%! That's a crazy large pool of solely older folks who are dying from this thing. The risk to life is high for the largest percentage of working people? Where are you getting that?

Look it doesn't matter now, like I said, the lockdowns and the ruination of economics across the world has been done, so now we have to finish getting through this covid thing and then deal with the clean up later. Nothing more to it than that.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think if anything, the fantasy of saying "We could have prevent ALL C-19 deaths" is just a dream.

Yes, in the same way people claiming lots of people were saying we could have prevented all C-19 deaths is just a dream. Lots of people are talking about reducing the number of deaths, and that's a worthwhile thing. Because obviously.

This was always going to kill people, but car accidents also kill people and we don't shut the roads down to stop road fatalities.

But nations spend enormous amount of money and place various restriction upon people to reduce the road toll. I'm not allowed to drive without wearing a seatbelt, getting a driver's licence, getting my vehicle certified as safe every so often and so on.

 

[Silvanus]

Again those at risk shoudl protect themselves. Portable hand sanitizer, gloves if needed, whatever. The elderly person just needs a few things to keep themselves safe.

And studies have show that the virus is spreading after prolonged close contact with another infected person. They've shown no links to outdoor dining as a spreadingzone for example. Actually saying that people are most likely getting it from their family members.

Then of course the surface touching thing is highly overblown as per the quote shared above my @Phoenixmgs

It should be blatantly obvious that the spread is not solely, or even primarily, from "prolonged close contact" among members of the population. The basic reproduction number is above 1; that would only be possible if transmission were exceptionally easy. It would be utterly impossible if people required "prolonged close contact" to be infected.

So people should take precautions to protect themselves. Sure. And why shouldn't others take precautions to protect them as well? Is our selfishness so acute that we're unwilling to make these small sacrifices to protect the lives and health of others? It's not a massive imposition to wear a mask, to sanitise. Certainly not compared to fucking bereavement.

Being from a "Weathly" country doesn't mean your government is sitting on a stockpile of cash like a fucking dragon. they can't just pay everyone a monthly sum and if they did you best believe they would be trying to reopen shit ASAP. It's one thing to look at some of the smaller countries that gave people a monthly allowance, but you then have to ask yourself how much your taxes will increase on the back end of this, because they'll have to make that money up somewhere. And then how will you pay your taxes or for anything when you've out of a job for so long that companies can't survive and they shutdown. You might not have a job to go back to when this is all over and you bet your ass the government aint going keep footing your bill for a second longer than they have too.

Government is almost universally fucked everywhere. I think we've seen that. They've sat too long in positions of power without ever having to make any real decisions that could result in something like a pandemic. And it also shows just how unqualified the people we've elected actually are. They are petty high school kids with god-like power and wealth and corrupt to all hell.

Of course they're not "sitting on a stockpile of cash". But they're spending it on enormous unnecessary expenditures (HS2, Heathrow, Trident), or they're allowing multi-billionaires to hoard it (Amazon, too many other examples to count).

[[Cont. below]]

 

[Silvanus]

[[Cont. from above]]

Who's said the risk to life is high? Are they talking on an individual basis? Or general terms of risk throughout the total population? Because the numbers sure don't suggest an sure-fire death sentence if you get covid.

The entire scientific community is in consensus. It's been extensively researched by every country, every relevant scientific centre. Do you want me to link every damn study?

The AARP says that 95% of american deaths were people over the age of 50. https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2020/coronavirus-deaths-older-adults.html

95%! That's a crazy large pool of solely older folks who are dying from this thing. The risk to life is high for the largest percentage of working people? Where are you getting that?

So what? Are you so callous that you consider anybody who's over the age of 50-- 30 years younger than the life expectancy-- to be of effectively forfeit? Just because people don't want to take basic precautions?

 

[Silvanus]

There's very little transmission risk from surface contacts.

"In my opinion, the chance of transmission through inanimate surfaces is very small, and only in instances where an infected person coughs or sneezes on the surface, and someone else touches that surface soon after the cough or sneeze (within 1-2 hours)." - Emanuel Goldman, PhD, a professor of microbiology, biochemistry, and molecular genetics at the New Jersey Medical School of Rutgers University

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Overview

COVID-19 is a new type of coronavirus that causes mild to severe cases. Here’s a quick guide on how to spot symptoms, risk factors, prevent spread of the disease, and find out what to do if you think you have it.

www.webmd.com

Did you actually read the rest of that article? Notice the examples I used: a supermarket, and a bus/train (public transport). So, places with very high concentrations of people. The kind of places that that article specifically says do play a role in transmission through surface contact just a little further down.

The lengths people go to to self-justify avoiding a few basic safety precautions.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Who's said the risk to life is high? Are they talking on an individual basis? Or general terms of risk throughout the total population? Because the numbers sure don't suggest an sure-fire death sentence if you get covid.

The entire scientific community is in consensus. It's been extensively researched by every country, every relevant scientific centre. Do you want me to link every damn study?

The risk isn't high. If the risk was high, then why would we have adopted the "flatten the curve" strategy if all the experts thought the risk was high? That strategy doesn't alter the amount of infections, it alters WHEN you get infected. The only major problem with this virus is having the spread so fast that it overwhelms healthcare, that's the major issue, not people getting infected. If you're 24 and under, the risk of dying in a car crash is 36 times more likely than covid. For elders, they're twice as likely to die from covid than a car crash so, again, even there it's not anywhere near close to a death sentence. This, again, does not imply that I'm saying everyone go around willy nilly and not try to do mitigate the virus (as I say use the Japan strat as often as I can). But when you say the risk to life is high from the virus, then how the fuck is driving a car even a thing when you have a 1% chance of dying from a car crash in your life and the infection fatality rate of the virus is something like 0.2 - 0.3%? If the coronavirus is a high risk to life, what is the risk of life to driving when it's 3x-5x more deadly? Driving a car must be an existential threat to human life then if coronavirus is a high risk to life.

 

[stroopwafel]

The risk isn't high. If the risk was high, then why would we have adopted the "flatten the curve" strategy if all the experts thought the risk was high? That strategy doesn't alter the amount of infections, it alters WHEN you get infected. The only major problem with this virus is having the spread so fast that it overwhelms healthcare, that's the major issue, not people getting infected. If you're 24 and under, the risk of dying in a car crash is 36 times more likely than covid. For elders, they're twice as likely to die from covid than a car crash so, again, even there it's not anywhere near close to a death sentence. This, again, does not imply that I'm saying everyone go around willy nilly and not try to do mitigate the virus (as I say use the Japan strat as often as I can). But when you say the risk to life is high from the virus, then how the fuck is driving a car even a thing when you have a 1% chance of dying from a car crash in your life and the infection fatality rate of the virus is something like 0.2 - 0.3%? If the coronavirus is a high risk to life, what is the risk of life to driving when it's 3x-5x more deadly? Driving a car must be an existential threat to human life then if coronavirus is a high risk to life.

In their defense western countries put high value on human life which you can probably trace back to the Renaissance and Nietzsche's ''god is dead''. No longer is death solemnly accepted but fought tooth and nail and pushed out of sight. Statistics are one thing but consider how much safety measures are taken for safe traffic and how few accidents actually happen if you consider the amount of traffic. Western countries have the highest life expectancy and lowest infant mortality in the world and the reason for that is exchanging religious beliefs for science and progress and prioritizing the absolute value of individual life over transcedental thinking.

You kind of have to respect it as the value of our culture; to protect life regardless of circumstance or age. In the middle ages they would have probably shrugged it off as a bad sneeze but we are now at the top of the development pyramid. That comes with both good and bad. Western governments will mostly always err on the side of caution, perhapes overtly so, but countries that do the opposite(Mexico, Brazil etc) are in more dire straits. Asian countries have their own culture and traditions which makes them difficult to compare.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

In their defense western countries put high value on human life

Asian countries have their own culture and traditions which makes them difficult to compare.

Driving a car is an acceptable risk in western countries and that comes with a 1% death chance in your lifetime (not to mention long term health issues from crashes that don't cause death, worse than long covid). How are parents fearing for their kids in school over the coronavirus make any sense whatsoever when driving them to school everyday (normal life) is far far more dangerous? If you put acceptable risk at that point, why are you gonna get so worried about something that is far below that already established point? That just doesn't make any sense to me. Cheerleading is more dangerous for girls than coronavirus but that's acceptable.

To me, Japan's strategy can be copied by any country rather cheaply, it's just lower human contacts (which lockdowns do already), wear masks (messaging fucked up from the start on that in the US), and Japan's naturally good levels of vitamin d from their diet. Masks and vitamin d are both super cheap, there's no downside in doing either. Japan is literally the only country that masked from day 1 and have good vitamin d and their numbers are just plain amazing for a country that didn't smother the virus early like New Zealand or South Korea. South Korea also had a fancy test and trace program in place that Japan totally doesn't have, they're way worse than the US in that regard. I think Japan is the only country with a big dense population that has let the virus spread within the population and done amazingly well. You think it's a good idea to give it a try that's basically free from a cost standpoint?

Though giving some new guidelines a try is probably way too late with already half the US population infected and the vaccine rolling out (herd immunity is right around the corner). We're already set in our ways and we're at the endgame anyway.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I dunno if it was "muh freedom" as much as it was people not wanting to be fucked out of work for a bunch of rules that didn't make any sense and had no backing. Further fucked up by the fact that when it was obvious that these measures were not working, the government doubled down on what wasn't working rather than trying something else.

And I think it made people angry when they were lamblasted for trying to complain about their, businesses, bills, putting food on the table. Because the mob would only cry out "Fuck your job people are dying." Yet ignoring all the problems that the shutdowns continue to cause.

I personally know of no one who’s died from this thing yet. Both my parents (both 69 at the time) got it, ironically out of state visiting friends, one of their local friends (also similar age), some in-laws by me, a couple coworkers. Out of everyone only one of the coworkers had a rough time, where they “nearly” needed hospitalization. Everyone else was somewhere between asymptomatic to a fever and loss of taste. My dad said pneumonia was ten times worse, and he had that twice within the last ten years.

Not saying there aren’t anomalies or definitive high risk categories, but this is an unprecedented ongoing response to something with a fraction of a percent mortality rate for everyone shy of 85.

Heart disease and cancer deaths in the US dwarf COVID-19 yearly and no one bats an eye. They aren’t banning processed foods or mandating sun screen use any time soon. The residual effects of shutting down entire sectors of the country have likely put more of a strain on a majority of people than if they had just got the virus.

Having said that, what makes COVID-19 perhaps most disturbing are possible unforeseen long term effects. However, the same could be said of the vaccines at this point. There really is no ideal fix-all solution but I think the scales could be tipped to a bit better balance.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Covid is 2/3rds a heart disease, *on top of* heart disease. It is also communicable and largely preventable, whereas meaningfully preventing heart disease is probably considered socialism or something.

If I could get heart disease because somebody else ate a burger, that's a different thing.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Not saying there aren’t anomalies or definitive high risk categories, but this is an unprecedented ongoing response to something with a fraction of a percent mortality rate for everyone shy of 85.

Heart disease and cancer deaths in the US dwarf COVID-19 yearly and no one bats an eye. They aren’t banning processed foods or mandating sun screen use any time soon. The residual effects of shutting down entire sectors of the country have likely put more of a strain on a majority of people than if they had just got the virus.

The thing is, heart disease and cancer don't spread from person to person, and they don't mutate as they spread. If heart disease had a chance of spreading from person to person, and becoming more deadly and more difficult to treat as it did, you can damn well bet they'd institute similar policies.

 

[Gergar12]

For some reason where I am from(Ohio), people will wear masks

Without covering the nose
WIthout covering the nose or mouth
Without masks period
Somewhat covering the nose

Wear your fucking masks, and do it right. I hate it more than all of you, but I still do it.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Heart disease and cancer deaths in the US dwarf COVID-19 yearly and no one bats an eye. They aren’t banning processed foods or mandating sun screen use any time soon. The residual effects of shutting down entire sectors of the country have likely put more of a strain on a majority of people than if they had just got the virus.

I bet there's a video of someone wiping down pop with sanitizer they bought from the grocery store online somewhere. The pop is what's gonna kill you, not the covid. And sugar and heart disease have quite the relationship.

The thing is, heart disease and cancer don't spread from person to person, and they don't mutate as they spread. If heart disease had a chance of spreading from person to person, and becoming more deadly and more difficult to treat as it did, you can damn well bet they'd institute similar policies.

The same thing applies to driving a car, which is one reason I really like the comparison. Car crashes have 1% chance of killing + more long-term effects + it's something that can be caused by other people. If we applied the same restrictions and fear mongering to driving, we'd either be driving cars made of nerf or the speed limit would be like 20mph. If you're OK with driving around everyday, why are you so fearful of covid when it's far less dangerous?

Also, parents feeding their children sugar filled foods is much the same as spreading a virus. At least schools have nutrition standards but lots of kids are getting worse nutrition because they're not going to school.