While I sorta tend to agree with you, this is a _RESULT_ of people refusing to take the vaccines (or do full lockdowns/wear masks/etc). Like the original SARs strains it should have been possible to eradicate through strong public health measures, one of which was vaccination.
So, we can shrug this one off, because in the end it _only_ kills a percent or so of people, overwhelmingly already infirm or elderly.
We may not be so lucky the next time, and this attitude _will_ get us in trouble when that happens.
China literally locked down Shanghai and millions of people in their homes, had police everywhere monitoring, had almost no exceptions other than for the police, and literally boarded people in their homes, engaged every spying mechanism they had, did mandatory testing, for more than six weeks, and it did not stop COVID - but it is increasingly clear it only delayed it from spreading inevitably. Even WIRED, pro-vaccine, has written articles about all the people who died from the lockdown and inability to get medical care due to the restrictions. It was the most full, most strict lockdown physically possible and it still did not work and China is looking at needing to repeat it.
After it already went endemic, and the transmissiblity went through the roof.
Not sure why that is hard to understand. If this virus killed 95% of people would you be arguing against lockdowns?
I think most people can agree that its one of those to little to late situations in china and they need to reconsider at this point, but that doesn't make what they are trying to do wrong.
People that think the spread of this coronavirus could ever have been stopped, let alone without destroying social fabric, mental health and causing an economic depression/hyperinflation are insane.
The 95% thing was a hypothetical. But lets rephrase it a bit.
Lets say another virus is discovered tomorrow, how high would the mortality have to be before you were to accept all those effects you list?
And lastly, how high would it have to be before you would accept actually shooting people who violated quarantine procedures? With the understanding that a statement like never, could mean the extinction of humanity (a valid choice I guess).
I shouldn't have even added them because I still don't think a coronavirus type of infection that is (or will evolve to become) so contagious can actually be stopped, and I'll stand by that main point.
Especially something that is so drastically over represented in the sick, old, and obese but not the young and healthy. Why is it justified to shoot healthy strong young people, privileging the interests of the comorbid group? In a situation where again, they're going to get sick anyways? What if we just shot the old and fat people and then everyone could stop worrying about covid?
To answer you, who knows, but much much much higher than 0.2% death rate for under 50's etc.
I think what China's doing is wrong and foolish, but maybe their citizens like being locked in their apartments for such a trivial disease, who knows?
> shooting people who violated quarantine procedures?
In the actual circumstance in the real world, animals would need to be culled because it passes between deer and cats and humans. Maybe we start shooting cats and deer now? No more pet cats.
>If this virus killed 95% of people would you be arguing against lockdowns?
This is the dumbest argument I've ever seen made on here. If it killed 95% of people, no sane person would be arguing because it becomes obvious that you are in danger. If 1.1% of the population dies and you don't have any of the health risks coinciding with mortality from the virus, then you have little reason to put your life on hold, unless you're unlucky and don't realize you have some unidentified health issue, which at that point, is a rounding error.
I guess if you're on the side doing the coercing then, yeah, at that point you probably think you're saving everyone from themselves.
So, we can shrug this one off, because in the end it _only_ kills a percent or so of people, overwhelmingly already infirm or elderly.
We may not be so lucky the next time, and this attitude _will_ get us in trouble when that happens.