See this is my point. "You have no idea what would have happened" is an opt-out of a conversation. You can't deny the negative effects of lockdown. The point is that other solutions should be tried because the current one clearly has disastrous consequences. For example, an alternate solution could be tried in a small microcosm as a sort of A/B test, but no one is really entertaining that possibility, and anyone who does is hit with contentless comments such as yours. Thinking is hard, but it's time for everyone to start.
no it is not an opt-out of conversation. It's a point that you made a massive oversimplification and yourself opted out of thinking. You just basically said, lockdown = bad consequences, non-lockdown = good consequences. non-lockdown could have had 2x, 4x, 10x, 100x, 1x, 0.5x the infections. We don't know which. You ignored all those possibilities and their repercussions and just stated lockdown has been disastrous implying that non-lockdown would have been less disastrous. you don't know that. I for one believe non-lockdown would have been more disastrous. Hospitals would be more full, more people would be dying, people would be even more desperate than they are, the result would be an even worse economy and more suffering
> You just basically said, lockdown = bad consequences, non-lockdown = good consequences
I'm sorry but your comment shows that you did not read my comment. Please read:
> deviating even just slightly from what the government has chosen to do
> nuanced approach to re-openings is simply too difficult to get right and therefore untenable
What part of "deviating just slightly" and "nuanced approach" implies a complete inverse approach? I think you are straw-manning me, sorry. I never said that the solution was to not have lockdown at all. You can re-read my comment again if it helps. I implied that a nuanced approach and a slightly less restrictive approach would be better. It seems that my comment regarding people unwilling to have a nuanced conversation proves true again.
You seem to continue putting words in my mouth. What's up with that? Here's what I said:
> other solutions should be tried because the current one clearly has disastrous consequences
Given the context of my other comments, you seem to have reached the wrong interpretation, and are still unwilling to entertain a conversation about what a milder lockdown looks like.
