• hazeebabee@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    9 months ago

    I think the key is compromize and risk reduction. Sick people should stay home, mask if they need to go out, & be aware of what signs of infection are.

    Its true social distancing is the only “100% effective” way to not get sick. But its kind of like abstinence-- most people are not going to do the “100% safe” thing, but they will take measures to make bad outcomes less likely. Which the cdc recognizes and has adjusted covid reccomendations to reflect what is most benificial for people as a whole (stay home if sick, but no need to isolate yourself from everyone).

    Perfection is the enemy of the good and all that jazz.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      There needs to be more pushback on the idea that “if we only save one life, it’s worth it”. Everything has tradeoffs. Domestic violence went up because of lockdowns. So did a lot of other social ills.

      Was it worth that cost? Yes. Covid at the time was just that bad, and because we didn’t know enough about its infection factors, there were reasonable models that showed it could have been much, much worse than it was. However, that’s a tradeoff argument. Lockdowns did more good than harm. We shouldn’t pretend they did zero harm, and that idea that “if we only save one life” feeds into that.