But why were the people protesting the lock downs and business shutdowns and the limiting of freedoms the yahoos and crazy murderers? Why did nurses block them from protesting but not one would block someone now?
Science should not be a partisan topic. Mistakes get made, but those should be learning opportunities rather than a chance to discredit your "opponent".
Whether such outcome is desirable vs the trade-offs is not a scientific fact as desirability only exists in the minds of each individual.
Science has found no universal "utility" function that applies to all humans. As such its impossible for science to maximize utility, or in laymens terms "outcomes" globally for all humans. We must choose what we find important and there is no scientific tool to do so.
Once you've decided what's important sure you can apply science to help you make the best decisions to achieve that outcome.
The most science can tell you is what are the consequences of some act. Deciding if they are good or bad and if they are worth taking is a completely politic act.
Perhaps as we better understand the brain that may change.
This isn't a fair question, people will protest and go back to their lock down down life. Reopening is sustained interaction.
Why should anyone be criticised for denying this so-called "science" when the people who made it are now openly denying it as well?
There is no equivalent safety net for people who are victims of positional asphyxia.
This is a false dichotomy. Sure, these people (and their workers) deserve empathy and support, but that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to reopen. You can support business owners via financial aid or other measures while their business is closed.
If you believe that you get infected at a store, don't go to the store ... case closed. On what basis is the state "protecting" someone that does not want to be protected? On what basis is someone considered a criminal when a crime could only potentially be committed?
what if the person is immune to the disease, already had the disease, or does not mind getting infected?
Because we live in a society and our actions affect others. When you take this argument to an extreme it becomes pretty obvious that it is fallacious. For example, do you think it is okay for someone to actively burn their garbage, venting toxic smoke into their neighborhood because they are “willing to take the risk” of developing health complications?
> If you believe that you get infected at a store, don't go to the store
It would really nice if this worked but it strikes me as a grand oversimplification of how society operates and diseases spread.
> what if the person is immune to the disease, already had the disease, or does not mind getting infected?
These people still risk infecting others and perpetuating the pandemic, which is why you shouldn’t do it, even if you aren’t afraid for yourself.
Being obese? Smoking? After all, both of those are the direct result of your choices and less dependent on other people than getting a virus.
Most people say "Oh, that would never happen!" but if we have a time where rationing healthcare becomes the norm or even just vital, it will just as it did in Italy a few months back.
'you should support blm and adjacent causes from home through donating without putting more people and lives at risk'
Why is "Reopen all the things!" the only solution, though?
Part of the reason why people got angry is because none of the people involved around the cosplaytriots wanted to consider any other options, and there are many.
1) The fact that losing your job costs you your healthcare is a political problem. The government can decide to extend healthcare by fiat, expand access, or several other choices.
2) The fact that people weren't getting paid unemployment that they filed for is a problem.
3) If you really believed in choice, give people $2,000 per month unconditionally but allow them to choose whether they wish to go back to work. Now we can see the free market in action.
Instead, the only thing on the cosplaytriot protest agenda was "Stay home and die or get back to work and possibly die". That's not exactly a protest sentiment that's going to get much grass roots support.
Putting a gun to people's heads is going to make them angry.