You’re missing two key points:
1. COVID was always going to become endemic to humans.
2. Young people are part of society — and you’re blatantly disregarding harm to them in your appeal to the “health of my society”.
1. COVID was always going to become endemic to humans.
2. Young people are part of society — and you’re blatantly disregarding harm to them in your appeal to the “health of my society”.
And so I can ask the same question, why are you disregarding the harm done to them (them being the young people)?
The purpose of the lockdown wasn't to prevent deaths, it was to prevent the hospital systems collapsing.
>it was to prevent the hospital systems collapsing
Can you please apply this logic a little further as to what would occur if the hospital systems collapsed? Do you want me to spell it out for you?
It would have also prevented scaling of health systems due to a distinct and dramatic shortage in staffing and long term backlog.
The decision above was purely economic. You would have to be really stupid to think the people in charge would shut down trillion dollar industries because the parents of some children died.
None of that is what could be derived or implied from your statement you condescending prick. If that is what you were implying, maybe you should get a better grasp of English so that your point could come across clearer.
>The decision above was purely economic.
I think it's hyperbolic to say that it was purely economic. Everything we do has some connection to the economy. Everyone in this thread, including myself, is basically making an economic argument facaded by an emotional one. But to say it's purely economic forgets the connection we have with people and the reason why we want the hospitals to be open for people who need care. A real sort of "collapse" happened for some rural family members. They don't have a hospital for their whole county and have to rely on another county's hospital. After they ran out of beds, the people in that town just had to wait and hope whatever ailment they had could be resolved elsewhere.
Back to the economy, obviously bad mental health has long lasting effects and that has secondary effects on the economy. I'm not so sure the alternative, the one where everything is kept open, would have worked. The "hospitals will collapse" scare tactic was only one aspect of what would have been a much larger collapse. Not just economic, but societal.
>You would have to be really stupid to think the people in charge would shut down trillion dollar industries because the parents of some children died.
You mean the hospitals? With a health system collapse, they just wouldn't be able to handle a lot of cases like you said. It wouldn't shut down in the sense that it would be 100% ineffective, just that
Young people are part of society so they are obligated to protect it.
I participate in two communities - one that completely ignores COVID (except for a couple months at the very very beginning). They don't test, they don't care if someone is positive. Lots of people are vaccinated, but lots aren't (they all had COVID, they can't think of any reason to get vaccinated since they already are immnune).
And another one that is freaked out about COVID, mask wearing, vaccine or you are excluded from everything, social distancing, keep everything closed.
Somehow the longterm death rate is the same in both - except for those first few months. But the mental health in the open community is far better.
It's over. COVID is over. It's time to stop closing everything. Take the vaccine (or don't if that's the risk you chose to take), and stop this meaningless theater.
So why am I supposed to give more of a shit about your anecdote than my experience again?
>It's over. COVID is over. It's time to stop closing everything.
Uh we know. We’re talking about what happened in the past. Everyone has been using past tense verbs.
> Young people are part of society so they are obligated to protect it.
The point is that the part of society being protected is largely confined to older parts of the population, while much of the costs of doing so are disproportionately coming down on younger people. It's easy to say "do your part to protect society", but when the part of society being protected is the mental, social, and emotional development and well being of young people, as well as technical skills and future job prospects, older people seemingly have no problem casting it aside for what benefits them the most.
Either way, I didn't say anything about eliminating the virus. Hospital systems are still at risk of being overwhelmed... that's why restrictions are still in place.
You're acting like younger people are the only people affected by the restrictions.
> You're acting like younger people are the only people affected by the restrictions.
I’m not, but I’m saying the calculus of restrictions only makes sense for the older parts of society. Younger people are getting a raw deal. They are far less financially secure, established in their careers, their education, their social lives, and even in their personal development. Immense damage is being done in all of these areas to protect society from a disease that isn’t actually a threat to the young in any large degree. Older generations are sacrificing less due to the restrictions, but are reaping all of the benefits. This is especially galling considering the availability of effective vaccines that prevent severe disease and death, meaning that whatever risk does exist for these older generations is largely mitigated for them except for those who refuse vaccination.
So yes, it is enormously selfish for our society to throw young people under the bus to protect the most selfish portion of older, more well-to-do generations who refuse to protect themselves.