> a measure that would kill the fossil fuel industry
Increasing the cost of flights by 8%, and by doing so, killing the source of fuel for those flights sounds like economic Armageddon.
Increasing the cost of flights by 8%, and by doing so, killing the source of fuel for those flights sounds like economic Armageddon.
The main topic of this thread is saving humanity from adverse man-made climate change. We are also talking about saving millions here.
We now have examples from all around the globe. China's super strict approach seems like it sort of worked for a while, but even they had cases.
The US is 91 million of the 584 million cases identified so far. It's ~5% of the global population with pretty low density outside of, what, 3 cities? Truly embarrassing that one of the wealthiest G8 countries can't handle outbreaks of any sort — to the point that NY has identified hundreds of polio cases for the first time in a decade.
It's not going to be pretty if the US faces another outbreak of something that kills and cripples the way that polio did just a few generations ago. I'm not convinced the answer then won't be the same, except now instead of sacrificing grandma we can place anyone on the altar of capital.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
Click on deaths per 100,000
Draw your own conclusions.
No, they didn't. This has been studied six ways from Sunday. They had no effect.
"Probably millions"
Lol. If you're an epidemiologist, sure, they love fantasy numbers like this.
Actual numbers of lives saved are probably negative, given the apparent absence of any impact on case numbers combined with the poverty and loss of access to healthcare they created.
Public health measures didn't put your family in poverty. The lack of any social safety net in the US did. Stimulus should have gone to people directly and not companies, but that's communism or something.
Maybe in hindsight the pandemic could get us thinking about why it’s a bad idea to tie health insurance to employment? Or the idea that shelter is contingent on laboring. It costs more to have people suffering and it makes everyone less safe needlessly.
Everything you said was absolutely true, but nothing was done about it, even with a 2+ year plague that killed over a million people in the US. The only person with a plan was not elected; he didn't even win the primary. I'm not overly optimistic about change.
No. If the government had not locked down, their family would not have slipped into extreme poverty. Simple as.
They very obviously did do that, and attempts to deny their impact is a form of "socialism washing".
"Stimulus should have gone to people directly and not companies, but that's communism or something."
Great plan. Give people printed money so prices all immediately rise, and then forcibly destroy all the organizations that produce things, ensuring prices immediately rise again. Yes, printing money and giving it directly to people whilst the economy gets shut down IS in fact communism, which is why we are now dealing with the consequent poverty. And it was all for nothing, because the public health measures didn't have any effect.
It will also incentivize people to find better sources of fuel, and invent better aircraft.
We can chose something that is less perfect, but does not result in Armageddon. Solutions that are as bad or worse than the problem are a very hard sell.
Which 'solution' is as bad?