|Date:||6/1/2020 3:14:09 PM|
depends where you live, but 'suspending all civil liberties' is consistent with forced house arrest and mandatory stoppage of all economic activity not deemed 'essential' in the eyes of an 'authority'.
That aside, if you use the argument that 'it could've been worse' here, you have to accept it elsewhere too. Do you think its possible your risk profile was different for this than for other threats? Like, by the same token you must support absolutely revolutionary climate action = i.e. immediate cessation of fossil fuels.
I also think you are discounting how much we already knew about the virus. We already knew the demographics of who it killed, for example. The explicit concern was not outright lethality, it was preservation of hospital capacity - which turned out to be a completely overblown fear.
If the story was consistent with your understanding, as soon as it became apparent that hospital/ventilator capacity was not an issue in North America, policy would've been adjusted.
But it wasn't - because those are all after-the-fact rationalizations , It doesnt appear to matter when they become discredited????