Button wrote:...as I understand it, this corona virus can be spread human-to-human but it's mostly unknown (here and in the US) which humans are healthy and which unhealthy and, even, how the latter are doing it. So there's a series of nested risks: that I come across such a human, contract the virus, develop COVID19, pass it on in my turn and die. I don't know the likelihood associated with those risk events, but death strikes me as quite a severe potential outcome.
That's all as may be, B. But it doesn't begin to address the question of how 'slowing the spread' requires the imposition of wholesale economic distress and the confinement and infantilization of the healthy. There's zero evidence to show what effect it has, if any.
Ref #398. RM, yes, 'caution...should be the watchword'. I agree. It should have been from the very beginning. But forcing business closures, throwing people out of jobs, building up debt and pauperising us for years to come, depriving the healthy and the not-so-healthy of liberty and the latter of care, forbidding social and familial contact, increasing mental illness... If you think this is 'caution', then I imagine you also have a counter-intuitive understanding of what 'reckless' amounts to.