It's being taken for granted that nearly everybody (Cuomo just said 80%) is going to get it, so it doesn't make sense to get angry at someone for increasing your risk of catching it. The efforts to slow the spread are about giving the healthcare system time to cope. So, yes, people are being antisocial if they don't follow the rules but it's not sane to treat it like you're personally being assaulted. This isn't ebola or HIV.
> The efforts to slow the spread are about giving the healthcare system time to cope. So, yes, people are being antisocial if they don't follow the rules but it's not sane to treat it like you're personally being assaulted. This isn't ebola or HIV.
No. It should be treated as attempted mass murder. Because this is what it boils down to: one idiot causing a bunch of deaths downstream, plus some more by contributing to overloading healthcare.
The impact of global warming is estimated at 150,000 fatalities[1] per year currently, which so far is significantly more than the epidemic. Do you think that automobile drivers should be treated as "attempted mass murderers"? It is even the same people telling us about that and coronavirus - the WHO.
This is a false equivalence and you and everyone else who keeps making it know it. It makes zero sense to say that the current number of deaths is less than deaths from climate change or cars because those deaths aren't (at the moment) rapidly increasing exponentially. Do you think the deaths will just magically stop? What people apparently forget is that mortality rates jump (for everything) when your healthcare system collapses, as it did in Northern Italy, as it is about to in New York, and as it will everywhere else in a week or two because of flippant attitudes like yours.
It's equivalent in a very limited, specific sense in that anyone who literally regards people as mass murderers for contributing a tiny amount to the problem is psychotic, in my opinion. Of course, everyone in this thread is just trying to be edgy, I'm 99% certain.
Whether the number is more or less is irrelevant. The point is that people contribute a small increment in probability to a collective problem that is significant, and treating it as a personal issue is wrong.
Being concerned about the collective risk should make you less concerned about your personal risk, otherwise you aren't really collectively oriented.
It's not a small increment in probability. If you're a carrier and start going around meeting people, you're directly causing a huge increment in probability of them being infected - and then recursively smaller increments in people downstream.
