Well, you go first. ;-)
Post by twetch#10895
Those who are still hyper afraid can wait and remain extra cautious until they see that there still aren't bodies in the streets. I have been "going" this whole time.
What the chain says
- Block
- 632 373
- Time
- 2020-04-27T00:20:48Z
- Signer
- 1JPfyLjy6AqGiaiREZpe5xBqJcwmESYirr
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#10895
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1JPfyLjy6AqGiaiREZpe5xBqJcwmESYirr VerifiedReplies (6)
I don’t know. Some people are more vulnerable than others. Is it ethical to risk and short life of someone more vulnerable? Seems ethically wrong to me what the young & healthy Californian Epidemiologist said.
Well, is it ethically wrong to live and breathe when so many die every year of influenza a and b? Your fear-based reasoning I do not subscribe to, I am sorry. The second we are born we are guaranteed to one day die. This is an inevitable fact.
The say that patient x died not because of covid-19 but with, is maybe technical correct. But is it ethically right? I think it doesn’t matter if it shortens the life by a day, a week or a year.
“the empirical data is in…Back to… ” sound very wrong to me.
How do you expect anything to be right then? We are all mortal and we will all die sooner or later. It is not unethical to acknowledge that we are not immortal and that we do not have total control over life and death. Life guarantees death.
The delayed response, after a lot of ignorance over China’s & Italy’s drastic measure, was to win time for vaccine. Why is this not the common goal anymore? Why are they arguing now economically? What has changed? Your and my parents are still vulnerable.
They are vulnerable to a lot of things, they are old and frail. That is life, my friend. They were vulnerable before covid19 existed and will continue to be vulnerable to things other than covid19 until the day they depart. I will enjoy them while I can.