Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by nickthemagicman | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

nickthemagicman

Lockdown is different than a pill. Lockdown is more akin to a straight jacket.

A more accurate analogy is only 20% of the population 55 or up is vulnerable to cancer.

Now the government puts everyone in a straight jacket with no end in sight to keep that 20% safe.

Now substitute the word cancer for covid and straight jacket for lockdown.

More people die of car accidents yearly than died of covid in the 80% of the population that is below 55 years old.

The average death from covid is 80 years old with multiple comorbidities.

We appear to be totally fine as a society to let kids kill themselves to save unhealthy old people.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...

https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/

View on HN

Doing something that affects the suicide rate in very complicated ways is not being "fine" with kids killing themselves.

And if you're going to compare potential covid deaths to car deaths then you should compare suicide to car deaths too.

Were people that unaware to not expect covid restrictions to have massive corollary side effects like inflation, increase suicides, massive evictions, increases in homelessness, massive loss of small businesses, addiction increases, and countless more social problems....

This article about suicides are just one of many in a massive list of side effects from questionable government overreach into our lives.

Everyone but the rich are going to pay for this lockdown in numerous ways for the foreseeable future.

The problem is that a lot of people dying or suffering permanent damage will cause a big list of problems too.

And can motivate suicides!

Also the numbers in your analysis are totally forgetting the part about hospitals getting overwhelmed and death rates spiking.

> Everyone but the rich are going to pay for this lockdown in numerous ways for the foreseeable future.

Well, let's take more of their money to fix basic societal problems like lack of housing and addiction treatment.

Not a single hospital was overwhelmed in the United States.

Please provide a source for that and not just a source that says 'near capacity'.

E.R.s constantly operate 'near capacity'.

> Well, let's take more of their money

So use the government to fix the problems that the government created?

That makes as much sense as wanting to increase government regulations but defund police to enforce those new regulations.

Are you trying to assert that hospitals wouldn't have been overwhelmed if we didn't lock down at all? Even the people that wanted to go with the 'let everyone get sick for herd immunity' plan weren't going that far!

> That makes as much sense as wanting to increase government regulations but defund police to enforce those new regulations.

...what's the contradiction? You don't enforce regulations with police.

Using police for the wrong job is half of the problem that "defund the police" is trying to address.

If it's so plain and clear, please post the evidence that lockdowns prevented hospitals from being overwhelmed.

Meanwhile, in Texas all Covid restrictions were lifted in March... and no co-oresponding surge in infections were recorded, infections decrease to record lows actually..only 16% had received first dose of vaccine, TX was 48th in vaccination rates.

Florida and other states had similar results when they lifted restrictions.

From here the evidence appears to be in favor of lockdowns having no effect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com