Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rdPedalAddict
I saw that there were two types of people back in Feb. There were the people more focused on individual loss of life and then there were people who were more focused on the economy. I would say that the latter are a group of people that look at the broader picture and take up a mentality of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". I'm not saying that one is better than the other but I don't think "naïve" would be the right description for this group.....
|
I don't see how preventing crashing the entire hospital system counts as looking after the needs of the few. You are in denial, thinking this is just about losing grandma. True it is a modest mortality rate, but if 70% of us get it, and it has a 1% mortality rate, then we lose about 2.4 million (and with that many sick, nobody will be on a vent, so the 1% rate is even more optimistic).
But that's not the big issue. We aren't just talking about flu patients dying, it will be the whole hospital system that gets taken down. I'd rather deal with out of work people than try to live without hospitals (and I think referring to them as "homeless, destitute, no future job prospects, dying of starvation" might be a little overdramatic, if they weren't there already).