Torisakia wrote:San Lumen wrote:
And you would be removed from office or voted out in a landslide after you destroyed your state or countries economy and bankrupted nearly every business and your state or country, destroyed everyone’s savings and overall made the Great Depression look prosperous. The effects of such an idea are simply not worth the cost.
Years from now you’d be asked: what did it cost? And your response? Everything
The hardest choices require the strongest wills.
And besides, that wouldn't make me the worst Alabama governor ever. George Wallace still existed.San Lumen wrote:I well aware of that but some seem to think a two year shutdown is feasible
But I fear that at some point it may be our only choice. But even then it wouldn't matter because: if we keep everything shut down people will starve and die, but if we open everything up people will get the virus and die. We're stuck.Rojava Free State wrote:
South Korea and Taiwan are proof that a lockdown is only necessary when you have no alternatives. Widespread testing could keep this disease down.
Assuming we had the ability and wherewithal to do widespread testing. Just because two countries can do it doesn't mean every country can.
Your solution is totally unfeasible. We’d be better off ending all restrictions tomorrow not that I am calling for that. The Economic damage would not worth it and at some point people would stop listening