I’m confused as to what yall are even trying to get him for

21

how many times did trump plead the 5th?

17

Anonymous #2 7w

They don't like that he made their orange god look like an idiot

12

Anonymous #4 7w

“There is a deadly infectious disease spreading” ARREST THAT MAN

22

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #2 7w

They need something to generate outrage in republican’s favor before the midterms

12

440+, actually!

13

Y’all were gonna try to find something to get him no matter what he answered

9

So the virus has a 1% fatality rate right. 1% of the US is 3.5 million people they should’ve all just taken one for the team so I can go to the bar 😔

21

Anonymous OP 7w

yeah, which is the entire reason he just took the 5th.

4

Anonymous #2 7w

Pete Hegseth, is that you?

11

In what way did lockdowns cause more harm than they prevented since you seem to know so much about viral diseases?

6

Anonymous OP 7w

educational setbacks, especially for those in formative years; trauma; perfect environment for social McCarthyism; affirmed government’s ability to justify restriction of fundamental freedoms (religious) using “social well-being”; general extreme mental decline

-1

Anonymous #5 7w

The best and most effective way to slow down the spread of a virus that a) we didn’t know as much about at the time and b) proved to be deadly especially for vulnerable populations was to limit exposure, only way of doing that was encouraging people to limit their outings to only the essential (you can argue that it was overreach, but I’d rather have public health officials err on the side of caution than be reckless with an unfamiliar disease)

5

Anonymous #5 7w

It’d be kind of hard to enjoy those freedoms you mentioned if you’re not, well, alive and healthy and not sick from a disease. Also, online school existed, and yes the transition was difficult in many places but it’s not like schools just stopped working (and if they did that’s more telling of the state of education than it is otherwise). Also, you can’t tell me that sitting your ass inside and playing video games was somehow more “traumatizing” than potentially having lost loved ones to covid

0

Anonymous OP 7w

Doesn’t make it any better, no matter how you downplay it LOL

-1

Anonymous #5 7w

bro does not know how many kids are addicted to Roblox and they had the best and worst reason to play nonstop

-1

Anonymous #5 7w

“We shouldn’t try to slow the spread of an infectious sometimes fatal disease because kids might get addicted to roblox”

7

Anonymous OP 7w

find a better way. Doesn’t matter if it was “oh we had to do this thing” consequences are still consequences.

-1

Anonymous #5 7w

You claimed the lockdowns caused more harm than good. Demonstrating that a particular decision/course of action simply has consequences doesn’t prove that the consequences outweigh the benefits.

4

Anonymous #3 7w

I’m thinking its side effects (if they aren’t the main effects) and the longer down the line precedent. If that’s not comprehendible to you that’s your problem

-1

Anonymous #5 7w

Substantiate your claim. You asserted that the harm caused by the lockdowns outweighs the harm they prevented, now back it up.

3

Anonymous #3 7w

you’re asking me to substantiate a philosophical principle? It speaks for itself. Sure you can save the Titanic, but then safety features which impact many lives after will not appear. Sure, you can say the quarantine saved a lot of people, but now you get the fallout where generations are educationally or socially stunted, AI and increased layoffs…

-1

Anonymous #5 7w

You made an affirmative claim that more harm than good was done. We have many statistical metrics that offer insight into the things you’ve spoken on.

1

Anonymous #3 7w

You seem not to understand. Provided everything I’ve said was true, there is not a standard comparison between mortality rate, and say, job layoffs or educational stunting. That’s where principles come in. Principles that inform whether or not something was worth it in the end. Job layoffs, AI increase and educational impacts are very well known and documented. There are no statistics for things with no statistical comparison. Are you saying what I said never happened?

-1

Anonymous #5 7w

No? I’m asking you to make any fucking argument as to why the harm outweighs the benefit, beyond simple proof by assertion.

5

Anonymous #3 7w

and what exactly are you looking for oh wise one

-1

Anonymous #5 7w

anything beyond just stating that consequences occurred lmao. I appreciate that there’s not an objective way to compare the impacts, but that doesn’t mean that a compelling case can’t be made. You said all the statistics are well documented, why don’t you use them to make an argument?

1

Anonymous #3 7w

Never said that. Anyways. https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentary/ec-202315-covid-19-and-education-an-updated-survey-of-the-research https://www.aecf.org/resources/2024-kids-count-data-book https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9489997/

1

Anonymous #5 7w

i have no way get those links lmao i hate this app

0

Anonymous #5 7w

last one is pretty interesting. Although these do come from early 2020s, particularly the educational one suggests long-lasting effects. Yes people died as a result from COVID. But I would argue that we were set back in a few ways during that period including between classes and education, and it is the people who were affected most by that who will in the future be deciding policy and participating electorally among the aftermath. Can’t say anything right now because that’s the far future, but

1

Anonymous #5 7w

I do not believe that someone who was impacted by that will consistently make well-rounded decisions, to put it lightly. I might also add that high levels of stress or uncertainty do increase disease risk for those people https://www.apa.org/topics/stress/body

1

Anonymous #3 7w

RIP

1

Anonymous #5 7w

So your argument is that we’ll likely have less educated people in government and deciding policy, so right wingers? We know that there’s a statistical correlation between education and progressivism, y’know, because of facts.

1

Anonymous #5 7w

But the stress and uncertainty would have happened regardless, and if anything would likely have been worse without lockdowns preventing transmission.

1

Anonymous #5 7w

If you can answer my question, how do we measure the effectiveness of the COVID Quarantine in the US, since, and correct me if I’m wrong, we don’t necessarily have a control of what would have happened in terms of what the quarantine intended to mitigate without it?

1

Anonymous #5 7w

I mean I agree that there were educational setbacks, but I’m just failing at the leap to categorically poor decision making. If that was your major concern, you’d back funding for education, because additional education would help people make better decisions, no?

1

Anonymous #3 7w

Those are what I can find with statistics and they are a bit mundane I agree. You could also, like I did before, argue that in practice the justification for some violations of freedoms for the sake of public safety can be abused. Imagine a scenario where an ideology, household product, or any other disease regardless of lethality can be used as justification for extensive mandates.

1

Anonymous #5 7w

I’m not an epidemiologist, so I can’t give you a full explanation, but we have mature statistical models that pretty accurately predict the spread and transmission of diseases, and we do have data prior to the lockdowns. we can also compare between regions that implemented lockdowns to different degrees, or at different times. It’s not a direct control vs study group comparison, but it still offers us information.

1

Anonymous #5 7w

But that’s a slippery slope argument.

1

Anonymous #3 7w

Well, are there initiatives? And if so, how effective have they been? I would be skeptical about that. Also have to remember that there are going to be socialization impacts and developmental especially if you were in kindergarten or K-5. Even though you could in theory teach all of that stuff you would still be far behind, and lacking in interpersonal communication can be isolating

1

Anonymous #3 7w

I mean, a common argument against abortion bans for example is how the ability of the government or state government to infringe upon bodily autonomy can set a precedent for future governments. Is that not the reasoning that is used when making policies?

1

Anonymous #5 7w

Yeah, I’ll acknowledge that socialization impacts are possible, but again, you haven’t offered me anything to show their scale, or that they have actually occurred in any large scale manner

1

Anonymous #5 7w

Legislation doesn’t set legally binding precedent, and I think that’s an outrageously stupid way to argue against abortion bans.

1

Anonymous #3 7w

Perhaps I misspoke. I meant that the affirmation of infringement on bodily autonomy opens up other fundamental rights to be infringed upon in the future using similar rhetoric or reasoning

1

Anonymous #5 7w

and I still think that’s a stupid argument. it’s speculative, and completely ignores that narrow infringement of rights can absolutely be justified in exceptional circumstances, such as a global pandemic.

1

Anonymous #3 7w

I suppose only time will tell. Come back in 15 years?

1