The Boomer remover!!! Should grandparents sacrifice their safety for the economy? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The Boomer remover!!! Should grandparents sacrifice their safety for the economy?
in Politics

By piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
Lt Governor of Texas Dan Patrick claims that we should forget any social distancing measures to deal with the corona virus, and grandparents should be willing to sacrifice their safety for the sake of the economy. Is Mr Patrick correct about his assertions, and if you believe he is, will you still believe he is in two to four weeks when corona virus cases are expected to rise significantly and cripple our medical infrastructure?    
AlofRI
  1. Live Poll

    Should grandparents sacrifice their safety for the economy?

    6 votes
    1. Yes. Boomers are past their prime, and they have a not so nice smell to them.
      33.33%
    2. No. They still know how to cook better than us.
      66.67%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 25
    I honestly think that the way to deal with this, considering seemingly extremely low death rates (given that the overwhelming majority of people with the virus likely have not even reported to a clinic), is to ignore all the rules and go ahead and live the regular life. Let everyone contract the virus and develop immunity to it, and if 0.01% of the total population dies as a result - well, it is better than 100% of the population being stuck in a box for many months over a minuscule change of being affected by some virus.

    Nature was never supposed to be fair. This sterile approach in the modern Western society stating that the entire world should come to a halt in order to save some lives from the dangers of nature is very much against the free spirit this society owes its success to.
    PlaffelvohfenHappy_Killbotlj123xlJ_dolphin_473CYDdharta
  • TKDBTKDB 538 Pts
    The Lt Governor of Texas Dan Patrick isn't fit for his public office.

    I believe he will be voted out of office, because of his individual radical rhetoric.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Do you believe you'll feel the same in two to four weeks? The peak of the virus has not hit yet. Our hospitals are going to be overcome with sick patients, and it's not like everybody who gets the virus can just ignore it. Are you arguing we should close the hospitals for the next three months? Keep in mind, the full scope of the virus has not landed in most parts of the country.  
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    @TKDB

    He claims his individual radical rhetoric is inspired by donald trump who says he doesn't want the cure to be worse than the disease. The president is claiming that we need to go back to work now. Mr patrick's argument is just an extension of mr trumps policy. 
  • @MayCaesar

    What happens if a new strain evolves and everyone who had immunity gets sick again, but this time the death rates are higher?

    a 2- 4% death rate on the global population is already more than both world wars combined, including civilian deaths, and that is assuming there is only a single wave and no new strains develop.
    piloteer
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    @MayCaesar @Happy_Killbot

    It is believed that there's a good chance this could turn into a seasonal virus that will effect us every year. And just like the flu, a vaccination could not cure it because there would be several different strains worldwide, and it would be in a constant state of mutation.  
    Happy_KillbotxlJ_dolphin_473
  • TKDBTKDB 538 Pts
    @piloteer

    And I don't support President Trumps opinion, on the U.S. citizens going back to work by the 12th of next month either.

    This why I'm an Independent.

    I'm pro Public, and not pro Conservative, or pro Liberal.
    piloteer
  • AlofRIAlofRI 552 Pts
    piloteer said:
    Lt Governor of Texas Dan Patrick claims that we should forget any social distancing measures to deal with the corona virus, and grandparents should be willing to sacrifice their safety for the sake of the economy. Is Mr Patrick correct about his assertions, and if you believe he is, will you still believe he is in two to four weeks when corona virus cases are expected to rise significantly and cripple our medical infrastructure?    
    I'm PRE-Boomer, people say I'm a great cook and I use Brute so I smell nice too. I'm not planning on being anyone's sacrifice right now and I won't go without a fight! Stuff the economy!
    piloteer
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    What happens if a new strain evolves and everyone who had immunity gets sick again, but this time the death rates are higher?

    a 2- 4% death rate on the global population is already more than both world wars combined, including civilian deaths, and that is assuming there is only a single wave and no new strains develop.
    And what happens if a new strain evolves and everyone who had immunity became immortal? What happens if a new strain evolves and everyone dies regardless of any quarantines? What happens if people in Russia get sick from all the quarantines, overrun the government and in frustration initiate a Third World War? What happens if aliens, observing it all, decide that we are incapable of ruling ourselves and colonise us by brutal means?
    We can think of hypothetical horror scenarios all day long, ultimately deciding that there are too many dangers in life and we are doomed anyway.
    Or we can just act based on what we know and not come up with random hypothetical scenarios that may or may not happen in reality.

    There is no 2-4% death rate; the vast majority of people who just had some cold never reported to any doctors. I do not care about quarantines and just live my life; I had a cold a couple of weeks ago for a day. Maybe I have already gone through the virus and developed immunity, yet nobody will ever know whether this is the case, including me. How do we account for such cases in our calculations?
    There is also the fact that not everyone who is affected by a virus tests positively on it, for various reasons - there is no magical way to determine very accurately whether you are contaminated or not by viruses without explicit symptoms, that, in turn, may be attributable to many different things.
    There is survival analysis in mathematical statistics, a very complicated field. Many people do not know that, but it is actually extremely hard to scientifically determine the primary cause behind someone's death in most cases. It is very easy to falsely attribute it to something seemingly obvious, however, such as a virus.

    I will repeat the same thing as I have said many times before, based on my understanding of real life statistics: the problem seems largely made up, and putting the entire humanity to a halt for months over it makes little sense. And even if the problem was as bad as the scaremongers suggest, it still would be a poor reason to do so. Humans have been dealing with natural hardships since the dawn of time, and now we are equipped to deal with them better than ever - yet it is now that we should hide at homes like scared rabbits? I do not think so and personally am going to ignore all quarantines. I will be travelling across the country next week, and unless they issue hard highway lockdowns with tanks, my plans will not be affected.

    When talking about such issues in general, I do not think it rational to hide from the world in any but the most extreme cases, when the entire humanity is being wiped out by some apocalypse. But, of course, everyone makes their own decisions on how much risk they are going to accept. What they do not have the right to make decisions about is how much risks others are allowed to accept. If someone does not want to interact with me out of a fear of a virus, they are free to do so - but they do not get to mandate that I do not interact with other consenting individuals.
    In Germany they outlawed gatherings of more than 2 people... That is as totalitarian a law as it gets and cannot be justified by anything.
    Josh_Drake
  • piloteerAlofRI
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TKDBTKDB 538 Pts
    edited March 25
    The National problems with the coronavirus?

    A lot of the Millinial spring breakers were boozing it up, and chasing parties, one after the other, and ignored the, "Social Distancing," conversation.

    So if some of those brave souls get sick, it's on THEM, for being Millinially hard headed, for putting their parting lifestyle chasing, above their own lives, and the lives of those that they could hypothetically infect, because of some of them becoming carriers of the Coronavirus?


    So good job to those Millinial party chasing individuals, you've raised yourselves wonderfully, you self parented individuals?

    Because the virus came from Wuhan China, and China dragged its feet in being honest with the rest world, for how many weeks or months?

    So now New York, is a hotspot in the U.S. (for the Coronavirus,) because apparently that city is an international through-way hub for the rest of the country?

    And then apparently some of those New Yorkers who became carriers of the Virus, went to other parts of the country, helping to create additional Coronavirus areas as well?

    The tourist money, that the Chinese make off of the International tourists?
    The spring break money, that some of the businesses in Florida, make off of the Spring Break tourists?
    And the inhumane disregard, that some of Humanity in general has displayed for the rest of the elderly humanity around it, is showing the rest of humanity, exactly how much more important, that "Money, and Partying, and Price Gouging," is to those humans who ignored common decency for profit?

    Communism just took on a whole new meaning thanks to Wuhan China, and the outbreak of the Coronavirus.

    And the terms "Self Respect, Common Courtesy, Respect, and Humanity," have all been redefined through how some of humanity, has inhumanely treated other's globally?

    The Elderly around around the globe, deserve better, than how they've been currently treated?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 26
    @Happy_Killbot

    I thought my post was very clear, but let me summarise it in a set of bullet points.
    1. Taking preventive measures over hypothetical scenarios that do not have to occur is impractical.
    2. The current crisis is severely exaggerated in the public; particularly the death rates are nowhere near as high as the reported ones, and nobody seems to want to correct for that. It is the most basic principle in statistics: in order to make a statistical claim, you have to account for imperfect reporting effects.
    3. Even if the crisis was not exaggerated, I do not think that hiding at homes is the way to respond to it. It could be if humanity's existence was at stake, but there is no evidence to suggest that that is the case.
    4. The governments should not abuse their power in order to save some lives.
    I may be wrong about all of it, but I have never been so far in similar situations and do not expect to be in this case either.
    Josh_Drake
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    You have not, and most likely everybody you know has not been in any situations that are similar to this one. It has been demonstrated that this virus is worse than any seasonal flu that has been seen since 1918. The death rates still have the potential to kill as many or more people that have died as a result of world war two (that includes the deaths from the holocaust).

     It's also been demonstrated that a vigorous quarantine policy can work to limit the number of deaths by easing the strain that is put on the medical community as a result of the virus. It's also been shown that ignoring the effects of the virus can cripple a medical system and decimate entire communities, and even entire regions. The results from those decimations can destroy an economy from top to bottom which will result in an even higher death rate, which in turn will solidify the destruction of an economy. That economic destruction can happen in a developed nation just as easily as it can in a third world country.

    Most people outside of Italy do not realize the extent of the impact there yet. Some people are saying that life for the people of Italy has been changed forever, and they may not recover from this impact for many generations. Italy was one of the largest economies on earth before the corona virus, it is still yet to be seen whether they will ever be able to come back to that status in any of our lifetimes. This may have the potential of becoming a global disaster that rivals world war two, both in death rates, and in terms of the economic impact. The coming weeks will show us the true nature of the impact, as they are still yet to be seen in the US or the UK.           
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @piloteer

    I would not make claims about what situations someone you have never met has been in. You might encounter someone who has gone through multiple civil wars and secret police oppression and have to eat up your words.

    It is not a question of numbers to me, it is a question of principles. I am not a pro-society kind of guy; I do not care about society and only care about individuals. If half the society has to collapse so the individuals are free, then so be it. I can survive the resulting chaos; I have been through a lot of stuff in my life and emerged victorious. And if I am downed as a result, well, I will go down with a song.

    Come at me, little viruses! Let us play!
    piloteerJosh_Drake
  • @MayCaesar

    I understood your points just fine, I just don't understand why.

    If there was a 2% chance that you would die, the only rational course of action is to do everything possible to minimize that value. You think we send warships to sea if there is a 2% chance they will be lost? Do you think we would send soldiers into conflict if they were not to protect greater US civilian casualties? Consider that all the US soldiers who gave their lives during WWII were only about 0.3% of the US population.

    That's what this is, it is a bigger deal than WWI, a bigger deal than WWII, a bigger deal than 911. 

    Now you are trying to compare that to a 2% civilian death rate in the US and you don't think that is a big deal, which quite frankly may be higher than that. If you do the math on the numbers from
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
    490,271 cases globally, 22,156 deaths, 118,060 recovered.

    Yields nearly a 16% death rate when active cases are ignored, meaning there is a 16% chance.
    If we combine everything, we get about a 3.5% chance of death.

    The 2% is the conservative estimate which professionals have calculated.

    This is all assuming it remains in a steady state and doesn't mutate into a more deadly form, which isn't just some hypothetical but something very real that could very actually happen in reality. In fact it has already happened, as far as we know there are two strains which exist, and there could be more produced at any time. Viruses evolve. 

    If you think that the virus isn't that bad because you are looking at china and using that data, you would be in error because China implemented draconian measures to handle the virus. The US thus far has been slow to respond and start testing which on the whole is going to slow the response. If there is a new virus in the US, then it becomes a global threat. Consider that we have shut down trade in response, but who do you think will want to do business with the US in the future if we are a potential hazard to the lives of the people in their country?

    Make no mistake, this is war. Sitting and doing nothing about it isn't the answer (yes I see the irony here because technically that is the answer) we need knowledgeable professionals to take control of the situation for everyone's benefit. We can not all be masters of everything, so it is imperative that we rely on those who know the most in times where their expertise is desirable. That doesn't mean handing over power to them permanently, but it does mean trusting that they want the best and are capable of achieving it.
    lj123
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    The devil is in the details; think about what "to do everything possible" means, truly.
    This is not how practical decision-making works. In practice you make a decision on what degree of risk you are willing to tolerate given the expected reward. What chance to die are you willing to tolerate and in exchange to what benefits? I personally have a very high risk tolerance, which costed me dearly on numerous occasions, but I have never regretted my stance. I prefer to live like every day is my last one, and if it actually happens to be the last one, then, at least, I will have no regrets in life.
    Other people are free to make their own choices. If someone wants to sit at home, let them.

    2% death rate is an illusion; it is 2% for the people who have reported to hospital, and it also includes all people who were going to die due to various health conditions anyway and just happened to contract the virus at the end.
    What I see in these analyses is a horrible misuse of basic statistics, and it is truly spectacular how virtually no one comes forward and calls it out.

    Why do people like so much talking for "us"? There is no "we". You guys do all you want to contain the situation, but you do not speak for everyone; certainly not for me. I am not warring with anything or anyone, and I am not interested in being a soldier in your wars. You wage your wars; just leave me to my devices while you are doing so, just as I leave you to yours.

    Well, I look forward to seeing how the knowledgeable professionals in the White House will save the world. I am surprised that they have earned your trust, given how much you have criticised them so far... Curious how crises change public perceptions.
    Josh_Drake
  • TKDBTKDB 538 Pts
    edited March 26
    @Happy_Killbot

    @piloteer

    @AIofRI

    @Plaffelvohfen

    @MayCaesar

    The truth is, anyone of us, could be a carrier, of the Coronavirus, couldn't we?

    And maybe some of us, already have an immunity to the Coronavirus, but we just don't know it yet?

    And I think that eventually, we'll all get tested for the Coronavirus, once the initial testing gets done, for those who have been affected by the virus, already and currently.

    And I think that after a year or so globally that humanity overall will have a better understanding when it comes to the Coronavirus.

    But at the same time, I think that this virus, is going to do its thing, if some continue to ignore washing their hands, and ignore the Social Distancing dialogue?

    Or if some, fail to educate the Public, in a timely manner, like China did initially?

    Because it seems to me, that when China, apparently, and purposefully chose to sit on the information about the outbreak of the Coronavirus, while it was getting going initially, China gave the Coronavirus the advantage, and placed the rest of the Global, at a disadvantage.

    Because, those yearly tourism dollars, I guess, was apparently their primary focus, instead of educating the rest of the Globe, about the Coronavirus outbreak, in a timely manner?




  • @MayCaesar

    You got it all backwards, we are not talking about reward here, we are talking about loss minimization, so you have to apply the negative because the "reward" is negative.

    The correct answer is you always minimize the risks no matter what (unless you are a psychopath) especially when your choices put other people's lives at risk. In this case, by going out into public, you can potentially harm other people. So the question is not: "What risk are you willing to take for your own life" it is "What risk are you willing to take for everyone else's life" No one is an island.

    I showed you the numbers, it is more like a 16% death rate for those admitted to the hospital. 

    If you are willing to put other people's lives in danger for personal gain (not even gain because everything just stays the same) then you are a danger to everyone else. This is criminal. If you really want to be an island, we are going to have to throw you off the ship.

    The idiots in the white house (more like the singular) certainly don't have my trust. The real experts don't really have the power at all, they have proxy power through elected officials. These officials could decide they don't care about what the experts have to say, and the POTUS certainly doesn't. I have been an advocate for a more technocratic approach to governance for most of my adult life, and frankly to me this seems rather obvious, that the people who know what they are talking about should have jurisdiction in the areas for which they are knowledgeable. This is not a change in my perception at all, far from it. You might even say this is a prime example of what I advocate for in practice.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • lj123lj123 63 Pts
    Why would anybody want to put lives at risk because of our economy. The economy will recover over time, it may take decades but lets not forget that this is a global problem. all economies will get weaker so if America still have the highest economy after this pandemic passes then that top spot will be considered high. To say that Britain has a high economy is all well and good but the proof that it is true is that it is high relative to most other countries. In that situation to have a low economy would be the standard, the average. the economy is relative to other factors. It is not just the figure it is displayed as. The process of calculating an economy involves many factors including business rates. For example, if all of F.A.M.G suffered in a business crisis but all other rates stayed the same the American economy would suffer a huge hit. You could let lots of people die now and save the economy, and then the next week there could be a huge wall in the pound and the economy would crash anyway. It still happened but you let people die as well. The economy can be recovered or nothing could happen. Lives can't be recovered. when somebody is dead that is it. you will never see them face to face again meaning that the economy will stay the same until they all die and the crash still happens but people die anyway.letting someone die for your own self interest is the same as robbing a shop and killing the shopkeeper. It is manslaughter and the last time I checked the law book, manslaughter leaves you in prison for 8+ years. I find the mere suggestion of this irrational and I think you will find yourself quite upset if someone you knew died because you let them. 

    In conclusion I have one statement to make. The economy can recover in a matter of days but when a life is lost it is gone forever there is no coming back ever. Think about that when you next see an elderly person.
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    **** If you are willing to put other people's lives in danger for personal gain (not even gain because everything just stays the same) then you are a danger to everyone else. 

    Great point , I totally agree. Incidentally full marks to you H as you called this correctly a few months back I presumed it was just the flu on steroids after consultation with my neighbour a heart surgeon who lectures twice a year in the Mayo Clinic I’ve revised my opinion.

    I like you have a duty to other members of the public , if I get it I may recover but it’s completely selfish for me to presume that those who come in contact with me will be so lucky.

    I go for a long walk daily but cross the road when people approach most people are adopting the same attitude as in “assume everyone has it “ .

    I ask anyone to take a look at the videos from hospital wards worldwide if they seek illumination on how dangerous this is 
    Happy_Killbot
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 26
    @Happy_Killbot ;

    No, this is not how it works at all. You can almost always minimise the risks to nearly 0 by taking extremely paranoid precautions, but you do not do it, because the rewards from taking various unsafe actions are much higher in your eyes than the corresponding risks.
    Every time you get behind the wheel, you increase the risk to your health by a very large factor statistically, compared to if you just walked - yet that does not stop you, does it?
    There are always risks. The question is how much risk you are willing to tolerate and in exchange for what. For me personally a 2%, a 3.5% and even a 16% (all of these numbers are greatly exaggerated) risk is not enough to lock myself up at home for months (a 25-30% risk level is where I would probably draw the line). I will have enough time to enjoy being locked up when I am placed in a coffin one day, but for now I prefer to live a full life.

    I am not taking any risks for any other people; all people take risks for themselves. If I go outside and someone chooses to sit at home, then I do not endanger their life in any way. And if I go outside and someone else goes outside, then we both are willingly risking our lives; everything is completely voluntary.
    If even highly intelligent and somewhat liberty-oriented people like you think that this should be considered criminal, then the state of freedom in the world is much worse than I previously thought. This crisis has taught me a lot about the current state of humanity.

    But we do not live in a technocratic society and have to play with the cards we are dealt. Do you still want these people to take an incredible amount of extra power in order to handle the situation? Do you think Trump will let go of that power easily? A bit more pragmatism would be helpful; thinking about a beautiful Utopian world where the government exists solely to benefit people is nice, but does not make a difference in the real world.
    Josh_Drake
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    @TKDB

    ****  China gave the Coronavirus the advantage, and placed the rest of the Global, at a disadvantage.

    The doctors who broke the story were severely reprimanded the Chinese government have since apologised, how was the rest of the world “disadvantaged” as it was going to spread anyway 

    look at your presidents disgraceful continual downplaying of this virus why do you not condemn him?
  • lj123lj123 63 Pts
    @MayCaesaryouo first statement sounded communist and as if you don't care if people die. Well let me put it this way if all your friends and family died because of your selfish behaviour how would you feel. How would you feel if because of your actions two percent of the global population died. Thats a lot of manslaughter by the way, 150 million people, I think that you would be spending around 16million lifetimes in prison if you went back that far in time you would reach the Mesozoic era. Would you want that even if you don't care about all those people you have indirectly killed and only care about yourself? Answer me that.
    CYDdharta
  • @Dee

    Just for the record, 2 months ago I was right for all the wrong reasons. My perception then was that the virus wasn't that deadly but was spreading fast and debilitating, and that the actual cases probably outnumbered the total reported cases based on the disparity between the actions taken by China such as constructing an entirely new hospital and physically blocking roads into and out of Wuhan. I figured it would most likely get to the US but I didn't think that it would be much worse than the H1N1 pandemic of a few years ago.

    It wasn't until there was evidence of catastrophic economic damage about a month ago that the full ugly reality came into perspective, coupled with the nature of the disease itself being a far greater threat than H1N1 was. The death rate isn't even the worst part, it is the fact that the nature of the virus limits symptoms allowing it to spread undetected. This means that someone could in their indignation, spread the disease far and wide before they knew they should do anything to not spread the virus. I have been expecting an economic down turn for some time, and I am still conflicted on whether we should trust those who claim that the virus has all to blame or those who believe that the virus was merely the trigger that started this economic avalanche.

    The end result is that I made all the correct calls, even though my reasons for doing so were not perfectly in line with the reality. There is knowledge to be gained from mistakes, but that does not nullify the need to learn from success. All things considered, China's response to the outbreak could be considered proficient at curtailing the spread, however they could have done even better if the Communist party had not suppressed the doctors who first reported the disease. Thus we can conclude that there is a fine balancing point between individual freedoms and expression, and collective safety.
    Dee
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @lj123

    If I only cared about myself, then of course I would want that: the less people there are, the less competition I have. As one fictional character said, "Every time someone dies and it is not me, my chances to survive increase".

    I do not know how I would feel if someone died because of me; it has never happened, and I cannot predict my feelings in a given situation until I actually go through it and see what comes up.
    I probably would not be devastated, however, as I have a very philosophical relationship with death. We all die eventually, and once you internalise it and realise that after death there is no pain, you realise that death is nothing special and is just a fact of life. Never been big on all the societal rituals surrounding death, such as mourning, grieving, etc.
    lj123Josh_Drake
  • lj123lj123 63 Pts
    True but why cut someones life shorter, why not give them at least the time to say goodbye to their friends and family one last time in person before they died as you said are gone forever.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @lj123

    Well, I do not try to intentionally shorten people's lives; like I said above, I do not force anyone into close contact with me, and people are welcome to not approach me on the streets if they want to be safer.

    That said, it is impossible to calculate absolutely everything, and there is a good chance that every one of us at some points in our lives took actions that shortened other people's lives, sometimes in fairly non-obvious ways. While I think some basic precautions are worth taking, I do not think it reasonable to stress too much over possible indirect consequences of our actions.
    Josh_Drake
  • lj123lj123 63 Pts
    @MayCaesar ;
    Still even if you unintentionally shortened somebody's life the one important fact remains, there life is still shortened this is why we have laws on manslaughter for example if I shocked someone into fainting and when they fell they hit there head and died you still caused them to die by shocking them into fainting and dying, the it is the same principal for an assassin employer. They payed someone to do a crime and the person did it for money of corse the assassin would be punished more harshly than the employer but that does not mean that the employer gets off scot free. It is the same with coronavirus. If lets say you gave it to someone who had already tested negative the previous day and you were the only person they made physical contact with and you knew you had the desease and they died then you would probably sooner or later have had a policeman saying to you that you had the right to remain silent and that anything you say will be used against you in the court of criminal court of justice because what you had done would have been manslaughter. I have told you this before. 
    CYDdharta
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    edited March 27
    @MayCaesar

    Ok. Fair enough. If I were the corona virus, I would certainly be scared of you.

    As far as your claim that the statistics positively show that the corona virus is not very serious, that is pure conjecture at best. It's most likely false in all reality. Many states in the US are not sharing critical information and much of the information is incomplete because of a lack of information, a lack of resources to assess information, and federal laws that do not require totally complete information. It is absolutely known that many who have died have been misdiagnosed with the flu, only to find that they did in fact have the corona virus. Because of that fact, it has to be assumed that many more have been misdiagnosed as having the flu, but in fact do have the corona virus. That would mean that the death rate is likely higher, and maybe as high as two percent as was first assumed, and it is actually much worse than most seasonal flu infections. So your claim that the data proves that it is not that serious is plain and simply not an empirically sound argument, and is most likely false.

    The data has also shown that a lack of a quarantine as a response to the outbreak can cause the death rate to sky rocket as high as five percent, and can even cause the death rate to go up in people who are younger than forty. The data coming out of Italy is proof positive that you are incorrect in your assessment, because a country with a smaller and less compact population (Italy) has had more deaths than in a country with more people per capita (China). You will not be able to show any data that can fortify your claim, because the data is incomplete at best, and untrustworthy in all likelihood, and the empirical evidence plainly contradicts your claim. 

    You claim that a quarantine should only be used in serious viral outbreaks, but you are ignorant of how serious this corona virus outbreak is, and you are plain and simply not the "end all be all" authority on the seriousness of an outbreak. Your claim the outbreak is overhyped is wrong, and it is not you who can decide the measure of seriousness on any outbreaks. The fact that this viral outbreak has the potential to kill as many, or surpass the number of deaths that occurred as a result of world war two is considered very serious to a huge portion of the population, most likely the bulk of the population in fact.         

    In lieu of these proofs, your unwillingness to address my assertions that an overburdened healthcare system can in turn cause an economy to be destroyed, is now a glaring oversight in your argument, but it still is an oversight regardless of the evidence. The fact that an economic system that has failed can cause even more deaths, some of which may not be a direct result of the virus, but instead because of hunger or overexposure, or other medical issues that cannot be addressed because of the overburdened healthcare system, or because of a lack of resources for proper cleanliness (toilet paper), this issue now also makes your entire argument absolutely incomplete. What other claims you have been able to muster are only based on conjecture, and the evidence actually demonstrates that you are likely incorrect altogether.

     Even if the death rates were only as bad as you claim, the fact that our healthcare system can be overburdened is still a factor that can cause death rates to climb when people who could be saved have no chance because the hospitals simply cannot serve them. The severity of the situation has caused hospitals in Italy to have to choose who can be served, and many healthcare providers have had to turn down people who have the least likelihood of survival. That means that people who would still have had a fighting chance are being denied care simply because of a lack space and resources. The Arc of America is now entering into a law suit against many states because they are claiming that people with mental disabilities are being denied care because they are not considered important enough to be saved. This may be absolutely true because many southern states and in California and New York, the medical community is just beginning to falter because of a lack of resources, and space. Communities in New Mexico have declared weeks ago that they do not have the resources to enforce a quarantine to begin with, let alone the medical resources to serve everybody. It is not a question of if we will see hospitals overrun to the point of having to choose who will be served, it is a question of when we will see that scenario, and hopefully it will not be as bad as it was in Italy. 

    You are wrong on several different levels. The wrongness seen in your argument has reached a point of redundancy. I think you should start fresh and go back to the drawing board with your argument. If you need some assistance, let me know, as I am totally willing to switch sides and argue from your point of view. I personally like it when your on my side anyway because you have a lot of points and it makes me look better when your on my side, so let me know. Thanx.                           
  • TKDBTKDB 538 Pts
    edited March 26
    @Dee

    As of this minute: 24,160 people have died globally.

    The disadvantage is that thousands of people have died, because of being afflicted by the Coronavirus.

    The fact that thousands have died, has pretty much, placed humanity at the very feet of the Coronavirus Pandemic.

    Until a vaccine is developed to help the rest of humanity, deal with the Coronavirus, just as Americans take the yearly flu shot, to help stave off Influenza.

    "The doctors who broke the story were severely reprimanded the Chinese government have since apologised, how was the rest of the world “disadvantaged” as it was going to spread anyway."

    Are you a Scientist Dee?
    What evidence do you have to support your individual opinion, that the virus was going to spread any, if China hadn't SAT on the TRUTH, to begin with? 


    "look at your presidents disgraceful continual downplaying of this virus why do you not condemn him?"

    And I don't support President Trumps opinion, on the U.S. citizens going back to work by the 12th of next month either.

    This why I'm an Independent.

    I'm pro Public, and not pro Conservative, or pro Liberal.

    @Dee

    And I condemn every single Spring Breaking Millinial, who chose to party, instead of not going to Spring Break to begin with.

    They acted blatantly ignorant, and told a Nationwide audience, in the United States, that if they got sick, they got sick, but that they were going to party regardless?

    And I blame China, because Wuhan China, is where the Coronavirus started, making China ground zero for the rest of the Globe.





  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    edited March 26
    @Dee

    TKDB already condemned president Trump. Or at least as much as TKDB is ever going to be willing to. But TKDB did say he/she did not agree with trumps decision to lift any quarantines in early April. I think that's the best you'll ever get here. I still consider that a win in and of itself, and I would recommend screen shooting that statement TKDB addressed to me for you to use against her/him in other discussions. TKDB said:
    @piloteer

    And I don't support President Trumps opinion, on the U.S. citizens going back to work by the 12th of next month either.

    This why I'm an Independent.

    I'm pro Public, and not pro Conservative, or pro Liberal.

        Here is the quote TKDB made if you wanna file it. I would suggest quoting it as soon as possible just in case TKDB tries to change the quote. In case that happens, let it be known that as of the first time this was posted, the post made by TKDB originally said "And I don't support President Trumps opinion, on the U.S. citizens going back to work by the 12th of next month either".   
    Dee
  • @MayCaesar

    MayCaesar said:
    @Happy_Killbot ;

    No, this is not how it works at all. You can almost always minimise the risks to nearly 0 by taking extremely paranoid precautions, but you do not do it, because the rewards from taking various unsafe actions are much higher in your eyes than the corresponding risks.
    Every time you get behind the wheel, you increase the risk to your health by a very large factor statistically, compared to if you just walked - yet that does not stop you, does it?
    There are always risks. The question is how much risk you are willing to tolerate and in exchange for what. For me personally a 2%, a 3.5% and even a 16% (all of these numbers are greatly exaggerated) risk is not enough to lock myself up at home for months (a 25-30% risk level is where I would probably draw the line). I will have enough time to enjoy being locked up when I am placed in a coffin one day, but for now I prefer to live a full life.

    I am not taking any risks for any other people; all people take risks for themselves. If I go outside and someone chooses to sit at home, then I do not endanger their life in any way. And if I go outside and someone else goes outside, then we both are willingly risking our lives; everything is completely voluntary.
    If even highly intelligent and somewhat liberty-oriented people like you think that this should be considered criminal, then the state of freedom in the world is much worse than I previously thought. This crisis has taught me a lot about the current state of humanity.

    But we do not live in a technocratic society and have to play with the cards we are dealt. Do you still want these people to take an incredible amount of extra power in order to handle the situation? Do you think Trump will let go of that power easily? A bit more pragmatism would be helpful; thinking about a beautiful Utopian world where the government exists solely to benefit people is nice, but does not make a difference in the real world.
    When you get into a car, you are not taking the full risk associated with motor vehicles. The roads are designed to be safe, there are safety features devices and designs in the vehicle itself, and there are laws which prohibit unsafe driving for which everyone must attain a licence which proves that they have received the training necessary to operate a vehicle so they can be held accountable for their reckless behavior if they are in an accident. There is insurance which covers the damage in this case and legal proceedings associated with it.

    A vehicle gives you freedoms that you don't normally have with your legs, for example moving long distances with lots of stuff in tow. It also grants freedoms are unsavory, for example the freedom to run people over. It is important that these undesirable freedoms are dealt with accordingly in order to maintain our society fair and equal. It is not required that everyone have a car, but it is required that no one use their car to take away the freedoms of others.

    When you go into public and interact with people there i a chance you could become an unknowing vector of the disease. In doing so, you might spread it to other people. Should they be immune compromised, something they may or may not be aware of, they could get sick and become incapacitated or killed. Thus you inadvertently take away their freedom to life and the immortal words upon which the US was founded, the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can not be guaranteed. The foundation of the US is not that people can just do whatever they want, it is that they can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's ability to do what they want. This is the foundation of liberal thinking, we maximize total freedom by eliminating sources which grant one person freedom over another.

    Suppose a street robber's defense in court was: "Hey, if they didn't want the money stolen, they should not have been outside at night on the wrong side of town. I can't be to blame for their poor choices" you are essentially making the same argument here. If your actions either directly or indirectly lead to someone else's loss of freedom, you can not claim that you have no responsibility, even if it was unintentional.

    In a technocratic society, Trump would not have any more power at the moment then he normally has, instead it would be others that have the qualifications who would be granted temporary authority. Even then, this authority would be limited by those with authority in other areas. In this way, power is not abused because it is only granted to individuals in the areas which they are the most qualified to have power in. In many ways, this idea is similar to your ideas of anarcho-capitalism in that it is inherently meritocratic. Those who are unfit for a position are swiftly replaced, as is the case on the free market. The major difference is that instead of everyone being for themselves, there is still a social structure where everyone is reliant on everyone else. For example, a scientist who shows that cigarettes cause cancer doesn't mean that the cigarette companies have to shut down, but it does mean they have to tell their customers that what they are smoking is potentially dangerous.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TKDBTKDB 538 Pts
    @piloteer

    My position:
    I'm pro Adoption, pro Family, pro Community, pro Religious Freedom, pro peaceful Atheist, pro Pure Science, pro Law Abiding, pro Humanity, pro Fetus Rights, pro Elderly Rights, and pro LEGAL U.S. Right's.

    And regardless of political affiliation, all of the LEGAL United State citizens, should be treated fairly and equally by any of the Political Representatives in the U.S.
    If they can't do that, then they, are by voter default, bias political representatives.

    (The term Pork Barrel Spending, didn't create itself did it?)

    So if you have politicians who campaign like crazy to their Pro Illegal Immigrant, or Illegal Alien supporters, than those supporters know exactly who their pro Illegal Immigrant supporting Liberals are, don't they?
    (Pelosi comes to mind?
    Maybe Schumer as well?)

    And all of those Governors, who have one of those 300 Sanctuary Cities, in the very back yards of their own state's?
    The existence of those bias Sanctuary Cities, speak for themselves.

    The pro Marijuana crowd states, where Marijuana has been legalized?

    The pro Gun crowds, the NRA crowd states?

    The pro Abortion crowd states?


    And not have any Political Representatives playing games, with the public in general, when it comes to those individual Liberal politicians, or Conservative politicians who may pander to their individual followers, or constituent fan bases?

    Did I leave anyone out?


    "TKDB already condemned president Trump. Or at least as much as TKDB is ever going to be willing to. But TKDB did say he/she did not agree with trumps decision to lift any quarantines in early April. I think that's the best you'll ever get here. I still consider that a win in and of itself, and I would recommend screen shooting that statement TKDB addressed to me for you to use against her/him in other discussions. TKDB said:"


    "Here is the quote TKDB made if you wanna file it. I would suggest quoting it as soon as possible just in case TKDB tries to change the quote. In case that happens, let it be known that as of the first time this was posted, the post made by TKDB originally said "And I don't support President Trumps opinion, on the U.S. citizens going back to work by the 12th of next month either".   





  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    @TKDB

    I have no qualms with anything you've said thus far on this thread.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    @lj123

    There are many ways in which you can cause someone to die unintentionally, and stressing over all of them is not healthy. If I caused someone to faint with my joke and they subsequently fell, hit their head and died, then I will feel bad about their death, but I will not feel any responsibility for it. This is just how I think.


    @Happy_Killbot ;

    You misunderstand my point. Your life is still much more at risk when you are behind the wheel, hence getting behind the wheel is inconsistent with minimising risks at any costs - yet you do this anyway.
    It is always a trade between risks and rewards; there is no way around it. If your sole goal is to minimise risks as much as practically possible, then you will be unable to function in the world in a sustainable way.
    I prefer to chase large rewards, but at great risks. I have done some things in my life that many other people would think are insanity, and it was always worth it for me. Jumping into the ocean during a heavy storm in Australia and nearly drowning as a result gave me a very memorable experience, and while I would probably not do it again (there my death probability was probably around 30%, at least, which is beyond my risk tolerance), it was well worth it for me. For someone else it might not, which is why some people sit at home and eat pizzas all day long, while other people climb mountains with no equipment. We all want different things in life, and forcing the same sterile conditions on everyone is wrong.

    Your robber example is a false analogy, because there I violate someone's bodily autonomy against their consent. I do not violate anyone's bodily autonomy against their consent by just walking outside, but I would if I jumped and force-hugged someone on my way when they do not want it. I do not do that.

    I fail to see what the discussion about a technocratic society has to do with the subject, considering that a) we do not live in such society, and b) such society is likely impossible to establish in the real world full of imperfect individuals.
    Josh_Drake
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited March 27
    @piloteer

    I think I have elaborated on this already in multiple threads: all the claims about the virus are perfectly consistent with observer's bias and statistics misuse. It does not mean that the problem is necessarily exaggerated, but it does mean that it may be exaggerated, and since the burden of proof is on those who make these wild claims about millions dying in the worst case scenario, I prefer to take a different stance.
    I may be wrong, or I may be right. Either way, I will not let some vague possibility force me into my room for the next few months. I am going to New-Mexican national parks soon and I will enjoy my time there! Come get me, virus.

    I did not claim that quarantine should be imposed only in serious outbreaks. I instead think that it would be a vital necessity for humanity to utilise quarantine in near-full extermination scenario, assuming that saving humanity is a worthwhile goal. But I still hold that every individual should make these decisions for themselves. I have never bought the reasoning that people should go out of their way to minimise all danger in life for themselves, and all potential danger to others from their actions. I find it a boring and limiting way to live. There is enough safety and security after our deaths; but in life being afraid of everything and constantly thinking about everything that has any chance to go wrong is a sorry way to function.

    My positions are what they are. I do not try to be morally or factually right on absolutely everything, but I do want to have the ability to make mistakes and deal with their consequences. This is something people nowadays are trying to move away from, I think, by hiding in their shells from the big and scary world. I refuse to do that; I refused to stay silent when I lived in an authoritarian regime with no freedom of speech, and I refuse to hide like a rabbit when I live in the conditions of an alleged outbreak. I will face the danger head-to-head and emerge victorious! Or not, in which case it will no longer matter to me anyway.
    Josh_Drake
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    edited March 27
    @TKDB

    **** As of this minute: 24,160 people have died globally.

    The disadvantage is that thousands of people have died, because of being afflicted by the Coronavirus.


    The fact that thousands have died, has pretty much, placed humanity at the very feet of the Coronavirus Pandemic.

    Until a vaccine is developed to help the rest of humanity, deal with the Coronavirus, just as Americans take the yearly flu shot, to help stave off Influenza.

    Thank you for stating the obvious 

    ****Are you a Scientist Dee? 
    What evidence do you have to support your individual opinion, that the virus was going to spread any, if China hadn't SAT on the TRUTH, to begin with? 

    Because people were already carrying and spreading the virus before the news broke do you get that?


    ****And I don't support President Trumps opinion, on the U.S. citizens going back to work by the 12th of next month either.

    This why I'm an Independent.

    I'm pro Public, and not pro Conservative, or pro Liberal.

    So good you condemn Trump


    ****And I condemn every single Spring Breaking Millinial, who chose to party, instead of not going to Spring Break to begin with.

    They acted blatantly ignorant, and told a Nationwide audience, in the United States, that if they got sick, they got sick, but that they were going to party regardless?

    Yup 

    *****And I blame China, because Wuhan China, is where the Coronavirus started, making China ground zero for the rest of the Globe.

    Focus on what’s important China is finished with the virus and getting on with business,  the U S is going to get a lot worse as Trump put his raging ego ahead of American lives , so get over the blame game it’s absolutely pointless regarding China 

  • @lj123 Think of it this way. The net loss to the human race of the economy collapsing would be far, far worse than a few million people dying. I agree with @MayCaesar on this matter... the best strategy is to sacrifice a few million human lives to save our economy.
  • @lj123 or at least to take measures to stop the Coronavirus without ruining our economy.
  • piloteerpiloteer 674 Pts
    edited March 29
    Because of a clear lack of anybody arguing that Mr. Patrick's remarks have some validity,

    I AM NOW SWITCHING MY ARGUMENT AND ARGUING THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT I ACTUALLY BELIEVE. I CHALLENGE ALL OF YOU ON THIS THREAD TO DISCREDIT MY ARGUMENT!!!!

    Sadly, viral outbreaks are a natural occurrence on this earth. Although an outbreak of this scope has not happened in most anybody's life time who is currently alive, it still does occur. Of course it is heart wrenching and scary, especially since most people who are alive today have no recollection of anything of this magnitude. Another scary aspect is the fact that no matter what choice we make to try and confront this outbreak, many will suffer. If we choose to quarantine the entire global population, our economy will be destroyed. If we ignore it, untold deaths will happen. I propose a balancing act in the hopes of keeping the death rate as low as possible while dually keeping our economy on some semblance of a life support. Some of these measures may be a little less than savory, but we are kind of backed up against a wall regardless, aren't We?

    Reverse quarantine???

    Ok, obviously that term I made up isn't going to be a hashtag worthy of trending. But I believe that people who are deemed to be at risk of dying because of complications of the corona virus should have a mandatory safe zone implemented. Any person who is not deemed to be at risk, whether they are suspected of having been in contact with the virus or not, must remain at least six feet away from all people who are deemed to be at risk, under penalty of the law, including prison time. If a non-at risk individual lives with someone at risk, they must practice cleanliness by washing their hands properly and frequently, and sanitizing surfaces in rooms that are shared by both. And they must remain at least six feet away from the at risk people in their household at all times. This policy should also spill over into our social existence. All elderly people, and those who may have underlying medical issues must not be approached by anybody under penalty of the law. For the time being, it should be considered an assault to come within six feet of anybody (minus parents with their children, and others who need assistance).

    Hospitals should only take in patients who are in serious risk of dying from the corona virus, or at risk from an injury that may cause further injury if it's not treated properly. All other patients who have signs of being infected with the corona virus should be told to stay at home and wait it out. If people are showing signs of having been infected, a two week quarantine should be imposed, and enforced by threat of repercussions of the law.

    Safe distancing squads????

    China is using groups of volunteer citizens as enforcement of the quarentine set in place there. The US can adopt a similar program, but I propose these "corona corp" groups should be paid for their services. They will not be given any gear or weapons except a mega phone, and they will not be allowed to approach anybody suspected of violating safe distancing rules or quarantine. Their job will consist of frequenting places of social assembly and making sure people are abiding by safe corona virus protocol. If they find people in violation of the protocol, they will only be allowed to ask the violators to be mindful of the safe distancing rules. If they are confronted by people who refuse to comply, they will promptly call the authorities. Other members can also be trained in taking people's temperatures, and calling the authorities when someone is exhibiting signs of illness. They can also be stationed outside of hospitals to take people's temperatures, and assist the medical staff if needed, and perform janitorial work. These corona corp positions would ideally be filled by people who have lost their jobs and have already gone through the entirety of the corona virus infection. 

    Ignoring the consequences of quarantining the entire country will result in economic destruction. If people who have already gone through the infection are forced to stay in quarantine, that is another person who is not available for their employer, and that puts their company in more risk of closing because of a lack of workers. There is also a secondary consequence for not letting healthy people work, which is a decrease in the overall economic funds of American people and families. That in turn will cause a decrease in demand. A decrease in demand will cause even more companies to close. Healthy people must be allowed to work to help keep the economy as healthy as humanly possible. A collapsed economic system can cause even more secondary deaths. A lack of money may lead to a lack of food and proper sanitary supplies which may cause famine and other (kinda gross :# ) medical issues. People must be allowed to work for as long as they can. I do not propose rules that will infringe on individual businesses to make their own sick policies, and if they want to close down for the next two months, no legal action should be taken on them. But if a company wants to try and brave the storm, no legal actions should be taken on them as well. The only legal actions that should be taken is to not allow companies to fire their employees for not being able to work if they've fallen ill.

    I have no qualms with the idea of federal policies to force companies to produce much needed supplies to deal with the outbreak, and even produce enough to sell to other countries in need at as low of a price as possible. The people involved in this production should be granted exception statuses to any quarantine mandates less the company has there own criteria for policies on sick workers. Keeping as many people working as possible, and as many large and small companies opened as possible is the key to a proper balance for dealing with the outbreak. We must keep our economy on life support. The idea of an economic collapse is no longer a threat for undeveloped countries, it is now a threat for the entire globe, and the US and China also run the risk of being economically destroyed. If we take measures that can let our economy bounce back and be strong quickly, those measures will also prove to be a strength for the entire global market. Our economy must not be allowed to be a victim of the corona virus.     

    Nobody in the medical community has ever claimed that viral outbreaks can be cured. If anybody in the medical community were to make such a claim, they'd do so at the risk of being stripped of their credentials and no longer being allowed to practice in the medical field. A claim such as that would become a reason for mistrust of the medical community by the public if a viral outbreak such as this did occur. The last time a viral outbreak of this magnitude occurred was in 1918. Most people who were alive to witness it are no longer with us now. Unfortunately, because of the fact that most people who have gone through anything like this are no longer here, we as a global community didn't have a proper appreciation for the dangers of a viral outbreak. The medical community warned about this for years, but they could only give us statistics and scenarios of a possibility, but they could never make us understand the true suffering from it, because we simply have never done this before. Even when medical breakthroughs happen that can help to make these occasions less severe and more rare, they can't cure it. So when a medical breakthrough does occur, it can serve as an agent for an attitude that can be almost as dangerous as an outbreak itself. Complacency is perhaps unavoidable because we as a global community seem to have a short memory when it comes to disaster. That is the circumstance that was in place for the inevitable firestorm that we find ourselves in now.         

    It is very sad to know how many untold people are suffering, and are going to suffer from the corona virus. It is my hope that this circumstance brings the whole of the human community closer together, and we can find a more profound understanding of each other and ourselves. We have gone beyond the point of finger pointing. We as the community of humanity have no one to blame but ourselves for not being prepared for a viral outbreak that the medical community has warned about for the better part of half a century. It is now here, and we were all caught with our pants down. We could easily point the finger at our governments, or even the medical community because we were all failed by them. But in this case, when we point the finger, there will be three pointing back at us. It was our duty as a global community to press this issue upon our governments, and we failed ourselves. For the hope and love of all humanity, let this be a hard lesson for us to know that we must be ready for the next outbreak, and do all we can to let future generations know what we did to fail ourselves, and what they can do to learn from our global mistake. Be safe and practice social distancing so you can make it back here to fail at an attempt to refute this argument. Peace :)
  • @piloteer Most grandparents are retired and know the risks of COVID-19 for themselves, so they wouldn't be foolish to go out when they are a high-risk group. 
    piloteer
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch