>>14100414>Unironically, how do I refute this?Because the choice between not being infected and being infected is not free. The cost of the measures necessary to not be infected outweigh the costs of infection in the long run.
There's a huge cost of opportunity to locking things down that most people ignore, and that's the economic regression + the unrealized economic growth.
The measures being taken are elongating the pandemic as much as possible with the purpose of reducing harm, yet after a certain point the harm caused by the measures themselves become larger than the differential between the harm that would be caused by the virus with measures being taken against it and without those.
Cars, and other motorized means of transportation, are extremely dangerous you know? But the cost of banning transportation is much higher than the cost of allowing transportation. Similar thing.
>>14101588Also this, tell them to stop being faggots. It's impossible to be 100% "safe", and being 99% safe requires you to stay in your home covered in pillows and never going outside.
At first people said that we needed social isolation and all that jazz to make the pandemic end sooner so that we could return to normalcy asap, and yet what has actually happened is that the pandemic has become perennial.
