Earlier quoted context omitted.
China literally locked down Shanghai and millions of people in their homes, had police everywhere monitoring, had almost no exceptions other than for the police, and literally boarded people in their homes, engaged every spying mechanism they had, did mandatory testing, for more than six weeks , and it did not stop COVID - but it is increasingly clear it only delayed it from spreading inevitably. Even WIRED, pro-vacc…
After it already went endemic, and the transmissiblity went through the roof. Not sure why that is hard to understand. If this virus killed 95% of people would you be arguing against lockdowns? I think most people can agree that its one of those to little to late situations in china and they need to reconsider at this point, but that doesn't make what they are trying to do wrong.
This is the dumbest argument I've ever seen made on here. If it killed 95% of people, no sane person would be arguing because it becomes obvious that you are in danger. If 1.1% of the population dies and you don't have any of the health risks coinciding with mortality from the virus, then you have little reason to put your life on hold, unless you're unlucky and don't realize you have some unidentified health issue, which at that point, is a rounding error.
I guess if you're on the side doing the coercing then, yeah, at that point you probably think you're saving everyone from themselves.