51–60 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article should've shed light on what govts can do better, not what individuals can. That's where the blame lies.
Who is more likely to read and listen to a Newsweek article, an arbitrary individual reading the article making a decision for themselves, or a governmental policy maker when deciding what to tell the country?
It's easy to understand how Europeans look at Americans is if they're brain-dead. However, the article does nothing to support the thesis that young people in particular are killing other people. It may be true. If so, including evidence to that effect would make a better article.
It would be better if they did, but they don’t. So if you argue against the headline only, you argue against a strawman.
(It’s fine to address the headline as well, as that gets a lot of attention. But don’t attribute it to the author)
It's easy to understand how Europeans look at Americans is if they're brain-dead. However, the article does nothing to support the thesis that young people in particular are killing other people. It may be true. If so, including evidence to that effect would make a better article.
I could easily say the reverse is equally understandable (letting their rights to free expression be eroded, horrible internet legislation for two) and that the covid-19 situation in Europe as a whole seems to be objectively worse than the US.
A month ago when I read that the Virus improportionally affects older people, I had a short thought about a movement of young people who embrace the virus against the Boomers. This doesn't exist to my knowledge, but it wouldn't surprise me if it would.
If I follow that strain of fantasy for a moment, a cynic would argue: only once the old, many and poltical established Boomers are affected drastic measures happen. That is why the climate crisis didn't produce tangible results. As a rich person you can mitigate against many problems a climate crisis brings, that is harder with a virus. As a old person you will be dead once the most disturbing consequences of global warming start to really hit home, but a virus that can end your life right now is something different.
If we take a utilitarian perspective and do what prevents most suffering. And the empathic and intuitive thing is to avoid as much human suffering as possible now, but what if our inaction today creates magnitudes more suffering tomorrow? Wouldn't it then be justified to view it as some sort of poetic justice when a virus specifically hits the older generations who's political interests prevent real solutions to even bigger existential questions that are global in the truest sense of the word?
Maybe the best way to become a home owner in SF in the near future is to run around infecting everyone there ASAP.
(In case it's not obvious, I'm mostly kidding)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that young people are more likely to think "Oh this won't affect me, I'll continue as normal" because the severity and mortality of this illness is statistically higher for older people. I don't see it as blaming young people, just pointing out that even if you aren't in the statistically "at risk" part of the age curve, you can still play a part in the spread and effects of this epidemic.
The article should've shed light on what govts can do better, not what individuals can. That's where the blame lies.
Individual (and state government) action is mostly what we have, so that's more important than ever.
It would be worth mentioning in the article that in the US your sick off days usually are deducted from your vacation days. This makes many people reluctant to stay home if they cannot work remotely.
I really hope this gets changed in light of all this.