Ok, purely devil's advocate here so let's explore a bit because I'm actually sick and don't know yet whether or not its Covid or just a flu (and likely won't be able to find out any time soon since testing is still reserved for the critical and higher risk in our state). And this is not regarding the asshat in the OP, but...we all die. We are all literally born terminal. That is the only objective truth there is to our existence. We are all terminal the second the sperm hits the ovum.
So here we are in a situation where--supposedly--80-85% will have little to no reaction to the virus; 10-15% will have more severe reactions, but will likely survive; 5-10% will die and the vast majority of them will be elderly/those already "at death's door" so to speak.
Assuming it's not a deliberate act (i.e., conspiracy theories) and is a natural pathogen sweeping through our species in a fashion that happens as part of the natural "order" of things and at least appears to be effecting primarily the already weakest among us, is that necessarily cause for any of our extreme measures?
Setting aside for the moment (again, devil's advocate) emotional responses--so, let's be sociopaths for a second--even in the most dire estimates I've seen--1 million dead--that's out of 7.5 billion. If we did
nothing and even 1 Billion died, we'd still have 6.5 Billion left. And those 6.5 Billion would all be immune to the virus, presumably, and not, say, partially immune due to avoiding the virus rather than heading straight into it and passing out the other side.
Yes, I know I sound like other usual suspects on the alt-right tip, but fuck it, I'm bored senseless in self quarantine and already thinking about mortality and the like, so why not?
A vaccine, after all, is a small dose of a virus deliberately injected for the express purpose of shockjacking the body's immune system into attacking the weakened virus to develop antibodies against it, correct? If I'm not mistaken, this is the English thinking right now on the issue, so maybe not "devil's advocate" so much as weird British sociopathic practicality?
Anyway, regardless and considering the fact that we are all, once again, literally born terminal, then why shouldn't we let nature run its course and thin the herd? We do exactly that to any other animal on the planet (when we arrogantly determine it's time to thin their encroachment onto "our" land) and the natural precedent for it is literally written into our DNA.
So when something like this happens, is it actually irresponsible to intervene in the way we are evidently doing now? Even arrogant? And emotionally based, rather than in the best interest of the species as a whole?
Yes, it means a LOT of people dead. But, again, we are born terminal, so is that a legitimate or simply arbitrary emotional hill to make one's stand upon? All 7.5 billion of us alive today will be dead tomorrow no question about it, so does the number of dead matter in regard to an analysis of a natural pathogen spreading through our species? Again, sociopaths for just a second. We can get into all of the emotional angles later.
From a species-survival sense--and purely for the sake of shear, quarantined boredom--the hit is statistically minimal (even on the
billion death level) and the end result, if we did nothing at all and just kept about our lives (other than, of course, massive end of life care and the horrific logistics of burying the dead and the like), is STILL going to be the end result for all of us given enough time.
So what does it matter if a comparatively small percentage of us die tomorrow or ten days from now or ten years from now?
Hee-ewe, I need a drink and some sunshine.
