Twizzle said:
such drama, so much nonsense packed in there.
It's neither of those:
First, it is not nonsense: the actions taken by a bunch of people put themselves and other people at significan risk of dying or suffering serious long-lasting consequences, whereas refraining from said actions has a very low cost. In that regard, the case is analogous. As to how big the risk is, it varies in the case of the AK47s because it depends on how many bullets are fired, so one can tune it to whatever the COVID risk is (which probably will kill some people, including third parties not involved in the behavior in question).
Second, it's not a big drama. It was just a way to try to get you to realize that the behavior is wrong, by presenting a relevantly analogous case (see above) in which you would realize it without a problem. Alas, it did not work, but it was a very long shot anyway (whether one challenges the beliefs of right-wingers or the Woke, they almost invariable fail to change their minds).
Third, the analogy was just to try to get you to recognize the pattern, but of course, one can make the point without it. They are engaging in an activity that will probably kill people (including third parties), while refraining from it (just for a while) would have a very low cost.
Twizzle said:
LOL !! Yeah people will be killed alright. These guys are more likely to be killed falling off their bikes while drunk, getting shot or stabbed in a brawl. Covid is the least of their worries.
I see. I wasn't familiar with the event and didn't know they would be killed in those manners as well. Then let me make some points:
1. COVID is not only a risk for participants. It is also a risk for third parties not involved in that behavior. And it will probably kill some such third parties, who will get COVID from some of the people involved, or from a chain of contagions traceable to some of them.
2. From what you say, they will drive their bikes while drunk. That is also wrongful behavior. It endangers third parties, including participants in the event who are not drunk but can be hit, and third parties that might be just crossing the street (at least, if they drive drunk outside their packs of motorcycles, which is a significant possibility if someone is driving while drunk).
3. Obviously, they should not start that sort of browl, either.
4. Finally, if they have people in charge (e.g., children they have to sustain, educate, etc.), they should not be taking such risks on their own lives, either (if they do not have people in charge, it's more complicated, depending on the case).
Now, individual participants may perhaps reduce the risks you cite, e.g., by not drinking and driving carefully. However, if they are not wearing masks, and on top of that are not respecting social distancing, they are still endangering both themselves and third parties significantly (to the point that they will kill some people, including third parties), while the cost of not participating until there is herd immunity is just very low.
Twizzle said:
Stay home. Don’t leave your house. Ever.
That is an attack, but it does not address the substance of my point. Obviously, I do leave home, and go to the supermarket and to buy other things I need. I never go without a mask, not just because it's a felony to be maskless (though it's no longer enforced), but because it's a significant risk for others, and the cost of wearing one is just very low.
