We weren’t discussing enlightenment. We were discussing the impact on society of a pandemic.
You claimed there was not cost to society except the emotional one. I gave several examples of how rampant illness and death affects society financially and otherwise.
You offered no example or evidence to support your claim, and are now talking about enlightenment.
Our acceptance of our mortal coil and it’s trails has nothing to do with the original discussion.
True or False:
Fewer people is better for the environment?
True or False:
Fewer old people means social nets will last longer?
True or False:
Old people both consume and produce less?
True or False:
Fewer living with comorbidities means more available hospital beds?
True or False:
When a worker dies, it opens up an opportunity for someone else?
We were not discussing the environment. We were discussing the impact - prmarily financial - on society of sickness and death from covid.
Depends on what you mean by old. 60? 80?
Generally true. There are of course exceptions. On average, I would guess true.
Our discussion of illness and death was not limited to old people.
Not for the 3-4 weeks the spend in the hopsital dying.
And there is a never ending supply of people with comorbidities - and people getting old for that matter.
You seem to be operating under the notion that One Great Purge will just take all the expensive people out and we’ll be done with them.
There will be more who immediately take their place.
Depends on the job and hiring environment. My manager who got sick - no, I couldn’t easily replace him. The other guy? Normally I could. not in this market though.
And even if I could that is weeks of lost productivity hiring, training, etc…
Ultimately, it is not cheaper, or in any way better, for us to just let people die of covid.
Society. Environment. Global.
Not working but drawing on the nets.
Who died?
So it’s temporary. Survival of the fittest. Utopia is at hand.
There’s your problem.
It’s not about you. It’s about The Collective.
Cheers to blood and organs not getting where they are needed.
You realize after these old and comorbid people die, there will be another batch right behind them?
So, anyway, I disagree with your assertion. There is great emotional and societal cost associated with people getting sick and dying.
If it was a sickout, it wasn’t effective
Pilots union head on Cavuto saying it wasn’t a sick out. Same percent sink this weekend compared other averages.
Doesn’t matter. The Narrative needs it to be a sick out, so it is.
Nah, the CFR is 1.8 and the pill will cut it in half. It’s over.
What do you care? You don’t think there is any public benefit from lessening the sickness and dying. In fact, you argued it’s good for society for old and comorbid people to pass… You should be against the pill.
Hmmmm…seems like you are advocating death panels. 
mmkay
Telling me how I think? Tsk, tsk.
Karenism taken to extremes.
Hmmmmm… don’t recognize objectivity? Greater good for The Collective.
No argument from me. I’ve long thought we use medicine to keep people alive longer than we should.
Not at all. You told us what you think through your posts in this thread.
Such small thinking.
So unenlightened.
And what banks are willing to do business with him? Aside from Deutsche Bank that is?
He’s not the business genius you have been conned into believing.
