This would be an especially stupid “strategy” after the months of sacrifice and being on the cusp of delivering vaccines.

Ironically, the term “herd immunity” came from people who raised cattle.

Anyone who advocates herd immunity sees human beings in percentages and expendable.

So you're Pro Birth then?

With the current COVID mortality rate in the US being approximately 1.92%, infecting the entire country (331 million) with COVID would mean 6,358,364 people will die. That’s equivalent to the amount of Jews killed in the Holocaust.

That’s also not accounting for the number of survivors who encounter long-term health problems, their treatment, etc.

Anyone who can take all those numbers in and still think herd immunity is a good idea is a ghoul.

Or... we could just let the healthy and least like to die into the world and create herd immunity with the least amount of deaths and economic damage.

And their families? Ugh.
https://khn.org/news/bereaved-families-are-the-secondary-victims-of-covid-19/

That's a personal choice then. No one is forcing them to do anything which can't be said about lockdowns.

So, survival of the fittest then? Too bad, f**k you, grandma and grandpa?

Since you’re a Classy Conservative Crusader (translation: hypocrite), I guarantee you’d change your tune if you or anyone in your life was affected by COVID. Allowing for “herd immunity” to pick off the weak and disabled is simply eugenics for those too lazy to actively participate.

Wow, you masterfully destroyed that strawman.

No, what I’m saying is you’re a pompous ghoul, but I’m glad you took the better part of a day to formulate a snappy retort to something you previously answered. And with your vaunted “strawman” trope, no less. Kudos, kid!

My father fought for this country. He has underlying medical conditions which stem from that service that make him susceptible to a serious problems should he contract COVID. You’re whining about “the economy” and saying...and make no mistake about it, this is PRECISELY what you’re saying...if he dies, he dies.

We have a responsibility to every citizen of this country to take every step to protect them. If you choose numbers over people, you’re a piece of shit in my book.

Anti Lock doesn't equal Pro death.

You’re deluding yourself.

Not really people can choose for themselves if they want to risk going out back into society or not.

Does a national mask mandate infringe on your “personal freedom?”

I literally wear a mask I just think it's wrong to force people to do it.

By that rationale, it’s wrong to ban drunk driving. It’s a reckless act, but someone doesn’t get hurt or killed every time it happens, so I should be able to do it whenever I want.

I'm glad you can put words into people's mouths.

Yeah turns out people can't be put into a controlled environment and told to act like robots.

Translation: I can act like an asshole if I want :::stomps feet:::

So if you're fine with being in a room alone and having to wear a mask.

That’s an overreaching, idiotic statement. That’s never been an aspect of a national mask mandate. You have to wear a mask in public around other people.

You can carry the virus asymptomatically and transmit it to others, potentially killing someone. A mask reduces that chance, if not eliminating it altogether.

Are you really that selfish of a c**t that your freedum to potentially spread a deadly disease usurps the public’s general welfare?

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Most fatal car accidents happen above 20mph should we force everyone not to go above 20mph and hour because it saves lives?

I can appreciate you trying to compare apples to hammers, but your analogy doesn’t hold water.

Driving is a necessity.
Driving drunk is not.
Driving recklessly is not.

When you can mitigate the circumstances, you mitigate them to make them as safe as possible, no?

That’s what a facemask is.

It's fascism no?

Not. Even. Close.

I find you're the selfish one being in all you don't care how many people fall into poverty and have their life saving and small business killed because you feel like you're saving lives by forcing other people to wear a mask and to stay in lockdowns. Not everyone can get onto a zoom call to do their job Franken.

If 90-95% of Americans wore masks and followed the protocols, there would be no need to lock anything down. That’s what “patriots” like yourself fail to understand.

https://twitter.com/surgeon_general/status/1328134745633525762?s=21

Do you have some raw data that states otherwise?

Well yes, and it's a dumb idea.

A) No, it isn’t.
B) No, it doesn’t.

Is this stance based on raw data?

What about a child with asthma, or an older adult with diabetes who lives in a home with someone who has to work, for instance in a retail job? They may stay home, but their lives depend on the consideration of the people who go into that retail establishment.

I guess screw all those people that committed suicide and the misdiagnosed cancer patients and all the elderly people that died alone because the hospitals would let their families in yeah screw them. Just so you can feel safe from virus with about the fatality rate as the flu.

I see your point. If you had a loved one who was high risk would you not wear a mask and be cautious? A lot of people don't seem to be getting that people not working because of COVID is ruining lives.

Even with the tightened restrictions, retail is still open. Restaurants are still serving people, just to go. I can wear a mask, I can get take out instead of dine in, I can wait with patience and respect to get into the grocery store and keep my distance while I shop. All those things are better than watching my community spiral into sickness.

And those 150 million people that fell back into poverty. I guess screw them too.

Agreed. But it's not ok to force people to wear a mask and shut their business. Giving the government such power is foolish.

And was it foolish to enforce blackouts during the Blitz? Is it foolish to insist on health codes for restaurants? Seat belts?
These are all places where the government regulates behavior to save lives. Oh, and yes, air emissions standards. This one is a little old, but:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html
The EPA under tRump decided that giving the coal industry a softer ride was worth about 1400 deaths a year. Business before lives, again. Does it feel right?

Can you read? I said the healthy least likely to die.

....and what about the unhealthy? What about the sick and disabled?

Collateral damage? Acceptable losses?

Still waiting for some raw data, by the way. I won’t hold my breath.

Apparently, you were too lazy to read it.

No, apparently you’re too ignorant too suggest it.

You’re aware that Sweden is starting to clamp down and have had to admit that herd immunity hasn’t worked and will not work?

I thought the lockdowns were about flattening the curve? Or are they about something else now?

Cute graph. Not raw data. But let’s address this.

You’re showing me a chart that says what’ll happen if we follow protocols vs. not. Let’s take NY state as an example. Downstate (NYC and LI) got hit hard during the first few months of the pandemic and everything was pretty much locked down. However, most NYers followed the protocols, stayed home, etc., and the curve was flattened. As soon as restrictions were relaxed and people started congregating again, the numbers spiked.

Now take Florida or Texas. They never really locked anything down, they don’t follow or enforce any protocols and the infections have been spiraling out of control. Midwest states like Idaho and the Dakotas have their hospitals overflowing...why? You’re a smart boy and it doesn’t take a pile of raw data to figure it out.

There’s a direct correlation: masks save lives. Facemasks, social distancing, staying home as much as possible, it all works. If the citizens of this country (much like South Korea, Vietnam, Japan, and New Zealand) agree that human life is more valuable than your freedums and follow the protocols, lockdowns wouldn’t be necessary.

But tell me more about how the economy is more important.

Wow, only 7,000 then compare that with their low of 89,000 deaths from the flu. Somethings not adding up or some people are just paranoid.

Source?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/long-a-holdout-from-covid-19-restrictions-sweden-ends-its-pandemic-experiment-11607261658

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/sweden?country=~SWE

Also, they have some of highest COVID deaths per 100,000 in the world (22nd) despite being one of the lesser-populated countries.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

Don’t throw around numbers without sources. Supposedly you derive all your knowledge from the fabled “raw data”, so let’s see it.

Does it matter how many cases there are? They only have around 7,000 deaths.

As cases rise, so do deaths. It also stresses and crushes the healthcare system. It’s as much about financials as it is about basic empathy and decency.

As a classy conservative crusader, I’m sure the former of that previous statement is far more important than the latter.

https://www.scb.se/en/About-us/news-and-press-releases/statistics-sweden-to-publish-preliminary-statistics-on-deaths-in-sweden/#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20there%20were%20fewer%20than%2089%20000,were%20more%20than%2092%20000%20deaths%20in%20Sweden.

You couldn’t find relevant data from the last six months?

That's because it's data from the flu. lol

2019 flu death report silly

Your flu data is seven months old (still not raw data) and Sweden’s chief epidemiologist is calling for Sweden to lock down.

Explain.

And for the record, even if this was relevant (within the last month) data, it’s not raw data. It’s a summary being spoon-fed to you.

Apparently, you’re ignorant.