“So we disagree. You hold that, although based on real current “not-the-oh-so-January” data, to criticize the family-, economy- and country-damaging overreaction is warranted, and to dismiss the models that have been adjusted downward several times because reality has shown the impacts the models predicted to be grossly overstated is “stupid”.”
The disconnect with you between the success of the mitigation and the mitigation itself is stunning. When you change the parameters of the model, the output changes.
“Very well. So leave your fate to the modelers and the politicians and discount “stupid” data which show improving conditions that arguably do not provide continued justification for a growing number of people for the crushing costs (to be clear, these “costs” include significantly more than simply dollars) that continue to mount and the continuing abject fear and panic which is itself harming people and unnecessarily continues to grow, but realize that sooner or later you are going to have to gather the courage to go back outside and associate with other people. I presume that for you that will be when your governor provides his assurance — and his permission — for you to do so.”
The panic I see is from the FluBros who think they should be out saving the economy at all costs. Hint: the economy is stronger than you think and you are not going to “save” it by killing millions. Going out and about is just exposing yourself and others to more risk.
“We can disagree, my fellow Freeper, and as neither of us has any authority or ability to do much about any of this except attempt to clarify and perhaps influence a small audience with our thoughts and opinions, can we agree to do so without resorting to pejoratives as that is, well, so “Left”.”
If I see something that is stupid or foolish, I’m going to call it out, especially if it involves lives. Because, well, that is so “Right”. (Suggesting someone is “Left” is a pejorative around here, BTW.)
And trying to dismiss my argument in an appeal to authority (by saying neither of us has it) is a logical fallacy. Refute the argument, not the arguer.
As an aside, I am pleased that you characterize my thinking as "stunning" although, being a reasonably smart guy (perhaps better a "wise guy") I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it as a compliment, and I understand why. You still think that this Chinese virus has the potential of "killing millions [of Americans]". If I still believed the predictions of those outdated, "oh-so-early March" models I should very well, as do you, dismiss any contrary opinion no matter how well-constructed as "stupid" and -- here's a fresh application of an old condemnation for you -- "irresponsible". Cheers! & regards.