[alexander_busek]

“Now, some people can’t help that they’re not in good health. We should, of course, protect the vulnerable The elderly and infirm, the obese and chronically ill of course have the duty to protect themselves, but it was mostly a disease of the very old, which every disease is a threat to, and people who have comorbidities, which mostly is due to lifestyle.”

Regards,

[metmom]

Well, we can protect the elderly to a degree.

When people get sick, they can stay home and not infect others.

And the government can not stuff actively sick people into nursing homes where people who are generally not in the best of health to begin with are in the first place.

We can also make sure, and this is families more than anything, that the elderly are eating nutritionally sound meals and not becoming vitamin deficient.

So, yes, I do think there are things we could have done to protect the elderly to a degree.

However, rearranging out lives to the degree that the government has mandated us to, does nothing to protect anyone, nor should the claim of caring about the elderly be the excuse to rob us of our freedom and destroy this country.

Nor is it protecting the elderly to leave them alone in despair and a hopeless situation where they just give up on living, or succumb o other maladies left untreated.

Killing people in the name of protecting them is not the answer, but it does satisfy the bloodlust of the left for whom people cannot die fast enough for them.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

Why don’t they use this reasoning with homeless people? Obviously they need protection and intervention.