:
|
I shouldn't derail the topic too much, but knowing how physically addictive those substances can be, combined with the social pressure to at lest try them (if only once, and I suppose we all know it doesn't end at the first try), I don't put it into a whole different realm of choice than the choice to go out less often during the pandemic, wearing protective gear like visors when you do, disinfecting hands (and then face) when you go back. And I don't mean it in a way to diminish the pandemic's importance (it's a big issue), but rather highlight the other deadly problem more than it is being highlighted.
|
As MA has pointed out, there's no equivalence between those issues and covid-19. You also can't argue that concern for covid-19 is supplanting concern for those issues, because there are existing measures that try to address those issues (and have been for decades), so for all you can debate the efficacy of whatever your country's measures are, covid-19 is clearly the most urgent issue at the moment, given its novelty and especially given its wide range of indirect effects, not just on health, but the economy.
:
|
I understand feelings of empathy towards the elderly, but I wouldn't go as far as to say the government deliberately wants any of the country's population dead.
|
At best, they don't care. The UK's Prime Minister (or more accurately, his advisor, Dominic Cummings - we all know who's really in charge) is reported to have remarked during a conference that they should pursue a strategy that aims to reach herd immunity as quickly as possible and "if that means a few old people die, too bad". This was disputed by No. 10, in fairness, but given that Cummings is a
noted eugenicist, I'm not sure their word can be taken at face value, as the remark seems consistent with Cummings' political beliefs.