I am posting this after having watched Bear's Patreon video this morning. It's an opinion and rebuttal to an exchange I had on Fox News Online: I didn't post the other comments because they were not mine to post.
History has taught us that over reaction to a crisis is, often times, more detrimental to us than the crisis itself. To some degree I agree with you (Mr. Carlson) here. I work in a public school. These are, under the best of circumstances, petri dishes of viruses and bacteria. So are hospitals (I worked infection control in a corporate facility). The questions that need to be asked are: 1. How clean is this environment? 2. Can that (#1) be sufficiently addressed to avoid infection? 3. How do the risks of long term shut down compare to the risks of not shutting down? Obviously, hospitals are hazardous environments, but since they are necessary, protocols and procedures are in place to mitigate the spread of diseases. Even here, professional people can become complacent and create problems. How does this compare with cleanliness protocols in places of business, offices, grocery stores and public institutions like schools? Arguably, some of these are at higher risk than others, but what are the long term consequences of the range of extremes between mass, ineffective over reaction and blithely ignoring the dangers? Obviously, I don't have those answers, but I do know that twice in the history of western civilization, ⅔ of the known populations were succumbed to plagues but that those populations, without the technological abilities we posses today, came back and maintained and became the civilizations we know today. Basically, as long as there is something to survive for, civilizations will survive.
Rebuttal to a challenge to defend my thesis.
@Daniel Alveo those were questions. Not a thesis. But I will say this; a bumbling and ineffective reaction that leaves the world in economic ruins will have a broader, more devastating and more far reaching impact than the loss of less than .02% of the population (the current percentage of global cases based on the world population of ~7.53 Billion). Comparatively, on the two, historical references mentioned, the losses were upwards of 67% of the (then) world population. You can reference Mr. Carlson's thesis for examples of the collateral damages done by said bumbling and ineffective over reaction. Next question: What if your family members were to die from this disease? My response: On a personal level, it would suck and my family would mourn our losses and try to move forward. Hopefully, the world will be in a condition to move forward in. I knew a man who drowned because a couple on venimous snakes fell into his boat. He could've killed the snakes with a paddle or scooped them over the side, but he shot several large holes in his boat trying to kill the snakes and drowned. A targeted, lesser reaction would've been more effective and less detrimental to his microcosm.