I agree with your general premise. I disagree with your application of that premise here. In this case the comment is providing a warning that the situation is more dangerous than it appears.
Someone reading that comment would be more likely to act conservatively, resulting in fewer deaths.
You just gave three examples of people endangering their own lives only, not my family. I'm not "cool" with it, really, but it's a whole different discussion.
But they're not about safety! And the author (and presumably you too?) admit as much. Again, aren't we supposed to be better than arguing about policy issues via reference to our personal emotions? Isn't that what the woke hippies on the school board are doing?
I disagree. The dangerous issues are precisely the ones that need more debate. The consequences of blindly following a single push are potentially cataclysmic.
Your last statement relies on the assumption that the authorities actually know what information will save lives. I do not believe that is true.
I do believe in the reasoning and self preservation instincts of most people. The way these experts have acted shows very little respect for the sanctity of the individual.
Was it really worth watering down a list of worthwhile fears with absurd sensationalism, just to make it longer?
The risk of death in a vehicle far exceeds that of gun violence. If you're talking about injuries perpetrated by a stranger, that disparity grows more yet.
The lack of healthcare doesn't exist, though you'll certainly have to pay up. But really, 'lack'? If you find yourself injured, you can probably look up and find a billboard for a hospital (see the previous point on how you're likely to get hurt.) And there will almost certainly be first rate care at said hospital.
And most egregiously, 'cancer machines'? Are you referring to the backscatter x-rays, which deliver a smaller dose than a single banana? Or the millimeter wave machines, which operate at low intensity, and actually deliver no dose of ionizing radiation whatsoever, due to operating at a wavelength with photon energies measured in MILLI-eV? Why not plan your travels around local geology and only travel by boat? Because if you think you're sensitive to millimeter waves, you're really going to be upset at the gammas coming from ground sources, as well as the ones hitting you when you're not underneath those final 7km of sweet, sweet radiation-attenuating atmosphere.
There are valid reasons not to travel to the US, even in your own post. Why bury them under such nonsense?
I didn't mean to trivialize it, and those are all valid questions - it's not a black and white issue. But the debate should be framed as one about civil liberties and how to balance them against safety. Making it all about what is safer vs. less safe puts it on much less solid ground.
reply