Question: Shouldn’t we be locked down permanently, even without CerVeza, due to flu? Please respond in the comments.
NOTES: (1) Any response that includes any numerical term whatsoever, either as orthography (‘two’, ‘million’, etc.) or one or more Arabic numerals (0,1,2… 9) or quantitative symbols or operators of any kind (‘%’, ‘+’, etc.) will not be read. Because when confronted with that question, even to introduce such terms means you are quantifying human lives. Which makes you a psychopathic monster — if you’re evaluating human lives along any numerical scale, you’re sick. Get help now. (2) Any response along the lines of: ‘you cannot mention flu and cerveza in the same sentence, they are entirely different beasts altogether’ will also not be read. Because that’s just a tricky way of sneaking numbers back on the table, in mentioning that the transmission stats or mortality rates, etc. are different. That’s inadmissible when we’re discussing human lives. I hope I’ve made myself clear: numbers of any kind are never appropriate or moral when we’re talking about human lives. Talking in terms of numbers is just a figleaf for talking about money anyway. Since every life is precious and flu vaccines obviously don’t work especially well, morality and logic both dictate this inescapable conclusion: the world must remain locked down forever. If you say otherwise, you don’t merely have ‘blood on your hands’ as the current trope runs, far worse than that — you are soaked RED ALL OVER.