CreateDebate


Debate Info

14
14
Boon Bane
Debate Score:28
Arguments:29
Total Votes:35
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Boon (14)
 
 Bane (13)

Debate Creator

subhi(5) pic



Lockdown Boon or Bane

We all are in a lockdown. Everybody think different wats ur thgt?

Boon

Side Score: 14
VS.

Bane

Side Score: 14
1 point

America wiped out ........... boon or bane?? :-(

Side: Boon
1 point

Lockdown Boon or Bane

Hello S:

If we wear masks and stay home, the pandemic will END in 10 days.

Fact is, the virus can't live outside our body for long periods of time, and they don't travel very far in the air. Therefore, if there's nobody close to you, the virus will DIE, and it'll be all over.

Yup. Pretty simple. Ain't science great, or what?

excon

Side: Boon
1 point

Fact is, the virus can't live outside our body for long periods of time

That can't be a fact because you have not even stipulated what you mean by a "long" period of time. Furthermore, your post assumes (incorrectly) that the only method of transmission is aerobic. Ignoring the fact that it is impossible in our present way of life for everybody to stay indoors all of the time, then the virus can live on surfaces for up to 3 days.

Your theory that people just need to stay at home for 10 days and then everything goes back to normal is directly refuted by the facts. It will slow the spread and eventually turn the tide in our favour, but it isn't as simple as you are pretending. The way society is structured is what makes this situation so dangerous. We all shop at the same supermarkets. We all use the same gas stations. We all draw cash out from the same ATM machines. We all use the same trains and planes to get to our destinations.

Side: Bane
Chinaman(3015) Disputed
1 point

Mask work says the NIGGER

Really ??????????????

You are a Party Parrot you fuckin fool

Side: Bane
Nomoturtle(796) Disputed
1 point

The situation you describe is entirely ideal, completely removed from reality. Humans live in groups which could stagger a particular household by up to 2 weeks per member. Humans have needs that require supply chains to fulfill, presenting the risk of contamination. Humans don't all conform (as we've seen from the politicians especially that advocate these rules).

Studies on mask show virtually no benefit to protecting the individual (viral particles are just too small to filter), a small effect on reducing spread to others (thus the benefit to a group in short encounters), and a negative effect for non-surgical masks (cloth) especialy when reused, where germs are cultivated in the hot, wet environment.

Side: Bane
1 point

The situation you describe is entirely ideal, completely removed from reality. Humans live in groups which could stagger a particular household by up to 2 weeks per member. Humans have needs that require supply chains to fulfill, presenting the risk of contamination. Humans don't all conform (as we've seen from the politicians especially that advocate these rules).

So, again. Let me get this straight. You are saying that because of the above, we should stop attempts to slow and/or contain the spread of the virus and instead move on to ways to get it out there faster? I'm struggling to comprehend what your point could possibly be here. Were you also campaigning to ban condoms when AIDS hit?

Studies on mask show virtually no benefit to protecting the individual

What a total load of rubbish. If this were my debate I would ban you for misinformation.

To be clear, the science supports using masks, with recent studies suggesting that they could save lives in different ways: research shows that they cut down the chances of both transmitting and catching the coronavirus, and some studies hint that masks might reduce the severity of infection if people do contract the disease.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

The results, reported in the journal BMJ Open, show that most of the fabrics commonly used for non-clinical face masks are effective at filtering ultrafine particles. N95 masks were highly effective, although a reusable HEPA vacuum bag actually exceeded the N95 performance in some respects.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/study-measures-effectiveness-of-different-face-mask-materials-when-coughing

Side: Boon
1 point

Lockdown in the current context is insanity. Lockdowns, masks, etc do not miraculously save people's lives, it slows the spread. Not prevent, slow. If you can prevent the virus from spreading beyond a single location in the first place then it can make sense, and this is called quarantine. People will get sick eventually regardless. The disease is too virile, it's endemic, even a vaccine is unlinkely to get rid of it now.

Then there's the cost. Economic collaplse, mass forced unemployment, and the resultant rising poverty. Suicide. Increase in depression from lonliness. Increase in deaths from other health conditions that could be prevented if they could see a 'non-essential' specialist doctor. There may even be more life lost to lockdowns than to covid.

Then there's principal. Force people to stay indoors? Force people not to work? Force people to be poor? This is illiberal. Even if lockdown did work as advertised, it should not be done. Weren't we all happy that we didn't live in China back in February when they locked their citizens up, gassed the streets, and abducted people? What the hell changed? When did we give up on liberty and decide to become authoritarians?

I can sympathise with leaders early on when so much was uncertain, but what has happened since is untenable.

Side: Bane
1 point

Lockdown in the current context is insanity. Lockdowns, masks, etc do not miraculously save people's lives, it slows the spread. Not prevent, slow.

So, let me get this straight a moment. In your world sanity is expediting the spread of a deadly disease which we could easily slow down with masks?

People will get sick eventually regardless. The disease is too virile, it's endemic, even a vaccine is unlinkely to get rid of it now.

Are you aware of what vaccines do? They stop people getting sick.

Side: Boon
Nomoturtle(796) Disputed
0 points

I didn't say masks, I said lockdowns, and if so, yes. Because the lockdowns have a significant cost, and a marginal benefit. All to combat a disease that is not very deadly at all. A below 0.02% chance of death for those aged 0-49 (CDC). It is insanity because we are cutting off our arm to stop the bleeding from a papercut. And not doing lockdowns isn't 'expediting' the spread. But if we're talking masks, the study I read showed no benefit to the individual, a reduced spread to others, and a negative effect for the individual for cloth masks, particularly when reused.

It would make far more sense for the elderly and those with health complications (where the chance of death can be as ... 'high' as 5%, to shelter by themselves while everyone else works to support them.

Oh please, spare me the rhetoric. Vaccines provide immunity. An immunity that we already know doesn't last long, as people have already been known to be reinfected, or'relapse'. It also doesn't work if the virus mutates beyond recognition of what the vaccine emulates. There are dozens of strains of covid already. Furthermore, a critical amount of people (in practice ~95%) need to take it, it works on the same principle of herd immunity that hasn't worked either.

Side: Bane