torankusu said:
Why is everyone using this argument? Was some idiot ranting about this online or on tv cuz I’ve seen a bunch of other assholes using this argument, which I think is flawed.
You’re not going to *edited* everyone you see on the street, HOWEVER, you are going to touch the same doorknobs, shopping carts, ATMs, countertops, etc. And the flu is transmitted via coughing and sneezing. You’re most likely NOT going to catch AIDS from doing any of the same things that I just listed, or from having someone coughing or sneezing on you.
I’m not saying I’m gonna go around wearing a mask, but this argument just seems stupid to me. You can’t compare a sexually transmitted disease with something you can catch by standing next to a guy on the train or touching a contaminated surface. One is more easily transmissible.
It’s a perfectly valid argument. I can see what you are saying, no doubt it makes no sense to use that argument in your context, but, if used in a different context, it makes perfect sense. Lets say, in the context of common sense? One could argue that it is out of proportion because, everyone is flipping out about a disease which hasn’t done that much damage, it hasn’t spread as fast as aids or a real “pandemic”. It’s out of proportion in this sense because, something which kills so many, should be more of a “danger” than something which hasn’t killed (like this swine flu).
In other words, it is out of proportion for the media to go crazy over this, because when compared to a virus of a more deadly caliber(regardless of transmittance), swine flu is as harmless as a fly. The “danger” is the main thing that the media is trying to stress on, because that is the only thing that really makes this story so dramatic; way too media coverage on a mildy dangerous disease.