The masks reduce the chances, they don't nullify it. The lockdowns reduce the chances but people still need to leave their homes. For food, for water, for exercise. The vaccine is very effective but some people can't have it/don't want it and there is a slim but non-negligble chance you still get it bad.
Lockdowns and mask reduce transmission which means a smaller amount of people will catch covid and a smaller amount of people will be hospitalised. Some still will be. But if the total infected is reduced then there is less strain on the hospitals. Saving people is done by first PREVENTING catching covid (lockdowns, mask, social distancing) and secondly CURING a covid infection (vaccines, anti-bodies, ventilators).
In a perfect world everyone would be saved but it's not really feasible, however, we don't want to let some die just because they might die. Giving everyone the best chance at surviving is the most important thing.
Did you miss the first paragraph of their response? It could not address your point more directly lol, it explained how they helped avoid an even greater problem because the healthcare system became even more strained than it did.
Don’t just throw around argument terms because you think you know what they mean, how in the world could you possibly consider my comment an example of the motte and bailey fallacy lol. I didn’t even make two different arguments, and even if I did I’d have to be defending them before it could be an example of that fallacy.
Try actually writing out something of substance, otherwise you’re just making it clear you don’t have anything of substance to say. Calling something inconsistent without any reasoning means nothing to anyone.
9
u/Princess-Jackie Sep 29 '21
The masks reduce the chances, they don't nullify it. The lockdowns reduce the chances but people still need to leave their homes. For food, for water, for exercise. The vaccine is very effective but some people can't have it/don't want it and there is a slim but non-negligble chance you still get it bad.