I grew up in Vermont and now live in central New York state. I've started looking for a house out here and I check the Vermont real estate market occasionally to see what prices are. It's ridiculous and will only get more so unless more housing gets built.

So yes, Vermont needs to grow. Or else the population will drop as no one will be able to afford to live there.

FOR THE LAST TIME, I AM ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE STRIKE WILL RESULT IN DEATH. I KNOW THIS. I ACCEPT THIS. THE STRIKE MUST HAPPEN ANYWAY.

Is that clear enough for you?

I unfortunately do not have access to that data and have no interest in googling it for you.

But I will point out that, even in YOUR comment with the stupid options, you said both result in some deaths. It's just that one option results in improved working conditions for hideously overworked nurses, while the other lets the status quo stand. Obviously the pro-nurse side will want the nurses to get relief. It's not both sidesing it to acknowledge that deaths will happen while stating that it's still the better outcome. Isn't that what you want? That acknowledgment?

I notice he hasn't replied to this.

I. Don't. Care. That. People. Die. As. Long. As. The. Nurses. Keep. Their. Right. To. Strike. As. People. Will. Die. Either. Way.

Is that clear enough for you? Did your little misspelled rant finally get the response you wanted?

I think you've been incredibly stubborn and disingenuous, but 2. Because, even in your comment, there's deaths in both options. AS I SAID.

edit: also, I'm pretty sure me saying that denying nurses the right to strike is a bad thing means I'm against "nurses can't strike".

As people have said in other threads, people die either way. Denying nurses the right to strike is repressive and antithetical to a safe working environment for them.