Coronavirus - Doomsday

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

9 minutes ago, Strike said:

There is no one plan.  Each community has to develop their own.  As HT noted, very rural communities may not have significant cases of COVID19 and should be able to open up as little or as much as they want.  I understand why NYC might be a lot more cautious despite the fact that their own Mayor is ignoring all the safety measures he put in place.  Where I live is being overly cautious IMO, and that's where most of my ire is directed.  I'm also very concerned about the civil liberties we're giving up over this, and that isn't being discussed enough. Again, IMO.  Lastly, we're not taking in to consideration the people who are or will die by us NOT opening things up, and that number will not be insignificant.  But we won't know those numbers until after the fact.  There are a lot of moving pieces and variables with this, but in general it is my opinion that we've gone way overboard with our restrictions and time line for removing them.  I've said this since the beginning of this crisis and I stick by that.

What are people dying from by NOT opening things up?  I have had a hard time since Day 1 getting an answer on that one, so I am unclear.

Again, if there are (rural) areas where the criteria are met to open up, then go for it.  I think that it is in the hands of Governors and not individual communities at this point.  There does need to be some actual rule of law that is followed, so I would stick with that given that both the Fed and State governments at least agree on that.  

[Hardcore troubadour 15,519]

Some of us have older people in our lives that we love and would like to see stick around a while longer. Sorry some of you don’t.  

[Baker Boy 1,704]

8 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

What are people dying from by NOT opening things up?  I have had a hard time since Day 1 getting an answer on that one, so I am unclear.

Again, if there are (rural) areas where the criteria are met to open up, then go for it.  I think that it is in the hands of Governors and not individual communities at this point.  There does need to be some actual rule of law that is followed, so I would stick with that given that both the Fed and State governments at least agree on that.  

Their business is dying, their livelihood is dying and our supply chain is almost dead and our economy will die. There is a certain element in this country that want is to happen.

[Baker Boy 1,704]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Some of us have older people in our lives that we love and would like to see stick around a while longer. Sorry some of you don’t.  

Isolate them them, not the entire country. They are not a critical part of our economy.

[Strike 5,635]

13 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

What are people dying from by NOT opening things up?  I have had a hard time since Day 1 getting an answer on that one, so I am unclear.

 

https://www.guelphtoday.com/around-ontario/ontario-delayed-cardiac-surgeries-due-to-pandemic-may-have-caused-35-deaths-2289870

Also, suicide rates may increase as a result of these stay at home orders.  Again, we won't know the totality of the impact of the stay at home on non covid infected people until this is all over, and then it will be too late.

[Strike 5,635]

2 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

Isolate them them, not the entire country.

It really is this simple. 

[Gladiators 1,998]

5 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

Isolate them them, not the entire country. They are not a critical part of our economy.

It’s both amazing and sad that some are incapable of grasping this concept.

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 hour ago, edjr said:

25? fock that. No cars at all. too dangerous. Walk

Yeah, but walk very carefully. No running. We don't need anyone tripping on their shoe-laces or some other hazardous obstacle.

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 hour ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

This is the same crappy arguments, just a different topic.  When you don't have a good answer to why we can't meet the Federal guidelines, let's just throw out some random argument that is not pertinent.

So you disagree that having and enforcing a 25mph speed limit would save tons of lives? Follow along here.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

49 minutes ago, Strike said:

It really is this simple. 

Who is “them”? Just list out who we are separating out, so we know whether we are talking about 10%, 20%, 50%, 75%. 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

9 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

So you disagree that having and enforcing a 25mph speed limit would save tons of lives? Follow along here.

Apples and oranges. Let me know when going over 25 is contagious. It also really doesn’t impact others. 

[Strike 5,635]

2 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

Who is “them”? Just list out who we are separating out, so we know whether we are talking about 10%, 20%, 50%, 75%. 

There is no one plan.  Each community has to develop their own.  As HT noted, very rural communities may not have significant cases of COVID19 and should be able to open up as little or as much as they want.  I understand why NYC might be a lot more cautious despite the fact that their own Mayor is ignoring all the safety measures he put in place.  Where I live is being overly cautious IMO, and that's where most of my ire is directed.  I'm also very concerned about the civil liberties we're giving up over this, and that isn't being discussed enough. Again, IMO.  Lastly, we're not taking in to consideration the people who are or will die by us NOT opening things up, and that number will not be insignificant.  But we won't know those numbers until after the fact.  There are a lot of moving pieces and variables with this, but in general it is my opinion that we've gone way overboard with our restrictions and time line for removing them.  I've said this since the beginning of this crisis and I stick by that.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

There is no one plan.  Each community has to develop their own.  As HT noted, very rural communities may not have significant cases of COVID19 and should be able to open up as little or as much as they want.  I understand why NYC might be a lot more cautious despite the fact that their own Mayor is ignoring all the safety measures he put in place.  Where I live is being overly cautious IMO, and that's where most of my ire is directed.  I'm also very concerned about the civil liberties we're giving up over this, and that isn't being discussed enough. Again, IMO.  Lastly, we're not taking in to consideration the people who are or will die by us NOT opening things up, and that number will not be insignificant.  But we won't know those numbers until after the fact.  There are a lot of moving pieces and variables with this, but in general it is my opinion that we've gone way overboard with our restrictions and time line for removing them.  I've said this since the beginning of this crisis and I stick by that.

So, it isn’t simple? Hmmmm.

[Utilit99 4,099]

7 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

Apples and oranges. Let me know when going over 25 is contagious. It also really doesn’t impact others. 

If no one goes over 25, then most people will not. If everyone goes 70, then most people will. It's pretty easy to figure out if you think.

[Strike 5,635]

3 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

So, it isn’t simple? Hmmmm.

Wow, you sound like a CNN reporter at a Trump news conference.  "WE GOT YOU TRUMP!!".  Or look at the Yahoo news guy who thought he got Trump today and had to issue apologies left and right for not knowing his stats.

Yes it is simple.  That doesn't mean it's the SAME everywhere.  Each locale has to come up with their own plan. Each plan doesn't have to be complicated. 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

1 minute ago, Utilit99 said:

If no one goes over 25, then most people will not. If everyone goes 70, then most people will. It's pretty easy to figure out if you think.

If you choose to go 50 in a 25, it will not force me to go 50. Don’t be more stupid than you normally are.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Wow, you sound like a CNN reporter at a Trump news conference.  "WE GOT YOU TRUMP!!".  Or look at the Yahoo news guy who thought he got Trump today and had to issue apologies left and right for not knowing his stats.

Yes it is simple.  That doesn't mean it's the SAME everywhere.  Each locale has to come up with their own plan. Each plan doesn't have to be complicated. 

Don’t pass the buck. What would you do? Who are you sheltering and who gets to roam free? 

Not everywhere, but in your little part of the world. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

If you choose to go 50 in a 25, it will not force me to go 50. Don’t be more stupid than you normally are.

So I mention if they change the speed limit and enforce it, you come back with, "I'll do what I want.", and then call me stupid.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

2 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

So I mention if they change the speed limit and enforce it, you come back with, "I'll do what I want.", and then call me stupid.

What? Read what I wrote real slow this time and you will see I didn’t say anything remotely close to what you think.

[Utilit99 4,099]

2 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

What? Read what I wrote real slow this time and you will see I didn’t say anything remotely close to what you think.

There is no change. If you go 25 in a 50 you're stupid. If you go 50 in a 25, you're stupid. If you want the economy to fail, you're stupid because you think it will save some lives now but don't realize in the long run it will have a devastating outcome for the country.

Quote

What are people dying from by NOT opening things up?  I have had a hard time since Day 1 getting an answer on that one, so I am unclear. 

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

7 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

There is no change. If you go 25 in a 50 you're stupid. If you go 50 in a 25, you're stupid. If you want the economy to fail, you're stupid because you think it will save some lives now but don't realize in the long run it will have a devastating outcome for the country.

 

Wow. You are crazy. We aren’t talking about a permanent shutdown and we aren’t talking about a couple of people dying. Not sure how else to keep it simple for you.

[Utilit99 4,099]

Just now, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

Wow. You are crazy. We aren’t talking about a permanent shutdown and we aren’t talking about a couple of people dying. Not sure how else to keep it simple for you.

And yet you don't see a point of no return which will impact people and the US for many years to come. Have at it all you want.

[nobody 2,705]

2 hours ago, edjr said:

BOOM!

You notice how the disease didn't affect young people until they wanted young people to stay home.  Then all of the sudden it could get anyone.

[Utilit99 4,099]

8 minutes ago, nobody said:

You notice how the disease didn't affect young people until they wanted young people to stay home.  Then all of the sudden it could get anyone.

I wonder if it is affecting the to-be aborted lives? Should they take shelter until they are sucked out with a vacuum and tossed into a garbage bag?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

 

[KSB2424 3,148]

If you are over 70 you are probably retired, and you should probably take extra precautions in 2020 no matter what.

If you have a serious underlying condition and work they should make it easy to get FMLA from your employer / Gov't for the near future.

They should obviously continue with antibody testing and tracking this virus.

People should continue to take precautions,  washing hands, covering coughs and sneezes and be smart.

And we should open it all back up.  We've flattened the curve, mission accomplished.

[nobody 2,705]

The good news is that since all of the politicians need the numbers inflated to justify their decisions to shut down the economy, when they re-open, they'll likely want to underreport the numbers to justify their decisions to open up.

[jerryskids 6,878]

4 hours ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

Don’t pass the buck. What would you do? Who are you sheltering and who gets to roam free? 

Not everywhere, but in your little part of the world. 

I'm curious:  you agree with a phased approach, as do I.  Why do you not think it makes sense to re-integrate the elderly and sick in a later phase?  As a variable it has the strongest correlation and makes a lot more sense than broad brush strokes like "restaurants." 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

11 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I'm curious:  you agree with a phased approach, as do I.  Why do you not think it makes sense to re-integrate the elderly and sick in a later phase?  As a variable it has the strongest correlation and makes a lot more sense than broad brush strokes like "restaurants." 

I never said it didn’t. I asked where the line is drawn because the “compromised” is so broad. Ed thinks it is just people who are old, fat, or unhealthy who will die (and he and others ignore those who will be affected after recovery).

Who is in your list of “elderly and sick”? It is easy to say a general term, but what does it entail?

We could always leave it loose like “businesses in need”. What could go wrong?

[jerryskids 6,878]

3 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

I never said it didn’t. I asked where the line is drawn because the “compromised” is so broad. Ed thinks it is just people who are old, fat, or unhealthy who will die (and he and others ignore those who will be affected after recovery).

Who is in your list of “elderly and sick”? It is easy to say a general term, but what does it entail?

We could always leave it loose like “businesses in need”. What could go wrong?

There are any number of ways it could be done, but I would be concerned with outright excluding a subset of people from the economy for fear of unnecessary ageism.  So how about giving people of a certain age (or perhaps a sliding scale) the type of relief that we are giving everyone now, and they can make the choice to stay home and be safe.  We could also put laws in place to ensure their return to work, somewhat like maternity leave.

Or I suppose we can stick with the liberal approach that everyone needs to be equally in a poor situation. 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

There are any number of ways it could be done, but I would be concerned with outright excluding a subset of people from the economy for fear of unnecessary ageism.  So how about giving people of a certain age (or perhaps a sliding scale) the type of relief that we are giving everyone now, and they can make the choice to stay home and be safe.  We could also put laws in place to ensure their return to work, somewhat like maternity leave.

Or I suppose we can stick with the liberal approach that everyone needs to be equally in a poor situation. 

Or you use testing like the recommendations from the Fed. Of course we need the testing, but let the science drive a lot of this and not politics or emotion 

[jerryskids 6,878]

2 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

Or you use testing like the recommendations from the Fed. Of course we need the testing, but let the science drive a lot of this and not politics or emotion 

Personally I think increased testing is a bit of a red herring for opening up the economy.  Are there people suspected of having COVID who can't get tested?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,519]

If this disease attacks minorities in greater numbers as claimed (I know it makes no sense) then are we going to be telling them to stay in quarantine? Or can we put that hoax to rest? 

[Strike 5,635]

5 hours ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

Don’t pass the buck. What would you do? Who are you sheltering and who gets to roam free? 

Not everywhere, but in your little part of the world. 

You don't want my answer.  My answer would be to let people do what they want.  That's the Libertarian in me.  That's why I haven't ever thought of running for office, nor would I get elected if I did.  I'm too honest and wouldn't make decisions based on politics.  And that's what's going on now.  We are much more informed than we were a month ago, and the data shows this thing is much less potent than we thought, and most of it's wrath happens in a few specific demographics.  If it were me I would make sure that data is well publicized, meaning the demographics at risk, and let people make up their own minds whether to go out or not.  As it is, our government is hiding that data.  In fact, as noted previously, when it became convenient for this not to just be an old/vulnerable person's issue they made a big deal about any younger person who even coughed to suggest that this thing is as likely to hit a healthy 25 year old as it is a 70 year old cancer survivor, which is clearly false. 

The last time we had a similar pandemic we didn't shut down the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_flu

And yet somehow we survived. 

I notice you haven't addressed my concerns about the restrictions on our civil liberties.  I'd love to know your thoughts.  Your silence suggests you are fine with our government trampling the constitution while destroying our economy over this thing.  That seems odd to me.

You also haven't addressed my concerns about people dying as a result of this extended lockdown who don't have Covid.  I was nice enough to provide you with data on this after you lamented how much trouble you were having finding it yourself.  It would be nice if you didn't just drop that aspect of this issue because I've proven it's legitimate. 

Point being there are a lot of other things to take in to account other than how many people die specifically from Covid. 

[Strike 5,635]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-screenings-exc/exclusive-u-s-medical-testing-cancer-screenings-plunge-during-coronavirus-outbreak-data-firm-analysis-idUSKCN22A0DY

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/03/patients-whose-surgeries-are-canceled-because-coronavirus/608176/

The little discussed elephant in the room regarding health care is that it makes the most money on elective surgeries.  With all of that being postponed to make sure we have room for Coronavirus patients, health care providers are losing a boatload of money and laying people off:

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/coronavirus-victim-americas-largest-health-systems/story?id=70317683

Point being there are a lot of other things to take in to account other than how many people die specifically from Covid. 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

7 hours ago, Strike said:

You don't want my answer.  My answer would be to let people do what they want.  That's the Libertarian in me.  That's why I haven't ever thought of running for office, nor would I get elected if I did.  I'm too honest and wouldn't make decisions based on politics.  And that's what's going on now.  We are much more informed than we were a month ago, and the data shows this thing is much less potent than we thought, and most of it's wrath happens in a few specific demographics.  If it were me I would make sure that data is well publicized, meaning the demographics at risk, and let people make up their own minds whether to go out or not.  As it is, our government is hiding that data.  In fact, as noted previously, when it became convenient for this not to just be an old/vulnerable person's issue they made a big deal about any younger person who even coughed to suggest that this thing is as likely to hit a healthy 25 year old as it is a 70 year old cancer survivor, which is clearly false. 

The last time we had a similar pandemic we didn't shut down the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_flu

And yet somehow we survived. 

I notice you haven't addressed my concerns about the restrictions on our civil liberties.  I'd love to know your thoughts.  Your silence suggests you are fine with our government trampling the constitution while destroying our economy over this thing.  That seems odd to me.

You also haven't addressed my concerns about people dying as a result of this extended lockdown who don't have Covid.  I was nice enough to provide you with data on this after you lamented how much trouble you were having finding it yourself.  It would be nice if you didn't just drop that aspect of this issue because I've proven it's legitimate. 

Point being there are a lot of other things to take in to account other than how many people die specifically from Covid. 

Thanks for clarification. I think you went from letting communities decide for themselves to having each person or entity decide for themselves. If that is the case, I can’t get behind that. Half the population is dumb.

I don’t feel that our Constitutional rights have been hampered at all, never mind being “trampled”. I think we have a lot of petulant children who don’t like being told to wear a mask. That doesn’t bother me because I am a responsible adult. 

Have some states and localities gone too far? I certainly think so, but it really isn’t a big infringement IMO. Golf courses being closed seems overkill if simple precautions are taken. Playgrounds shuttered and basketball nets cut down seems overkill as well, but we have that 50 percent who don’t care.

The “data” on people possibly dying in Canada due to cardiac arrest? I didn’t find it showed anything and 35 possibles instead of 55k known was not very compelling. So many here have told us all how many die from cancer and heart disease as part of normal life that those numbers seem extremely suspect or a rounding error. Sorry.

I think we need to open up at a state level when the criteria have been met. Are the criteria perfect? No, but it is reasonable balance between safety and economics. Do we have to fight over everything instead of working to some common goal? If so, then we are doomed.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

6 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Personally I think increased testing is a bit of a red herring for opening up the economy.  Are there people suspected of having COVID who can't get tested?

Ummm, I think that has been the point all along. You call you PCP, they ask you some questions and, depending on your history, they tell you to stay home and quarantine for 2 weeks. Eventually you may get a test, but we don’t have enough tests or results fast enough to cover the people even on the front lines who would be in these businesses that want to open up.

[wiffleball 4,790]

Just read yet another article where even the med community is saying the existing antibody tests are "really terrible".  

Add that to the swab tests - which are as much as 50% unreliable - 

And 'testing' is a freaking joke right now 

Basically, there's nothing they can do - except wait as you deteriorate or you get better on your own. 

So the 'testing' doesn't do jack diddly diick shiit. 

The only thing they really count on diagnostically is if you have at least one symptom - and it gets worse over time. 

[wiffleball 4,790]

  Really pisses me off at the 'quarantine' - 

Every two hours, the majority of the 'guests' go out and smoke. 

I like beer, but my liver's falling out? I'm not wolfing down a 40 every two hours. 

God, I hate smokers. 

And now,, they'e unecessarily taking up finite and valuable medical time and resources. 

I can't take a GD deep breath without a 15 minute yack til I pass out-fest.  - And never smoked.

THese morons?  Did it to themselves - and KEEP doing it. 

Oh, and did I mention the cigarettes are free?  Fock you people  - and die - literally. 

[Baker Boy 1,704]

16 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Some of us have older people in our lives that we love and would like to see stick around a while longer. Sorry some of you don’t.  

 

15 hours ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

Who is “them”? Just list out who we are separating out, so we know whether we are talking about 10%, 20%, 50%, 75%. 

Try reading the tread, it was a replies today the first post above.