Whatever it takes to save lives...

[Fumbleweed 426]

Let me preface this by saying two things first- One, lives matter. Period. They just do. And, saving as many lives as possible should be a super high priority. Second, if someone you love is in serious condition, health-wise, all the decent people in the world are rooting for them to get better. Nothing I am about to say changes that. We will all rejoice with the news of improved health and well-being.

All that said, I just want to speak to the double standard we have with respect to policies on saving lives. 39,000 Americans die every year in automobile accidents. If we reduced the speed limit to 25 MPH on all roads and enforced it, that number is likely cut to a third of current deaths. So, why don’t we do that? Why are we conceding 20,000 to 30,000 lives every year just so we can get from Point A to Point B quicker? Because we deem the trade off too great I guess. Same goes for virus containment. No one wants to be responsible for conceding lives and rightfully so. We want to save as many as possible. But, that isn’t consistent with numerous other policies with the one I noted being a prime example. Just something to think about and people weighing the impact of such things are not heartless monsters.

 

[Strike 3,957]

16 minutes ago, Fumbleweed said:

Let me preface this by saying two things first- One, lives matter. Period. They just do. And, saving as many lives as possible should be a super high priority. Second, if someone you love is in serious condition, health-wise, all the decent people in the world are rooting for them to get better. Nothing I am about to say changes that. We will all rejoice with the news of improved health and well-being.

All that said, I just want to speak to the double standard we have with respect to policies on saving lives. 39,000 Americans die every year in automobile accidents. If we reduced the speed limit to 25 MPH on all roads and enforced it, that number is likely cut to a third of current deaths. So, why don’t we do that? Why are we conceding 20,000 to 30,000 lives every year just so we can get from Point A to Point B quicker? Because we deem the trade off too great I guess. Same goes for virus containment. No one wants to be responsible for conceding lives and rightfully so. We want to save as many as possible. But, that isn’t consistent with numerous other policies with the one I noted being a prime example. Just something to think about and people weighing the impact of such things are not heartless monsters.

 

Please don't go inserting logic in to this discussion. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Car crashes happen to other people but I could get corona, therefore it's important.  That's what we are seeing. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,114]

21 minutes ago, Fumbleweed said:

Let me preface this by saying two things first- One, lives matter. Period. They just do. And, saving as many lives as possible should be a super high priority. Second, if someone you love is in serious condition, health-wise, all the decent people in the world are rooting for them to get better. Nothing I am about to say changes that. We will all rejoice with the news of improved health and well-being.

All that said, I just want to speak to the double standard we have with respect to policies on saving lives. 39,000 Americans die every year in automobile accidents. If we reduced the speed limit to 25 MPH on all roads and enforced it, that number is likely cut to a third of current deaths. So, why don’t we do that? Why are we conceding 20,000 to 30,000 lives every year just so we can get from Point A to Point B quicker? Because we deem the trade off too great I guess. Same goes for virus containment. No one wants to be responsible for conceding lives and rightfully so. We want to save as many as possible. But, that isn’t consistent with numerous other policies with the one I noted being a prime example. Just something to think about and people weighing the impact of such things are not heartless monsters.

 

Well said.  I'm a volunteer fire fighter and I can tell you for certain that you're dead on about the speed limit.  I assure you, you're understating the drop in auto deaths if the speed limit drops to 25 MPH.  You probably would cut it by 85-90%.  The only deaths at that point would likely be the one's where something unforeseen happened.  Such as, a car hitting another and said car falls into a ditch (or greater).  Vehicles these days are built to withstand impact with both vehicles going 10 MPH.  I could tell you this, in accidents, costs for repairs would drastically drop as well as people's car insurance costs.

I saw a study about 10 years ago that drop to 40 MPH would make a substantial impact as well.  A drop to 25 would be even more successful.

[posty 2,296]

28 minutes ago, Fumbleweed said:

 One, lives matter.

torrid would call you a bigot...

[Utilit99 4,099]

4 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Well said.  I'm a volunteer fire fighter and I can tell you for certain that you're dead on about the speed limit.  I assure you, you're understating the drop in auto deaths if the speed limit drops to 25 MPH.  You probably would cut it by 85-90%.  The only deaths at that point would likely be the one's where something unforeseen happened.  Such as, a car hitting another and said car falls into a ditch (or greater).  Vehicles these days are built to withstand impact with both vehicles going 10 MPH.  I could tell you this, in accidents, costs for repairs would drastically drop as well as people's car insurance costs.

I saw a study about 10 years ago that drop to 40 MPH would make a substantial impact as well.  A drop to 25 would be even more successful.

Amen on all of that. 

I have no issues with people having fun with speed and thrill on race tracks, off road, ski slopes, etc. and I enjoy that myself to be honest. Just stop fvcking around on the roads. I would have no problem with a strictly enforced 40mph  speed limit in densely populated urban area highways like around LA, Chicago, New York City, etc. 

 

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

1 hour ago, Utilit99 said:

Amen on all of that. 

I have no issues with people having fun with speed and thrill on race tracks, off road, ski slopes, etc. and I enjoy that myself to be honest. Just stop fvcking around on the roads. I would have no problem with a strictly enforced 40mph  speed limit in densely populated urban area highways like around LA, Chicago, New York City, etc. 

 

Driving home from work the other night, from Chicago, there was barely any traffic on the highway. Yet somehow people were still managing to cut other drivers off to save about 2 seconds on their commute

[JustinCharge 2,397]

18 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

Driving home from work the other night, from Chicago, there was barely any traffic on the highway. Yet somehow people were still managing to cut other drivers off to save about 2 seconds on their commute

I've seen people driving like a maniac, cutting people off and swerving on the highway at high speeds in LA during the lockdown, even in pouring rain.  Also I've seen some wrecks where people have plowed into the trunk of other cars, flipped their cars, multicar pileups, etc.  All since they shut the city down.  Its nuts.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

25 mph is a bit focking ridiculous. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

10 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

25 mph is a bit focking ridiculous. 

I think the point was, deaths vs. speed limit reduction. Of course 25 is crazy, but address the topic. What do you choose? Higher speed limit or more deaths?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,577]

How would lowering it to 25 save lives. I’d still and most people would still go 60. Laws only affect those who abide by them and that’s one I would have a hard time doing especially since I based my business on being about an hour away going 75

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,577]

Just to counter this how many of the 39000 are alcohol related?  And don’t we have laws in place to prevent those?  Seems like nobody should be killed by a drunk driver

[Cloaca du jour 2,064]

What is all this talk i see in the media that Trump is dialing back all the restrictions..or planning to.  Is this more media scapegoating and stirring the pot?

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

2 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

How would lowering it to 25 save lives. I’d still and most people would still go 60. Laws only affect those who abide by them and that’s one I would have a hard time doing especially since I based my business on being about an hour away going 75

Put to 25 and strictly enforced

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,577]

3 hours ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

Put to 25 and strictly enforced

Drunk driving is strictly enforced

[Alias Detective 1,179]

3 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Drunk driving is strictly enforced

Use a governor then Mr. semantics.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

40 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Drunk driving is strictly enforced

Do you really need it explained how much easier catching someone speeding vs drunk driving is? Plus, if they put the punishment high enough, people wouldn't do it nearly as much

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,577]

I don’t need any explanation I understand I am just arguing the other side.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

Here is the difference: 20000 to 30000 traffic deaths aren't going to blow up the medical system. Taking a "Let's just go on with our daily lives like we do everything else" approach to a highly contagious disease that hospitalizes many of the infected would overwhelm every medical resource in the country which would then increase deaths from other causes. If there aren't any free ICU beds because they are filled with Covid patients, maybe you don't survive that heart attack. If there is a nationwide shortage of Albuterol inhalers because they are being used to treat respiratory symptoms of Covid patients (which is actually happening already) then asthma attacks will result in death more frequently, etc.

[MDC 5,890]

I think there comes a point where the damage that shelter in place does to people’s livelihoods outweighs the benefit of social distancing.

This argument is mostly coming from Wall Street about a week into these restrictions. I think these folks are mostly worried about their stock portfolios rather than the country’s long term economic health.

[Bert 1,091]

3 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Drunk driving is strictly enforced

Not in the United States

[Bert 1,091]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

I think there comes a point where the damage that shelter in place does to people’s livelihoods outweighs the benefit of social distancing.

This argument is mostly coming from Wall Street about a week into these restrictions. I think these folks are mostly worried about their stock portfolios rather than the country’s long term economic health.

Mostly Wall Street??? Maybe you should talk to a waiter, bartender, bus boy, bar back, host, concierge, a dry cleaner, valet, front desk personnel at a hotel, maids, dental techs, dentist, barber, nail tech, message therapist, flight attendant, pilot, ground crew, gate agent, baggage handler, bus driver, parking shuttle driver.......

[MDC 5,890]

12 minutes ago, Bert said:

Mostly Wall Street??? Maybe you should talk to a waiter, bartender, bus boy, bar back, host, concierge, a dry cleaner, valet, front desk personnel at a hotel, maids, dental techs, dentist, barber, nail tech, message therapist, flight attendant, pilot, ground crew, gate agent, baggage handler, bus driver, parking shuttle driver.......

Everyone wants to get back to life as we know it. The WSJ on Saturday published an op ed about the “cure being worse than the disease” and Trump picked that up verbatim a day later. The Wall Street / Beltway folks pushing this narrative don’t give a fock all about waiters and bartenders. 

[NorthernVike 2,080]

You are right, lives matter.   They should outlaw abortions in the stimulus bill.

[avoiding injuries 1,220]

Also, in this scenario, we are only dropping the speed limit for a year. After that, back to normal until the next pandemic. 

[Bert 1,091]

19 minutes ago, MDC said:

Everyone wants to get back to life as we know it. The WSJ on Saturday published an op ed about the “cure being worse than the disease” and Trump picked that up verbatim a day later. The Wall Street / Beltway folks pushing this narrative don’t give a fock all about waiters and bartenders. 

You missed the point that the small business owners and The people I mentioned don’t give a fock about Wall Street or some internet narrative.  There lives are being destroyed by the shelter in place. This isn’t a Wall Street conspiracy. It is real people that don’t give a damn about politics or Wall Street. They care about making a living and providing for their families. 

[avoiding injuries 1,220]

How many suicides is this sheltering going to cause due to economic collapse? Domestic deaths due to families having to talk to each other.  Let’s subtract those numbers from Covid-19 deaths in preparation for the next “flu”. We can also throw in the number of abortions that were cancelled bc of elective surgeries being delayed. 

[KSB2424 3,082]

3 hours ago, ZeroTolerance said:

Here is the difference: 20000 to 30000 traffic deaths aren't going to blow up the medical system. Taking a "Let's just go on with our daily lives like we do everything else" approach to a highly contagious disease that hospitalizes many of the infected would overwhelm every medical resource in the country which would then increase deaths from other causes. If there aren't any free ICU beds because they are filled with Covid patients, maybe you don't survive that heart attack. If there is a nationwide shortage of Albuterol inhalers because they are being used to treat respiratory symptoms of Covid patients (which is actually happening already) then asthma attacks will result in death more frequently, etc.

Fumble's point is valid and so is this response.

It's why we have to take this crisis one day at a time, then one week at a time and constantly re access where we are at.  Life is a series of cost vs benefit analysis.  This is no different.

[MDC 5,890]

18 minutes ago, Bert said:

You missed the point that the small business owners and The people I mentioned don’t give a fock about Wall Street or some internet narrative.  There lives are being destroyed by the shelter in place. This isn’t a Wall Street conspiracy. It is real people that don’t give a damn about politics or Wall Street. They care about making a living and providing for their families. 

I get the point. I just think calling for an end to shelter in place after one week against the advice of our own health experts is premature. If your life is being destroyed already you were hanging on by a thread.

[Bert 1,091]

4 minutes ago, MDC said:

I get the point. I just think calling for an end to shelter in place after one week against the advice of our own health experts is premature. If your life is being destroyed already you were hanging on by a thread.

True and I agree.  But there are government agencies and "experts" saying we should be locked down for 4-6 months.  Most Americans don't have that much in savings.  You said ending the shelter in place is coming mostly from Wall Street that simply isn't true.

[MDC 5,890]

15 minutes ago, Bert said:

True and I agree.  But there are government agencies and "experts" saying we should be locked down for 4-6 months.  Most Americans don't have that much in savings.  You said ending the shelter in place is coming mostly from Wall Street that simply isn't true.

Over the weekend the WSJ published their op ed calling the cure potentially worse than the disease. Almost immediately I’m seeing the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, the National Review and other think tanks and corporate reps making the same claim along with the POTUS. 

Everybody wants to go back to work. These people have a much louder voice in Washington than the waiters and bartenders etc. In the short term the feds should prop up people who are financially devastated by shelter in place. I doubt it goes longer than 3-4 weeks regardless.

I feel bad for small business owners, contractors, service industry workers etc. who are seriously hurt. At this point I think a lot of other people who really aren’t that hurt by it are making the push to go back to work out of their own selfish interests.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

3 hours ago, MDC said:

I think there comes a point where the damage that shelter in place does to people’s livelihoods outweighs the benefit of social distancing.

This argument is mostly coming from Wall Street about a week into these restrictions. I think these folks are mostly worried about their stock portfolios rather than the country’s long term economic health.

Did you notice that Republicans seem to be most ready to get back to economic norms even knowing the damage it's going to do to the elderly? Which side is pro life again? 

[Bert 1,091]

3 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

Did you notice that Republicans seem to be most ready to get back to economic norms even knowing the damage it's going to do to the elderly? Which side is pro life again? 

Its nothing personal it is only business.  This is their chance to save social security!  

[FeelingMN 273]

South Korea seemed like they kept their speed limit relatively the same without costing too many lives. 

If we open the service, travel, and entertainment industries back up, people will go spend money.  But it will be at a fraction of normal business.  People don't want to risk getting sick, and if people do get sick they'll stay home for a week or two anyway.  You will still have layoffs and people struggling to make ends meet.....and you will have more people infected with coronavirus in the population at large and an overburdened healthcare system.

Basically do we want a sh!t sandwich or a turd burger?  There is no good choice in the current situation.