(06-24-2020 05:36 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 04:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 02:02 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Social isolation, but for vulnerable people at home

Did all the people who died from this categorize as “vulnerable?” Did they know they really were after all?

I don’t know whatever happened to the concept of the greater good.

But that begs the issue of what the "greater good" is. It can't be "minimize deaths at any other kind of cost", because otherwise we would ban automobiles, which kill about 35,000 people a year. But, even though nobody likes to say it in so many words, as a society we think those deaths are "worth it" to get the benefits cars provide. Truth is, societies trade-off lives for other things all the time.

As for "vulnerable", we have had a very good idea of who is vulnerable all along - the very elderly and people with a few underlying conditions, like heart disease, diabetes, and asthma. And no, not every single person who has died fits those categories, but the numbers are staggering. IIRC, of the first 25,000 people who died of CV in the USA, all of 24 weren't elderly or had a serious underlying health condition.

So protect the vulnerable, but don't wreck society and the economy with mass lockdowns and shutdowns of public life in the process, as we did and are still doing.

We take steps to minimize auto deaths. Seatbelts, speed limits, air bags etc. It's a form of transportation not a commutable disease. Thats not even comparing apples to oranges thats comparing apples to hammers.

We do take steps to reduce auto deaths - but not minimize at any cost, as that can only be done by eliminating autos. We tolerate 35,000 dead a year to gain the economic and social benefits of autos.

Lockdowns are looking more and more like a massive mistake. They are like using a hammer when a laser beam is more appropriate, because CV is not a "zombie apocalypse" disease that targets everyone in the same way. Some identifiable groups are FAR more likely to have very serious health outcomes than others. So target the vulnerable for extreme protection, but shutting down society caused enormous collateral damage.

I just have a feeling it will either it will not start or it will stop mid season. A number of people are too worried about being inconvenienced than spreading diseases and they will never get it. It isn't just young or college ones, I know people in their 40s and 50s that don't get it that you can spread it to others without getting sick.

(06-24-2020 09:07 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  I just have a feeling it will either it will not start or it will stop mid season. A number of people are too worried about being inconvenienced than spreading diseases and they will never get it. It isn't just young or college ones, I know people in their 40s and 50s that don't get it that you can spread it to others without getting sick.

I think most people who oppose lockdowns and shutdowns understand that the virus is very contagious and can be spread by anyone, even if you appear to be asymptotic. They just have mentally run a cost-benefit analysis and don't think the risk to themselves is worth incurring drastic economic and social costs, and think others who are vulnerable - like the very elderly - can best be protected with targeted actions rather than society-wide restrictions.

And if in your world losing your job or not being able to pay your mortgage is merely an "inconvenience" that you shouldn't be worried about, well then you are IMO quite privileged.

I wonder if I took a survey at my local Target with employees and how they feel about the shutdown how they'd side. Even if their roles are essential and financial situation safer than many, they are still massively inconvenienced and impacted in other ways. Conversely, talking with the owner or teachers of local daycare facilities who didn't make it out, the "selfless" caregivers who lost their way of living at the cost of protecting youngsters and their families.

The world and our people are so much more complex than a stereotype or arbitrary, subjective observation. Or an economic equation. And I love it all the more for it. I see the kind of assault governors in states like my own (PA) are under, even despite success and curbing infection rates; I don't envy them. I don't necessarily agree with everything they are doing with this, but they demonstrate the necessary deep thought and consideration these times demand. I wish it trickled down to higher ed, is all.

(06-23-2020 04:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 02:02 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Social isolation, but for vulnerable people at home

Did all the people who died from this categorize as “vulnerable?” Did they know they really were after all?

I don’t know whatever happened to the concept of the greater good.

But that begs the issue of what the "greater good" is. It can't be "minimize deaths at any other kind of cost", because otherwise we would ban automobiles, which kill about 35,000 people a year. But, even though nobody likes to say it in so many words, as a society we think those deaths are "worth it" to get the benefits cars provide. Truth is, societies trade-off lives for other things all the time.

As for "vulnerable", we have had a very good idea of who is vulnerable all along - the very elderly and people with a few underlying conditions, like heart disease, diabetes, and asthma. And no, not every single person who has died fits those categories, but the numbers are staggering. IIRC, of the first 25,000 people who died of CV in the USA, all of 24 weren't elderly or had a serious underlying health condition.

So protect the vulnerable, but don't wreck society and the economy with mass lockdowns and shutdowns of public life in the process, as we did and are still doing.

There was one article that calculated the shutdown will eventually cost over 100,000 lives through the unemployment impacts and deferred medical care. And that is assuming no continuing shutdown.

(06-24-2020 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:07 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  I just have a feeling it will either it will not start or it will stop mid season. A number of people are too worried about being inconvenienced than spreading diseases and they will never get it. It isn't just young or college ones, I know people in their 40s and 50s that don't get it that you can spread it to others without getting sick.

I think most people who oppose lockdowns and shutdowns understand that the virus is very contagious and can be spread by anyone, even if you appear to be asymptotic. They just have mentally run a cost-benefit analysis and don't think the risk to themselves is worth incurring drastic economic and social costs, and think others who are vulnerable - like the very elderly - can best be protected with targeted actions rather than society-wide restrictions.

And if in your world losing your job or not being able to pay your mortgage is merely an "inconvenience" that you shouldn't be worried about, well then you are IMO quite privileged.

I think you missed my point, there are a lot of people that don't give a crap about others. I want to see all the restaurants, bars, everywhere opened up. I am not privileged. I want to see the economy opened up. They have it shutdown way too long and will take a long time to get it back where it was.

(06-24-2020 05:35 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:04 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  I want sports back as much as the next guy, but I also don't want more people to die so i'll deal with my slight inconvenience for the greater good.

I have not involved myself in the laymen mask debate because to me it is a minor inconvenience and wearing one makes common sense - a mask might help me and others and it doesn't hurt, so why not wear one? I've worn a mask every time I've gone in to an indoor public place for the past three months.

What I do object to is the lockdown approach. We have suffered tens of millions of unemployed, thousands of lost businesses, and about $4 trillion (and counting) to basically do what?

Put it this way: On a typical pre-covid day, about 8,000 people a day die in the USA. On the worst covid death day we've had so far, about 2,700 people died. So instead of 8,000 people dying that day, around 11,000 people did. Had nobody paid attention to it - meaning mass media coverage - probably "nobody" in a general sense would have noticed. Who was it who said "one person dying is a tragedy, a million is a statistic"? I think one of those evil mass killers like Stalin or Hitler. But at a societal level 8,000 dead a day is obviously a statistic as nobody ever gets riled up about it.

Put it one other way: If *last* February, in 2019, a team of Scientists, universally respected by everyone, had said "about 8,000 Americans die each day. But, we have come up with a method that can reduce that to 6,000 a day for next 180 days, or a savings of 360,000 lives during that time. The cost will be 20 million unemployed .... 150,000 lost businesses ... $4 trillion in spending ... and the loss of movies, restaurants, sporting events, travel shopping, and other such stuff for that six months, schools closed, everyone largely confined to quarters .... all to drop the death rate from 8,000 a day to 6,000 a day ... would that have gotten even 10% of the public support if put to a vote?

Countries like Japan and Sweden did the right thing. Sweden messed up a bit because they didn't protect their nursing homes, but they basically had the right approach. What should have been done was extreme lockdowns and hazmat-level protection for nursing homes, assisted care facilities, and similar facilities, isolation for anyone with diabetes, heart disease, or aesthma ... everyone else go about your business, including business.

Yesterday, our governor, John Bel Edwards of Louisiana, said something that has had me pulling my hair out. In announcing a delay in moving to another stage or reopening, he said (paraphrase) "young people crowding the bars and clubs should think about not just themselves, but their grandparents", as kids who go to these places will then bring the virus back home to vulnerable grandparents. I'm sitting their at my TV shouting "NO! Closing the bars is not the solution! The solution is for the kids to NOT visit their grandparents! Social isolation, but for vulnerable people at home, not inhibiting what the kids do out and about".

My wife and I are in our 50s, and normally we travel up to DC three times a year to visit her mother, who is 82. By mutual agreement, we have skipped our March and also will skip our July visits to avoid possibly bringing the virus in to her home. That's how to handle this, not for me and my wife not to go out to restaurants.

Cool. Economies recover the dead don't. How many dead are acceptable to keep the economy open? We clearly are doing way worse than most of the 1st world and it's not because we had lockdowns, it's because we never took it seriously and people don't want any inconvenience.

What good does it do to shut down the economy and protect some people when the economic catastrophe created by the shutdown will kill more?

(06-24-2020 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 05:36 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 04:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 02:02 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Social isolation, but for vulnerable people at home

Did all the people who died from this categorize as “vulnerable?” Did they know they really were after all?

I don’t know whatever happened to the concept of the greater good.

But that begs the issue of what the "greater good" is. It can't be "minimize deaths at any other kind of cost", because otherwise we would ban automobiles, which kill about 35,000 people a year. But, even though nobody likes to say it in so many words, as a society we think those deaths are "worth it" to get the benefits cars provide. Truth is, societies trade-off lives for other things all the time.

As for "vulnerable", we have had a very good idea of who is vulnerable all along - the very elderly and people with a few underlying conditions, like heart disease, diabetes, and asthma. And no, not every single person who has died fits those categories, but the numbers are staggering. IIRC, of the first 25,000 people who died of CV in the USA, all of 24 weren't elderly or had a serious underlying health condition.

So protect the vulnerable, but don't wreck society and the economy with mass lockdowns and shutdowns of public life in the process, as we did and are still doing.

We take steps to minimize auto deaths. Seatbelts, speed limits, air bags etc. It's a form of transportation not a commutable disease. Thats not even comparing apples to oranges thats comparing apples to hammers.

We do take steps to reduce auto deaths - but not minimize at any cost, as that can only be done by eliminating autos. We tolerate 35,000 dead a year to gain the economic and social benefits of autos.

Lockdowns are looking more and more like a massive mistake. They are like using a hammer when a laser beam is more appropriate, because CV is not a "zombie apocalypse" disease that targets everyone in the same way. Some identifiable groups are FAR more likely to have very serious health outcomes than others. So target the vulnerable for extreme protection, but shutting down society caused enormous collateral damage.

Thats just flat out wrong and ignorant. Lockdowns helped the northeast and thats why our numbers are going down while everywhere else they are going up. Yes, places like florida didn't take it seriously thats why their numbers are going up.

(06-24-2020 01:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 04:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 02:02 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Social isolation, but for vulnerable people at home

Did all the people who died from this categorize as “vulnerable?” Did they know they really were after all?

I don’t know whatever happened to the concept of the greater good.

But that begs the issue of what the "greater good" is. It can't be "minimize deaths at any other kind of cost", because otherwise we would ban automobiles, which kill about 35,000 people a year. But, even though nobody likes to say it in so many words, as a society we think those deaths are "worth it" to get the benefits cars provide. Truth is, societies trade-off lives for other things all the time.

As for "vulnerable", we have had a very good idea of who is vulnerable all along - the very elderly and people with a few underlying conditions, like heart disease, diabetes, and asthma. And no, not every single person who has died fits those categories, but the numbers are staggering. IIRC, of the first 25,000 people who died of CV in the USA, all of 24 weren't elderly or had a serious underlying health condition.

So protect the vulnerable, but don't wreck society and the economy with mass lockdowns and shutdowns of public life in the process, as we did and are still doing.

There was one article that calculated the shutdown will eventually cost over 100,000 lives through the unemployment impacts and deferred medical care. And that is assuming no continuing shutdown.

Then post it. Show us which outlet said such a thing. I for one don't believe that at all.

(06-24-2020 02:26 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 05:35 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:04 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  I want sports back as much as the next guy, but I also don't want more people to die so i'll deal with my slight inconvenience for the greater good.

I have not involved myself in the laymen mask debate because to me it is a minor inconvenience and wearing one makes common sense - a mask might help me and others and it doesn't hurt, so why not wear one? I've worn a mask every time I've gone in to an indoor public place for the past three months.

What I do object to is the lockdown approach. We have suffered tens of millions of unemployed, thousands of lost businesses, and about $4 trillion (and counting) to basically do what?

Put it this way: On a typical pre-covid day, about 8,000 people a day die in the USA. On the worst covid death day we've had so far, about 2,700 people died. So instead of 8,000 people dying that day, around 11,000 people did. Had nobody paid attention to it - meaning mass media coverage - probably "nobody" in a general sense would have noticed. Who was it who said "one person dying is a tragedy, a million is a statistic"? I think one of those evil mass killers like Stalin or Hitler. But at a societal level 8,000 dead a day is obviously a statistic as nobody ever gets riled up about it.

Put it one other way: If *last* February, in 2019, a team of Scientists, universally respected by everyone, had said "about 8,000 Americans die each day. But, we have come up with a method that can reduce that to 6,000 a day for next 180 days, or a savings of 360,000 lives during that time. The cost will be 20 million unemployed .... 150,000 lost businesses ... $4 trillion in spending ... and the loss of movies, restaurants, sporting events, travel shopping, and other such stuff for that six months, schools closed, everyone largely confined to quarters .... all to drop the death rate from 8,000 a day to 6,000 a day ... would that have gotten even 10% of the public support if put to a vote?

Countries like Japan and Sweden did the right thing. Sweden messed up a bit because they didn't protect their nursing homes, but they basically had the right approach. What should have been done was extreme lockdowns and hazmat-level protection for nursing homes, assisted care facilities, and similar facilities, isolation for anyone with diabetes, heart disease, or aesthma ... everyone else go about your business, including business.

Yesterday, our governor, John Bel Edwards of Louisiana, said something that has had me pulling my hair out. In announcing a delay in moving to another stage or reopening, he said (paraphrase) "young people crowding the bars and clubs should think about not just themselves, but their grandparents", as kids who go to these places will then bring the virus back home to vulnerable grandparents. I'm sitting their at my TV shouting "NO! Closing the bars is not the solution! The solution is for the kids to NOT visit their grandparents! Social isolation, but for vulnerable people at home, not inhibiting what the kids do out and about".

My wife and I are in our 50s, and normally we travel up to DC three times a year to visit her mother, who is 82. By mutual agreement, we have skipped our March and also will skip our July visits to avoid possibly bringing the virus in to her home. That's how to handle this, not for me and my wife not to go out to restaurants.

Cool. Economies recover the dead don't. How many dead are acceptable to keep the economy open? We clearly are doing way worse than most of the 1st world and it's not because we had lockdowns, it's because we never took it seriously and people don't want any inconvenience.

What good does it do to shut down the economy and protect some people when the economic catastrophe created by the shutdown will kill more?

What don't you get that with a shut down we've already lost 121K and counting? Without it we would be in the 200-300K dead. You people are really ignorant around here. Look at the EU, look at S korea or japan. Those places took it seriously and understand the idea of the greater good. Too many good ol boys who only think about "Muh rights" are why we aren't handling this well at all. Idiots without masks, idiots who storm government buildings ARMED to the teeth demanding the reopening of bass pro shop. Morons who think Bill Gates is trying to put a tracking chip in everyone with any vaccine that comes out. Like they aren't already tracked with their damn cell phones but they don't mind that.

(06-24-2020 04:19 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 02:26 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 05:35 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:04 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  I want sports back as much as the next guy, but I also don't want more people to die so i'll deal with my slight inconvenience for the greater good.

I have not involved myself in the laymen mask debate because to me it is a minor inconvenience and wearing one makes common sense - a mask might help me and others and it doesn't hurt, so why not wear one? I've worn a mask every time I've gone in to an indoor public place for the past three months.

What I do object to is the lockdown approach. We have suffered tens of millions of unemployed, thousands of lost businesses, and about $4 trillion (and counting) to basically do what?

Put it this way: On a typical pre-covid day, about 8,000 people a day die in the USA. On the worst covid death day we've had so far, about 2,700 people died. So instead of 8,000 people dying that day, around 11,000 people did. Had nobody paid attention to it - meaning mass media coverage - probably "nobody" in a general sense would have noticed. Who was it who said "one person dying is a tragedy, a million is a statistic"? I think one of those evil mass killers like Stalin or Hitler. But at a societal level 8,000 dead a day is obviously a statistic as nobody ever gets riled up about it.

Put it one other way: If *last* February, in 2019, a team of Scientists, universally respected by everyone, had said "about 8,000 Americans die each day. But, we have come up with a method that can reduce that to 6,000 a day for next 180 days, or a savings of 360,000 lives during that time. The cost will be 20 million unemployed .... 150,000 lost businesses ... $4 trillion in spending ... and the loss of movies, restaurants, sporting events, travel shopping, and other such stuff for that six months, schools closed, everyone largely confined to quarters .... all to drop the death rate from 8,000 a day to 6,000 a day ... would that have gotten even 10% of the public support if put to a vote?

Countries like Japan and Sweden did the right thing. Sweden messed up a bit because they didn't protect their nursing homes, but they basically had the right approach. What should have been done was extreme lockdowns and hazmat-level protection for nursing homes, assisted care facilities, and similar facilities, isolation for anyone with diabetes, heart disease, or aesthma ... everyone else go about your business, including business.

Yesterday, our governor, John Bel Edwards of Louisiana, said something that has had me pulling my hair out. In announcing a delay in moving to another stage or reopening, he said (paraphrase) "young people crowding the bars and clubs should think about not just themselves, but their grandparents", as kids who go to these places will then bring the virus back home to vulnerable grandparents. I'm sitting their at my TV shouting "NO! Closing the bars is not the solution! The solution is for the kids to NOT visit their grandparents! Social isolation, but for vulnerable people at home, not inhibiting what the kids do out and about".

My wife and I are in our 50s, and normally we travel up to DC three times a year to visit her mother, who is 82. By mutual agreement, we have skipped our March and also will skip our July visits to avoid possibly bringing the virus in to her home. That's how to handle this, not for me and my wife not to go out to restaurants.

Cool. Economies recover the dead don't. How many dead are acceptable to keep the economy open? We clearly are doing way worse than most of the 1st world and it's not because we had lockdowns, it's because we never took it seriously and people don't want any inconvenience.

What good does it do to shut down the economy and protect some people when the economic catastrophe created by the shutdown will kill more?

What don't you get that with a shut down we've already lost 121K and counting? Without it we would be in the 200-300K dead. You people are really ignorant around here. Look at the EU, look at S korea or japan. Those places took it seriously and understand the idea of the greater good. Too many good ol boys who only think about "Muh rights" are why we aren't handling this well at all. Idiots without masks, idiots who storm government buildings ARMED to the teeth demanding the reopening of bass pro shop. Morons who think Bill Gates is trying to put a tracking chip in everyone with any vaccine that comes out. Like they aren't already tracked with their damn cell phones but they don't mind that.

How many of those 121k lost were because of the government forcing nursing homes, places where there happen to be an abundance of the most vulnerable among us, to take in Covid patients?

How many were from the idiots in NYC not shutting down the breeding ground that is public transportation?

How many were caused by political leaders decrying the "hysteria" and encouraging people to go to celebrations like the Chinese New Year festivals?


As for continued or further shutdowns:


How many will die because they will lose their healthcare coverage when they lose their job and will not be able to seek treatment for potentially life threatening illnesses?

How many will die because as studies have shown every 1% rise in unemployment is a 1% rise in the suicide rate in this country?

How many will die because as the economy dries up so does the tax base, leaving less funding for critical healthcare functions?

(06-24-2020 02:15 PM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:07 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  I just have a feeling it will either it will not start or it will stop mid season. A number of people are too worried about being inconvenienced than spreading diseases and they will never get it. It isn't just young or college ones, I know people in their 40s and 50s that don't get it that you can spread it to others without getting sick.

I think most people who oppose lockdowns and shutdowns understand that the virus is very contagious and can be spread by anyone, even if you appear to be asymptotic. They just have mentally run a cost-benefit analysis and don't think the risk to themselves is worth incurring drastic economic and social costs, and think others who are vulnerable - like the very elderly - can best be protected with targeted actions rather than society-wide restrictions.

And if in your world losing your job or not being able to pay your mortgage is merely an "inconvenience" that you shouldn't be worried about, well then you are IMO quite privileged.

I think you missed my point, there are a lot of people that don't give a crap about others. I want to see all the restaurants, bars, everywhere opened up. I am not privileged. I want to see the economy opened up. They have it shutdown way too long and will take a long time to get it back where it was.

You don't give a crap. More people will die if we do not closed everything down. Look at the Black Death with the economy was still open? It destroyed the economy as many workers died.

(06-24-2020 02:15 PM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 09:07 AM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  I just have a feeling it will either it will not start or it will stop mid season. A number of people are too worried about being inconvenienced than spreading diseases and they will never get it. It isn't just young or college ones, I know people in their 40s and 50s that don't get it that you can spread it to others without getting sick.

I think most people who oppose lockdowns and shutdowns understand that the virus is very contagious and can be spread by anyone, even if you appear to be asymptotic. They just have mentally run a cost-benefit analysis and don't think the risk to themselves is worth incurring drastic economic and social costs, and think others who are vulnerable - like the very elderly - can best be protected with targeted actions rather than society-wide restrictions.

And if in your world losing your job or not being able to pay your mortgage is merely an "inconvenience" that you shouldn't be worried about, well then you are IMO quite privileged.

I think you missed my point, there are a lot of people that don't give a crap about others. I want to see all the restaurants, bars, everywhere opened up. I am not privileged. I want to see the economy opened up. They have it shutdown way too long and will take a long time to get it back where it was.

Fair enough, sorry mate.

(06-24-2020 04:13 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 05:36 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 04:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 02:02 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Did all the people who died from this categorize as “vulnerable?” Did they know they really were after all?

I don’t know whatever happened to the concept of the greater good.

But that begs the issue of what the "greater good" is. It can't be "minimize deaths at any other kind of cost", because otherwise we would ban automobiles, which kill about 35,000 people a year. But, even though nobody likes to say it in so many words, as a society we think those deaths are "worth it" to get the benefits cars provide. Truth is, societies trade-off lives for other things all the time.

As for "vulnerable", we have had a very good idea of who is vulnerable all along - the very elderly and people with a few underlying conditions, like heart disease, diabetes, and asthma. And no, not every single person who has died fits those categories, but the numbers are staggering. IIRC, of the first 25,000 people who died of CV in the USA, all of 24 weren't elderly or had a serious underlying health condition.

So protect the vulnerable, but don't wreck society and the economy with mass lockdowns and shutdowns of public life in the process, as we did and are still doing.

We take steps to minimize auto deaths. Seatbelts, speed limits, air bags etc. It's a form of transportation not a commutable disease. Thats not even comparing apples to oranges thats comparing apples to hammers.

We do take steps to reduce auto deaths - but not minimize at any cost, as that can only be done by eliminating autos. We tolerate 35,000 dead a year to gain the economic and social benefits of autos.

Lockdowns are looking more and more like a massive mistake. They are like using a hammer when a laser beam is more appropriate, because CV is not a "zombie apocalypse" disease that targets everyone in the same way. Some identifiable groups are FAR more likely to have very serious health outcomes than others. So target the vulnerable for extreme protection, but shutting down society caused enormous collateral damage.

Thats just flat out wrong and ignorant. Lockdowns helped the northeast and thats why our numbers are going down while everywhere else they are going up. Yes, places like florida didn't take it seriously thats why their numbers are going up.

Talk about ignorant - the northeast has some of the worst numbers in the country. New York - under Cuomo and de Blasio - has 30,000 covid deaths. Florida has a little more than 3,000.

Will lockdowns eventually slow the virus, like they did in NY? Of course. But then again, if everyone in NYC had committed suicide in March, that would have slowed it too.

Point is - we can hold down deaths by lockdowns, but at a price of massive collateral damage to society and the economy, or we can also hold down deaths by letting most people and businesses roam free, but provide targeted protection to those who are at-risk for serious CV outcomes.

E.g., in New York, they shut down thousands and thousands of businesses, which was useless, but they allowed vectors of CV in to nursing homes, which was catastrophic. Would have been better off letting businesses remain open and people roam freely, but with extreme hazmat-type lockdowns for nursing homes and assisted care facilities, where large concentrations of at-risk people were located.

Again, this isn't a zombie apocalypse disease. It's deadly to a small proportion of the population, not everyone. So build a fortress around those vulnerable people, but don't lock down everyone.

Really love New Yorkers telling others how to do something they completely screwed up.

(06-24-2020 04:19 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 02:26 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 05:35 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 05:04 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  I want sports back as much as the next guy, but I also don't want more people to die so i'll deal with my slight inconvenience for the greater good.

I have not involved myself in the laymen mask debate because to me it is a minor inconvenience and wearing one makes common sense - a mask might help me and others and it doesn't hurt, so why not wear one? I've worn a mask every time I've gone in to an indoor public place for the past three months.

What I do object to is the lockdown approach. We have suffered tens of millions of unemployed, thousands of lost businesses, and about $4 trillion (and counting) to basically do what?

Put it this way: On a typical pre-covid day, about 8,000 people a day die in the USA. On the worst covid death day we've had so far, about 2,700 people died. So instead of 8,000 people dying that day, around 11,000 people did. Had nobody paid attention to it - meaning mass media coverage - probably "nobody" in a general sense would have noticed. Who was it who said "one person dying is a tragedy, a million is a statistic"? I think one of those evil mass killers like Stalin or Hitler. But at a societal level 8,000 dead a day is obviously a statistic as nobody ever gets riled up about it.

Put it one other way: If *last* February, in 2019, a team of Scientists, universally respected by everyone, had said "about 8,000 Americans die each day. But, we have come up with a method that can reduce that to 6,000 a day for next 180 days, or a savings of 360,000 lives during that time. The cost will be 20 million unemployed .... 150,000 lost businesses ... $4 trillion in spending ... and the loss of movies, restaurants, sporting events, travel shopping, and other such stuff for that six months, schools closed, everyone largely confined to quarters .... all to drop the death rate from 8,000 a day to 6,000 a day ... would that have gotten even 10% of the public support if put to a vote?

Countries like Japan and Sweden did the right thing. Sweden messed up a bit because they didn't protect their nursing homes, but they basically had the right approach. What should have been done was extreme lockdowns and hazmat-level protection for nursing homes, assisted care facilities, and similar facilities, isolation for anyone with diabetes, heart disease, or aesthma ... everyone else go about your business, including business.

Yesterday, our governor, John Bel Edwards of Louisiana, said something that has had me pulling my hair out. In announcing a delay in moving to another stage or reopening, he said (paraphrase) "young people crowding the bars and clubs should think about not just themselves, but their grandparents", as kids who go to these places will then bring the virus back home to vulnerable grandparents. I'm sitting their at my TV shouting "NO! Closing the bars is not the solution! The solution is for the kids to NOT visit their grandparents! Social isolation, but for vulnerable people at home, not inhibiting what the kids do out and about".

My wife and I are in our 50s, and normally we travel up to DC three times a year to visit her mother, who is 82. By mutual agreement, we have skipped our March and also will skip our July visits to avoid possibly bringing the virus in to her home. That's how to handle this, not for me and my wife not to go out to restaurants.

Cool. Economies recover the dead don't. How many dead are acceptable to keep the economy open? We clearly are doing way worse than most of the 1st world and it's not because we had lockdowns, it's because we never took it seriously and people don't want any inconvenience.

What good does it do to shut down the economy and protect some people when the economic catastrophe created by the shutdown will kill more?

What don't you get that with a shut down we've already lost 121K and counting? Without it we would be in the 200-300K dead. You people are really ignorant around here. Look at the EU, look at S korea or japan. Those places took it seriously and understand the idea of the greater good. Too many good ol boys who only think about "Muh rights" are why we aren't handling this well at all. Idiots without masks, idiots who storm government buildings ARMED to the teeth demanding the reopening of bass pro shop. Morons who think Bill Gates is trying to put a tracking chip in everyone with any vaccine that comes out. Like they aren't already tracked with their damn cell phones but they don't mind that.

1) The Covid death toll is inflated. Follow the money and you’ll know why. I’ve met and discussed this with a number of people IRL who would know. You won’t believe it bat that’s up to you.

2) We were never going to seriously reduce the infection rate. Flattering the curve was only meant to spread out the cases - not reduce them. It was all about not overrunning the hospitals.

3) We are compromising our immune systems through the social distancing and excessive use of hand sanitizer. These were things that just a short while ago were deemed detrimental to healthy immune systems. We’re treating healthy people like people with autoimmune diseases. That’s not good over the medium and long term.

4) More testing will show more cases.

5) Herd immunity is what we need to minimize damage from Covid.

(06-22-2020 06:51 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  All this debate about the effectiveness of masks... it's nuts how the issue has become so controversial.

The argument for masks isn't that they protect the wearer. It's that they minimize disease spread from wearers who are unknowingly infected, which is a huge problem with this particular virus.

Just watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNHgQq0BGLI

The evidence is right there in front of your eyes. Wearing a mask significantly inhibits the spread of droplets that carry the virus. And this test involved a person speaking or shouting, not coughing or sneezing. Even a person without symptoms presents a greater hazard to individuals around him or her if unmasked than if masked.

I agree. This has become ridiculous, but the wearing of masks has become tribal and we are losing the battle with the virus. The country had just over 36,000 new cases yesterday, which was a new record...until today. We had 39,103 new cases today. At this rate, the economy will never fully open and professional sports are questionable at best. I was pretty confident about football in the fall, but now I am starting to become concerned because these numbers are just really bad.

Mass gatherings with no social distancing are bad no matter the reason, we forgot that for three weeks and these are the results.

This spike isn’t correlated with reopening various states, unless the lag is now 6 weeks not 2 previously suggested by earlier data.

(06-24-2020 06:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 04:13 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 08:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-24-2020 05:36 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 04:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But that begs the issue of what the "greater good" is. It can't be "minimize deaths at any other kind of cost", because otherwise we would ban automobiles, which kill about 35,000 people a year. But, even though nobody likes to say it in so many words, as a society we think those deaths are "worth it" to get the benefits cars provide. Truth is, societies trade-off lives for other things all the time.

As for "vulnerable", we have had a very good idea of who is vulnerable all along - the very elderly and people with a few underlying conditions, like heart disease, diabetes, and asthma. And no, not every single person who has died fits those categories, but the numbers are staggering. IIRC, of the first 25,000 people who died of CV in the USA, all of 24 weren't elderly or had a serious underlying health condition.

So protect the vulnerable, but don't wreck society and the economy with mass lockdowns and shutdowns of public life in the process, as we did and are still doing.

We take steps to minimize auto deaths. Seatbelts, speed limits, air bags etc. It's a form of transportation not a commutable disease. Thats not even comparing apples to oranges thats comparing apples to hammers.

We do take steps to reduce auto deaths - but not minimize at any cost, as that can only be done by eliminating autos. We tolerate 35,000 dead a year to gain the economic and social benefits of autos.

Lockdowns are looking more and more like a massive mistake. They are like using a hammer when a laser beam is more appropriate, because CV is not a "zombie apocalypse" disease that targets everyone in the same way. Some identifiable groups are FAR more likely to have very serious health outcomes than others. So target the vulnerable for extreme protection, but shutting down society caused enormous collateral damage.

Thats just flat out wrong and ignorant. Lockdowns helped the northeast and thats why our numbers are going down while everywhere else they are going up. Yes, places like florida didn't take it seriously thats why their numbers are going up.

Talk about ignorant - the northeast has some of the worst numbers in the country. New York - under Cuomo and de Blasio - has 30,000 covid deaths. Florida has a little more than 3,000.

Will lockdowns eventually slow the virus, like they did in NY? Of course. But then again, if everyone in NYC had committed suicide in March, that would have slowed it too.

Point is - we can hold down deaths by lockdowns, but at a price of massive collateral damage to society and the economy, or we can also hold down deaths by letting most people and businesses roam free, but provide targeted protection to those who are at-risk for serious CV outcomes.

E.g., in New York, they shut down thousands and thousands of businesses, which was useless, but they allowed vectors of CV in to nursing homes, which was catastrophic. Would have been better off letting businesses remain open and people roam freely, but with extreme hazmat-type lockdowns for nursing homes and assisted care facilities, where large concentrations of at-risk people were located.

Again, this isn't a zombie apocalypse disease. It's deadly to a small proportion of the population, not everyone. So build a fortress around those vulnerable people, but don't lock down everyone.

The tri state area is the most densely populated area! Of course it hit harder here! You morons thinking keeping businesses open would have somehow slowed the virus down? Thats just pure ignorance. Our #'s have lowered dramatically while Floridas are going up. The idea that you only protect the elderly when 40% of americans are obese and 46% have heart disease which are preexisting conditions that can lead to death with this virus isn't going to help anything.

(06-24-2020 06:54 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Really love New Yorkers telling others how to do something they completely screwed up.

We didn't screw it up, we were just the first tp deal with it. If you're too dumb to not learn from what we did both RIGHT and wrong then enjoy all those covid deaths coming your way. We're out of the woods you guys aren't. Have fun with that.