The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(07-27-2020 09:48 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:26 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 02:51 PM)Justanodufan Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 12:39 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 11:31 AM)Justanodufan Wrote:  I am all for not paying taxes for k-12 education.
I shouldn’t have to pay taxes to educate your children. They aren’t my responsibility.

The goal is to have a more educated society leading to a more productive workforce and a stronger economy, which benefits every citizen.

I am well aware of the purpose of education. My point is, I shouldn’t have to pay to educate people like MonarchBlue’s children. He clearly does not care about anyone except his own children (and himself).

That is just completely wrong, and frankly offensive. My position is supported by the experts, the science, and the data. Like those experts at the CDC and leading publication on pediatrics, I believe that more harm is done to children by keeping them out of school, than by sending them to school where they risk catching a virus that is significantly less threatening to them than the flu, which we have never closed schools for. I would argue that the selfish position is taken by folks like you who are paralyzed by fear, and unable to accept the reality that is being presented to you by experts who actually know what is best for children. You have an overwhelming fear for this virus that, in children, and people under 40 in general, is completely unwarranted based on the science and data, but yet you demand that I am not able to send my child to school in order that your irrational fear is satiated.

The justification for mass shutdowns, particularly when it comes to schools, is long-past discredited. But whether it is fear, politics or something else that is driving this, it does not matter. I am convinced that the shutdown brigade cares little, if at all, about the drastic consequences of continuing to keep all of America (not just those subject to particular risks) on clamp down.

cru-el; adj.; disposed to inflict pain or suffering.

And I believe that the drastic consequences of people dying from having things open in America is cruel. 150k and counting.

(07-27-2020 09:42 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:26 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 02:51 PM)Justanodufan Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 12:39 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 11:31 AM)Justanodufan Wrote:  I am all for not paying taxes for k-12 education.
I shouldn’t have to pay taxes to educate your children. They aren’t my responsibility.

The goal is to have a more educated society leading to a more productive workforce and a stronger economy, which benefits every citizen.

I am well aware of the purpose of education. My point is, I shouldn’t have to pay to educate people like MonarchBlue’s children. He clearly does not care about anyone except his own children (and himself).

That is just completely wrong, and frankly offensive. My position is supported by the experts, the science, and the data. Like those experts at the CDC and leading publication on pediatrics, I believe that more harm is done to children by keeping them out of school, than by sending them to school where they risk catching a virus that is significantly less threatening to them than the flu, which we have never closed schools for. I would argue that the selfish position is taken by folks like you who are paralyzed by fear, and unable to accept the reality that is being presented to you by experts who actually know what is best for children. You have an overwhelming fear for this virus that, in children, and people under 40 in general, is completely unwarranted based on the science and data, but yet you demand that I am not able to send my child to school in order that your irrational fear is satiated.

If you can figure out how to have schools only open for children and people under 40, we can make it happen.

Or we can just do it like the millions of other businesses that have people going to work. I guess we should just shut down the military too since there are people over 40 going to work everyday.

(07-27-2020 09:59 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:48 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:26 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 02:51 PM)Justanodufan Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 12:39 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  The goal is to have a more educated society leading to a more productive workforce and a stronger economy, which benefits every citizen.

I am well aware of the purpose of education. My point is, I shouldn’t have to pay to educate people like MonarchBlue’s children. He clearly does not care about anyone except his own children (and himself).

That is just completely wrong, and frankly offensive. My position is supported by the experts, the science, and the data. Like those experts at the CDC and leading publication on pediatrics, I believe that more harm is done to children by keeping them out of school, than by sending them to school where they risk catching a virus that is significantly less threatening to them than the flu, which we have never closed schools for. I would argue that the selfish position is taken by folks like you who are paralyzed by fear, and unable to accept the reality that is being presented to you by experts who actually know what is best for children. You have an overwhelming fear for this virus that, in children, and people under 40 in general, is completely unwarranted based on the science and data, but yet you demand that I am not able to send my child to school in order that your irrational fear is satiated.

The justification for mass shutdowns, particularly when it comes to schools, is long-past discredited. But whether it is fear, politics or something else that is driving this, it does not matter. I am convinced that the shutdown brigade cares little, if at all, about the drastic consequences of continuing to keep all of America (not just those subject to particular risks) on clamp down.

cru-el; adj.; disposed to inflict pain or suffering.

And I believe that the drastic consequences of people dying from having things open in America is cruel. 150k and counting.

Can you provide any evidence that shutting things down has been effective. The fact that we see the same results across a wide spectrum of approaches to this virus seems to indicate that lockdowns, at best, have yielded minimal efficacy.

(07-27-2020 10:06 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:59 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:48 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:26 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 02:51 PM)Justanodufan Wrote:  I am well aware of the purpose of education. My point is, I shouldn’t have to pay to educate people like MonarchBlue’s children. He clearly does not care about anyone except his own children (and himself).

That is just completely wrong, and frankly offensive. My position is supported by the experts, the science, and the data. Like those experts at the CDC and leading publication on pediatrics, I believe that more harm is done to children by keeping them out of school, than by sending them to school where they risk catching a virus that is significantly less threatening to them than the flu, which we have never closed schools for. I would argue that the selfish position is taken by folks like you who are paralyzed by fear, and unable to accept the reality that is being presented to you by experts who actually know what is best for children. You have an overwhelming fear for this virus that, in children, and people under 40 in general, is completely unwarranted based on the science and data, but yet you demand that I am not able to send my child to school in order that your irrational fear is satiated.

The justification for mass shutdowns, particularly when it comes to schools, is long-past discredited. But whether it is fear, politics or something else that is driving this, it does not matter. I am convinced that the shutdown brigade cares little, if at all, about the drastic consequences of continuing to keep all of America (not just those subject to particular risks) on clamp down.

cru-el; adj.; disposed to inflict pain or suffering.

And I believe that the drastic consequences of people dying from having things open in America is cruel. 150k and counting.

Can you provide any evidence that shutting things down has been effective. The fact that we see the same results across a wide spectrum of approaches to this virus seems to indicate that lockdowns, at best, have yielded minimal efficacy.

Can you provide any evidence that it did not?

(07-27-2020 09:26 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 02:51 PM)Justanodufan Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 12:39 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 11:31 AM)Justanodufan Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 09:05 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  **** it. We don't even need schools. Let's just pack it up and give everyone all their tax dollars back. No more schools needed.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

I am all for not paying taxes for k-12 education.
I shouldn’t have to pay taxes to educate your children. They aren’t my responsibility.

The goal is to have a more educated society leading to a more productive workforce and a stronger economy, which benefits every citizen.

I am well aware of the purpose of education. My point is, I shouldn’t have to pay to educate people like MonarchBlue’s children. He clearly does not care about anyone except his own children (and himself).

That is just completely wrong, and frankly offensive. My position is supported by the experts, the science, and the data. Like those experts at the CDC and leading publication on pediatrics, I believe that more harm is done to children by keeping them out of school, than by sending them to school where they risk catching a virus that is significantly less threatening to them than the flu, which we have never closed schools for. I would argue that the selfish position is taken by folks like you who are paralyzed by fear, and unable to accept the reality that is being presented to you by experts who actually know what is best for children. You have an overwhelming fear for this virus that, in children, and people under 40 in general, is completely unwarranted based on the science and data, but yet you demand that I am not able to send my child to school in order that your irrational fear is satiated.

Did the truth hurt your feelings?

I shouldn’t have to pay for your kids to be educated. They aren’t my responsibility.

Where have I indicated that I was afraid of the virus? I pointed out that I don’t think college student athletes should have to risk permanent lung damage for your entertainment and you tell me I am wrong.

As far as it not being a factor for people under 40, does that mean you think those who are 41 and above should fear the virus?

(07-27-2020 10:19 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 10:06 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:59 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:48 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:26 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  That is just completely wrong, and frankly offensive. My position is supported by the experts, the science, and the data. Like those experts at the CDC and leading publication on pediatrics, I believe that more harm is done to children by keeping them out of school, than by sending them to school where they risk catching a virus that is significantly less threatening to them than the flu, which we have never closed schools for. I would argue that the selfish position is taken by folks like you who are paralyzed by fear, and unable to accept the reality that is being presented to you by experts who actually know what is best for children. You have an overwhelming fear for this virus that, in children, and people under 40 in general, is completely unwarranted based on the science and data, but yet you demand that I am not able to send my child to school in order that your irrational fear is satiated.

The justification for mass shutdowns, particularly when it comes to schools, is long-past discredited. But whether it is fear, politics or something else that is driving this, it does not matter. I am convinced that the shutdown brigade cares little, if at all, about the drastic consequences of continuing to keep all of America (not just those subject to particular risks) on clamp down.

cru-el; adj.; disposed to inflict pain or suffering.

And I believe that the drastic consequences of people dying from having things open in America is cruel. 150k and counting.

Can you provide any evidence that shutting things down has been effective. The fact that we see the same results across a wide spectrum of approaches to this virus seems to indicate that lockdowns, at best, have yielded minimal efficacy.

Can you provide any evidence that it did not?

Monarchblue is doing nothing to prevent you from taking whatever steps you consider appropriate for yourself, your family and your colleagues - - including withholding your children from schools, keeping your business on lockdown and (if you wish) building a bunker in your own backyard. If you are a teacher, or have a teacher in your household, no one is forcing him or her to do anything other than step aside if the job is too frightening or difficult.

You and others, on the other hand, and with the force of the gov't behind you, ARE insisting that the rest of us put our own health, finances and personal well-being in jeopardy. Some of us did not have the luxury of doing so. For some, this has created irreparable damage to our businesses, has completely cancelled planning for retirement, and is very likely to reach the point of threatening our ability to keep ourselves healthy - - by reason of canceled medical/dental appointments, having to cover for employees unable to work due to school shutdowns, and so on.

Who is the one who doesn't care in this situation?

If you don't help pay for their education for a few years you'll be payng for their healthcare and unemployment benefits for the rest of your life. Im guessing I don't live in your neighborhood, why do I pay taxes (gas tax, etc.) to pay for your roads? We're all paying the 3.5 Billion dollars for new tunnels at HRBT. Is that fair to the people who don't use the thing?

Sent from my SM-G965U using CSNbbs mobile app

(07-27-2020 11:21 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 10:43 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 10:19 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 10:06 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:59 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  And I believe that the drastic consequences of people dying from having things open in America is cruel. 150k and counting.

Can you provide any evidence that shutting things down has been effective. The fact that we see the same results across a wide spectrum of approaches to this virus seems to indicate that lockdowns, at best, have yielded minimal efficacy.

Can you provide any evidence that it did not?

Monarchblue is doing nothing to prevent you from taking whatever steps you consider appropriate for yourself, your family and your colleagues - - including withholding your children from schools, keeping your business on lockdown and (if you wish) building a bunker in your own backyard. If you are a teacher, or have a teacher in your household, no one is forcing him or her to do anything other than step aside if the job is too frightening or difficult.

You and others, on the other hand, and with the force of the gov't behind you, ARE insisting that the rest of us put our own health, finances and personal well-being in jeopardy. Some of us did not have the luxury of doing so. For some, this has created irreparable damage to our businesses, has completely cancelled planning for retirement, and is very likely to reach the point of threatening our ability to keep ourselves healthy - - by reason of canceled medical/dental appointments, having to cover for employees unable to work due to school shutdowns, and so on.

Who is the one who doesn't care in this situation?

I think both are weak arguments, because otherwise I can say "You and others, on the other hand, refused to vote for stronger healthcare and welfare programs which could have financially protected Americans during times like this. Who's the one who never cared?"

It's an endless back-and-forth. I think we all care, but offer different solutions.

Right... he was being facetious because the coronabros fake indignation talking point argument is that they care about people and anyone that disagrees doesn't. Adopted is simply showing him how ridiculous he sounds. Reading the last several days of coronobros posts I am imagining Ralph Wiggum with a finger in his nose saying, "I care!". Need to come up with new talking points because this "deplorables" type messaging just isn't working.

(07-27-2020 10:19 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 10:06 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:59 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:48 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:26 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  That is just completely wrong, and frankly offensive. My position is supported by the experts, the science, and the data. Like those experts at the CDC and leading publication on pediatrics, I believe that more harm is done to children by keeping them out of school, than by sending them to school where they risk catching a virus that is significantly less threatening to them than the flu, which we have never closed schools for. I would argue that the selfish position is taken by folks like you who are paralyzed by fear, and unable to accept the reality that is being presented to you by experts who actually know what is best for children. You have an overwhelming fear for this virus that, in children, and people under 40 in general, is completely unwarranted based on the science and data, but yet you demand that I am not able to send my child to school in order that your irrational fear is satiated.

The justification for mass shutdowns, particularly when it comes to schools, is long-past discredited. But whether it is fear, politics or something else that is driving this, it does not matter. I am convinced that the shutdown brigade cares little, if at all, about the drastic consequences of continuing to keep all of America (not just those subject to particular risks) on clamp down.

cru-el; adj.; disposed to inflict pain or suffering.

And I believe that the drastic consequences of people dying from having things open in America is cruel. 150k and counting.

Can you provide any evidence that shutting things down has been effective. The fact that we see the same results across a wide spectrum of approaches to this virus seems to indicate that lockdowns, at best, have yielded minimal efficacy.

Can you provide any evidence that it did not?

I cannot. Which is why I am willing to take precautions such as wearing a mask in public places and maintaining a 6 foot distance as much as humanly possible. But I also am not in favor of legislating your behavior, so it would seem that the burden of proof should fall on your side of the argument.

(07-27-2020 10:24 AM)Justanodufan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:26 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 02:51 PM)Justanodufan Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 12:39 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 11:31 AM)Justanodufan Wrote:  I am all for not paying taxes for k-12 education.
I shouldn’t have to pay taxes to educate your children. They aren’t my responsibility.

The goal is to have a more educated society leading to a more productive workforce and a stronger economy, which benefits every citizen.

I am well aware of the purpose of education. My point is, I shouldn’t have to pay to educate people like MonarchBlue’s children. He clearly does not care about anyone except his own children (and himself).

That is just completely wrong, and frankly offensive. My position is supported by the experts, the science, and the data. Like those experts at the CDC and leading publication on pediatrics, I believe that more harm is done to children by keeping them out of school, than by sending them to school where they risk catching a virus that is significantly less threatening to them than the flu, which we have never closed schools for. I would argue that the selfish position is taken by folks like you who are paralyzed by fear, and unable to accept the reality that is being presented to you by experts who actually know what is best for children. You have an overwhelming fear for this virus that, in children, and people under 40 in general, is completely unwarranted based on the science and data, but yet you demand that I am not able to send my child to school in order that your irrational fear is satiated.

Did the truth hurt your feelings?

I shouldn’t have to pay for your kids to be educated. They aren’t my responsibility.

Where have I indicated that I was afraid of the virus? I pointed out that I don’t think college student athletes should have to risk permanent lung damage for your entertainment and you tell me I am wrong.

As far as it not being a factor for people under 40, does that mean you think those who are 41 and above should fear the virus?

Pretty standard response. Attack the person, ignore the facts.

(07-27-2020 12:07 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 10:24 AM)Justanodufan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:26 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 02:51 PM)Justanodufan Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 12:39 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  The goal is to have a more educated society leading to a more productive workforce and a stronger economy, which benefits every citizen.

I am well aware of the purpose of education. My point is, I shouldn’t have to pay to educate people like MonarchBlue’s children. He clearly does not care about anyone except his own children (and himself).

That is just completely wrong, and frankly offensive. My position is supported by the experts, the science, and the data. Like those experts at the CDC and leading publication on pediatrics, I believe that more harm is done to children by keeping them out of school, than by sending them to school where they risk catching a virus that is significantly less threatening to them than the flu, which we have never closed schools for. I would argue that the selfish position is taken by folks like you who are paralyzed by fear, and unable to accept the reality that is being presented to you by experts who actually know what is best for children. You have an overwhelming fear for this virus that, in children, and people under 40 in general, is completely unwarranted based on the science and data, but yet you demand that I am not able to send my child to school in order that your irrational fear is satiated.

Did the truth hurt your feelings?

I shouldn’t have to pay for your kids to be educated. They aren’t my responsibility.

Where have I indicated that I was afraid of the virus? I pointed out that I don’t think college student athletes should have to risk permanent lung damage for your entertainment and you tell me I am wrong.

As far as it not being a factor for people under 40, does that mean you think those who are 41 and above should fear the virus?

Pretty standard response. Attack the person, ignore the facts.

So now the discussion has morphed into college students and athletes instead of k-12 lol

(07-27-2020 11:21 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 10:43 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 10:19 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 10:06 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:59 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  And I believe that the drastic consequences of people dying from having things open in America is cruel. 150k and counting.

Can you provide any evidence that shutting things down has been effective. The fact that we see the same results across a wide spectrum of approaches to this virus seems to indicate that lockdowns, at best, have yielded minimal efficacy.

Can you provide any evidence that it did not?

Monarchblue is doing nothing to prevent you from taking whatever steps you consider appropriate for yourself, your family and your colleagues - - including withholding your children from schools, keeping your business on lockdown and (if you wish) building a bunker in your own backyard. If you are a teacher, or have a teacher in your household, no one is forcing him or her to do anything other than step aside if the job is too frightening or difficult.

You and others, on the other hand, and with the force of the gov't behind you, ARE insisting that the rest of us put our own health, finances and personal well-being in jeopardy. Some of us did not have the luxury of doing so. For some, this has created irreparable damage to our businesses, has completely cancelled planning for retirement, and is very likely to reach the point of threatening our ability to keep ourselves healthy - - by reason of canceled medical/dental appointments, having to cover for employees unable to work due to school shutdowns, and so on.

Who is the one who doesn't care in this situation?

I think both are weak arguments, because otherwise I can say "You and others, on the other hand, refused to vote for stronger healthcare and welfare programs which could have financially protected Americans during times like this. Who's the one who never cared?"

It's an endless back-and-forth. I think we all care, but offer different solutions.

It is not the same at all. We got to vote, mindful of the issues you present. Further, inaction is not the same as action. Your position is to actively foist government imposed actions onto me. My vote against DMV style healthcare is not an action to force people to do something that I think is best for them without their consent, but rather it is a refusal to grant the government access to income that I have earned to allow them to reimagine our health care system in favor of something that I believe would be disastrous.

There, frankly, is no difference in your position or mine as they relate to the different issues. You want to mandate that the government take something from me to form a society that looks more like your ideal, and I want to keep the government from taking things from me to build your ideal.

(07-27-2020 12:05 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 10:19 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 10:06 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:59 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:48 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  The justification for mass shutdowns, particularly when it comes to schools, is long-past discredited. But whether it is fear, politics or something else that is driving this, it does not matter. I am convinced that the shutdown brigade cares little, if at all, about the drastic consequences of continuing to keep all of America (not just those subject to particular risks) on clamp down.

cru-el; adj.; disposed to inflict pain or suffering.

And I believe that the drastic consequences of people dying from having things open in America is cruel. 150k and counting.

Can you provide any evidence that shutting things down has been effective. The fact that we see the same results across a wide spectrum of approaches to this virus seems to indicate that lockdowns, at best, have yielded minimal efficacy.

Can you provide any evidence that it did not?

I cannot. Which is why I am willing to take precautions such as wearing a mask in public places and maintaining a 6 foot distance as much as humanly possible. But I also am not in favor of legislating your behavior, so it would seem that the burden of proof should fall on your side of the argument.

All these things have been proven. Sweden didn't lockdown 78K Cases & 5,700 Deaths. It's two closest neighbors Norway and Finland (which if combined has about the same population) 9,100 Cases & 255 Deaths and 7,400 Cases & 329 Deaths, respectively. Now most countries didn't squander their lockdowns as the US did and are in better shape today and are able to manage the virus. Studies of areas where mask mandates have been put in effect have shown reduction in transmission across the board. These things aren't really up for debate anymore. We can discuss what we should do til we turn blue in the face but if you're going to try to argue that large portions of the population staying home for weeks at a time doesn't actually reduce transmission of the virus then you clearly have your head in the sand. Mask debate is over too. And hey guess what? Those countries that are managing the virus better are doing better economically as well and are in a position to send their kids to school in a relatively safe environment.

(07-27-2020 12:57 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 12:05 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 10:19 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 10:06 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:59 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  And I believe that the drastic consequences of people dying from having things open in America is cruel. 150k and counting.

Can you provide any evidence that shutting things down has been effective. The fact that we see the same results across a wide spectrum of approaches to this virus seems to indicate that lockdowns, at best, have yielded minimal efficacy.

Can you provide any evidence that it did not?

I cannot. Which is why I am willing to take precautions such as wearing a mask in public places and maintaining a 6 foot distance as much as humanly possible. But I also am not in favor of legislating your behavior, so it would seem that the burden of proof should fall on your side of the argument.

All these things have been proven. Sweden didn't lockdown 78K Cases & 5,700 Deaths. It's two closest neighbors Norway and Finland (which if combined has about the same population) 9,100 Cases & 255 Deaths and 7,400 Cases & 329 Deaths, respectively. Now most countries didn't squander their lockdowns as the US did and are in better shape today and are able to manage the virus. Studies of areas where mask mandates have been put in effect have shown reduction in transmission across the board. These things aren't really up for debate anymore. We can discuss what we should do til we turn blue in the face but if you're going to try to argue that large portions of the population staying home for weeks at a time doesn't actually reduce transmission of the virus then you clearly have your head in the sand. Mask debate is over too. And hey guess what? Those countries that are managing the virus better are doing better economically as well and are in a position to send their kids to school in a relatively safe environment.

How do Sweden and New York compare? NY locked down pretty strictly, but Sweden did not. How do Florida and California compare? California locked down early and never opened, Florida basically never locked down. How do Colorado and Georgia compare? They followed almost identical lockdown/open plans and times, but have seen very different results. Why has it been revealed that most cases have come within families who live together if keeping folks locked inside is the answer. Why haven't we tracked any cases to a day on the beach if going outside is so dangerous. Why are the vast majority of cases, and the timing of this new wave of cases, so closely aligned with outside heat/AC usage if being inside is the best medicine?

Nothing I said proves anything, but it should at least raise some questions if you are open to the idea that lockdowns may not be as effective as initially thought.

(07-27-2020 09:44 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:29 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 07:06 AM)BigBlueMonarch Wrote:  Someone earlier said that all was fine in FL and that NY lead the nation in cases. Well from today's news "Florida’s number of reported corona virus cases has surpassed that of New York."

COVID Deaths in FL: 5853
COVID Deaths in NY: 32000

And with the cases rising so quickly in Florida and declining in NY, those numbers are going to change. There are allegations that Florida is cooking the books as well so it would be interesting to see how many excess deaths will occur in Florida once this all gets sorted out. The number of pneumonia cases has gone through the roof in Florida.

Deaths per 100K:

NY- 168 (Rank 1)
NJ- 177 (Rank 2)
FL - 26 (Rank 24)
CA - 21 ( Rank 28)

Do you really think there are more cases in FL than NY. Do you completely discount the monumental increase in testing between the start of the NY wave and the FL wave?

Further EACH of the top 10 states for deaths per 100k is a Dem run state, which translates to lockdown state for the purpose of this discussion.

I'm not convinced lockdown policies work. I'm not convinced mask policies work (note: I said nothing of masks themselves which is another topic). Why? It's not just because of rights-protecting patriots who won't listen. It's because all of us have to live our lives. Some people will have to work. They are going to get the virus. They are going to bring it home. Others may get it. It's a virus. It's not going to just leave because it's been uninvited. We need to come to terms with it. Protect the vulnerable. Allow others to live their lives as they see fit.

Northam presser tmw re: rolling back reopening

ODU BoV Special Emergency Session on Re-Opening at 4
https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/nor...niversity/

(07-27-2020 01:08 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 12:57 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 12:05 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 10:19 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 10:06 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  Can you provide any evidence that shutting things down has been effective. The fact that we see the same results across a wide spectrum of approaches to this virus seems to indicate that lockdowns, at best, have yielded minimal efficacy.

Can you provide any evidence that it did not?

I cannot. Which is why I am willing to take precautions such as wearing a mask in public places and maintaining a 6 foot distance as much as humanly possible. But I also am not in favor of legislating your behavior, so it would seem that the burden of proof should fall on your side of the argument.

All these things have been proven. Sweden didn't lockdown 78K Cases & 5,700 Deaths. It's two closest neighbors Norway and Finland (which if combined has about the same population) 9,100 Cases & 255 Deaths and 7,400 Cases & 329 Deaths, respectively. Now most countries didn't squander their lockdowns as the US did and are in better shape today and are able to manage the virus. Studies of areas where mask mandates have been put in effect have shown reduction in transmission across the board. These things aren't really up for debate anymore. We can discuss what we should do til we turn blue in the face but if you're going to try to argue that large portions of the population staying home for weeks at a time doesn't actually reduce transmission of the virus then you clearly have your head in the sand. Mask debate is over too. And hey guess what? Those countries that are managing the virus better are doing better economically as well and are in a position to send their kids to school in a relatively safe environment.

How do Sweden and New York compare? NY locked down pretty strictly, but Sweden did not. How do Florida and California compare? California locked down early and never opened, Florida basically never locked down. How do Colorado and Georgia compare? They followed almost identical lockdown/open plans and times, but have seen very different results. Why has it been revealed that most cases have come within families who live together if keeping folks locked inside is the answer. Why haven't we tracked any cases to a day on the beach if going outside is so dangerous. Why are the vast majority of cases, and the timing of this new wave of cases, so closely aligned with outside heat/AC usage if being inside is the best medicine?

Nothing I said proves anything, but it should at least raise some questions if you are open to the idea that lockdowns may not be as effective as initially thought.

Most of what you said doesn't make sense. Nobody ever told you to stay inside, they said stay home. I live on 3.5 acres and have felt very fortunate to be able to stretch a bit as opposed to people that live in apartment buildings. So the last few sentences of your first sentence is arguing against a point no one has ever tried to make.

The rest is trying to compare different geographic areas with different population densities, whether they are a business/vacation travel destination based solely on whether and how quickly a lock down happened. There could be many many explanations on comparisons of cases between these areas. Now try to find me a good explanation for the massive difference in those 3 Scandinavian countries.

It's fairly clear how it spreads at this point. You're not likely to get it from passing someone on a bike path but a lot of cases have been traced back to workplaces, churches, indoor events. How can you argue that limiting these would not lead to less transmission? It's nonsensical.

(07-27-2020 01:22 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:44 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:29 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 07:06 AM)BigBlueMonarch Wrote:  Someone earlier said that all was fine in FL and that NY lead the nation in cases. Well from today's news "Florida’s number of reported corona virus cases has surpassed that of New York."

COVID Deaths in FL: 5853
COVID Deaths in NY: 32000

And with the cases rising so quickly in Florida and declining in NY, those numbers are going to change. There are allegations that Florida is cooking the books as well so it would be interesting to see how many excess deaths will occur in Florida once this all gets sorted out. The number of pneumonia cases has gone through the roof in Florida.

Deaths per 100K:

NY- 168 (Rank 1)
NJ- 177 (Rank 2)
FL - 26 (Rank 24)
CA - 21 ( Rank 28)

Do you really think there are more cases in FL than NY. Do you completely discount the monumental increase in testing between the start of the NY wave and the FL wave?

Further EACH of the top 10 states for deaths per 100k is a Dem run state, which translates to lockdown state for the purpose of this discussion.

Care to revisit in December? The difference is NY is over the hump and TX and FL are still on the upward side.

(07-27-2020 01:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 01:22 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:44 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 09:29 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 07:06 AM)BigBlueMonarch Wrote:  Someone earlier said that all was fine in FL and that NY lead the nation in cases. Well from today's news "Florida’s number of reported corona virus cases has surpassed that of New York."

COVID Deaths in FL: 5853
COVID Deaths in NY: 32000

And with the cases rising so quickly in Florida and declining in NY, those numbers are going to change. There are allegations that Florida is cooking the books as well so it would be interesting to see how many excess deaths will occur in Florida once this all gets sorted out. The number of pneumonia cases has gone through the roof in Florida.

Deaths per 100K:

NY- 168 (Rank 1)
NJ- 177 (Rank 2)
FL - 26 (Rank 24)
CA - 21 ( Rank 28)

Do you really think there are more cases in FL than NY. Do you completely discount the monumental increase in testing between the start of the NY wave and the FL wave?

Further EACH of the top 10 states for deaths per 100k is a Dem run state, which translates to lockdown state for the purpose of this discussion.

Care to revisit in December? The difference is NY is over the hump and TX and FL are still on the upward side.

You mean NY didn't flatten the curve (matches the exact curve we were told that we need to avoid) and FL did flatten the curve, exactly as asked, and somehow you claim that proves your point somehow?