(06-26-2020 09:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 06:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 06:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 04:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 04:03 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Oh dear Lord.

My brother is an immunology professor and a freedom loving, gun-toting American. He thinks we should be 100% open for business and that any idiot who wants to take a risk should be allowed to do so.

Americans respond best when the only oversight is the personal responsibility that is God-granted to each citizen. When the government tries to take that responsibility upon themselves, half the country feels like telling the government to go shove it where the sun don't shine. And because there's 100 times more gun owners than law enforcement officers, those pissed off people will always be too numerous to stop.

We don't say that any idiot who wants to take the risk of driving drunk, or even just recklessly, should be allowed to do so. Not because he might kill himself, but because he might kill someone else.

I wouldn't feel sorry for someone who died because he played Russian Roulette and shot himself. Stupid is stupid. But I do have a problem with those who insist that they have a right to play Russian Roulette with a slight change in the rules. They don't have the right to point that gun at somebody else's head. Selfish is selfish.

If you are under 50 and not an at risk person, there is a lower chance of death than with the flue. That's what the studies say when you look beyond MSM.

Its really nasty if you are over 80 and in poor health.

You keep missing the point. This is not about the risk to the person who acts irresponsibly, no matter what risk category he may be in. It's about the risk he poses to others to whom he might spread the virus. Are you suggesting it's no big deal if the person whose death he might cause is old or in another high risk category?

I know what studies say. The MSM among other institutions reports fairly about them repeatedly. I also know that they aren't relevant to a personal belief that not wearing a mask or maintaining social distance is an immoral and unconscionable act. It would make me one of those Americans who refuse to accept personal responsibility for their actions in the name of "freedom".

If you would pay attention, you would see that those at risk need to minimize contact and those at low risk shouldn't be locked up.

Now I think there is little but entertainment value to football and its an unnecessary risk to play it this fall. It will increase the spread with little offsetting value. But there are a lot of things that have value other than entertainment that need to go on because the risk is minimal. The regular flue is also pretty deadly to those over 80 and in ill health. If you are sick, you don't go visit your relatives in the nursing home. That doesn't mean you shut down your business because there are at risk people in a nursing home.

I must be paying attention, because I do see that. What's more, I agree with it. But I don't see those things as absolutes. There is a lot of room to the right of saying that those with low risk "should be locked up" to protect those with high risk. It shouldn't be too much to ask - even insist - that the low risk group wear masks and maintain an appropriate social distance during a pandemic.

Had we done that uniformly across the country, and taken steps to limit entry to the country by people who were exposed to the virus in other countries, we would not have gotten ourselves into this mess. But having missed that opportunity to limit the spread within the US to a manageable level, we have allowed it to get to a point where the steps needed to contain it are much more draconian, and vastly more costly.