COVID-19 (artist formerly known as Wuhan strain novel Corona virus)

that’s why I said it isn’t total coverage and isn’t a light switch of on and off.

even with herd immunity you’ll see cases

 

No shit an effective safe vaccine would be the top choice.

But with the science and data points that we have on the virus. We should put safety nets and procedures to help protect those at highest risk, while other people be productive and live their lives.

That doesn't mean they'll be totally protected but is the long term best outcome.


Now if you only want to look at Covid deaths, you're right. We however don't live in a vacuum. So with the total cost to the world, lock downs do more harm than good overall, unless the local healthcare system is being overwhelmed, we shouldn't lockdown

 

What? The president is an extremely high contact individual and wasn’t taking the virus serious. The only surprising thing about him getting it is how long it took.

You can absolutely take measures to protect at risk people without ruining the livelihood of others.

 

How? When the country was pretty much entirely locked down, did "the protected" still get it? Absolutely.

So what measures, which would be less than lockdown, succeed now?

 

What safety nets, what procedures, that haven't been tried... anywhere else in the world? You cannot protect. Right now, this is about the equilibrium point between productivity and open environments, and we're increasing in cases.

 

If you’re looking for a magic solution to prevent anyone from dying from this virus, I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe it was possible back in November, but probably not. Definitely not now.

I do know that society is not built to be “locked down”, and doing so for even the short period of time we did earlier in the year is going to have consequences that last a lot longer than this pandemic.

I’m fine wearing a mask in public for now, and as far as I’m concerned strangers can stay 6 feet away from me forever. If we feel confident that protests didn’t cause a ton of spread, then mass gatherings outdoors should be good to go. Continue to practice distancing indoors.

And we encourage at risk individuals to only leave the house if necessary and take precautions if they have to leave, until they can get a vaccine. Obviously some of those people will not heed that advice, and a small percentage will catch the virus and die. Such is life. If hospitals in a particular community get overwhelmed then more extreme measures could be taken temporarily. Otherwise let’s get on with it.

 

1. We're talking about protection. I've stated we cannot protect. You seem to disagree, and then talk about how we can't protect. This isn't about percentages, or numbers. It's that we cannot guarantee to protect ANYONE, even those who take precautions. Now if we do want to get into percentages or numbers, what percentage of false protection, is satisfactory? Because that's what that is: "Guys' we can protect you! Well... ya know, most of you. Some of you. A large percentage we can protect."

So just say what it is: "we cannot protect you." Because we don't know who we can protect. And when you don't know who you can or can't protect... you can't protect anyone.

2. What are we not "getting on with," that you would like to see us "getting on with," that will still offer this protection that you seem to think exists, and will remain existing, when we in fact, continue to more, "get on with it?"

 

1. It’s not a matter of guaranteeing protection for every single person or none at all. Like I said, we can only encourage high risk individuals to protect themselves. A 75 year old man who only leaves his house to get groceries and medication is a hell of a lot more protected than the president, who you ridiculously said was the most protected person in the country.

2. There are tens of thousands of kids who are supposed to be learning to read right now who are instead forced to go thru half assed, ineffective remote learning. I won’t bother looking up the statistics about the outcomes for kids who don’t learn to read by a certain age, but it’s not good. And there are still thousands of establishments shut down, or limited to the point that they’ll be closed soon, and millions still out of work because of it.

 

pandemics have economic impacts. lockdown or not, people don't go out as much.

the education impacts are very real and a problem. forcing everyone to send their kids to school as usual is not going to create less problems.

 

I’m ok with a hybrid approach where parents with the means can assist in the remote learning. Shutting down schools completely is a disaster. It puts poor kids at at even worse disadvantage than they already are.

 

I’m in total support of school choice and parents should have the option for what’s best for their kids and family

 

everything puts the poor at a disadvantage. to be poor is to not have options. The pandemic is actually more egalitarian in its effects than most things. I'm all for alleviating poverty, but killing grandad isn't creating an advantage. and the cycle of poverty extends before and after any pandemic.

 

Estimated that 134 million people will starve to death due to the lockdowns and increased poverty.


The young and healthy are thousands of times less likely to have negative outcomes from the virus than those at most risk.

not 5 or 10 times less likely but thousands. That we should treat all population groups the same is crazy and isn’t following the science

 

True or false: The people meeting with the President were rapid tested before they met with him?
True or false: The people the guy going to the grocery store will also be rapid tested before he goes by them?

The people the president met with were routinely tested. This is why things kept getting canceled, the mayor of Cleveland or whatever, had to quarantine, some sheriff. Lots of people. If saying that someone who has everyone he comes into contact with tested before they meet with him is "protection" is ridiculous, then I'll wear ridiculous like [uck fay]ing armor. Because it's better than whatever idiocy you've got on.

1. If i told you I had a flight of 450 people, and a ticket would be Target, or Kroger, or ... some crap restaurant, but I said, hey, 1 of you 450 people are going to die. Would you get on the plane? Of course not. I don't know you, but I doubt anyone is that stupid. But that's what you are saying, here. Old people... look, of you 450 is going to die.

And I'm sure you won't like the 450, so make it 1000. Make it 1,500. Whatever you need to convince yourself you've got some rational thought here. The point is, you wouldn't get on the plane. Probably ever.

2. There is no evidence that this "half assed ineffective remote learning" is in fact, half assed, ineffective. There is also no evidence that these kids aren't learning to read. There are thousands of establishments shut down, or limited, and millions still out of work. That'll be true for months and months after we just "get on with it."

And if you increase cases, and deaths... and open these places, it'll be longer, because people remember. And the number of people staying home is still greater than those not.

 

We aren't a country that can treat people differently. What do you want the government to do, impose curfews, say old people can only shop these certain hours, and young people these?

How do we treat all the populations the same, in a free country... differently?

 

Looks like we’ve reached the point of ad hominem and non starter hypotheticals. I’ve made my point then. Have a good one.

 

It isn't a hypothetical. You are telling older people that one of 450 of them is going to die. Just get on with it.

 

they’re free so with that comes responsibility and ownership of risk.

the government should advise the older and at risk to stay home. They’re free adults. They then get to make their own risk in public and private with interactions.

We already have ETRA and other government programs that could help deliver food and medications.

we could put those that have already been infected and recovered and increase testing on those working and visiting in nursing homes.

We could pay direct payments to those having to stay home from work due to age or health risk so they’re not forced into the work force

 

I’m not telling them shit. It’s a fact of life during a pandemic. Sorry you had to find out this way, but everyone dies.

luckily, this thing is nowhere near as bad as we feared back in March when we were told the fatality rate could be 3% and millions of Americans would die. So we assess the risk, take reasonable precautions, and carry on.

 

You can't take ownership of risk when you have to come into contact with someone else.

Are doctors going to do house calls now, too? Medication isn't enough. What about dentists, house calls? Vets? Should they just put their pets down.

Think of the necessary life supporting things you have to do for your family over a given year. Now condense that list to things that can be done at your house, and those that require that you go into society. Which list is bigger? It's the society one.