Differences on re-opening

[jimnyc]

Folks have many varied opinions on this. Makes complete sense as this is lives we're talking about, and world economies

For the most part, folks are most concerned with life and death first and foremost. Everyone wants to protect themselves and others. Just a difference in when, in how, informing one another on common sense and how we can all best protect one another. Folks may be disagreeing to an extent, but all still concerned about the welfare of others, even as we may be demanding rights or still having no choice but to go out. Point is, the massive concern for humanity is there. The sharing is there. Doing all we can to help one another is there. So yeah, some disagreement, but the concern for one another is at a high, IMO. Disagreeing, but getting everything out there the best we can so folks can remain informed. You get my point.

But then the left are different animals. Most of them have a primary goal of attacking orange man. So many outright wanting harm to the economy so it may harm Trump. Wanting bad news and even ignoring a ton, simply to make Trump look bad. And the lies. More this short year than ever before, and that's saying a lot. FEAR. Perhaps CNN and others are getting more viewers with folks home, and it's all negativity and fear and lies. But probably money, and whatever it takes to harm our country until Trump is out.

The right is talking about HOW we can protect the vulnerable, whether folks going out or not. We all know they are at most risk. Get the facts out.

The left is more interested in continuing the fear game and the blame game and the lying game.

---

We can protect the most vulnerable and reopen the economy

The struggle between President Trump’s drive to reopen the American economy as quickly as possible, and the insistence by his public health team and many others that this has to be delayed until further hurdles are overcome, is largely a false dilemma. We can simultaneously increase protection for those who are most vulnerable to coronavirus and, with appropriate precautions, reopen most of our economy and society.

The key to unlocking this false dilemma is a clear understanding of who, in fact, is most vulnerable to death from this novel killer — and who is not. As data from the deaths of the more than 58,000 of our fellow citizens to date show, the answer is clear.

Those at greatest risk of death from coronavirus are a subset of the 15 percent of Americans older than 65. More than 80 percent of all the deaths in America from coronavirus have come from this group. Moreover, the data show that vulnerability increases with age beyond 65, especially among individuals with one or more specific preexisting conditions. And among those who have died, three of every five have been males. In the death toll to date, how many were individuals under 25? Of the 200 million Americans under 45, how many have died from this novel virus? The answers are: fewer than 100 among under 25s and fewer than 1,000 under 45s.

Thus, in contrast to the specter of a nation at risk, when properly understood, coronavirus should be seen as a big threat to a small percentage of our population and a small threat to the overwhelming majority. To clarify this increased danger, it is instructive to distinguish between BC (before coronavirus appeared) and AC (after coronavirus). The fraction of Americans who today face a significantly greater risk of death than they did BC is likely to be roughly 10 percent.

Moreover, as we are debating choices about next steps up the staircase to reopening the economy, we should recognize that most of those individuals already had retired from the workforce before 2020 began. At the other end of the spectrum, risks of death from coronavirus among those under 65 essentially fall with age, risks for those in the earlier decades of life being substantially lower than many other threats they were living with BC.

President Trump has taken a step in the right direction in issuing guidelines on April 16 that specifically single out “the most vulnerable.” What is needed at this point is for the White House Task Force to follow up with more specific guidelines that it might label “Smart Steps” encouraging governors to exercise their ingenuity. Historically, one of the great strengths of our nation is that we have 50 “laboratories of democracy.” They can learn from each other how best to operationalize smart next steps ahead.

Rest - https://thehill.com/opinion/healthca...en-the-economy


Here, we just need to admit it, we WANT people to die is what they are claiming. Or this kind of bullshit.


Georgia’s Experiment in Human Sacrifice

The state is about to find out how many people need to lose their lives to shore up the economy.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...source=twitter

Not even gonna print the fear inducing blaming BS from this one, read on your own, the title is enough.

[FakeNewsSux]

Folks have many varied opinions on this. Makes complete sense as this is lives we're talking about, and world economies

For the most part, folks are most concerned with life and death first and foremost. Everyone wants to protect themselves and others. Just a difference in when, in how, informing one another on common sense and how we can all best protect one another. Folks may be disagreeing to an extent, but all still concerned about the welfare of others, even as we may be demanding rights or still having no choice but to go out. Point is, the massive concern for humanity is there. The sharing is there. Doing all we can to help one another is there. So yeah, some disagreement, but the concern for one another is at a high, IMO. Disagreeing, but getting everything out there the best we can so folks can remain informed. You get my point.

But then the left are different animals. Most of them have a primary goal of attacking orange man. So many outright wanting harm to the economy so it may harm Trump. Wanting bad news and even ignoring a ton, simply to make Trump look bad. And the lies. More this short year than ever before, and that's saying a lot. FEAR. Perhaps CNN and others are getting more viewers with folks home, and it's all negativity and fear and lies. But probably money, and whatever it takes to harm our country until Trump is out.

The right is talking about HOW we can protect the vulnerable, whether folks going out or not. We all know they are at most risk. Get the facts out.

The left is more interested in continuing the fear game and the blame game and the lying game.

---

Georgia’s Experiment in Human Sacrifice

The state is about to find out how many people need to lose their lives to shore up the economy.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...source=twitter

Not even gonna print the fear inducing blaming BS from this one, read on your own, the title is enough.

I wonder who will be writing the mea culpa when the lib wet dream for the people of Georgia does not materialize. Oh, I forgot, no one. Kind of like the retraction we're still waiting for from James Carville:



Equating the Wisconsin Primary with the Bataan Death March seemed a bit over the top even for Carville. Now that the State of Wisconsin has done the analysis of COVID data since the elections took place and have concluded that it made no statistical difference in the number of cases. Don't hold your breath for an apology and besides, he accomplished his goal of scaring the shit out of you for another week or two.

[Kathianne]

Seems to me that folks will have to make their own choices. I can honestly say that you couldn't pay me to fly right now. Same with going into restaurant for sit down. I would not go to a movie or to see a play or concert. I will go to the grocery, as seldom as possible-same as now. I will continue to work, as I have the entire time.

I'll wait for people to regularly do some or all of these things and see how it works out for them.

I'll continue to go for my walks, read my books, visit here, and read/watch the news. ''

When it appears that the virus is under control, not because of lack of opportunity alone, I'll reconsider what I'm doing.

[Evmetro]

People generally have their own unique perception of why re opening is good or bad, and it is typically based on what information, news, propaganda, and data that we see or use. For many of us though, it is based on the phrase " Live free or die". Many have paid the ultimate price to protect our freedom.

[Abbey Marie]

People generally have their own unique perception of why re opening is good or bad, and it is typically based on what information, news, propaganda, and data that we see or use. For many of us though, it is based on the phrase " Live free or die". Many have paid the ultimate price to protect our freedom.

I doubt Patrick Henry was thinking about making an unfettered trip to McDonald’s when he uttered the phrase “Give me liberty or give me death”. You are still free to think, speak, read what you want, write what you want, worship/not worship God, support whichever candidate you want, enjoy taxation with representation, take a walk, have as many children as you want, or none, wear what you want, marry whomever you love, buy whichever car you can afford. I could go on and on.

All this talk of “freedom or death” makes a mockery of those who truly do live in highly restrictive societies. I think they would scoff at such dramatics.

[Drummond]

I'm not sure that I've got much to say. I see both sides of this. I've always seen the herd immunity principle as sound and, purely in terms of the eventual health of any nation, it's a reasonable option, IF we don't get a vaccine.

I can't help but wonder if the initial horrors it'd create are fully comprehended by its most enthusiastic proponents, though. Don't forget that problems in healthcare that fully opening up would create, would impact on everything. Reliant on treatments to combat cancer ? Say goodbye to them, for a couple of months, while hospitals are overwhelmed with virus patients.

Opening up economies has to happen, but when, and how completely ? There's a spectrum of differing viewpoints. But, the balance has to be got right. Covid-19, at least until / unless it mutates, is a very specific threat for which only the one most optimal solution exists.

'Just decide how many must die' is really what it comes down to.

But whatever your decision: remember, whatever you decide, you are highly likely to be deciding for the entire world. Yours is a large population, and a substantial proportion are bound to be within a 'let's open everything up' jurisdiction. So, is there absolutely no likelihood of anyone from any of those areas either travelling abroad, or, infecting someone who will ?

Say a freight handler who's infected leaves Covid-19 on some surfaces where the virus can live for a couple of days. The freight makes its journey, and the virus survives it. The recipient country starts to know a fresh Covid outbreak, whether or not it's beating its own pool of infection up to that point.

Did the Wuhan outbreak come from far more modest beginnings than all the US States that open up and start their increased infections ?

Whatever the US decides, I say that the rest of the world has a stake in your decision. That is, unless, you close your borders tight, quarantine the whole of the USA, 'for the duration of the emergency'.

I'm a foreigner who wants the maximum chance to survive for years to come. I hope I get it ...

[jimnyc]

I know that everyone has valid reasons for their opinions, and all are valid!

Didn't want everyone to think I created yet another thread to debate opening - but more so how folks on the left want to make up such disgusting crap, and try to claim that others want to open up in order have some science experiment or whatever.

If someone wants their rights, it doesn't mean their wrong, or want to kill people purposely. The argument from those not ready to open, including here, aren't claiming that the others purposely want to kill people. But the left does.

[Abbey Marie]

Re: my post above, here is an example from today’s headlines of folks who can truly gripe about not being free:

40851063-1080-4360-9706-41FFEC2638EC.jpeg

[jimnyc]

I doubt Patrick Henry was thinking about making an unfettered trip to McDonald’s when he uttered the phrase “Give me liberty or give me death”. You are still free to think, speak, read what you want, write what you want, worship/not worship God, support whichever candidate you want, enjoy taxation with representation, take a walk, have as many children as you want, or none, wear what you want, marry whomever you love, buy whichever car you can afford. I could go on and on.

All this talk of “freedom or death” makes a mockery of those who truly do live in highly restrictive societies. I think they would scoff at such dramatics.

Some things are way too far from both sides. And of course it goes without saying that freedom comes with responsibility.

And while I fight for rights, it isn't to run out to Mcdonalds for sure! But I would honor the owners right to open, I just wouldn't visit. Same with anywhere else opening that isn't up to my standards of staying safe and protecting others. So many things we can still do without crowds and purposely taking chances.

And while I guarantee I'll always be free - some folks are being told they can't go for that walk, must wear something & all the other crap I listed. And then other things simply not free to do, because you can't leave home.

I agree with 100% of all you said throughout, and ya know I would go out of my way to protect you! Same goes for others. Weird to say considering my arguments on opening and rights. But I did say all along about common sense and PPE - and elderly and compromised - and all the businesses out there working to minimize and protect...

And I'm NOT diminishing anything you say, never would! Just adding to it with an explanation if that makes sense? Like I said, I agree with you, so don't get me wrong.

The left is convinced we want to go lick items. Run out without protection. Be greedy capitalists with hidden euthanasia to profit further. Any BS they can invent to vilify.

[jimnyc]

People generally have their own unique perception of why re opening is good or bad, and it is typically based on what information, news, propaganda, and data that we see or use. For many of us though, it is based on the phrase " Live free or die". Many have paid the ultimate price to protect our freedom.

And location!

Some states out there have less than 1k infections and less than a couple hundred deaths or even much much less. They should use different plans than NY, for example. But even though doing better, doesn't mean go nuts, and now I'm free 'lets go on a vacation to NY to see the Statue of Liberty'. But I also don't think every citizen in that particular state should be locked down as severely as others. It varies. AND - the main thing we have to look out for - and prepare for - I said awhile back - rolling openings and closings. Some may open for a month and then have to close shop for 2 weeks again, and continue onward. Might see staggered openings based on location and season. Lots of differences and I honestly don't think everywhere has to be treated identically.

[jimnyc]

15 years for speaking out. Others worse, just disappearing when they videotape something and share! Others jailed. Others questioned for weeks.

Yeah, no doubt, even when locked down we do better than them!

[Abbey Marie]

I know that everyone has valid reasons for their opinions, and all are valid!

Didn't want everyone to think I created yet another thread to debate opening - but more so how folks on the left want to make up such disgusting crap, and try to claim that others want to open up in order have some science experiment or whatever.

If someone wants their rights, it doesn't mean their wrong, or want to kill people purposely. The argument from those not ready to open, including here, aren't claiming that the others purposely want to kill people. But the left does.

This is not directed at you, Jim. It’s to everyone.

I don’t think rational people want to kill people purposely. But this has as we all know devolved into dirty politics. The reality that people put party over life itself is shameful. This applies to both Dems and Republicans.

I can respect and find truth in both sides’ arguments in this, as long as it is not based on politics or selfishness. Base it on reality. If the sentiment is now, ‘getting my life and my business back to normal is more important than the lives of our older folks’, let’s just be honest and say it. Let’s not couch it in rhetoric about the virus being no big deal. No big deal to whom, exactly?

I want Trump re-elected as much as anyone. I want the economy and my 401k back to thriving. But the “live free or die” histrionics I see out there are a bridge too far for me.

[Abbey Marie]

And location!

Some states out there have less than 1k infections and less than a couple hundred deaths or even much much less. They should use different plans than NY, for example. But even though doing better, doesn't mean go nuts, and now I'm free 'lets go on a vacation to NY to see the Statue of Liberty'. But I also don't think every citizen in that particular state should be locked down as severely as others. It varies. AND - the main thing we have to look out for - and prepare for - I said awhile back - rolling openings and closings. Some may open for a month and then have to close shop for 2 weeks again, and continue onward. Might see staggered openings based on location and season. Lots of differences and I honestly don't think everywhere has to be treated identically.

Wouldn’t all that opening and closing again really screw up people receiving unemployment?

[revelarts]

People generally have their own unique perception of why re opening is good or bad, and it is typically based on what information, news, propaganda, and data that we see or use.

Exactly. and I'd add one's personal financial stability/independence and one's general faith in our various establishment social structures.

.

For many of us though, it is based on the phrase " Live free or die". Many have paid the ultimate price to protect our freedom.

That's a real one for plenty of folks, but I suspect for fewer than it may seem. (at least in a universal sense, as in EVERYONE'S rights or ALL the rights outlined in the constitution)


.

I doubt Patrick Henry was thinking about making an unfettered trip to McDonald’s when he uttered the phrase “Give me liberty or give me death”. You are still free to think, speak, read what you want, write what you want, worship/not worship God, support whichever candidate you want, enjoy taxation with representation, take a walk, have as many children as you want, or none, wear what you want, marry whomever you love, buy whichever car you can afford. I could go on and on.
All this talk of “freedom or death” makes a mockery of those who truly do live in highly restrictive societies. I think they would scoff at such dramatics.

We can still go to McDonald's... just the drive through. the gov't has closed the sit down areas.
And I suspect if Patrick Henry was told by the British gov't that he couldn't open his shop until the British gov't said so... indefinitely...
And if he were questioned, detained, fined or threatened for simply trying to travel.
And if they told him that he wasn't allowed to go to church...indefinitely... I can go on an on... that he and a few other founding Americans might have a problem with that Abbey.

It's always interesting to me how at each level of loss of constitutional rights there are some folks that claim that -little- or -nothing important- has been lost, and that some unknown level of "safety" is FAR more important than the loss of a "few" freedoms.

[jimnyc]

Wouldn’t all that opening and closing again really screw up people receiving unemployment?

Yup, probably would!

My answer? I would only do 2-3 week rollings here and there IF necessary, and unfortunately any bailout money may need to be reserved, and it can be allocated as such. Ain't easy, no easy answers. There has got to be an in between with massive concern that works. An extreme to either side would be problematic.