Reopening Update

[Chris M]

These politicians who think they're capable of centrally planning complex things like this are a joke, and regular folks pay the price.

This isn't Europe or China where this crap is acceptable. This is America, where freedom isn't supposed to take a back seat. Disgusting.

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by Chris M

These politicians who think they're capable of centrally planning complex things like this are a joke, and regular folks pay the price.

This isn't Europe or China where this crap is acceptable. This is America, where freedom isn't supposed to take a back seat. Disgusting.

Were this a truly existential virus such as Ebola: would you still have the same attitude?

If not, where should we draw the line?

[Chris M]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Were this a truly existential virus such as Ebola: would you still have the same attitude?

If not, where should we draw the line?

There have been lots of viruses and diseases throughout time. Is this so much the worst requiring a completely new paradigm? Hundreds of thousands die each year from the effects of smoking, and cigarettes aren't even banned.

Aids, SARS, H1N1, malaria, etc, etc, etc... and we have this one. It's on you to articulate why this particular one warrants the unprecedented approach where it's now proper to sacrifice basic freedoms.

[searay]

Would agree. These politicians need to realize that we can still live and survive without the interference. If we follow the CDC guidelines we should be able to stop the spread and still have some social life.

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by Chris M

It's on you to articulate why this particular one warrants the unprecedented approach where it's now proper to sacrifice basic freedoms.

Please keep in mind that it's not just "us" that are in lockdown mode: most of the world is / was as well.

Had we not adopted the measures we did the death rate would have been much higher: when we saw it explode in Italy, for example, it ramped up the fear level.

The problem with how we handled it is that there was never a coordinated dialogue among the politicians as to the bottom line issue, namely: how many American lives are we willing to lose in order to save the economy: nobody ever took a vote.

Earlier projections of the death rate, had we done nothing, exceeded one million IIRC: clearly unacceptable.

But 80K deaths: arguably tolerable, given the historic death rate by flu.

There should be a consensus on acceptable death rate, and their isn't.

One other factor that led to draconian steps was the totally helpless feeling caused by lack of a vaccine.

[Chris M]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Please keep in mind that it's not just "us" that are in lockdown mode: most of the world is / was as well.

Had we not adopted the measures we did the death rate would have been much higher: when we saw it explode in Italy, for example, it ramped up the fear level.

The problem with how we handled it is that there was never a coordinated dialogue among the politicians as to the bottom line issue, namely: how many American lives are we willing to lose in order to save the economy: nobody ever took a vote.

Earlier projections of the death rate, had we done nothing, exceeded one million IIRC: clearly unacceptable.

But 80K deaths: arguably tolerable, given the historic death rate by flu.

There should be a consensus on acceptable death rate, and their isn't.

One other factor that led to draconian steps was the totally helpless feeling caused by lack of a vaccine.

That's all reasonable.

It's as though nobody is willing to talk about the acceptable death rate. As it stands now it's as though 1 is too many and anyone saying otherwise doesn't care about human life. And they talk as though there's very little cost to keeping things locked down, and very little benefit to reversing course and getting back to life.

The status quo is a very immature way to handle a complex social situation such as this. It used to be Americans would rise in the face of adversity, but holy crap this is not the America I grew up in.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Chris M

That's all reasonable.

It's as though nobody is willing to talk about the acceptable death rate. As it stands now it's as though 1 is too many and anyone saying otherwise doesn't care about human life. And they talk as though there's very little cost to keeping things locked down, and very little benefit to reversing course and getting back to life.

The status quo is a very immature way to handle a complex social situation such as this. It used to be Americans would rise in the face of adversity, but holy crap this is not the America I grew up in.

We could also argue "acceptable economic loss", also a complex social situation which is different for everyone.
"Acceptable death rate" is a moving target. No one is going to agree on an "acceptable death rate because everyone's situation is different.
The government has to make that call and we all have to live with the results. It's just like going into a war, how many lives are we willing to lose to achieve an acceptable outcome?

[ishoot308]

Interesting....the government “accepts” 80,000 deaths per year due to alcohol. I don’t see any of the liquor stores closing any time soon. Quite the contrary, they are named “essential” services and new ones are being built every day! Heck a new one will be going up Soon at Exit 18!

In San Francisco they have allowed the homeless alcoholics and drug addicts to takeover hotels and motels and they are actually having methadone, booze and weed delivered to them at no charge! What great world we live in huh?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-franc...navirus-debate

Dan