Coronavirus Thread

[684Bee]

The missing element here is the VIRUS. It could care less about the free will of human beings; all it's looking for is hosts. And that is what this person is providing. Until we can get the VIRUS to decide the it won't infect people if they come in to get a haircut of their own free will - and I wouldn't hold my breath for that - the state has a clear right to shut the business down.

Though once Abbott rescinded his order, locking her up for contempt was a bit much.

OK. Maybe you and I can agree on something: that the virus is going to do what it’s going to do. It’s going to infect people and it’s going to kill some. It doesn’t go away, we just eventually either develop immunity to it or it kills us.

You wrap yourself up in plastic and live in fear huddled in your home. As for me, I’m not going to live that way. I’ll use common sense precautions, but I’m going to go about my life. If that makes me selfish, then I’m selfish.

 

[MWBATL]

It is absolutely insane that this happened in America, and in Texas no less. If you haven't watched the video, go and watch. The judge wanted the lady to apologize and admit she did wrong. The lady said she won't apologize for working to put food on her and her employees' tables. She was operating as safely as possible and no one was forced to come in for a haircut.

Criminals have been released from prison, due to fears of the coronavirus, but this lady got put into jail. Please square that one up for me.

It was in Dallas, I believe. Not like the rest of Texas. Judge was a Democrat. I suspect he took her refusal personally...

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

It was in Dallas, I believe. Not like the rest of Texas. Judge was a Democrat. I suspect he took her refusal personally...

And like many judges throughout the country, he is an elected judge, which means he is a politician. He should be impeached.

 

[MWBATL]

And like many judges throughout the country, he is an elected judge, which means he is a politician. He should be impeached.

I think he is in a pretty safe district.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I think he is in a pretty safe district.

I don't think it's the district who would impeach him, but yes, he is in a district that probably idolizes him.

 

[takethepoints]

OK. Maybe you and I can agree on something: that the virus is going to do what it’s going to do. It’s going to infect people and it’s going to kill some. It doesn’t go away, we just eventually either develop immunity to it or it kills us.

You wrap yourself up in plastic and live in fear huddled in your home. As for me, I’m not going to live that way. I’ll use common sense precautions, but I’m going to go about my life. If that makes me selfish, then I’m selfish.

It does. It also increases the chances that you will get the disease and that you will die.

But, hey, it's your movie. Unless, of course, you get infected then infect other people as a result of your behavior. As I keep saying here, your rights and your freedom are constrained by the harm you cause me or others. In a pandemic, that means you don't have a right to behave in ways that show a good chance of infecting others. Period.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

It does. It also increases the chances that you will get the disease and that you will die.

But, hey, it's your movie. Unless, of course, you infect other people as a result of your behavior. As I keep saying here, your rights and your freedom are constrained by the harm you cause me or others. In a pandemic, that means you don't have a right to behave in ways that show a good chance of infecting others. Period.

The percentage of those getting the disease who die from it is currently around 2.5% in the US, although it's considerably higher among the elderly.
https://reason.com/2020/04/03/what-percentage-of-covid-19-patients-are-likely-to-die/
https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/...percentage-the-most-accurate-estimate-817752/

Even though I am 75 years old, frankly, I will just live sensibly and take my chances.

 

[takethepoints]

The percentage of those getting the disease who die from it is currently around 2.5% in the US, although it's considerably higher among the elderly.
https://reason.com/2020/04/03/what-percentage-of-covid-19-patients-are-likely-to-die/
https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/...percentage-the-most-accurate-estimate-817752/

Even though I am 75 years old, frankly, I will just live sensibly and take my chances.

As long as you stay at home most of the time and don't infect others, you won't find me stopping you.

The old example on this is drug addiction. Let's suppose you are a fentanyl addict. You find a legitimate source of the drug and you sit in your house and take it until you accidentally overdose. No problem! You aren't doing any harm to anyone but yourself. Now let's suppose you start inviting friends over to your h0use and selling them hits at parties you hold. Sorry, Charlie, that's a crime. Why? Because you are addicting others - on their own free will, of course - by selling them a drug that is a controlled substance and we would just as soon that we had fewer fentanyl addicts. They tend to get desperate for the drug, get involved in illegal activities, and can kill themselves, just like you could. But, in this case, their suicide is your fault.

Exactly the same reasoning applies here. If you "live sensibly" (that's in quotes for a reason), you might a) become infected, b) infect others, c) use public health resources needlessly, and c) cause a ripple effect that will do the community harm. If it really were a matter of you taking your chances, nobody would object. But … it isn't.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

As long as you stay at home most of the time and don't infect others, you won't find me stopping you.

The old example on this is drug addiction. Let's suppose you are a fentanyl addict. You find a legitimate source of the drug and you sit in your house and take it until you accidentally overdose. No problem! You aren't doing any harm to anyone but yourself. Now let's suppose you start inviting friends over to your h0use and selling them hits at parties you hold. Sorry, Charlie, that's a crime. Why? Because you are addicting others - on their own free will, of course - by selling them a drug that is a controlled substance and we would just as soon that we had fewer fentanyl addicts. They tend to get desperate for the drug, get involved in illegal activities, and can kill themselves, just like you could. But, in this case, their suicide is your fault.

Exactly the same reasoning applies here. If you "live sensibly" (that's in quotes for a reason), you might a) become infected, b) infect others, c) use public health resources needlessly, and c) cause a ripple effect that will do the community harm. If it really were a matter of you taking your chances, nobody would object. But … it isn't.

I was a child during the latter days of the polio crisis, but my family sure didn't keep me isolated in the house. WTH should I stay at home now? And even if I do, for how long? Till a vaccine is produced? Hell, I could be dead from other causes by then. If you want to put your life on hold until then, then by all means do it, but I sure as hell refuse to do that. That's just stupid.

 

[684Bee]

It does. It also increases the chances that you will get the disease and that you will die.

But, hey, it's your movie. Unless, of course, you get infected then infect other people as a result of your behavior. As I keep saying here, your rights and your freedom are constrained by the harm you cause me or others. In a pandemic, that means you don't have a right to behave in ways that show a good chance of infecting others. Period.

Stay home and you don’t have to worry about me doing you harm.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

It does. It also increases the chances that you will get the disease and that you will die.

But, hey, it's your movie. Unless, of course, you get infected then infect other people as a result of your behavior. As I keep saying here, your rights and your freedom are constrained by the harm you cause me or others. In a pandemic, that means you don't have a right to behave in ways that show a good chance of infecting others. Period.

Im in my 40s, fit, and no pre-existing conditions. If I go out, wear a mask, socially distance, use good hygiene, etc, you are correct that my chances of dying still increase. But it’s so close to zero it might as well be. Mathematically my chances of dying in a car wreck or something else are probably higher. And if you stay home or if you don’t but you also act like I am, your chances of getting anything from me are also close to zero. It’s pretty useless to have arguments about probabilities that are so far out like this. We have gone a month now in my county where the daily new cases are 0-5, and people are out everywhere. Not like on a regular economy, but it’s still bustling. It’s because people are taking care of themselves. My in-laws are old and at risk. It wouldn’t matter if these people were acting ridiculous, because the in-laws are staying at home. There’s nothing those people could do short of breaking in their home to increase their risk.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I was a child during the latter days of the polio crisis, but my family sure didn't keep me isolated in the house. WTH should I stay at home now? And even if I do, for how long? Till a vaccine is produced? Hell, I could be dead from other causes by then. If you want to put your life on hold until then, then by all means do it, but I sure as hell refuse to do that. That's just stupid.

People are acting like this is the first health crisis this country has endured. It’s not. What is it? It’s the first health crisis since the Nanny State was federalized/ institutionalized. Before you took care of yourself. Now the government is supposed to take care of you. Boy they’re really doing it! We’re getting exactly what government is good at and in immense quantities. Wreck the economy so the rich guys can profit, tank the economy so the little guys can become more dependent, take away your liberties to soften you up so the next time we take more over your liberties away you won’t resist so much. The politicians are getting to pick winners and losers every day. The only good thing coming out of this is we’ve gotten to see these clowns front and center. There’s a reason they’re in government or politics instead of the private sector. For example, there’s a reason the health experts are not at Abbott Labs or JNJ or Gilead, etc developing tests or vaccines and getting them to market and instead are in government blocking tests for the virus or drug approvals through sheer ineptitude and clinical trials while they combs the hallways trying to find someone that knows something. Worst of all they probably knew the Chinese were playing around with this virus for years in a lab ill equipped to operate properly because we wanted “globalization” But figured it was way over there so how much harm could it do. Yeah Mr Government lackey, another good move on your part. You had a few jobs to do and this is the best you could offer.

 

[FredJacket]

@takethepoints I am trying to understand your position on this. It seems you are simply very risk averse. Others have said the think they get the risk to themselves & others & are ready / willing to start to get back to normal with risk mitigation measures to reduce risk as much as feasible. At nearly every turn, you repeat it isn't ok to do any of that because of your perception of the risk. So... now what? Who gets to decide what the other does?

Not sure how old you are... but have you had children who've reached driving age? There is a very "uncomfortable" point where you still understand the risk of an inexperienced driver... risk to themselves and every driver they encounter on road. Yet... you do eventually hand them the keys & off they go (risk is way above zero).... to hopefully not screw it up... or be an innocent victim.

No analogy is perfect... but there is a point we can & should get "out" & work, play, interact...intelligently.... even if there is some risk. Some are ready now & others aren't.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

 

[684Bee]

@takethepoints I am trying to understand your position on this. It seems you are simply very risk averse. Others have said the think they get the risk to themselves & others & are ready / willing to start to get back to normal with risk mitigation measures to reduce risk as much as feasible. At nearly every turn, you repeat it isn't ok to do any of that because of your perception of the risk. So... now what? Who gets to decide what the other does?

Not sure how old you are... but have you had children who've reached driving age? There is a very "uncomfortable" point where you still understand the risk of an inexperienced driver... risk to themselves and every driver they encounter on road. Yet... you do eventually hand them the keys & off they go (risk is way above zero).... to hopefully not screw it up... or be an innocent victim.

No analogy is perfect... but there is a point we can & should get "out" & work, play, interact...intelligently.... even if there is some risk. Some are ready now & others aren't.

Well said.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Just got done watching the Today Show ask Melinda Gates (economics and computer science background) a bunch of questions about epidemiology and having her disagree over and over with Dr. Fauci. She is one of the more pompous people I’ve ever seen interviewed. She would make a great murderous dictator. Lots of people would happily march along behind her.

 

[684Bee]

Just got done watching the Today Show ask Melinda Gates (economics and computer science background) a bunch of questions about epidemiology and having her disagree over and over with Dr. Fauci. She is one of the more pompous people I’ve ever seen interviewed. She would make a great murderous dictator. Lots of people would happily march along behind her.

I believe there’s a name for this. The “something” fallacy, I think.

Basically, it’s when an expert in one field or subject is granted expert status across other subjects.

 

[MWBATL]

It does. It also increases the chances that you will get the disease and that you will die.

But, hey, it's your movie. Unless, of course, you get infected then infect other people as a result of your behavior. As I keep saying here, your rights and your freedom are constrained by the harm you cause me or others. In a pandemic, that means you don't have a right to behave in ways that show a good chance of infecting others. Period.

Seems to me this argument is ...in many respects...similar to the argument about Sanctuary cities and their position on illegal immigrants. The basic position is that it does more harm than good to society to prosecute illegal immigrants, even granting that some people will die as a result of the policy because of crimes committed by illegals. But overall, those lives are the exception and they are worth it because of the other benefits to society as a whole. The counter argument (which you are using here) is this policy might kill *me*...just as the counter argument about sanctuary policies is the exact same one.

Since I know you support sanctuary policies, I am sure you will follow the same logic here on covid. Right?

 

[MWBATL]

Just as an FYI, my wife brought my mother-in-law for her cancer screening CT scan follow-ups this week. They met for the results with the oncologist. This doctor was very chatty and not very busy. He talked about the impact on his business as an oncologist from covid. His practice employees 15 people within a major hospital here in the ATL area.

He is not sure where the road block is, but his business, in terms of new patients coming to him with positive breast cancer tests, is down 70%. Now, cancer is of course not down...so this means that either (1) women are afraid to go to hospitals to go get tested; or (2) doctors are telling women not to move to the next step with the oncologist because "it's not bad enough yet". Neither is a good case. Both would augur highly problems from breast cancer in coming months. All because the huge scare tactics that the media (predominately) has employed during this pandemic.

This is anecdotal, but many have also posted stories about how hospitals and medical staff in other areas are going broke and being laid off. These "unintended consequences" will cost lives in other, less easily measured areas down the road. And this is part of the balancing that is much harder ot measure against the daily count of covid deaths. My own take is a spike,,in and of itself...is not enough to warrant another shutdown. It would have to be a MAJOR spike or a situation where unusual deaths are occurring before i (personally) would support another shutdown...because of the deaths that are going to be caused by this type of reaction which cannot be counted (but should be).

All of us talking about this want what is best for society as a whole. Of that I have no doubt. I simply believe that the measuring stick MUST be more complex than the simplistic "covid death count" that is trumped every day in the media.

As a footnote, while at the hospital for their scan, my wife witnessed a woman walk in without a mask on (masks are required in the major hospitals here), and a guard stopped her. A few seconds later, she admitted that she already had tested positive for covid and was there to see a doctor about it...she was hustled out of the atrium (which is as far as visitors are allowed to go in the hospital) and a lockdown ensued. This woman was hustled back outside and escorted to a special entrance, the atrium was cleared and a crew came in within 10 minutes to disinfect everything in site. I just could not believe someone would knowingly walk around without mask once they knew they had covid. *That* is a huge danger.....

 

[684Bee]

Just as an FYI, my wife brought my mother-in-law for her cancer screening CT scan follow-ups this week. They met for the results with the oncologist. This doctor was very chatty and not very busy. He talked about the impact on his business as an oncologist from covid. His practice employees 15 people within a major hospital here in the ATL area.

He is not sure where the road block is, but his business, in terms of new patients coming to him with positive breast cancer tests, is down 70%. Now, cancer is of course not down...so this means that either (1) women are afraid to go to hospitals to go get tested; or (2) doctors are telling women not to move to the next step with the oncologist because "it's not bad enough yet". Neither is a good case. Both would augur highly problems from breast cancer in coming months. All because the huge scare tactics that the media (predominately) has employed during this pandemic.

This is anecdotal, but many have also posted stories about how hospitals and medical staff in other areas are going broke and being laid off. These "unintended consequences" will cost lives in other, less easily measured areas down the road. And this is part of the balancing that is much harder ot measure against the daily count of covid deaths. My own take is a spike,,in and of itself...is not enough to warrant another shutdown. It would have to be a MAJOR spike or a situation where unusual deaths are occurring before i (personally) would support another shutdown...because of the deaths that are going to be caused by this type of reaction which cannot be counted (but should be).

All of us talking about this want what is best for society as a whole. Of that I have no doubt. I simply believe that the measuring stick MUST be more complex than the simplistic "covid death count" that is trumped every day in the media.

As a footnote, while at the hospital for their scan, my wife witnessed a woman walk in without a mask on (masks are required in the major hospitals here), and a guard stopped her. A few seconds later, she admitted that she already had tested positive for covid and was there to see a doctor about it...she was hustled out of the atrium (which is as far as visitors are allowed to go in the hospital) and a lockdown ensued. This woman was hustled back outside and escorted to a special entrance, the atrium was cleared and a crew came in within 10 minutes to disinfect everything in site. I just could not believe someone would knowingly walk around without mask once they knew they had covid. *That* is a huge danger.....

This is a major issue.

I have a doctor friend that just told me his clinic just got shut down. Everyone was let go except for him. He was moved to a clinic in another part of town. They just weren't getting patients in like they had been.

A guy that I work with's wife was having pretty serious chest pains. She did NOT want to go to the hospital, for fear of C19. He made her go. Thankfully, she got checked out and was OK, but how many more instances are there like this, where people aren't seeking care they need for pretty serious issues?