Welcome to Thunderdome

Mobilizing the National Guard has a lot to do with people ignoring the stay at home orders.

Interesting that I was given a letter, clearly written/approved by some governmental agency, that allows me to drive for work as it's linked to the agricultural industry. Makes me wonder if a time is coming when I will be asked for my papers...

Hong Kong ended their lockdown too soon.

Someone should print this off a thousand times and plaster it all over the walls of the oval office.

More than 100k people have recovered, so far.

https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-re ... ns-1493723

And those, all confirmed cases. Many more probably recovered and were never confirmed. Many more carried and never got sick in the first place.

Work has a check-in video call today within my practice to see how everyone is doing.

Big plans to wear black suit and tie for the first time in months because why not.

GORDON wrote: More than 100k people have recovered, so far.

Which is great, but what's your point? How many preventable deaths are acceptable to you? Which family members are you ok losing so we can all pretend everything is fine?

Leisher wrote:

GORDON wrote: More than 100k people have recovered, so far.

Which is great, but what's your point? How many preventable deaths are acceptable to you? Which family members are you ok losing so we can all pretend everything is fine?

Holy fuck, dude.

Well, explain your point!

You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't be doing anything and this is a nothing virus that only kills the old/weak. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting your stance.

By the way, all the people clogging up these hospital beds aren't just the elderly. Lots of them are mid-aged and younger.

My point was that 100k confirmed cases have recovered, so far, and your first question was to ask which of my family members I wanted to kill.

Troy wrote: Big plans to wear black suit and tie for the first time in months because why not.

Expect "did someone die?" questions...

GORDON wrote: My point was that 100k confirmed cases have recovered, so far, and your first question was to ask which of my family members I wanted to kill.

Let's bring in your quote from the other thread...

GORDON wrote: Better than if we tank the economy and put 100 million armed people out of work.

The great majority of the 7.7 million, in your example, that would die would already be retired pensioners.

You've constantly argued this is nothing and everyone is overreacting. You're now implying we're going to tank the economy and a hundred million gun owners are going to go on the rampage, and instead we should just let the 7.7 million (estimated death toll if we let it run unchecked) elderly people die.

What part of that am I getting wrong about your stance?

My point is if you're unwilling to stop the spread because you think it'll tank the economy, then you must be willing to watch loved ones die because you're putting them in harm's way.

Pretty sure a lot of those 100 million armed citizens won't be thrilled as their government does nothing while citizens die.

Also, that was my third question, not first.

P.S. <--Indicates things are being said in jest.

1. Nothing is going to stop the spread. Not even shutting down the economy.

2. Most small businesses, not even ones that are "run well," can survive without 1-2 months of income. Restaurants especially run on thin margins, if they're making a profit at all. I don't know what carry-out-only numbers look like, but I hope those numbers are good.

3. I still think the risk of infection is overblown. If you're healthy and under 50, it's very highly unlikely this is going to kill you. If you're under 70 and healthy, and pretty unlikely it's going to kill you. If you're over 70 and healthy, it's probably not going to kill you. (Source).
There's going to be "the other side" of this, and I'd like to have this place still nice, and not a Great Depression 2, Mad Max wasteland with 400 million guns in the hands of 350 million people. (Source

4. But, the reaction seems to be to shut down "non essential" businesses, and slow down the infection rate. Slow it down, not stop it. So, no matter what, that X% of people are absolutely going to be infected eventually, and die, or not. We're just trying to slow it down. Fine. A good intention. What's the result of shutting down the economy, though, in the short term? 60 m,illion peopl ein the USA are e,ployed by small businesses (Source) Lets assume half of them have their jobs disappear. 30 million people now unemployed. Not too bad, only about 10-15% of all working adults (Source) . Not too bad. During the height of the Great Depression, only 25% of working adults were unemployed. But that was the height. In 1930, after the market crash, only 9% were unemployed. The ripple affect of people not having any money to support the rest of the economy caused business after business to fail, causing a ripple effect. Among other effects, the suicide rate climbed significantly during this period (Source).

4.5. I do'nt know what the "young people are in hospitals, too" anecdotes are about. Go tell the World Health Organization, if you think it's relevant. They still think it's only a .5% mortality rate, under age 50. I never argued young people wouldn't get sick, I suggested they'd come through it alive. And backed that up with data.

5. So, I see 2 paths, with lots of gray area in between, as half-measures are taken. And this seems to be where the Hitler comparisons are becoming valid, as I understand them.

a. We do nothing, let the virus burn through the population. Maybe 3% mortality rate (That's global according to the WHO, I'm still waiting to see America-numbers). Hospitals flooded through the summer. Lots of peeps, mostly sick and elderly, dead all at the same time. Economy chugs along, funeral industry has a good year. This time next year, we're all mad at China about living like filthy animals.

b. We shut everything down., but good (not like what we actually did). All businesses closed for 2 months. Spread of infection stopped in ti's tracks. A few people made examples of when they broke quarantine. Major economic disruption.

c. What we actually have: many half measures. Schools closed, a major disruption in the pipeline that produces doctors. Restaurants taking a hit. Everything else open. Virus still spreading, albeit at a slower rate. Business/education/economic disruption may last a year and a half. And ultimately, no one was saved. The infection still spreads, slower, usually in the line to hoard toilet paper, for some reason. Now that 3% ,mortality rate is spread over a year and a half instead of all at once.

None of this shit makes sense to me. It's making a bad situation, worse. When we're all on the other side, we seem to be trying our hardest to make sure we have a shittier world for our kids.




That being said, I don't see what any of this shit has to do with me trying to be optimistic, and pointing out that things aren't as bad (right now) as the doom-and-gloom crowd seems to be with all their "we're all gonna die", hopeless rhetoric. Things aren't as bad as all that, and it doesn't hurt anyone to be reminded that the vast, VAST majority of people who get it are going to be just fine. FUCKING VAST majority. It has nothing to do with eugenics, it has nothing to do with choosing who lives, and who dies, and which family member am I willing to sacrifice. This is fucking life, people die. Don't pretend like they'll live forever by shutting down the McD's dining room. It doesn't change any of the above facts. I'm just suggesting maybe we don't destroy the world in order to change not one single death from this virus.

1. I think this is a fair, but possibly inaccurate point. China and Hong Kong had a lot of success stopping it, but they went to extremes to do so. Extremes that I don't think our country is able to do because of our freedom. I heard China had delivery drivers dropping food outside of buildings and the receipt would have their temperature recorded on it.

2. Here's where I think our government needs to be far more involved. They need to be making sure no business goes under because of their lockdowns. I know some financial institutions have discussed, promised, or even acted to postpone rent payments and whatnot, but it needs to extend to everything. At the very least extend default dates, eliminate past due fees, and so on. End of the day, if everyone goes out of business, the people behind the money are fucked too. All rent/utilities should be paused for people too. We need a legit "pause" for everything. No idea how or if it would work, I'll let Catt discuss that, but the government cannot stand idle and do nothing, particularly if they ordered the lockdowns.

3. This is where I have an issue. Generally, I agree. I'm a Darwinist as well, but if we can prevent the spread, I think we need to do just that. This virus' kill ratio is much higher than the flu, and thus, we shouldn't sit back and do nothing while people die. I think that would lead to far more unrest than hurting the economy for a bit. I have parents and in laws still alive that I'm like to remain alive. And again, had we locked down right away, it'd already be over and people would be back to work. Instead our moronic leaders are dragging this out so we're getting the worst of both options.

4.

GORDON wrote: Slow it down, not stop it.

People keep saying slow it down, but China stopped it. As for the economy stuff, I covered that above. No business should be closed, job lost, or person out of a home because of government ordered lockdowns.

4.5. Younger people getting it and being hospitalized is all over the news. I think CNN had a headline that most of Italy's dead on a particular day were people 30-50 or some shit. So it is killing folks we originally thought it wouldn't kill. It's also hospitalizing younger folks it may not kill, but it is doing permanent damage to their lungs AND giving them crippling debt in the form of medical bills.

5.

GORDON wrote: None of this shit makes sense to me. It's making a bad situation, worse.

And that's exactly where I stand. The half-assing of everything is making this bad situation worse. That's why I'm thumping the "Lock it down now" bible. Stop the spread, pass legislation to protect SMBs and citizens, and then once the lock down is over go full bore on getting things back to normal.

GORDON wrote: That being said, I don't see what any of this shit has to do with me trying to be optimistic, and pointing out that things aren't as bad (right now) as the doom-and-gloom crowd seems to be with all their "we're all gonna die", hopeless rhetoric.

I get where you're coming from, but please understand your comments never seemed to come from that prism. Instead it seemed to match the right wing "This is just the flu" rhetoric we've been hearing. Now that you've clarified it, it is noted.

GORDON wrote: It has nothing to do with eugenics, it has nothing to do with choosing who lives, and who dies, and which family member am I willing to sacrifice.

The point of the question was that if you advocate not attempting to stop the spread of a killer virus, then you have to be willing to accept fault if someone close to you dies from it. You've gone through some medical shit in your life. Someone very close to you has too. I've taken an ambulance ride in my life, and far more recently than not. Who knows how this virus would affect us or our loved ones who may have conditions we're unaware of. I'm simply saying that it makes more sense to try and prevent the spread, than not doing anything. I mean, you have worn condoms, right? They're not 100% effective, yet people still use them...

P.S. The Hitler joke was just that, a joke. You were essentially advocating letting millions of people in a certain demographic die. It kind of wrote itself.

By the way, the 2020 Olympic games will now be postponed.

Leisher wrote: You MUST see the name of the official breaking the Olympic postponement news.

Well, I was going to guess it was Dick Pound, but the URL spoiled it for me.

Something that would be fun, but would NEVER happen:

I've been trying to picture what the "sequester the old" program would look like. UK tried that, and then abandoned it.

The biggest hang up is: How do you sequester those people? A lot of them need medical help, dr appts, etc. How do they get those things in the world?

The 2nd question: And what age do you draw the line to keep hospitalization rates low enough? 60? 50?

As the biggest consistent voting block, elected officials can't do anything old folks won't like or they'll get voted out of office. That's why we don't have driving laws covering the elderly.

Here's a positive of the coronavirus:

Hospitalization rate for flu for 65+ is 1% (updated)

The Coronavirus hospitalization rates for even the youngins is crazy high relative to that. (10-20%)

On the other hand, Italy finally has 2 days in a row of decreasing cases. Shut it all down for 2-3 weeks.