Young, healthy people are at risk of becoming severely ill or dying too. Much, much, much worse, many are asymptomatic and are putting everyone with whom they come in contact at risk--and everyone with whom *they* come in contact too. How you don't get this after months of evidence is incredible. This is not a personal choice anymore than deciding to drive drunk is a personal choice. As many here have been telling you for months, it's not about you; it's about others. And yes, lots of people die in America from other causes. This is an *extra* 70K and growing. I guess you similarly blow off every incident of mass illness and death, from mass murder to 9/11 to the Vietnam War. But tens of thousands of people dying is never a big deal if it means you're bored from staying home, amirite? The IMHE had a model that the White House was proudly touting just two days ago. Then, as a direct result of the easing of restrictions, they almost doubled their projections, and the White House scrubbed their model. Internal WH models have similar projections but they don't want you to know that. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/04/cdc-daily-deaths-coronavirus-234377 The easing of social distancing WILL kill a lot more people, unnecessarily. And it will almost certainly lead to more, longer shelter-in-place orders. So easing social distancing now will also have a much worse effect on the economy, which is all you seem to care about. In states that have eased restrictions, the numbers have already begun to rise exponentially, and they will continue to do so. I don't ever want to hear you say you're pro-life or patriotic. You are neither. And your ignorance is incredibly dangerous, not just to you but to everyone. "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie."
Welcome back to the board and well said. You are engaging with the drunk on the street and you are better than that. The only value of idiot posts is so we can learn what not to do. Over history it has taught us as a species survival and this whole event proves how the republican party and these maga super spreaders truly are living in darwins waiting room. As you mention this will only prolong it and the economy but these guys will always consistently be the weak link. Its uncanny how consistent. Thankfully drunks dont vote since it falls on taco tuesday ..so many of the posts here are actually double whammy of what not to do and not a real vote anyway. save your energy for normal and thankfully most normals are staying in. Let them keep blabbing like the hopeless drunks they are. No one is taking it to heart when they are blabbering hiccuping covered in vomit.
The issue isn't number of deaths as much as deaths we have avoided and overwhelming the medical establishment
Thanks, IBTL. It's nice to 'see' you too. I'm taking a break from a several years-long hiatus from the D&D, so I can occasionally vent my spleen in calm and sober ways. It's stuff I feel the need to say to someone that might not agree with me, and that I'd rather not post on social media, because I don't use it much and prefer not to waste time having debates or arguments there. I still have to use social media for my job(s), but here I can pop in and out at will. So this is a better forum for this kind of stuff for me. And Fatty is an all-too convenient foil. As soon as this over--and thanks to folks like @Roscoe Arbuckle, that won't be anytime soon--I'll go back to my GARM-only routine.
So, if one is being responsible and staying in and others are choosing not to social distance, how much does that increase the risk to the one who is staying home and social distancing? Is it a case of people are free to choose their own risks or is there some support for the idea that if a lot of people act foolishly it increases the risk for those acting cautiously? (Also, if enough people act recklessly and overwhelm our medical facilities, I recognize the impact is felt be all.) My real question is whether those who ignore social distancing guidelines materially increase the risk to those who are strictly following the guidelines.
Thanks for your post, @jcf. That's a great question. Obviously the personal risks are considerably less for those that are protecting themselves than those that aren't, but it's complicated and there's no quick or easy answer to your question so here's a long and convoluted one. The relative risk to a person acting responsibly begins with whether they ever enter any public place. If they do there are at least three considerations: how responsibly the people in that public place behave, whom the responsible actors later interact with at home, and whom they might later interact with. Many people have to go somewhere where they interact with others (a grocery store or pharmacy for example) or, if they don't, they're relying on someone else to bring them necessary things. And those people interact with others. As an example, to increase personal safety, many turn to delivery services like Amazon. And we know that there have been cases where Amazon delivery people have been infected and tested positive. But the people that we know have been infected are only the ones that have been tested. And those that have been tested are, by and large, those that have been symptomatic. But we know almost nothing about silent carriers, except that there are way more of them than previously thought. One of the major criteria for easing restrictions has to do with making sure that workers that interact with the public are asymptomatic for at least 14 days. But that tells us nothing about whether or not they're infected. And those that are infected but asymptomatic are very contagious because it's a very contagious virus. Taking a delivery person's temperature before sending them out to make a delivery, then, is a highly unreliable metric of safety. So I think the most serious question we have to ask ourselves now is how we actually know who's infected. And the only ways we can know that are through mass testing and contact tracing, and we are nowhere near having the capability or funding to perform either of those functions, even though they too are listed in the criteria that was meant to be followed before any state eased restrictions. In fact, most states that have eased restrictions have not met a single one of the criteria for doing so. And Texas certainly has not met any of them. So the problem is not those that are acting responsibly, even by assuming they’re as likely as not to be asymptomatic carriers. The problem is the ones that are not doing that, like @Roscoe Arbuckle and others, because they are extending and worsening the danger for everybody, with regard to health and safety and the economy as well. But this is not a problem for any single person, family, or group of people. Everyone is vulnerable to some extent or another and the choices that anyone makes in this situation have an impact on everyone else, whether it's by causing serious illness or death or by making worse the very serious impact on the economy, which costs lives as well. I'm far more concerned about the wellbeing of the irresponsible actors than I am for the ones that are acting responsibly, because the irresponsible actors are more likely to get sick or die. They’re also far, far more likely to spread it to others. We truly are all in this together, and our actions now touch the lives of people we've never met and never will meet. Thank you for being responsible and being part of the solution. I say that on behalf of all of the American people, whether some of them want me to or not, even or especially those that are putting themselves and others at risk by not taking this seriously at all.
Thanks for the great response. Edit: but now I’m even more worried than I have been. Hoping everyone stays well. Next few weeks will be telling one way or the other.
Yeah, I meant to put something in there about doing the best you can and not driving yourself crazy over it. There's only so much you/I/we can do (and we can't control other bad actors) but, staying home except when it's absolutely necessary and observing basic rules of social distancing (including masks) is the least we can do. I wrote what I did mostly for the people that aren't taking the precautions that you are, out of the misplaced idea that we're over the hump, because we are not. I only hope that our state (and the others that have reopened) won't be too stubborn to reverse their positions if it's revealed that opening up is making things worse, as reliable models suggest it will. I hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong.
Time will prove me correct. There is ZERO evidence that quarantining everyone or social distance even works. NONE. But I might as well be talking to a wall with you people. You want the world to fail right now, and you need to realize it.
Well, without systematic testing to go with it, social distancing and self-quarantines will have limited and temporary effect, I think. And unfortunately, too many Americans everywhere continue to reject even those social distancing policies and preventive measures that could help. That includes the president. So yeah, at this rate, there's really going to be zero evidence that anything works.
Nationstates like SK, Taiwan and Hong Kong had to learn as a people how to handle a virus like this through SARS. Some Americans still look down on people wearing masks, but it's worn for a reason. I get the warnings about hoarding/using masks by officials early on because those same officials had the oh **** moment where we realized the Freeest Market in the world didn't have enough masks on demand to cover for general use or even legit hospital use.* PPE coverage for frontline workers still isn't in adequate numbers and many professionals are at risk with lower quality gear. We are going through those same hurdles right now and will have to come up with our own cultural answer in getting through this. Putting on a brave front is one way, but if we're inside an unending marathon of a horror movie, you know how that'll turn out eventually. Most will be lucky idiots like Rand Paul, but slow drip of death will not go away. The people roaming free are more or less drunk drivers taking a risk with every drive out and compounding that with others. Unlike a 1:1 crash, the infection rate is not linear but exponential, which is why Governor Abbot and even Trump is making these "fashisht decrees". For us to try to get back into a functioning society, we need available, fast and reliable testing*. That's pretty much the cornerstone of reducing FUD and giving everyone the slack to make more informed decisions. *IT STILL DOESN'T! IT'S MAY. WTF HAPPENED TO AMERICAN MANUFACTURING?!?
Actually Lina took the lead. Turner looked very resentful at the first TV event I saw when he had to toe the line and agree to social distancing a week or two before he wanted to.
At the start, Turner was deferring to the Governor. Then the Governor said the counties needed to make their own decisions. Lina stepped up. Then the Governor took charge while we try to pushback somewhat at the county level. Turner then spends more time up front. ****ing hot potato.
You don't have a moral or Constitutional Right to infect the rest of us even if you are willing to accept the risk.
