Kyle said:

---

No one will respond directly. It will either be ad home, ignore, or ask another question. But here goes:
1. Who would be willing to lose his / her job?
2. Who would be willing to sacrifice Baylor athletics?
3. Who would be willing to lose a spouse's job?
4. Who would be willing to lose their home?
5. Who would be willing to lose $25K? $50K? $100K? $500K? $1M?

We talk in emotional abstracts, but if you knew the current situation shutdown would do 1-5 to you, would you still support the shutdown?

(Please don't be a simpleton and respond with "If your family member or you would die from Kung Flu, would you ....")

---

Hi Kyle. I can relate to your crippling shutdown frustration but will respond directly.

1. Yes. I currently still have a job but may lose mine.
2. My joy for Baylor Athletics was killed by Baylor starting in May of 2015. A nice to have item.
3. My wife is a stay at home Mom. Nope, don't want her to lose her job. She is the best.
4. No. Whether I lose my job or not, I will not miss a mortgage payment.
5. Have lost a small fortune in retirement savings the last two months. Still consider me and my family very blessed even after the crash.

To me, I am certainly willing to endure some short -term pain and even lose my job if the result is saving lives. What I am not on board with is dragging out these Draconian measures for longer than two more months or so.

I honestly believe there are those in this country that want as much pain and fear as possible inflicted on this country until election day. You know who they are. Unfortunately, that is the country and world we live in today.

HashTag said:

---

quash said:

---

HashTag said:

---

quash said:

---

HashTag said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

For every death from Kung Flu, 1,215 people have lost their jobs due to the hysteria.

That's a lot of people without access to health insurance, health care, and at significant risk to lose their homes and struggle to feed their kids.

---

Folks have not lost their jobs due to hysteria, you dolt.

They've lost their jobs due to an act of God that would have very likely killed millions if America hadn't enacted the same strong containment measures that virtually every country in the world has.

Anyone that can look at what's happened in Italy, Spain and New York and still think a burn through/herd immunity plan was a viable option is a science-denying moron, and there is no kinder way I can say that.

---

Yep, if those idiots would've taken the threat seriously when Trump declared a public health emergency and restricted China travel... maybe we would have lower infection numbers.

---

Too bad our president wasn't strong enough to ignore the idiots, eh? Pretty sure all 33 times Trump downplayed the Kung Flu he was doing so to be more downplayier than the Dems.

---

Actually he did you blind bat.... he formed coronavirus task force, has worked with manufacturing companies to make ventilators and masks, declared a national health emergency to open funds from federal, has held 2 hour (or longer) press conferences every damn day to keep the public informed and answering bs questions from reporters that hate him....

You're just being a political jack off. Hell, schiff and pelosi are more concerned with another BS committee to start another BS investigation.

Time for you to grow up squash

---

So easily triggered, maybe you should put me on ignore.

---

Right back at ya' snowflake

---

Aw, did you invest in Uncle Louie's Magic NoCo Powder?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Predictions weren't 'wrong'.

Social distancing is working .

---

The models assumed social distancing through August. That a common circular response, but the models have that baked in.

---

Not really. The Imperial College model assumed general social distancing until mid-June, with an additional two months only for people over 70. It also assumed no lockdowns or shelter-in-place orders that would prevent people from going to work.

---

That model has pretty much been thoroughly discredited by the Oxford model and others. As noted above from another poster, the models have included it through the summer.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Predictions weren't 'wrong'.

Social distancing is working .

---

The models assumed social distancing through August. That a common circular response, but the models have that baked in.

---

Not really. The Imperial College model assumed general social distancing until mid-June, with an additional two months only for people over 70. It also assumed no lockdowns or shelter-in-place orders that would prevent people from going to work.

---

That model has pretty much been thoroughly discredited by the Oxford model and others. As noted above from another poster, the models have included it through the summer.

---

The Oxford model doesn't purport to discredit anything. It relies on a completely different set of assumptions about herd immunity, which the authors acknowledge cannot be confirmed without much more extensive testing.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Predictions weren't 'wrong'.

Social distancing is working .

---

The models assumed social distancing through August. That a common circular response, but the models have that baked in.

---

Not really. The Imperial College model assumed general social distancing until mid-June, with an additional two months only for people over 70. It also assumed no lockdowns or shelter-in-place orders that would prevent people from going to work.

---

That model has pretty much been thoroughly discredited by the Oxford model and others. As noted above from another poster, the models have included it through the summer.

---

The Oxford model doesn't purport to discredit anything. It relies on a completely different set of assumptions about herd immunity, which it acknowledges cannot be confirmed without much more extensive testing.

---

Assumptions can't be confirmed without extensive testing. You can stop there. All the models have basically been trash because they all rely on absurd assumptions. This has been a GIGO lockdown.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Predictions weren't 'wrong'.

Social distancing is working .

---

The models assumed social distancing through August. That a common circular response, but the models have that baked in.

---

Not really. The Imperial College model assumed general social distancing until mid-June, with an additional two months only for people over 70. It also assumed no lockdowns or shelter-in-place orders that would prevent people from going to work.

---

That model has pretty much been thoroughly discredited by the Oxford model and others. As noted above from another poster, the models have included it through the summer.

---

The Oxford model doesn't purport to discredit anything. It relies on a completely different set of assumptions about herd immunity, which the authors acknowledge cannot be confirmed without much more extensive testing.

---

Good luck with that.

No value judgment, but this was our Lenten devotional tonight. Pretty prescient:

"... Group dynamics and mass hysteria operate in a mo. Usually, damage is done before the truth is ascertained. And clever persons manipulate groups for their own benefits."

Talk about a relevant commentary, right or wrong.

Anyway. Happy Easter.

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Predictions weren't 'wrong'.

Social distancing is working .

---

The models assumed social distancing through August. That a common circular response, but the models have that baked in.

---

Not really. The Imperial College model assumed general social distancing until mid-June, with an additional two months only for people over 70. It also assumed no lockdowns or shelter-in-place orders that would prevent people from going to work.

---

That model has pretty much been thoroughly discredited by the Oxford model and others. As noted above from another poster, the models have included it through the summer.

---

The Oxford model doesn't purport to discredit anything. It relies on a completely different set of assumptions about herd immunity, which it acknowledges cannot be confirmed without much more extensive testing.

---

Assumptions can't be confirmed without extensive testing. You can stop there. All the models have basically been trash because they all rely on absurd assumptions. This has been a GIGO lockdown.

---

Neither is absurd, but the Oxford paper depends on assumptions much more heavily.

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Predictions weren't 'wrong'.

Social distancing is working .

---

The models assumed social distancing through August. That a common circular response, but the models have that baked in.

---

Not really. The Imperial College model assumed general social distancing until mid-June, with an additional two months only for people over 70. It also assumed no lockdowns or shelter-in-place orders that would prevent people from going to work.

---

That model has pretty much been thoroughly discredited by the Oxford model and others. As noted above from another poster, the models have included it through the summer.

---

The Oxford model doesn't purport to discredit anything. It relies on a completely different set of assumptions about herd immunity, which it acknowledges cannot be confirmed without much more extensive testing.

---

Assumptions can't be confirmed without extensive testing. You can stop there. All the models have basically been trash because they all rely on absurd assumptions. This has been a GIGO lockdown.

---

not when you are dealing w/ geometric progressions and uncertain infection and death rates that we at least recognised to be double the standard influenza - esp very early on.

so it was really wise to stop air travel w/ china to the extent that we did - still some flights occurring why I don't have a clue - and to start social distancing in most states. maybe should have been nationwide sooner - but that is really hindsight now.

hopefully the favorable trends continue and we are in real position to start opening back for bidneths in a 2 weeks or so - at least on a limited basis.

and DT / aka Agent Orange was right - eventually the cure will be worse than the disease - esp now that models have abated their Death counts very significantly.

we are also on track to have tested 4 million people before the end of the month.

- KKM.

william said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Predictions weren't 'wrong'.

Social distancing is working .

---

The models assumed social distancing through August. That a common circular response, but the models have that baked in.

---

Not really. The Imperial College model assumed general social distancing until mid-June, with an additional two months only for people over 70. It also assumed no lockdowns or shelter-in-place orders that would prevent people from going to work.

---

That model has pretty much been thoroughly discredited by the Oxford model and others. As noted above from another poster, the models have included it through the summer.

---

The Oxford model doesn't purport to discredit anything. It relies on a completely different set of assumptions about herd immunity, which it acknowledges cannot be confirmed without much more extensive testing.

---

Assumptions can't be confirmed without extensive testing. You can stop there. All the models have basically been trash because they all rely on absurd assumptions. This has been a GIGO lockdown.

---

not when you are dealing w/ geometric progressions and uncertain infection and death rates that we at least recognised to be double the standard influenza - esp very early on.

so it was really wise to stop air travel w/ china to the extent that we did - still some flights occurring why I don't have a clue - and to start social distancing in most states. maybe should have been nationwide sooner - but that is really hindsight now.

hopefully the favorable trends continue and we are in real position to start opening back for bidneths in a 2 weeks or so - at least on a limited basis.

and DT / aka Agent Orange was right - eventually the cure will be worse than the disease - esp now that models have abated their Death counts very significantly.

we are also on track to have tested 4 million people before the end of the month.

- KKM.

---

That the fundamental long term epistemological and cultural problem if you will that if unsolvable and circular:
- Proclaim a crisis based on modeling
- Subvert liberty and exert social control and dependency
- The answer to everything "is if we had not done it how much worse would it have been?

Some will start to wonder "where were those 50M deaths you promised?" Very few will see the big picture.

Only time will tell if we made the right reaction short-term. However, I think we have crossed the Rubicon in ways that will have dramatic, long-term implications.

Kyle said:

---

No one will respond directly. It will either be ad home, ignore, or ask another question. But here goes:
1. Who would be willing to lose his / her job?
2. Who would be willing to sacrifice Baylor athletics?
3. Who would be willing to lose a spouse's job?
4. Who would be willing to lose their home?
5. Who would be willing to lose $25K? $50K? $100K? $500K? $1M?

We talk in emotional abstracts, but if you knew the current situation shutdown would do 1-5 to you, would you still support the shutdown?

(Please don't be a simpleton and respond with "If your family member or you would die from Kung Flu, would you ....")

---

Not surprising only one taker ... a lot easier to post talking points than actually make it real.

Afraid you may be correct. What's scary is how quickly our govts (local,state &fed) were able to force us into shut down. Maybe it helped, maybe it didn't matter. Going forward though, how easily will it be to do it again at the drop of some other "crisis" or "pandemic"?

Flaming Moderate said:

---

william said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Predictions weren't 'wrong'.

Social distancing is working .

---

The models assumed social distancing through August. That a common circular response, but the models have that baked in.

---

Not really. The Imperial College model assumed general social distancing until mid-June, with an additional two months only for people over 70. It also assumed no lockdowns or shelter-in-place orders that would prevent people from going to work.

---

That model has pretty much been thoroughly discredited by the Oxford model and others. As noted above from another poster, the models have included it through the summer.

---

The Oxford model doesn't purport to discredit anything. It relies on a completely different set of assumptions about herd immunity, which it acknowledges cannot be confirmed without much more extensive testing.

---

Assumptions can't be confirmed without extensive testing. You can stop there. All the models have basically been trash because they all rely on absurd assumptions. This has been a GIGO lockdown.

---

not when you are dealing w/ geometric progressions and uncertain infection and death rates that we at least recognised to be double the standard influenza - esp very early on.

so it was really wise to stop air travel w/ china to the extent that we did - still some flights occurring why I don't have a clue - and to start social distancing in most states. maybe should have been nationwide sooner - but that is really hindsight now.

hopefully the favorable trends continue and we are in real position to start opening back for bidneths in a 2 weeks or so - at least on a limited basis.

and DT / aka Agent Orange was right - eventually the cure will be worse than the disease - esp now that models have abated their Death counts very significantly.

we are also on track to have tested 4 million people before the end of the month.

- KKM.

---

That the fundamental long term epistemological and cultural problem if you will that if unsolvable and circular:
- Proclaim a crisis based on modeling
- Subvert liberty and exert social control and dependency
- The answer to everything "is if we had not done it how much worse would it have been?

Some will start to wonder "where were those 50M deaths you promised?" Very few will see the big picture.

Only time will tell if we made the right reaction short-term. However, I think we have crossed the Rubicon in ways that will have dramatic, long-term implications.

---

A sucking chest wound is a good indicator that you have just been ambushed. A lot of us would rather second-guess the medics than fight off the enemy.

Kyle said:

---

(Please don't be a simpleton and respond with "If your family member or you would die from Kung Flu, would you ....")

---

It's only the appropriate response. Answer one emotional hypothetical with another.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Kyle said:

---

(Please don't be a simpleton and respond with "If your family member or you would die from Kung Flu, would you ....")

---

It's only the appropriate response. Answer one emotional hypothetical with another.

---

I deleted my response and then found yours. You did a better job.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

william said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Predictions weren't 'wrong'.

Social distancing is working .

---

The models assumed social distancing through August. That a common circular response, but the models have that baked in.

---

Not really. The Imperial College model assumed general social distancing until mid-June, with an additional two months only for people over 70. It also assumed no lockdowns or shelter-in-place orders that would prevent people from going to work.

---

That model has pretty much been thoroughly discredited by the Oxford model and others. As noted above from another poster, the models have included it through the summer.

---

The Oxford model doesn't purport to discredit anything. It relies on a completely different set of assumptions about herd immunity, which it acknowledges cannot be confirmed without much more extensive testing.

---

Assumptions can't be confirmed without extensive testing. You can stop there. All the models have basically been trash because they all rely on absurd assumptions. This has been a GIGO lockdown.

---

not when you are dealing w/ geometric progressions and uncertain infection and death rates that we at least recognised to be double the standard influenza - esp very early on.

so it was really wise to stop air travel w/ china to the extent that we did - still some flights occurring why I don't have a clue - and to start social distancing in most states. maybe should have been nationwide sooner - but that is really hindsight now.

hopefully the favorable trends continue and we are in real position to start opening back for bidneths in a 2 weeks or so - at least on a limited basis.

and DT / aka Agent Orange was right - eventually the cure will be worse than the disease - esp now that models have abated their Death counts very significantly.

we are also on track to have tested 4 million people before the end of the month.

- KKM.

---

That the fundamental long term epistemological and cultural problem if you will that if unsolvable and circular:
- Proclaim a crisis based on modeling
- Subvert liberty and exert social control and dependency
- The answer to everything "is if we had not done it how much worse would it have been?

Some will start to wonder "where were those 50M deaths you promised?" Very few will see the big picture.

Only time will tell if we made the right reaction short-term. However, I think we have crossed the Rubicon in ways that will have dramatic, long-term implications.

---

meh - sounds tin-foily - I can do a basic spreadsheet and change the infection rate to double the flu and use the 3% fatality rate first suggested and get to the 2 million deaths number as was first projected.

again - in geometric series - even slight changes - esp the earlier the better- can have an order of magnitude effect.

using the current estimates - and these variables - esp the Spread rate - keep changing for the better over time - I see 100k dead and and 33 mill infected in the US.

and most of the dead are older and do have many serious underlying health issues.

- KKM

Bottom Line - the social distancing has worked well.

We need to keep testing and then in a couple of weeks begin to re-open selectively and following strict Social Distancing / Spacing rules.

It's going to be a slog for a month or two - but, as long as the roots are not severed there will be growth in the Summer.

- Milton Gardener

{ sipping coffee }

Sam Lowry said:

---

Kyle said:

---

(Please don't be a simpleton and respond with "If your family member or you would die from Kung Flu, would you ....")

---

It's only the appropriate response. Answer one emotional hypothetical with another.

---

They're not mutually exclusive. Again, not surprised no one can answer.

Kyle said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Kyle said:

---

(Please don't be a simpleton and respond with "If your family member or you would die from Kung Flu, would you ....")

---

It's only the appropriate response. Answer one emotional hypothetical with another.

---

They're not mutually exclusive. Again, not surprised no one can answer.

---

I don't think it's a case of 'no one can answer', as 'no one sees a purpose to the predictable difference of opinions'.

I don't think anyone is happy with the costs of lock-downs and quarantines, but I don't think anyone has a perfect answer that would have protected people at the minimum cost, either.

Some folks are venting their frustration, in more than one direction, by posting how the 'other' side is wrong, either putting money ahead of lives or willing to destroy the economy for something which may not even save anyone. But both of those are mostly emotional venting, not well-considered arguments, and none of us has the power to change things right now, anyway.

william said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

william said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Flaming Moderate said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Predictions weren't 'wrong'.

Social distancing is working .

---

The models assumed social distancing through August. That a common circular response, but the models have that baked in.

---

Not really. The Imperial College model assumed general social distancing until mid-June, with an additional two months only for people over 70. It also assumed no lockdowns or shelter-in-place orders that would prevent people from going to work.

---

That model has pretty much been thoroughly discredited by the Oxford model and others. As noted above from another poster, the models have included it through the summer.

---

The Oxford model doesn't purport to discredit anything. It relies on a completely different set of assumptions about herd immunity, which it acknowledges cannot be confirmed without much more extensive testing.

---

Assumptions can't be confirmed without extensive testing. You can stop there. All the models have basically been trash because they all rely on absurd assumptions. This has been a GIGO lockdown.

---

not when you are dealing w/ geometric progressions and uncertain infection and death rates that we at least recognised to be double the standard influenza - esp very early on.

so it was really wise to stop air travel w/ china to the extent that we did - still some flights occurring why I don't have a clue - and to start social distancing in most states. maybe should have been nationwide sooner - but that is really hindsight now.

hopefully the favorable trends continue and we are in real position to start opening back for bidneths in a 2 weeks or so - at least on a limited basis.

and DT / aka Agent Orange was right - eventually the cure will be worse than the disease - esp now that models have abated their Death counts very significantly.

we are also on track to have tested 4 million people before the end of the month.

- KKM.

---

That the fundamental long term epistemological and cultural problem if you will that if unsolvable and circular:
- Proclaim a crisis based on modeling
- Subvert liberty and exert social control and dependency
- The answer to everything "is if we had not done it how much worse would it have been?

Some will start to wonder "where were those 50M deaths you promised?" Very few will see the big picture.

Only time will tell if we made the right reaction short-term. However, I think we have crossed the Rubicon in ways that will have dramatic, long-term implications.

---

meh - sounds tin-foily - I can do a basic spreadsheet and change the infection rate to double the flu and use the 3% fatality rate first suggested and get to the 2 million deaths number as was first projected.

again - in geometric series - even slight changes - esp the earlier the better- can have an order of magnitude effect.

using the current estimates - and these variables - esp the Spread rate - keep changing for the better over time - I see 100k dead and and 33 mill infected in the US.

and most of the dead are older and do have many serious underlying health issues.

- KKM

Bottom Line - the social distancing has worked well.

We need to keep testing and then in a couple of weeks begin to re-open selectively and following strict Social Distancing / Spacing rules.

It's going to be a slog for a month or two - but, as long as the roots are not severed there will be growth in the Summer.

- Milton Gardener

{ sipping coffee }

---

I understand. There absolutely is a tin-foil component ... but there have been a lot of events in history that would have been considered tin-foily. But your math example is the point. It is not hard to create models that drive significant political and economic repercussions. I hope it stays in the realm of tin foil for sure.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Kyle said:

---

(Please don't be a simpleton and respond with "If your family member or you would die from Kung Flu, would you ....")

---

It's only the appropriate response. Answer one emotional hypothetical with another.

---

They're not mutually exclusive. Again, not surprised no one can answer.

---

I don't think it's a case of 'no one can answer', as 'no one sees a purpose to the predictable difference of opinions'.

I don't think anyone is happy with the costs of lock-downs and quarantines, but I don't think anyone has a perfect answer that would have protected people at the minimum cost, either.

Some folks are venting their frustration, in more than one direction, by posting how the 'other' side is wrong, either putting money ahead of lives or willing to destroy the economy for something which may not even save anyone. But both of those are mostly emotional venting, not well-considered arguments, and none of us has the power to change things right now, anyway.

---

That why it is a way to get the emotion out of it and quantify people's opinions. It is one thing for people who face no economic risk to call for complete economic shutdown and the resulting Depression. Another example of why the "put your money where your mouth is" shuts up so many loudmouths.

LOL.

https://babylonbee.com/news/bernie-sanders-drops-out-as-campaign-goals-of-locking-everyone-up-destroying-economy-already-achieved

BURLINGTON, VTBernie Sanders has dropped out of the presidential race since his campaign goals have already been achieved. These goals consisted mostly of locking everyone up in gulags and destroying the economy.

As the coronavirus panic has already accomplished the aims of his socialistic policies, Sanders realized the country didn't need his public service anymore. Unemployment has skyrocketed, grocery stores have empty shelves, and everyone is confined to their homes on penalty of arrest. This "idyllic paradise" is exactly what Sanders wanted in the first place, so he says he can leave the race satisfied that his vision has been achieved.

"This once-in-a-lifetime deadly pandemic has already accomplished what socialism aims to do," Sanders said in his concession speech. "Since my services are no longer required, I will be suspending my campaign and heading to my house. Well, one of my houses. I haven't decided which yet. The summer camp is nice and secluded, but I might want to wait until the weather warms up a bit."

"Ah, being a rich socialist is pretty great, isn't it?"

Sanders also pointed out that his other main goals of hyperinflation and total dependence on the government are already on their way.

Your Babylon Bee article would be funny if so much of it weren't true, Flaming Moderate. Most shocking part of this is that it is Donald Trump that has bought in and is dipping his toe into the Socialism swimming pool.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

That would be funny if so much of it weren't true. Most shocking part of this is that it is Donald Trump that has bought in and is dipping his toe into the Socialism swimming pool.

---

Donald Trump is a populist, not a conservative. He championed conservative causes because he knew the voters wanted them, but he has always been looking to serve what the consumer wanted.

Still better than Hillary

Oldbear83 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

That would be funny if so much of it weren't true. Most shocking part of this is that it is Donald Trump that has bought in and is dipping his toe into the Socialism swimming pool.

---

Still better than Hillary

---

Yes.

Kyle said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Kyle said:

---

(Please don't be a simpleton and respond with "If your family member or you would die from Kung Flu, would you ....")

---

It's only the appropriate response. Answer one emotional hypothetical with another.

---

They're not mutually exclusive. Again, not surprised no one can answer.

---

The fact that pretty much everyone is following the CDC's guidelines and that most were doing so voluntarily before their cities/states issued shelter in place orders gives you your answer.

The vast majority of American citizens have willfully put the safety of their neighbors -- even those crusty old and sickly souls knocking on death's door -- above their own self interests because the thought of letting people die who otherwise wouldn't for the sake of an economy that is guaranteed to recover at some point is a repulsive one to most.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Kyle said:

---

(Please don't be a simpleton and respond with "If your family member or you would die from Kung Flu, would you ....")

---

It's only the appropriate response. Answer one emotional hypothetical with another.

---

They're not mutually exclusive. Again, not surprised no one can answer.

---

I don't think it's a case of 'no one can answer', as 'no one sees a purpose to the predictable difference of opinions'.

I don't think anyone is happy with the costs of lock-downs and quarantines, but I don't think anyone has a perfect answer that would have protected people at the minimum cost, either.

Some folks are venting their frustration, in more than one direction, by posting how the 'other' side is wrong, either putting money ahead of lives or willing to destroy the economy for something which may not even save anyone. But both of those are mostly emotional venting, not well-considered arguments, and none of us has the power to change things right now, anyway.

---

Sweden is pretty much living proof that the bolded is untrue. You can argue that the number of lives saved isn't worth the hit to the economy (I wouldn't), but you can not argue that lives haven't been saved. Sweden's death numbers (both in aggregate and by percentage of the population) have dwarfed those of its Scandinavian neighbors. That's not a coincidence. It was a calculated gamble by its government that will absolutely have consequences in the form of lives lost that otherwise wouldn't have been. Will those losses be devastating in numbers at the end? It probably depends on who you ask.

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Kyle said:

---

(Please don't be a simpleton and respond with "If your family member or you would die from Kung Flu, would you ....")

---

It's only the appropriate response. Answer one emotional hypothetical with another.

---

They're not mutually exclusive. Again, not surprised no one can answer.

---

I don't think it's a case of 'no one can answer', as 'no one sees a purpose to the predictable difference of opinions'.

I don't think anyone is happy with the costs of lock-downs and quarantines, but I don't think anyone has a perfect answer that would have protected people at the minimum cost, either.

Some folks are venting their frustration, in more than one direction, by posting how the 'other' side is wrong, either putting money ahead of lives or willing to destroy the economy for something which may not even save anyone. But both of those are mostly emotional venting, not well-considered arguments, and none of us has the power to change things right now, anyway.

---

Sweden is pretty much living proof that the bolded is untrue. You can argue that the number of lives saved isn't worth the hit to the economy (I wouldn't), but you can not argue that lives haven't been saved. Sweden's death numbers (both in aggregate and by percentage of the population) have dwarfed those of its Scandinavian neighbors. That's not a coincidence. It was a calculated gamble by its government that will absolutely have consequences in the form of lives lost that otherwise wouldn't have been. Will those losses be devastating in numbers at the end? It probably depends on who you ask.

---

Sorry, I agree with social distancing, but Sweden does not disprove the argument that being laid off will not necessarily save lives.

Way too many people are trying guilt people into making sacrifices well beyond reason.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Kyle said:

---

(Please don't be a simpleton and respond with "If your family member or you would die from Kung Flu, would you ....")

---

It's only the appropriate response. Answer one emotional hypothetical with another.

---

They're not mutually exclusive. Again, not surprised no one can answer.

---

I don't think it's a case of 'no one can answer', as 'no one sees a purpose to the predictable difference of opinions'.

I don't think anyone is happy with the costs of lock-downs and quarantines, but I don't think anyone has a perfect answer that would have protected people at the minimum cost, either.

Some folks are venting their frustration, in more than one direction, by posting how the 'other' side is wrong, either putting money ahead of lives or willing to destroy the economy for something which may not even save anyone. But both of those are mostly emotional venting, not well-considered arguments, and none of us has the power to change things right now, anyway.

---

Sweden is pretty much living proof that the bolded is untrue. You can argue that the number of lives saved isn't worth the hit to the economy (I wouldn't), but you can not argue that lives haven't been saved. Sweden's death numbers (both in aggregate and by percentage of the population) have dwarfed those of its Scandinavian neighbors. That's not a coincidence. It was a calculated gamble by its government that will absolutely have consequences in the form of lives lost that otherwise wouldn't have been. Will those losses be devastating in numbers at the end? It probably depends on who you ask.

---

Sorry, I agree with social distancing, but Sweden does not disprove the argument that being laid off will not necessarily save lives.

Way too many people are trying guilt people into making sacrifices well beyond reason.

---

If you can explain to me how we can/could have kept businesses open without risking mass exposure/higher death tolls, I'm all ears. I'd imagine Trump would be too. No one wants to open the economy back up more than him, and he's elected to do what he has.

Wife says "no", would not support shutdown- she's a cynical nurse who has said from the get go the models are flawed and the numbers don't justify a shutdown.

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Kyle said:

---

(Please don't be a simpleton and respond with "If your family member or you would die from Kung Flu, would you ....")

---

It's only the appropriate response. Answer one emotional hypothetical with another.

---

They're not mutually exclusive. Again, not surprised no one can answer.

---

I don't think it's a case of 'no one can answer', as 'no one sees a purpose to the predictable difference of opinions'.

I don't think anyone is happy with the costs of lock-downs and quarantines, but I don't think anyone has a perfect answer that would have protected people at the minimum cost, either.

Some folks are venting their frustration, in more than one direction, by posting how the 'other' side is wrong, either putting money ahead of lives or willing to destroy the economy for something which may not even save anyone. But both of those are mostly emotional venting, not well-considered arguments, and none of us has the power to change things right now, anyway.

---

Sweden is pretty much living proof that the bolded is untrue. You can argue that the number of lives saved isn't worth the hit to the economy (I wouldn't), but you can not argue that lives haven't been saved. Sweden's death numbers (both in aggregate and by percentage of the population) have dwarfed those of its Scandinavian neighbors. That's not a coincidence. It was a calculated gamble by its government that will absolutely have consequences in the form of lives lost that otherwise wouldn't have been. Will those losses be devastating in numbers at the end? It probably depends on who you ask.

---

Sorry, I agree with social distancing, but Sweden does not disprove the argument that being laid off will not necessarily save lives.

Way too many people are trying guilt people into making sacrifices well beyond reason.

---

If you can explain to me how we can/could have kept businesses open without risking mass exposure/higher death tolls, I'm all ears. I'd imagine Trump would be too. No one wants to open the economy back up more than him, and he's elected to do what he has.

---

If you go back to my earlier post, that's the problem. The two sides barking up so much seem to take an all-or-nothing approach, but there's no one magic fix that offers a perfect solution.

I have a lot of complaints about some of the shut-downs. I observed early on that hundreds of people at a grocery store was allowed, but a business that saw less than 10 people a day was shut down even though it was a far smaller infection risk. Since then most grocery stores have tweaked their own rules to protect space, it's still true that a lot of businesses shut down were not really a contagion risk, especially with so many people staying home anyway.

On the other hand, how hard is it to wear a mask in public and follow common-sense rules? I cannot understand the people demanding to make no changes to their lifestyle. I cannot accept the ludicrous idea that we can pick a point and turn off everything at that time.

But I do wish we had better discussions, and less attacks.

We have enough stress, all of us.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Kyle said:

---

(Please don't be a simpleton and respond with "If your family member or you would die from Kung Flu, would you ....")

---

It's only the appropriate response. Answer one emotional hypothetical with another.

---

They're not mutually exclusive. Again, not surprised no one can answer.

---

I don't think it's a case of 'no one can answer', as 'no one sees a purpose to the predictable difference of opinions'.

I don't think anyone is happy with the costs of lock-downs and quarantines, but I don't think anyone has a perfect answer that would have protected people at the minimum cost, either.

Some folks are venting their frustration, in more than one direction, by posting how the 'other' side is wrong, either putting money ahead of lives or willing to destroy the economy for something which may not even save anyone. But both of those are mostly emotional venting, not well-considered arguments, and none of us has the power to change things right now, anyway.

---

Sweden is pretty much living proof that the bolded is untrue. You can argue that the number of lives saved isn't worth the hit to the economy (I wouldn't), but you can not argue that lives haven't been saved. Sweden's death numbers (both in aggregate and by percentage of the population) have dwarfed those of its Scandinavian neighbors. That's not a coincidence. It was a calculated gamble by its government that will absolutely have consequences in the form of lives lost that otherwise wouldn't have been. Will those losses be devastating in numbers at the end? It probably depends on who you ask.

---

Sorry, I agree with social distancing, but Sweden does not disprove the argument that being laid off will not necessarily save lives.

Way too many people are trying guilt people into making sacrifices well beyond reason.

---

If you can explain to me how we can/could have kept businesses open without risking mass exposure/higher death tolls, I'm all ears. I'd imagine Trump would be too. No one wants to open the economy back up more than him, and he's elected to do what he has.

---

If you go back to my earlier post, that's the problem. The two sides barking up so much seem to take an all-or-nothing approach, but there's no one magic fix that offers a perfect solution.

I have a lot of complaints about some of the shut-downs. I observed early on that hundreds of people at a grocery store was allowed, but a business that saw less than 10 people a day was shut down even though it was a far smaller infection risk. Since then most grocery stores have tweaked their own rules to protect space, it's still true that a lot of businesses shut down were not really a contagion risk, especially with so many people staying home anyway.

On the other hand, how hard is it to wear a mask in public and follow common-sense rules? I cannot understand the people demanding to make no changes to their lifestyle. I cannot accept the ludicrous idea that we can pick a point and turn off everything at that time.

But I do wish we had better discussions, and less attacks.

We have enough stress, all of us.

---

I haven't seen any attacks in this particular exchange, and I think the discussion's been better for it.

And I can appreciate where you and others are coming from. I think we all want to get back to normal as soon as possible. I just can't think of a way that can be done without significantly increasing the risk -- and likely the mortality rate -- of this stupid virus.

Like I've said before, we've just been served a **** sandwich. There's no good outcome here. We're just trying to find the least bad one.

... and for the love of marie curie, open up some slots for elective surgeries - some hospitals are actually letting staff go.

not good.

people still need shoulder repair, boob jobs, ***** tucks, new knees, bile ducts unobstructed, spines fused, hernias repaired, etc......

- Dr BHJ

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

william said:

---

... and for the love of marie curie, open up some slots for elective surgeries - some hospitals are actually letting staff go.

not good.

people still need shoulder repair, boob jobs, ***** tucks, new knees, bile ducts unobstructed, spines fused, hernias repaired, etc......

- Dr BHJ

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

---

At least you can still murder your baby ... that's apparently not elective.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Kyle said:

---

(Please don't be a simpleton and respond with "If your family member or you would die from Kung Flu, would you ....")

---

It's only the appropriate response. Answer one emotional hypothetical with another.

---

They're not mutually exclusive. Again, not surprised no one can answer.

---

I don't think it's a case of 'no one can answer', as 'no one sees a purpose to the predictable difference of opinions'.

I don't think anyone is happy with the costs of lock-downs and quarantines, but I don't think anyone has a perfect answer that would have protected people at the minimum cost, either.

Some folks are venting their frustration, in more than one direction, by posting how the 'other' side is wrong, either putting money ahead of lives or willing to destroy the economy for something which may not even save anyone. But both of those are mostly emotional venting, not well-considered arguments, and none of us has the power to change things right now, anyway.

---

Sweden is pretty much living proof that the bolded is untrue. You can argue that the number of lives saved isn't worth the hit to the economy (I wouldn't), but you can not argue that lives haven't been saved. Sweden's death numbers (both in aggregate and by percentage of the population) have dwarfed those of its Scandinavian neighbors. That's not a coincidence. It was a calculated gamble by its government that will absolutely have consequences in the form of lives lost that otherwise wouldn't have been. Will those losses be devastating in numbers at the end? It probably depends on who you ask.

---

Sorry, I agree with social distancing, but Sweden does not disprove the argument that being laid off will not necessarily save lives.

Way too many people are trying guilt people into making sacrifices well beyond reason.

---

If you can explain to me how we can/could have kept businesses open without risking mass exposure/higher death tolls, I'm all ears. I'd imagine Trump would be too. No one wants to open the economy back up more than him, and he's elected to do what he has.

---

If you go back to my earlier post, that's the problem. The two sides barking up so much seem to take an all-or-nothing approach, but there's no one magic fix that offers a perfect solution.

I have a lot of complaints about some of the shut-downs. I observed early on that hundreds of people at a grocery store was allowed, but a business that saw less than 10 people a day was shut down even though it was a far smaller infection risk. Since then most grocery stores have tweaked their own rules to protect space, it's still true that a lot of businesses shut down were not really a contagion risk, especially with so many people staying home anyway.

On the other hand, how hard is it to wear a mask in public and follow common-sense rules? I cannot understand the people demanding to make no changes to their lifestyle. I cannot accept the ludicrous idea that we can pick a point and turn off everything at that time.

But I do wish we had better discussions, and less attacks.

We have enough stress, all of us.

---

This is where I have shaken out. WE STILL ARE RUNNING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION!

On one hand, this is the bubonic plague and no one should leave their homes. On the other hands, things that do the most to spread the disease continue to run ... and "experts" can't seem to figure out why some cities have more cases and it spreads faster than others.

As noted above ... the one-size-fits-all approach is idiotic. Anyone with a brain could have deployed a more intelligent framework. You don't need to shutdown every elective surgery because there is a chance you might have a problem based on models from Italy and New York. You shut down elective surgery at some point when you show first signs of a problem. But we're running on emotion and hysteria not intellect and facts.

Flaming Moderate said:

---

william said:

---

... and for the love of marie curie, open up some slots for elective surgeries - some hospitals are actually letting staff go.

not good.

people still need shoulder repair, boob jobs, ***** tucks, new knees, bile ducts unobstructed, spines fused, hernias repaired, etc......

- Dr BHJ

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

---

At least you can still murder your baby ... that's apparently not elective.

---

Nope. Just as illegal as it always was.