Democrats: "Covid Rules for thee, but not for me"

4,112 Views | 67 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Jack Bauer
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:40a, 12/1/20
Governor of California Gavin Newson had an expensive mask-less dinner with dozens of lobbyists and cronies at French Laundry after creating extreme lockdown measures.


LA Supervisor Sheila Kuehl was caught eating at a fancy restaurant just hours after voting to ban outdoor dining & calling it "dangerous."


Sam Liccardo ate Thanksgiving dinner at grandma's after lecturing you not to.






Nancy got caught getting her hair done without a mask.


These actions tell me that I shouldn't obey COVID restrictions.

Where is the MSM hounding these people to resign?
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
AZ_Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 9:59a, 12/1/20
Doc Holliday said:
Governor of California Gavin Newson had an expensive mask-less dinner with dozens of lobbyists and cronies at French Laundry after creating extreme lockdown measures.


LA Supervisor Sheila Kuehl was caught eating at a fancy restaurant just hours after voting to ban outdoor dining & calling it "dangerous."


Sam Liccardo ate Thanksgiving dinner at grandma's after lecturing you not to.






Nancy got caught getting her hair done without a mask.


These actions tell me that I shouldn't obey COVID restrictions.

Where is the MSM hounding these people to resign?


It's Trump's fault. They are following his example because they respect his leadership so much.
Reply Quote
7
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:32a, 12/1/20
I agree, people are ridiculous and stupid. If your point is that conservatives don't have a monopoly on ridiculous and stupid, I agree 100%.
Reply Quote
1
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Porteroso • 10:34a, 12/1/20
Porteroso said:
I agree, people are ridiculous and stupid. If your point is that conservatives don't have a monopoly on ridiculous and stupid, I agree 100%.
The real point I'm trying to make is that nothing will happen to these people.

They won't step down.
Their constituents don't care.
This will keep happening.
The media won't go ape **** on them like they do others.
Reply Quote
8
Jack Bauer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:40a, 12/1/20
Don't forget the worst mayor in America.

Reply Quote
5
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:47a, 12/1/20
I will be holding a protest on December 25 and also one the following week on December 31...
Reply Quote
6
contrario
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:34a, 12/1/20
As Porteroso said in another thread, it's good we have a free press to cover these things. It's good we hold our elected officials accountable.
Reply Quote
3
Jacques Strap
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:59a, 12/1/20
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.
Reply Quote
4
AZ_Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jacques Strap • 12:05p, 12/1/20
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.
Reply Quote
2
Booray
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jacques Strap • 12:48p, 12/1/20
Jacques Strap said:
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.
Those two things have some inherent contradictions.
Reply Quote
Jacques Strap
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AZ_Bear • 12:49p, 12/1/20
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Forest Bueller_bf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jack Bauer • 12:56p, 12/1/20
Jack Bauer said:
Don't forget the worst mayor in America.

So he made some real points about not being able to gather together, then let us know it's all bull**** by saying "special people" can still gather together.

Bottom line, politicians besides a few notable exceptions are worthless.
Reply Quote
6
AZ_Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jacques Strap • 1:12p, 12/1/20
I was joking. I believe lock-downs should be a last resort.
Reply Quote
3
Booray
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jacques Strap • 1:35p, 12/1/20
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.
Reply Quote
1
Jacques Strap
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Booray • 1:37p, 12/1/20
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.
Why are you anti science?
Reply Quote
4
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:39p, 12/1/20
Even with the vaccine, what we've experienced in 2020 will continue through all of 2021 and further.

They will cite ANY increase in cases as reasoning for more control, lockdowns and masks. Even if C19 drops below what they claim is manageable.

People are now permanently scared and they will submit.

Yay...
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
Jacques Strap
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:40p, 12/1/20
Wal-Mart is killing old people.

Quote:
EL PASO, Texas (CBSDFW.COM) The mayor of a Texas city hit hard by a recent spike in coronavirus cases says the blame can be pointed at "COVID fatigue" and that many cases are coming from shopping at large retailers.

Quote:
"We did a deep dive in our contact tracing for the week of November the 10th through the 16th and found that 55% of the positives were coming from shopping at large retailers, what we'd term as the big box stores," Margo said.
Reply Quote
Canada2017
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Booray • 1:43p, 12/1/20
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.
Of course ....you are correct. Not sure why anyone would be loath to admit this .

BTW yesterday Colorado had the highest number of Covid related deaths in any single 24 hour period .

Right on schedule.
Reply Quote
Booray
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jacques Strap • 1:51p, 12/1/20
Jacques Strap said:
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.
Why are you anti science?


I'm not.
Reply Quote
Booray
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Canada2017 • 1:56p, 12/1/20
Canada2017 said:
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.
Of course ....you are correct. Not sure why anyone would be loath to admit this .

BTW yesterday Colorado had the highest number of Covid related deaths in any single 24 hour period .

Right on schedule.


You should have signed up to be a talking head when the pandemic started. Your predictions have been as good as anybody's.
Reply Quote
Canada2017
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Booray • 2:12p, 12/1/20
Booray said:
Canada2017 said:
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.
Of course ....you are correct. Not sure why anyone would be loath to admit this .

BTW yesterday Colorado had the highest number of Covid related deaths in any single 24 hour period .

Right on schedule.


You should have signed up to be a talking head when the pandemic started. Your predictions have been as good as anybody's.


All that matters now is survival . Hope everyone we each care about survives .

Past secretary texted me this morning .Gal is ex military and a lung cancer survivor at 48 years of age.

Informed me the parents of two of her girlfriends have recently died of Covid.

Yet I know people who are outraged at the thought of not celebrating Christmas.

Reply Quote
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:19p, 12/1/20
Reply Quote
7
whitetrash
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Booray • 2:24p, 12/1/20
Booray said:




You should have signed up to be a talking head when the pandemic started. Your predictions have been as good as anybody's.
Reply Quote
3
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Canada2017 • 2:30p, 12/1/20
Canada2017 said:
Booray said:
Canada2017 said:
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.
Of course ....you are correct. Not sure why anyone would be loath to admit this .

BTW yesterday Colorado had the highest number of Covid related deaths in any single 24 hour period .

Right on schedule.


You should have signed up to be a talking head when the pandemic started. Your predictions have been as good as anybody's.


All that matters now is survival . Hope everyone we each care about survives .

Past secretary texted me this morning .Gal is ex military and a lung cancer survivor at 48 years of age.

Informed me the parents of two of her girlfriends have recently died of Covid.

Yet I know people who are outraged at the thought of not celebrating Christmas.

I know. Isn't it crazy how people are tired of being told they cannot gather with friends and family? How selfish that they don't want to sacrifice their mental and emotional health for people they don't even know.
Reply Quote
5
Forest Bueller_bf
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Booray • 2:36p, 12/1/20
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.
And the 70 plus crowd isn't really very good at wearing masks or distancing or both.

Same for hispanics, I hear they are more vulnerable, they complain they are more vulnerable, then why the heck are they the worst group of people for actually wearing a mask.
Reply Quote
Booray
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Forest Bueller_bf • 2:45p, 12/1/20
Forest Bueller_bf said:
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.
And the 70 plus crowd isn't really very good at wearing masks or distancing or both.

Same for hispanics, I hear they are more vulnerable, they complain they are more vulnerable, then why the heck are they the worst group of people for actually wearing a mask.
My observation only. 70+ is either very lax or hyper vigilant about masks.
Reply Quote
Jacques Strap
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Booray • 2:46p, 12/1/20
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.
The idea we can wall off everyone not vulnerable is a bigger fantasy.
Reply Quote
1
Booray
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jacques Strap • 3:09p, 12/1/20
Jacques Strap said:
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.
The idea we can wall off everyone not vulnerable is a bigger fantasy.
I'm not advocating for lock downs. I want people to wear masks, socially distance, avoid high-risk activities and test regularly.
Reply Quote
Wrecks Quan Dough
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Booray • 3:11p, 12/1/20
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.
The idea we can wall off everyone not vulnerable is a bigger fantasy.
I'm not advocating for lock downs. I want people to wear masks, socially distance, avoid high-risk activities and test regularly.
I am for people doing ineffective bull hockey too.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Booray • 3:15p, 12/1/20
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.
The idea we can wall off everyone not vulnerable is a bigger fantasy.
I'm not advocating for lock downs. I want people to wear masks, socially distance, avoid high-risk activities and test regularly.
Do you advocate against lockdowns?
Reply Quote
Booray
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 3:21p, 12/1/20
Doc Holliday said:
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.
The idea we can wall off everyone not vulnerable is a bigger fantasy.
I'm not advocating for lock downs. I want people to wear masks, socially distance, avoid high-risk activities and test regularly.
Do you advocate against lockdowns?
What is your definition of a lock down?

I am for capacity limits based on disease metrics; in a severe situation that can include closing bars and restaurants as well as limiting church services. I mention those because they are hot button issues.

I am against blanket shut down orders.
Reply Quote
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:21p, 12/1/20
The only acceptable response is his resignation.

Why do we allow them to break the rules and get away with it?



Reply Quote
1
Canada2017
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Booray • 3:49p, 12/1/20
Booray said:
Forest Bueller_bf said:
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.
And the 70 plus crowd isn't really very good at wearing masks or distancing or both.

Same for hispanics, I hear they are more vulnerable, they complain they are more vulnerable, then why the heck are they the worst group of people for actually wearing a mask.
My observation only. 70+ is either very lax or hyper vigilant about masks.
Same with me.
Reply Quote
Canada2017
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Forest Bueller_bf • 3:55p, 12/1/20
Forest Bueller_bf said:
Booray said:
Jacques Strap said:
AZ_Bear said:
Jacques Strap said:
Ever since the CDC posted the numbers below and the the experts from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford posted their advice below I've been pretty much back to normal. Airplanes, vacations, restaurants, Thanksgiving, yada yada yada.

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19.


In other words, you want to kill old people.

They have no worries if they follow the advice above and protect themselves via quarantine. win/win
Not every 70 year-old has the financial ability to live by themselves; they do not all need to be in assisted living facilities. This idea that we can just wall of the most vulnerable is a fantasy.


Same for hispanics, I hear they are more vulnerable, they complain they are more vulnerable, then why the heck are they the worst group of people for actually wearing a mask.


Hispanics in general are far more concerned about there macho image than Anglos. They are also more fatalistic and more social

Reply Quote
1
Jack Bauer
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:28a, 12/2/20
Oops! I did it again...


Reply Quote
1
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.