Coronavirus

[Gameface]

It's not that simple. Because those people themselves interact with other people, some of whom have not signed up for that risk. For example, a person with compromised immune system might never leave their home but might live with someone else who is an essential worker or depend on someone else for their groceries and medicine. Those people depend on the community wide spread to be low to lower their personal risk.

The idea here is that high risk people take extreme precautions. It's not an argument I'm making but it's one I understand. So if you have contact with a high risk person you should also take elevated precautions. So yeah, it's not any more simple or complicated than it is.

Life involves risk. It always has. We're all going to die.

During a pandemic we should all take special precautions.

 

[Deleted member 365]

This is a really good article on the Bulwark for those who worry about how science is being attacked by the right. It truly is amazing to me that those who claim they want states to open up are also often against wearing masks.

https://thebulwark.com/the-pandemic-and-the-gops-science-problem/

 

[stitches]

Those would presumably be other people who also chose to be in that place.

Also keep in mind that people that go to games/concerts/clubs don't just go to games/concerts/clubs. They go to the grocery store, they go to work, they go to various other places where they can transmit the disease to others that have no interest in increasing their risk by going to games and have not signed up for that risk.

 

[Gameface]

Also keep in mind that people that go to games/concerts/clubs don't just go to games/concerts/clubs. They go to the grocery store, they go to work, they go to various other places where they can transmit the disease to others that have no interest in increasing their risk by going to games and have not signed up for that risk.

Yes, people have contact with other people. Maybe you could explain it to me a whole lot more because it's really complicated and I don't understand how that works.

 

[sahlensguy]

The idea here is that high risk people take extreme precautions. It's not an argument I'm making but it's one I understand. So if you have contact with a high risk person you should also take elevated precautions. So yeah, it's not any more simple or complicated than it is.

Life involves risk. It always has. We're all going to die.

During a pandemic we should all take special precautions.

People will not always take the appropriate precautions though. In an open society, more people will get the virus, spread the virus, and die. This will worsen the pandemic for a longer period of time than if we isolate.

 

[One Brow]

Those would presumably be other people who also chose to be in that place.

It also includes people working in the grocery store, doctors, office co-workers, etc., and all of the people they contact. The more you expose yourself, the more you risk exposure for them.

 

[stitches]

Yes, people have contact with other people. Maybe you could explain it to me a whole lot more because it's really complicated and I don't understand how that works.

Well I'm sorry but this is the post I responded to you about:

Those would presumably be other people who also chose to be in that place.

This doesn't sound like you understand what the problem is. Now maybe you do, but if you do, you wouldn't say "well they just will be meeting with other people who also chose to be in that place"...

Yes... at the game/concert/club they will. But that's not the only place those people go. This was my point. Your argument makes no sense if you take into account that point.

 

[One Brow]

Yes, people have contact with other people. Maybe you could explain it to me a whole lot more because it's really complicated and I don't understand how that works.

Since you do understand that, perhaps you can also see why "Those would presumably be other people who also chose to be in that place." is inaccurate and troublesome.

 

[Gameface]

Since you do understand that, perhaps you can also see why "Those would presumably be other people who also chose to be in that place." is inaccurate and troublesome.

If the goal is zero risk with no consideration for people being able to live their life for fear that it might lead to their death or the death of anyone else at all then I totally get why this is "troublesome."

 

[stitches]

People will not always take the appropriate precautions though. In an open society, more people will get the virus, spread the virus, and die. This will worsen the pandemic for a longer period of time than if we isolate.

Yep, this is something that's not very well understood. No matter how careful people are, if you increase the number of interactions, if you increase the activity and mobility of the population there inevitably will be increased risk. Just think about it - in hospitals, where people are professionally trained and are on alert as part of their job, there are huge numbers of infections even in the wards that don't work with COVID-19 directly.

This is not to say that educating the public about safety and hygiene is useless - on the contrary - it probably can save a ton of lives, but it won't curb the general trend.

 

[Eminence]

There are places that people 'choose' to go to (grocery/work/doctor/etc) and there are places people really choose to go to (club/movies/etc).

Personally I'm currently leaning towards - mandatory public mask wearing, extra cleanliness from everyone involved, better contact tracing/testing (it's still total crap), and cutting out extremely high risk activities (concerts, movies, sporting events - with spectators).

Basically if we'd taken the time to actually do something with testing/tracing over the last month I'd be in support of a 95% re-opening right now. As is, yeah, I think we still need to get better stuff in place prior to fully opening. But we're already well off that track, and I'm hoping for the best but expecting a not so great outcome (read a second wave potentially worse than the first and by the end of the year 200k+ lives lost in the US).

 

[One Brow]

If the goal is zero risk with no consideration for people being able to live their life for fear that it might lead to their death or the death of anyone else at all then I totally get why this is "troublesome."

I thought the goal (as I understood RanyforRubio) was for everyone to decide for themselves the level of risk. If you're fine with Person A increasing the risk for Person B, with no input from B, I would disagree, but that is a consistent position that could be defended. Portraying my position as some "zero risk" fantasy is not helpful to the conversation.