Coronavirus

[fishonjazz]

And if the cure or vaccine never happens? You think we won't have concerts again? Won't have fans in stadiums again?

It was a stupid statement of him to make.

I think he made that statement with the assumption that a cure or vaccine will happen though.

If he received information that a cure or vaccine will never exist then maybe he would have a different statement.

From what I have heard and read pretty much everyone thinks there will be a vaccine.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

That's a fair point. I'm more just arguing I think people should have the option to choose for themselves if they want to stay home or not. And I know not everyone will agree with me, and that's okay. You bring up good points though. Thank you!

And I agree on a vaccine. I'm hopeful, but we shall see. I just don't like politicians making definitive statements like that.

Don't people have the option to stay home or not currently?


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[RandyForRubio]

I would agree with you that we should let people make up their own minds and define their risk tolerance. We're all adults and responsible for our own lives; my issue has been that messaging has been inconsistent and that's leading to unnecessary strife. We shouldn't be hearing stories of people being hurt or killed for wearing or not wearing masks, TV heads shaming scientists and being told to stay in your home or be arrested/fined. None of that gets any of us closer to what we all need: a blooming economy, prosperous job market and 401k's that let us know that all these years of the grind will pay off.

COVID-19 should never have been looked at as a political opportunity, but that's how our leaders on both sides of the aisle have defined it. And as Americans, we all suffer for it.

I really couldn't agree more with this.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Don't people have the option to stay home or not currently?


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Fish. I'm simplifying things because I'm typing on my phone and I'm lazy. I trust that you understand the point I'm trying to make here.

 

[Avery]

https://www.ksl.com/article/4675324...isk-level-for-covid-19-saturday-governor-says

I'm not a fan of Herbert, but I think our state and local governments have really done a great job managing this to the best of their abilities.

I myself will still be acting as if the sky is falling to help minimize the risk to myself and my family as we have a few individuals with compromised immune systems. That means masks, still working from home and shopping at off-peak times. As a functioning adult, those are the decisions I'm making in the best interest for myself and those I hold dear.

 

[stitches]

I would agree with you that we should let people make up their own minds and define their risk tolerance. We're all adults and responsible for our own lives; my issue has been that messaging has been inconsistent and that's leading to unnecessary strife. We shouldn't be hearing stories of people being hurt or killed for wearing or not wearing masks, TV heads shaming scientists and being told to stay in your home or be arrested/fined. None of that gets any of us closer to what we all need: a blooming economy, prosperous job market and 401k's that let us know that all these years of the grind will pay off.

COVID-19 should never have been looked at as a political opportunity, but that's how our leaders on both sides of the aisle have defined it. And as Americans, we all suffer for it.

I disagree with this. In a normal situation with risk that's not transferable I would agree but this is not normal situation, this is epidemic where you transfer the risk you incur on people around you and on the community at large! You are dealing with a highly infectious disease and there are concerns more than just about the person - there are concerns for the public health. The decisions a person or a group of people make impact others, including the ones that have not signed up for that type of risk and ones that cannot tolerate that type of risk. There are old people, there are people with underlying conditions, there are people with supressed immune systems... transplant donors and transplant recipients, there are cancer patients and cancer survivors. You cannot make policy in a situation like this based on the personal risk tolerance of individuals.

 

[One Brow]

Mayor of LA.

"Never be completely open until a cure is found."

I think that's true generally. Until there is a vaccine, people will just be more cautious. As you pointed out earlier, there's a lot of room between fully locked down and completely open.

 

[One Brow]

That's a fair point. I'm more just arguing I think people should have the option to choose for themselves if they want to stay home or not.

Just keep in mind you're not only choosing for you, you're also choosing for people you wind up coming in contact with.

 

[Gameface]

Just keep in mind you're not only choosing for you, you're also choosing for people you wind up coming in contact with.

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

 

[stitches]

Just keep in mind you're not only choosing for you, you're also choosing for people you wind up coming in contact with.

..and for the people they come in contact with, etc. This is why it's a public health issue not a personal health issue when we are talking about policy and restrictions. The actions of one person impact many people, some of them you might not ever meet.

 

[sahlensguy]

I disagree with this. In a normal situation with risk that's not transferable I would agree but this is not normal situation, this is epidemic where you transfer the risk you incur on people around you and on the community at large! You are dealing with a highly infectious disease and there are concerns more than just about the person - there are concerns for the public health. The decisions a person or a group of people make impact others, including the ones that have not signed up for that type of risk and ones that cannot tolerate that type of risk. There are old people, there are people with underlying conditions, there are people with supressed immune systems... transplant donors and transplant recipients, there are cancer patients and cancer survivors. You cannot make policy in a situation like this based on the personal risk tolerance of individuals.

I agree with this. The risk of going out is not only a risk to yourself, but to others as well. Carriers can infect others before any symptoms show themselves. Spreading the virus will only lengthen and deepen the pandemic.

 

[stitches]

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

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 and if you and others increase your personal risk this increases the risk for those people.

 

[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.

 

[The Thriller]

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.