"Opening up" means risking your life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if part of the rush to open (mostly by conservatives) is because of the paradigm shift that will happen when huge numbers of people have no money or are essential but expendable and start protesting conditions. Something like this exposes the major vulnerabilities in our society ie lack of or highly overpriced medical care, need to increase wages or possibly even a universal income.

People want to work. They want to open their businesses. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Most people don't want government giving them an "income." They want to run their business and earn their living. They want to be productive.

These people believe they are essential workers too. Essential because they want to earn a living.

[Anonymous]

I’m thinking that maybe, many fortunate/privileged people in this area have a difficult time understanding what “the economy” is from outside their perspective of cushy (literally) telework-ready jobs. For such folks, “the [non-Amazon] economy” is basically what they’re doing now plus going to brunch each weekend, and shopping in a less stressful grocery store environment. So it’s pretty pain free for many, now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if part of the rush to open (mostly by conservatives) is because of the paradigm shift that will happen when huge numbers of people have no money or are essential but expendable and start protesting conditions. Something like this exposes the major vulnerabilities in our society ie lack of or highly overpriced medical care, need to increase wages or possibly even a universal income.

People want to work. They want to open their businesses. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Most people don't want government giving them an "income." They want to run their business and earn their living. They want to be productive.

These people believe they are essential workers too. Essential because they want to earn a living.

I completely understand this, but it doesn't have to be either/or.

That's the problem with the statewide lockdowns. They are blanket orders with few exceptions. The problem is that if you open your business, you might infect a lot of people, which means the healthcare system will be overburdened, healthcare workers might die, and then what? Was it worth it?

There has to be a way to open businesses and keep both workers and customers safe. I'm sure there's no simple, one-size-fits-all solution. Partly opening businesses could work, with social distancing, masks, making sure employees at work have been tested and aren't asymptomatic carriers? Maybe other things I haven't thought of that might apply to particular businesses.

I need my hair salon! But how can my stylist cut my hair and maintain social distance? I'm not seeing any way, even if we both wear masks. Solution, anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if part of the rush to open (mostly by conservatives) is because of the paradigm shift that will happen when huge numbers of people have no money or are essential but expendable and start protesting conditions. Something like this exposes the major vulnerabilities in our society ie lack of or highly overpriced medical care, need to increase wages or possibly even a universal income.

People want to work. They want to open their businesses. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Most people don't want government giving them an "income." They want to run their business and earn their living. They want to be productive.

These people believe they are essential workers too. Essential because they want to earn a living.

I completely understand this, but it doesn't have to be either/or.

That's the problem with the statewide lockdowns. They are blanket orders with few exceptions. The problem is that if you open your business, you might infect a lot of people, which means the healthcare system will be overburdened, healthcare workers might die, and then what? Was it worth it?

There has to be a way to open businesses and keep both workers and customers safe. I'm sure there's no simple, one-size-fits-all solution. Partly opening businesses could work, with social distancing, masks, making sure employees at work have been tested and aren't asymptomatic carriers? Maybe other things I haven't thought of that might apply to particular businesses.

I need my hair salon! But how can my stylist cut my hair and maintain social distance? I'm not seeing any way, even if we both wear masks. Solution, anyone?

If you have been paying attention, this is the plan.
But, there are governors in some states putting totally ridiculous restrictions in place. When the public looks at some of the draconian restrictions that make no sense, they lose trust in your judgment.
That is what happened in Michigan.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Here are a few things that I think are readily apparent:

1) Without a vaccine, near universal testing, or sweeping use of PPE, "opening up" will spread the coronavirus. We don't have to guess about this. Just look at the Smithfield Foods meat processing plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Nearly 600 employees have tested positive for COVID-19. In addition, 135 others have caught it from those employees. The plant has now been forced to close.

2) Many of the loudest voices calling for "opening up" will not be putting themselves at risk. Higher income folks will continue to telework and socially distance themselves. Trump and Pence dispute the need for widespread testing, but require anyone coming into contact with them be tested beforehand. This sort of hypocrisy will extend throughout the ruling class. "Opening up" means telling working folks to risk their lives for the stock portfolios of those who will remain safely protected.

3) It is true that job losses and economic suffering are being caused by the shutdown. The impact of this can be reduced through government assistance. There is no cure for death.

4) Trump, by offering public support for those protesting shutdown polices, is willing to sacrifice even his own supporters. Similarly, with deaths heavily weighted toward the elderly, Trump willingly endangers the most dependable source of Republican votes.

5) The "original sin" of the US response to COVID-19 was the failure to introduce widespread testing. This, combined with a lost six weeks while Trump attempted to deny the reality of the epidemic, has caused a deep setback for the US response and led to countless unnecessary deaths. Trump is simultaneously pushing testing responsibility to governors and supporting protests against those same governors. He may well have calculated that renewed disease outbreaks in Democratic-led states would help him politically. He is desperate to place blame on everyone from mayors, governors, and members of Congress, to the WHO, or to the media, but will accept no responsibility himself. He is driven by political expediency and willing to sacrifice lives in the process.

The bottom line is that if someone wants to "open up", tell them to go first. Don't put yourself at risk for someone else's stock portfolio or Trump's political goals.

I haven’t read through these responses, so this has probably already been said numerous times, but there have only been six deaths in the state of South Dakota. Six deaths out of a population of 900,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if part of the rush to open (mostly by conservatives) is because of the paradigm shift that will happen when huge numbers of people have no money or are essential but expendable and start protesting conditions. Something like this exposes the major vulnerabilities in our society ie lack of or highly overpriced medical care, need to increase wages or possibly even a universal income.

People want to work. They want to open their businesses. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Most people don't want government giving them an "income." They want to run their business and earn their living. They want to be productive.

These people believe they are essential workers too. Essential because they want to earn a living.

I completely understand this, but it doesn't have to be either/or.

That's the problem with the statewide lockdowns. They are blanket orders with few exceptions. The problem is that if you open your business, you might infect a lot of people, which means the healthcare system will be overburdened, healthcare workers might die, and then what? Was it worth it?

There has to be a way to open businesses and keep both workers and customers safe. I'm sure there's no simple, one-size-fits-all solution. Partly opening businesses could work, with social distancing, masks, making sure employees at work have been tested and aren't asymptomatic carriers? Maybe other things I haven't thought of that might apply to particular businesses.

I need my hair salon! But how can my stylist cut my hair and maintain social distance? I'm not seeing any way, even if we both wear masks. Solution, anyone?

If you have been paying attention, this is the plan.
But, there are governors in some states putting totally ridiculous restrictions in place. When the public looks at some of the draconian restrictions that make no sense, they lose trust in your judgment.
That is what happened in Michigan.

Ohio has more draconian restrictions than Michigan. Michigan has the same restrictions a Maryland. Why aren't the governors from Maryland and Ohio being targeted by this campaign?

And exactly what restrictions in Michigan are "ridculous?"

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:If you have been paying attention, this is the plan.
But, there are governors in some states putting totally ridiculous restrictions in place. When the public looks at some of the draconian restrictions that make no sense, they lose trust in your judgment.
That is what happened in Michigan.

The vast majority of people in Michigan -- including Republicans -- support the shutdown. The rent-a-mob protesters were bought and paid for by the DeVos family. Please don't confuse them with authentic opposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if part of the rush to open (mostly by conservatives) is because of the paradigm shift that will happen when huge numbers of people have no money or are essential but expendable and start protesting conditions. Something like this exposes the major vulnerabilities in our society ie lack of or highly overpriced medical care, need to increase wages or possibly even a universal income.

People want to work. They want to open their businesses. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Most people don't want government giving them an "income." They want to run their business and earn their living. They want to be productive.

These people believe they are essential workers too. Essential because they want to earn a living.

You don't get it.

Dems think work is bad.

The less work, the less disparity, the more justice.

Dems are the new medieval Catholics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m thinking that maybe, many fortunate/privileged people in this area have a difficult time understanding what “the economy” is from outside their perspective of cushy (literally) telework-ready jobs. For such folks, “the [non-Amazon] economy” is basically what they’re doing now plus going to brunch each weekend, and shopping in a less stressful grocery store environment. So it’s pretty pain free for many, now.

The thing you are not getting...no one wants the country to be closed. NOT ONE PERSON. The way out is by testing. Why are we not testing? That is really the only question that needs to be asked and answered. We were promised testing at scale over 40 days ago. Testing 1% of the population is not something to brag about 3 months in. That is criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if part of the rush to open (mostly by conservatives) is because of the paradigm shift that will happen when huge numbers of people have no money or are essential but expendable and start protesting conditions. Something like this exposes the major vulnerabilities in our society ie lack of or highly overpriced medical care, need to increase wages or possibly even a universal income.

People want to work. They want to open their businesses. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Most people don't want government giving them an "income." They want to run their business and earn their living. They want to be productive.

These people believe they are essential workers too. Essential because they want to earn a living.

You don't get it.

Dems think work is bad.

The less work, the less disparity, the more justice.

Dems are the new medieval Catholics.

Actually, no, this is totaly wrong. Please name a dem who things work is bad.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here are a few things that I think are readily apparent:

1) Without a vaccine, near universal testing, or sweeping use of PPE, "opening up" will spread the coronavirus. We don't have to guess about this. Just look at the Smithfield Foods meat processing plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Nearly 600 employees have tested positive for COVID-19. In addition, 135 others have caught it from those employees. The plant has now been forced to close.

2) Many of the loudest voices calling for "opening up" will not be putting themselves at risk. Higher income folks will continue to telework and socially distance themselves. Trump and Pence dispute the need for widespread testing, but require anyone coming into contact with them be tested beforehand. This sort of hypocrisy will extend throughout the ruling class. "Opening up" means telling working folks to risk their lives for the stock portfolios of those who will remain safely protected.

3) It is true that job losses and economic suffering are being caused by the shutdown. The impact of this can be reduced through government assistance. There is no cure for death.

4) Trump, by offering public support for those protesting shutdown polices, is willing to sacrifice even his own supporters. Similarly, with deaths heavily weighted toward the elderly, Trump willingly endangers the most dependable source of Republican votes.

5) The "original sin" of the US response to COVID-19 was the failure to introduce widespread testing. This, combined with a lost six weeks while Trump attempted to deny the reality of the epidemic, has caused a deep setback for the US response and led to countless unnecessary deaths. Trump is simultaneously pushing testing responsibility to governors and supporting protests against those same governors. He may well have calculated that renewed disease outbreaks in Democratic-led states would help him politically. He is desperate to place blame on everyone from mayors, governors, and members of Congress, to the WHO, or to the media, but will accept no responsibility himself. He is driven by political expediency and willing to sacrifice lives in the process.

The bottom line is that if someone wants to "open up", tell them to go first. Don't put yourself at risk for someone else's stock portfolio or Trump's political goals.

I haven’t read through these responses, so this has probably already been said numerous times, but there have only been six deaths in the state of South Dakota. Six deaths out of a population of 900,000.

So far. Over 700 people were infected due to a single outbreak. Do you really think the rest of the state will continue to be so fortunate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if part of the rush to open (mostly by conservatives) is because of the paradigm shift that will happen when huge numbers of people have no money or are essential but expendable and start protesting conditions. Something like this exposes the major vulnerabilities in our society ie lack of or highly overpriced medical care, need to increase wages or possibly even a universal income.

People want to work. They want to open their businesses. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Most people don't want government giving them an "income." They want to run their business and earn their living. They want to be productive.

These people believe they are essential workers too. Essential because they want to earn a living.

I completely understand this, but it doesn't have to be either/or.

That's the problem with the statewide lockdowns. They are blanket orders with few exceptions. The problem is that if you open your business, you might infect a lot of people, which means the healthcare system will be overburdened, healthcare workers might die, and then what? Was it worth it?

There has to be a way to open businesses and keep both workers and customers safe. I'm sure there's no simple, one-size-fits-all solution. Partly opening businesses could work, with social distancing, masks, making sure employees at work have been tested and aren't asymptomatic carriers? Maybe other things I haven't thought of that might apply to particular businesses.

I need my hair salon! But how can my stylist cut my hair and maintain social distance? I'm not seeing any way, even if we both wear masks. Solution, anyone?

The stylist and the customer wear a mask. Stylist wears gloves. Carry hand sanitizer there along with shampoo. Only serve 5 customers in one sitting. Done.

Stylists are working with shampoo and soap so I imagine for them, they have it made easier than some other professions

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Here are a few things that I think are readily apparent:

1) Without a vaccine, near universal testing, or sweeping use of PPE, "opening up" will spread the coronavirus. We don't have to guess about this. Just look at the Smithfield Foods meat processing plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Nearly 600 employees have tested positive for COVID-19. In addition, 135 others have caught it from those employees. The plant has now been forced to close.

2) Many of the loudest voices calling for "opening up" will not be putting themselves at risk. Higher income folks will continue to telework and socially distance themselves. Trump and Pence dispute the need for widespread testing, but require anyone coming into contact with them be tested beforehand. This sort of hypocrisy will extend throughout the ruling class. "Opening up" means telling working folks to risk their lives for the stock portfolios of those who will remain safely protected.

3) It is true that job losses and economic suffering are being caused by the shutdown. The impact of this can be reduced through government assistance. There is no cure for death.

4) Trump, by offering public support for those protesting shutdown polices, is willing to sacrifice even his own supporters. Similarly, with deaths heavily weighted toward the elderly, Trump willingly endangers the most dependable source of Republican votes.

5) The "original sin" of the US response to COVID-19 was the failure to introduce widespread testing. This, combined with a lost six weeks while Trump attempted to deny the reality of the epidemic, has caused a deep setback for the US response and led to countless unnecessary deaths. Trump is simultaneously pushing testing responsibility to governors and supporting protests against those same governors. He may well have calculated that renewed disease outbreaks in Democratic-led states would help him politically. He is desperate to place blame on everyone from mayors, governors, and members of Congress, to the WHO, or to the media, but will accept no responsibility himself. He is driven by political expediency and willing to sacrifice lives in the process.

The bottom line is that if someone wants to "open up", tell them to go first. Don't put yourself at risk for someone else's stock portfolio or Trump's political goals.

I seriously can’t believe that you think being considered about almost certain economic collapse, is simply being worried about someone’s stock portfolio. You’re usually fairly reasonable. This is a shockingly simplistic way of disregarding people’s concerns over the economic damage this is causing to the entire world.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I seriously can’t believe that you think being considered about almost certain economic collapse, is simply being worried about someone’s stock portfolio. You’re usually fairly reasonable. This is a shockingly simplistic way of disregarding people’s concerns over the economic damage this is causing to the entire world.

There are solutions to those economic problems that don't involve a rush to open in unsafe conditions. But, if you believe that your personal economic situation justifies risking your own health and the health of your family members, please go first. As I have repeatedly said, don't expect others to take risks that you won't take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I seriously can’t believe that you think being considered about almost certain economic collapse, is simply being worried about someone’s stock portfolio. You’re usually fairly reasonable. This is a shockingly simplistic way of disregarding people’s concerns over the economic damage this is causing to the entire world.

Even more economic collapse is a country ravaged by an unchecked, untreatable virus with multiple waves of infection. So pick your poison, take the economic hit now and hope a vaccine comes out with changes in rules of conduct once the initial infection waves passes, or, ride it like a cowboy and hope the supply chains remain intact in the face of a million or more deaths.