"Opening up" means risking your life

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Open up, and just keep social distancing and wearing a mask. Done.

It is unrealistic to shut down everything for 18 months. That vaccine Billy Boy is funding might be worse than the virus itself because it won’t have time to be tested.

But people have to get back to work. The backlash of shutting down the country will lead to deaths due to food supplies and shortages, transportation, people who have health issues will die and people with mental issues will end up killing themselves.

You can’t lock someone in their house with a business that they are using that to survive away from them. This will lead to devastating economic impacts and lead to more deaths. But this is a virus, not a death sentence. Anytime you step out your house, it’s a risk. We can’t live our lives in fear.

If you open up without proper testing, you are guaranteed to have a resurgence of disease. If you are comfortable getting infected, don't let me stop you. Feel free infect yourself and your family. Just don't expect others to take that risk on your behalf.

The risk is minuscule. The fatality rate is less than 2%! And judging by recent reports that are many more asymptomatic cases than previously thought, the fatality rate would be even lower.

Great. Feel free to end social distancing for yourself and your family. Lead the way.

Well, that's exactly what many people are trying to do.

Yes, but are you personally? Or are you letting others take the risk for you?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty certain that at least some people who aren’t part of the “ruling” class would benefit if some businesses opened up if it was deemed safe by reasonable governors of their respective states.

They will benefit right up to the point that they are infected with coronavirus.

And 99% plus will survive it and go on to see another day.

That would be a mortality rate 10 times that of the regular flu and would result in potentially millions of deaths (depending on the spread of infection).

But again, feel free to risk your and your family's lives. Just don't expect others to do it for you.

Jeff, I really don’t see how you see coming into contact with a virus that has such a low fatality rate as “risking your life”.

It is because of how contagious it is. Because it spreads so widely, even a small percentage is a large number. There are plenty of reports of people younger than me with no pre-existing conditions who were in good health dying from COVID.

But to be clear, it is not my life at risk. My wife and I work at home normally and our kids' schools will not have in-person classes this school year. We will be protected. I am worried about those who will be forced to take risks that most of the loudest voices to open won't take themselves. If you are willing to risk your and your family's health, I fully support your acting as a guinea pig for the rest of us.

But it's still a very small percentage. Yes, as the population continues to grow at such exponential rates, small percentages of fatalities are going to result in higher actual numbers. Take driving for example, I don't know what the % of fatalities are but for arguments sake, let's just say 1% of all total drivers. Does that mean that driving should not be allowed in place like LA as opposed to Des Moines, because 1% of drivers is in LA is a larger number than in Des Moines? And please don't anyone come here and lecture me about how I shouldn't be comparing driving to Coronavirus because it's not contagious. My point is about percentages and numbers.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty certain that at least some people who aren’t part of the “ruling” class would benefit if some businesses opened up if it was deemed safe by reasonable governors of their respective states.

They will benefit right up to the point that they are infected with coronavirus.

And 99% plus will survive it and go on to see another day.

That would be a mortality rate 10 times that of the regular flu and would result in potentially millions of deaths (depending on the spread of infection).

[b]But again, feel free to risk your and your family's lives. Just don't expect others to do it for you.

Jeff, I really don’t see how you see coming into contact with a virus that has such a low fatality rate as “risking your life”.

It is because of how contagious it is. Because it spreads so widely, even a small percentage is a large number. There are plenty of reports of people younger than me with no pre-existing conditions who were in good health dying from COVID.

But to be clear, it is not my life at risk. My wife and I work at home normally and our kids' schools will not have in-person classes this school year. We will be protected. I am worried about those who will be forced to take risks that most of the loudest voices to open won't take themselves. If you are willing to risk your and your family's health, I fully support your acting as a guinea pig for the rest of us.

Jeff would you agree there needs to be a middle ground though. Social distancing and mask usage. I'm curious how long are you advocating for stay at home otherwise, months till 2021?!?!?!?!?!

I have been pretty clear throughout this thread that once we have widespread testing, contact tracing, safe working conditions, and sufficient PPE, I would support re-opening. I am not sure a mask by itself, especially the homemade ones, is sufficient PPE.

My main concern is that those most eager to reopen are not the ones that will be taking the risks. When the loudest voices to reopen are willing to lead the way, I'll feel much more comfortable.

And if that takes another six months?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous[b wrote:]Looks like the Republicans agree with Jeff. We need more extensive testing. [/b]

“How to Reopen” by Dr. Gottlieb (Trump’s former FDA administrator) with American Enterprise Institute (conservative think tank):
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/pubs_archive/pubs-pdfs/2020/reopening-guidance-governors.pdf

That's why I hate how this has been turned into a left vs. right issue. I am a Democrat, and am on the extreme end of let's open everything up as soon as possible. I know many Republicans who are very concerned about this virus and are in favor of prolonging the shut down until eradication can practically be guaranteed. Turning it into a political issue, where people feel compelled to "side with their team", prevents us from being able to look what's happening in an objective manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that has been largely overlooked here—please forgive me if I just missed it—is schools. I worry about the inequality and lasting consequences impacting kids whose parents can’t provide the gold plated “homeschooling”/remote learning experience rich parents have been able to provide for their kids. But I guess the rich always win.

Pretty outrageous that our Governors and Mayors aren't addressing this.

They are addressing it, but there is no easy fix for this situation.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:And if that takes another six months?

If it takes another six months then I suggest that you vote for Biden due to Trump's inability to manage the epidemic better because it should not take another six months.

I don't know what you want me to say. I think I have explained this very clearly. I do not think we can safely reopen the economy now. I think the loudest voices to reopen are not the ones who will be taking the risks and that they are putting their financial interests ahead of the health of others. I am arguing that the health risks of reopening be decreased to the point that those calling for reopening are comfortable accepting that risk for themselves and their families. I don't think that is an unreasonable position or one that is hard to understand.

[Anonymous]

Is it immoral for those people whose employers will continue to allow 5-day a week teleworking indefinitely to support gradual reopenings as things now stand? So many people in the DC area enjoy that privilege.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if that takes another six months?

If it takes another six months then I suggest that you vote for Biden due to Trump's inability to manage the epidemic better because it should not take another six months.

I don't know what you want me to say. I think I have explained this very clearly. I do not think we can safely reopen the economy now. I think the loudest voices to reopen are not the ones who will be taking the risks and that they are putting their financial interests ahead of the health of others. I am arguing that the health risks of reopening be decreased to the point that those calling for reopening are comfortable accepting that risk for themselves and their families. I don't think that is an unreasonable position or one that is hard to understand.

Jeff, you have an unreasonable expectation of when we can reopen. According to you you want near universal testing before opening Germany South Korea Sweden aren't doing this. Not only that the testing would have to occur multiple times a week according to you.

I'm done trying to talk sense into you for the last time social distancing with masks is the way to go. Otherwise like I said, your scenario might happen in 2021. Keeping everyone home for the next 6 months is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what doesn't make sense......

Grocery stores are open, as they should be. Most grocery stores have narrow aisles. Keeping 6 feet from everyone is tough to do. But, we make it work by wearing masks and being careful not to touch our faces.

Yet, stories like Hobby Lobby must remain shut because they are deemed "non essential." The Hobby Lobby in my area is huge. The aisles are large. It doesn't get nearly as crowded as hardware stores or grocery stores in the area.

In many businesses, it is much easier to maintain social distancing than in businesses that are allowed to remain open.

This is just lunacy.

It is simple math. Coronavirus will spread to a certain number of people during grocery store visits -- masks and social distancing only goe so far and are not a perfect defense. So, grocery shopping will result in X number of illnesses, but because we have to eat, we take that risk. If shopping at Hobby Lobby also resulted in X illnesses, we would have 2X instead of X illnesses. Multiply the by however more businesses think they should reopen.

Also, I don't think the Hobby Lobby case is helped by the founder initially choosing to stay open because God had talked to his wife and told them they would be protected. Then the company defied orders to close in several states.

Jeff, what you have said here mirrors the exact thinking of people such as myself who feel that we have gone too far with this shut down. That because we have to eat, we have to accept X number of illnesses (meaning deaths), and need to take that risk. I think the main difference between your thinking and mine is that you don't think the overall economic devastation from shutting down will be as great as what I think it will be.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if that takes another six months?

If it takes another six months then I suggest that you vote for Biden due to Trump's inability to manage the epidemic better because it should not take another six months.

I don't know what you want me to say. I think I have explained this very clearly. I do not think we can safely reopen the economy now. I think the loudest voices to reopen are not the ones who will be taking the risks and that they are putting their financial interests ahead of the health of others. I am arguing that the health risks of reopening be decreased to the point that those calling for reopening are comfortable accepting that risk for themselves and their families. I don't think that is an unreasonable position or one that is hard to understand.

Jeff, you have an unreasonable expectation of when we can reopen. According to you you want near universal testing before opening Germany South Korea Sweden aren't doing this. Not only that the testing would have to occur multiple times a week according to you.

I'm done trying to talk sense into you for the last time social distancing with masks is the way to go. Otherwise like I said, your scenario might happen in 2021. Keeping everyone home for the next 6 months is ridiculous.

All you need to say is, "I am prepared to risk my health and the health of my family members by exposing ourselves in current conditions". But, you don't appear to be willing to say that. Rather, you seem to be prepared to protect yourself, your family, and your finances while others take the risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t need a forcible quarantine. I would appreciate a text message that I’ve been exposed, with a link to an attachment for an order for testing.
That truly means we have to have tests far and wide.

Poster you are responding to here. So would I. I am not an anti-big government conservative, that so many people think one must be if they favor reopening society asap. But my point is, in our country it would be considered an invasion of our civil liberties and we just can't do it. Personally, I wish that a short term emergency exception could be made, but I think that's highly unlikely to happen.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if that takes another six months?

If it takes another six months then I suggest that you vote for Biden due to Trump's inability to manage the epidemic better because it should not take another six months.

I don't know what you want me to say. I think I have explained this very clearly. I do not think we can safely reopen the economy now. I think the loudest voices to reopen are not the ones who will be taking the risks and that they are putting their financial interests ahead of the health of others. I am arguing that the health risks of reopening be decreased to the point that those calling for reopening are comfortable accepting that risk for themselves and their families. I don't think that is an unreasonable position or one that is hard to understand.

Jeff, you have an unreasonable expectation of when we can reopen. According to you you want near universal testing before opening Germany South Korea Sweden aren't doing this. Not only that the testing would have to occur multiple times a week according to you.

I'm done trying to talk sense into you for the last time social distancing with masks is the way to go. Otherwise like I said, your scenario might happen in 2021. Keeping everyone home for the next 6 months is ridiculous.

All you need to say is, "I am prepared to risk my health and the health of my family members by exposing ourselves in current conditions". But, you don't appear to be willing to say that. Rather, you seem to be prepared to protect yourself, your family, and your finances while others take the risk.

Everyone does this when they go to the grocery store already. I went to the grocery store on Friday. I wear a mask and social distance. No problem. This fear is completely ridiculous and unnecessary.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if that takes another six months?

If it takes another six months then I suggest that you vote for Biden due to Trump's inability to manage the epidemic better because it should not take another six months.

I don't know what you want me to say. I think I have explained this very clearly. I do not think we can safely reopen the economy now. I think the loudest voices to reopen are not the ones who will be taking the risks and that they are putting their financial interests ahead of the health of others. I am arguing that the health risks of reopening be decreased to the point that those calling for reopening are comfortable accepting that risk for themselves and their families. I don't think that is an unreasonable position or one that is hard to understand.

Jeff, you have an unreasonable expectation of when we can reopen. According to you you want near universal testing before opening Germany South Korea Sweden aren't doing this. Not only that the testing would have to occur multiple times a week according to you.

I'm done trying to talk sense into you for the last time social distancing with masks is the way to go. Otherwise like I said, your scenario might happen in 2021. Keeping everyone home for the next 6 months is ridiculous.

All you need to say is, "I am prepared to risk my health and the health of my family members by exposing ourselves in current conditions". But, you don't appear to be willing to say that. Rather, you seem to be prepared to protect yourself, your family, and your finances while others take the risk.

I am willing to say it. With all the complaints about people who aren't social distancing, isn't it quite obvious that many of us are prepared to do just that? I honestly don't see why you think that those of us who want things opened are too scared to go out in these current conditions.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what doesn't make sense......

Grocery stores are open, as they should be. Most grocery stores have narrow aisles. Keeping 6 feet from everyone is tough to do. But, we make it work by wearing masks and being careful not to touch our faces.

Yet, stories like Hobby Lobby must remain shut because they are deemed "non essential." The Hobby Lobby in my area is huge. The aisles are large. It doesn't get nearly as crowded as hardware stores or grocery stores in the area.

In many businesses, it is much easier to maintain social distancing than in businesses that are allowed to remain open.

This is just lunacy.

It is simple math. Coronavirus will spread to a certain number of people during grocery store visits -- masks and social distancing only goe so far and are not a perfect defense. So, grocery shopping will result in X number of illnesses, but because we have to eat, we take that risk. If shopping at Hobby Lobby also resulted in X illnesses, we would have 2X instead of X illnesses. Multiply the by however more businesses think they should reopen.

Also, I don't think the Hobby Lobby case is helped by the founder initially choosing to stay open because God had talked to his wife and told them they would be protected. Then the company defied orders to close in several states.

Jeff, what you have said here mirrors the exact thinking of people such as myself who feel that we have gone too far with this shut down. That because we have to eat, we have to accept X number of illnesses (meaning deaths), and need to take that risk. I think the main difference between your thinking and mine is that you don't think the overall economic devastation from shutting down will be as great as what I think it will be.

We can address the economic issues but there is no solution to death. Economic problems are not permanent, death is. Moreover, if we reopen prematurely we will continue to have economic problems due to widespread disease outbreaks. Reopening does not make coronavirus go away. Things would just end up shutting down again unless the conditions are in place to stop the spread.