"Opening up" means risking your life

[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 I have not responded to this assertion because I don't think it matters, I would hope that most of us would be able to put aside how the shutdown personally affects us with how it affects society at large. But since you seem to think that those of us who are in favor of reopening would not be taking "risks" and putting their financial interests first I will respond. I am a teacher (check all my previous posts if you don't believe me) and my husband is a fed. My personal financial situation isn't at all being impacted by this (yet - eventually we will all be affected) And yes, if things reopened I would have to return to work, which in your mind would be risking my health. On a personal level, I am loving the shutdown. My husband likes working from home, and to be completely honest I am in no hurry to head back to school. Yet I am very much in favor of things reopening asap, because I don't want to see society destroyed simply so my husband and I can keep working from home.

How would you feel if after returning to work you find that both you and your husband have caught COVID-19, your school has to close again because of an outbreak, and while your husband's job could still be done remotely, he is too ill to work. So, then you are even in a worse situation and the economy is still not recovering?

It's good that you are willing to personally accept this risk, but I hope you won't have to make such a sacrifice.

I don't care at all if my husband and I catch Covid-19 because the chance that we would experience an illness more severe than the flu is extremely small. And of course reopening things, is going to cause the number of cases to go up. Yes, many more people will become infected, for the vast majority, they will experience a flu like illness. Will deaths increase as well? Of course. Yes, it's a terrible thing, I don't mean to sound heartless but I simply don't think a disease that kills less than 2% of those infected is worth the damage that this will cause. Jeff, I really think the main difference between our perspectives is that I am under the belief that economic damage of a prolonged shutdown will be much greater than you believe. I am not the least bit opposed to extensive government programs to try to mitigate the damage, but I don't think anything we can do will come close to mitigating the damage of a prolonged global shutdown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test everyone. Activate FEMA and Nat Guard and USPS and volunteer workers to deliver food to those in need at home. Get all negative testers back to work and all positive testers stay at home/hospital till clear. Do it. Now.

You just can't mandate testing "everyone".
This ain't communist china, thank God.

Personal responsibility is essential.

Oh ffs. Personal responsibility can't change the supply chains. And yes, we very much can mandate testing for everyone, just like vaccines can be mandated. If you don't want to be tested, then you can continue staying at home.

Are you planning to padlock my house?

I'm not, but the government certainly has the power to enforce a quarantine, or condition access to services and locations based on medical factors -- it's quite well established.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff's logic doesnt make sense. On one hand he doesnt want death, yet in another thread he was talking about a walk in Rock Creek Park the other day. Another hypocritical statement with political overtures I'm guessing

Yes, I walked in Rock Creek Park because daily exercise is necessary to maintain good health. I stayed more than six feet from anyone else. When I saw that the park became crowded, I began wearing a mask during walks, while still maintaining a safe distance from others. Then, I hurt my foot and haven't been able to walk for a few days.

If we could reopen the economy while allowing everyone to maintain similar conditions as I do on my walks, I would strongly support reopening. But, in fact, we can't so I don't. That is consistency rather than hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is demanding that the working class risk its health while you continue to protect yours.

That's exactly the guidance from the task force, yet I'm sure you don't watch the presser or read the literature because you despise the leader. I'm out every day and see many others doing the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 I have not responded to this assertion because I don't think it matters, I would hope that most of us would be able to put aside how the shutdown personally affects us with how it affects society at large. But since you seem to think that those of us who are in favor of reopening would not be taking "risks" and putting their financial interests first I will respond. I am a teacher (check all my previous posts if you don't believe me) and my husband is a fed. My personal financial situation isn't at all being impacted by this (yet - eventually we will all be affected) And yes, if things reopened I would have to return to work, which in your mind would be risking my health. On a personal level, I am loving the shutdown. My husband likes working from home, and to be completely honest I am in no hurry to head back to school. Yet I am very much in favor of things reopening asap, because I don't want to see society destroyed simply so my husband and I can keep working from home.

How would you feel if after returning to work you find that both you and your husband have caught COVID-19, your school has to close again because of an outbreak, and while your husband's job could still be done remotely, he is too ill to work. So, then you are even in a worse situation and the economy is still not recovering?

It's good that you are willing to personally accept this risk, but I hope you won't have to make such a sacrifice.

I don't care at all if my husband and I catch Covid-19 because the chance that we would experience an illness more severe than the flu is extremely small. And of course reopening things, is going to cause the number of cases to go up. Yes, many more people will become infected, for the vast majority, they will experience a flu like illness. Will deaths increase as well? Of course. Yes, it's a terrible thing, I don't mean to sound heartless but I simply don't think a disease that kills less than 2% of those infected is worth the damage that this will cause. Jeff, I really think the main difference between our perspectives is that I am under the belief that economic damage of a prolonged shutdown will be much greater than you believe. I am not the least bit opposed to extensive government programs to try to mitigate the damage, but I don't think anything we can do will come close to mitigating the damage of a prolonged global shutdown.

As long as you refuse to engage with reality, you're not really worth talking to. Come back and explain how you would deal with a NYC-style uncontrolled outbreak and how that would have minimal impact, and then we can talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff's logic doesnt make sense. On one hand he doesnt want death, yet in another thread he was talking about a walk in Rock Creek Park the other day. Another hypocritical statement with political overtures I'm guessing

Yes, I walked in Rock Creek Park because daily exercise is necessary to maintain good health. I stayed more than six feet from anyone else. When I saw that the park became crowded, I began wearing a mask during walks, while still maintaining a safe distance from others. Then, I hurt my foot and haven't been able to walk for a few days.

If we could reopen the economy while allowing everyone to maintain similar conditions as I do on my walks, I would strongly support reopening. But, in fact, we can't so I don't. That is consistency rather than hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is demanding that the working class risk its health while you continue to protect yours.

That's exactly the guidance from the task force, yet I'm sure you don't watch the presser or read the literature because you despise the leader. I'm out every day and see many others doing the same.

The problem is there are zero practical steps to actually put the guidance from the task force into place in the short or even medium term. Yet, you still have Team Trump acting like we can re-open tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Test everyone. Activate FEMA and Nat Guard and USPS and volunteer workers to deliver food to those in need at home. Get all negative testers back to work and all positive testers stay at home/hospital till clear. Do it. Now.

You just can't mandate testing "everyone".
This ain't communist china, thank God.

Personal responsibility is essential.

Oh ffs. Personal responsibility can't change the supply chains. And yes, we very much can mandate testing for everyone, just like vaccines can be mandated. If you don't want to be tested, then you can continue staying at home.

Are you planning to padlock my house?

I don’t see why an employer can’t mandate a test, especially if they provide sick leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worry about the risks of opening too soon and certainly opening without widespread testing available and in play.

At the same time, I’m really worried about the impact of prolonged quarantine on communities already struggling. There’s a public health effect of the financial devastation. And I worry that it may tip the scales for people to either reopen prematurely and/or favor Trump and his “return to work” message - hurting the people who are most vulnerable all around (economically and health wise).

This article from WaPo does a good job describing challenges that many of us in the DC area don’t experience bc we are buffered by federal employment and affluence (though I know working and middle class families are certainly suffering in this area too).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/first-the-coronavirus-pandemic-took-their-jobs-then-it-wiped-out-their-health-insurance/2020/04/18/1c2cb5bc-7d7c-11ea-8013-1b6da0e4a2b7_story.html

There is an even more devastating effect when all of the front line workers, all of the grocery store clerks, all of the food processer workers, all of the truck drivers etc are sick or dead. It is really easy for the average DCUM right winger to site in their living room asking others to take on daily risk because they are out of their job temporarily.

Yep. If those idiot protesters were also protesting to protect front-line workers, then I'd have some respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 I have not responded to this assertion because I don't think it matters, I would hope that most of us would be able to put aside how the shutdown personally affects us with how it affects society at large. But since you seem to think that those of us who are in favor of reopening would not be taking "risks" and putting their financial interests first I will respond. I am a teacher (check all my previous posts if you don't believe me) and my husband is a fed. My personal financial situation isn't at all being impacted by this (yet - eventually we will all be affected) And yes, if things reopened I would have to return to work, which in your mind would be risking my health. On a personal level, I am loving the shutdown. My husband likes working from home, and to be completely honest I am in no hurry to head back to school. Yet I am very much in favor of things reopening asap, because I don't want to see society destroyed simply so my husband and I can keep working from home.

How would you feel if after returning to work you find that both you and your husband have caught COVID-19, your school has to close again because of an outbreak, and while your husband's job could still be done remotely, he is too ill to work. So, then you are even in a worse situation and the economy is still not recovering?

It's good that you are willing to personally accept this risk, but I hope you won't have to make such a sacrifice.

I don't care at all if my husband and I catch Covid-19 because the chance that we would experience an illness more severe than the flu is extremely small. And of course reopening things, is going to cause the number of cases to go up. Yes, many more people will become infected, for the vast majority, they will experience a flu like illness. Will deaths increase as well? Of course. Yes, it's a terrible thing, I don't mean to sound heartless but I simply don't think a disease that kills less than 2% of those infected is worth the damage that this will cause. Jeff, I really think the main difference between our perspectives is that I am under the belief that economic damage of a prolonged shutdown will be much greater than you believe. I am not the least bit opposed to extensive government programs to try to mitigate the damage, but I don't think anything we can do will come close to mitigating the damage of a prolonged global shutdown.

You really think 500k-1MM deaths would have zero economic impact?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 I have not responded to this assertion because I don't think it matters, I would hope that most of us would be able to put aside how the shutdown personally affects us with how it affects society at large. But since you seem to think that those of us who are in favor of reopening would not be taking "risks" and putting their financial interests first I will respond. I am a teacher (check all my previous posts if you don't believe me) and my husband is a fed. My personal financial situation isn't at all being impacted by this (yet - eventually we will all be affected) And yes, if things reopened I would have to return to work, which in your mind would be risking my health. On a personal level, I am loving the shutdown. My husband likes working from home, and to be completely honest I am in no hurry to head back to school. Yet I am very much in favor of things reopening asap, because I don't want to see society destroyed simply so my husband and I can keep working from home.

How would you feel if after returning to work you find that both you and your husband have caught COVID-19, your school has to close again because of an outbreak, and while your husband's job could still be done remotely, he is too ill to work. So, then you are even in a worse situation and the economy is still not recovering?

It's good that you are willing to personally accept this risk, but I hope you won't have to make such a sacrifice.

I don't care at all if my husband and I catch Covid-19 because the chance that we would experience an illness more severe than the flu is extremely small. And of course reopening things, is going to cause the number of cases to go up. Yes, many more people will become infected, for the vast majority, they will experience a flu like illness. Will deaths increase as well? Of course. Yes, it's a terrible thing, I don't mean to sound heartless but I simply don't think a disease that kills less than 2% of those infected is worth the damage that this will cause. Jeff, I really think the main difference between our perspectives is that I am under the belief that economic damage of a prolonged shutdown will be much greater than you believe. I am not the least bit opposed to extensive government programs to try to mitigate the damage, but I don't think anything we can do will come close to mitigating the damage of a prolonged global shutdown.

No the difference is you are convinced it won’t hurt YOU, so you don’t care if it hurts others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the words "open up" are very subjective. It's all about what those words mean, right? The "open up" can definitely happen, but it needs to be gradual and with the use of testing for those with high public contact (retail and restaurants). People seem to want retail to open and that needs to be monitored. I think we can all agree that crowded bars and big events where people mingle will not be reopening soon. There is some middle ground here. The schools are definitely a problem because those are crowded places. There may be some innovative way to bring students to school on a rotating schedule in order to keep the school less crowded at any given time, but many school events would not be allowed even in such a scenario. Plenty of older teachers would be reticent about working with students because it's really hard to socially distance when trying to help students. Just my two cents.

Problem is you've got some folks who'll just go to Busch Gardens because it's all overblown. Not a thoughtful consideration of how to re-open different types of businesses, a discussion of the flaws and benefits of a Swedish-style slowdown, a mention of how to get PPE for people and how to protect high risk people who are still in the workforce ... nope, just open it all up, it's a liberal hoax, I'll take my kids to Busch Gardens.

PP who said I would take my kids to Busch Gardens. I don't believe for a second that it's all a liberal hoax. I realize the risk. But I personally don't view a virus that kills less than 2%, and quite likely well below that, as being something very scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I have to say is that Trump and the R establishment are LOVING that this has turned into a simple-minded fight about "the libs need to open up now!" ... taking the focus off of the federal failures to do anything to actually allow us to open up safely.

This attitude only prevents people to look at this in an unbiased and objective way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the words "open up" are very subjective. It's all about what those words mean, right? The "open up" can definitely happen, but it needs to be gradual and with the use of testing for those with high public contact (retail and restaurants). People seem to want retail to open and that needs to be monitored. I think we can all agree that crowded bars and big events where people mingle will not be reopening soon. There is some middle ground here. The schools are definitely a problem because those are crowded places. There may be some innovative way to bring students to school on a rotating schedule in order to keep the school less crowded at any given time, but many school events would not be allowed even in such a scenario. Plenty of older teachers would be reticent about working with students because it's really hard to socially distance when trying to help students. Just my two cents.

Problem is you've got some folks who'll just go to Busch Gardens because it's all overblown. Not a thoughtful consideration of how to re-open different types of businesses, a discussion of the flaws and benefits of a Swedish-style slowdown, a mention of how to get PPE for people and how to protect high risk people who are still in the workforce ... nope, just open it all up, it's a liberal hoax, I'll take my kids to Busch Gardens.

PP who said I would take my kids to Busch Gardens. I don't believe for a second that it's all a liberal hoax. I realize the risk. But I personally don't view a virus that kills less than 2%, and quite likely well below that, as being something very scary.

lol good luck riding the rides safely at Busch Gardens when 50% of the ride operators and management are out with COVID.

Until you stop repeating the "2% death" line like a) that's not huge in and of itself and b) ignoring all the other impacts of the illness, I don't want to hear from you again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I have to say is that Trump and the R establishment are LOVING that this has turned into a simple-minded fight about "the libs need to open up now!" ... taking the focus off of the federal failures to do anything to actually allow us to open up safely.

This attitude only prevents people to look at this in an unbiased and objective way.

Oh yeah, you're so unbiased and objective Turning this into "team shutdown" v "liberators" (which is firmly 100% the fault of Trump) is the recipe for destroying objectivity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the words "open up" are very subjective. It's all about what those words mean, right? The "open up" can definitely happen, but it needs to be gradual and with the use of testing for those with high public contact (retail and restaurants). People seem to want retail to open and that needs to be monitored. I think we can all agree that crowded bars and big events where people mingle will not be reopening soon. There is some middle ground here. The schools are definitely a problem because those are crowded places. There may be some innovative way to bring students to school on a rotating schedule in order to keep the school less crowded at any given time, but many school events would not be allowed even in such a scenario. Plenty of older teachers would be reticent about working with students because it's really hard to socially distance when trying to help students. Just my two cents.

Problem is you've got some folks who'll just go to Busch Gardens because it's all overblown. Not a thoughtful consideration of how to re-open different types of businesses, a discussion of the flaws and benefits of a Swedish-style slowdown, a mention of how to get PPE for people and how to protect high risk people who are still in the workforce ... nope, just open it all up, it's a liberal hoax, I'll take my kids to Busch Gardens.

PP who said I would take my kids to Busch Gardens. I don't believe for a second that it's all a liberal hoax. I realize the risk. But I personally don't view a virus that kills less than 2%, and quite likely well below that, as being something very scary.

You were not good at math in school, were you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


I don't care at all if my husband and I catch Covid-19 because the chance that we would experience an illness more severe than the flu is extremely small. And of course reopening things, is going to cause the number of cases to go up. Yes, many more people will become infected, for the vast majority, they will experience a flu like illness. Will deaths increase as well? Of course. Yes, it's a terrible thing, I don't mean to sound heartless but I simply don't think a disease that kills less than 2% of those infected is worth the damage that this will cause. Jeff, I really think the main difference between our perspectives is that I am under the belief that economic damage of a prolonged shutdown will be much greater than you believe. I am not the least bit opposed to extensive government programs to try to mitigate the damage, but I don't think anything we can do will come close to mitigating the damage of a prolonged global shutdown.

I will submit that you likely have no first degree friends who have had this illness or where you have had any sort of day by day account of what this illness is like for those who are impacted by it, but I can assure you, it is not like having a mild or severe flu. It is far, far worse. My friends who are recovering from it (as opposed to the ones who have died) are saying that the peak or the worst they really wanted to just die, it was that bad, and that the recovery is very arduous, some suffering chronic lung issues, others are very lethargic. This is weeks after. So it isn't like a little 3 day flu like thing that you just bounce back from.