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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:And if that takes another six months?

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.

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

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.