Agree we need to reopen without vulnerable/elderly at first?

[MrLoco]

YES YES YES. I would gladly give up 25% of my income and investments to save lives and make us feel safe--I would do it to save only one life. It hurts my heart that so many are willing for people to die just so they can get go back to their "normal" lives. The economy has its ups and downs but once lives are lost they are gone forever. I hate that our country has come to this. I am now trying to figure out how to make donations and spend money to help people overcome all these hardships. I never thought I would see my fellow citizens be so selfish that they would trade the lives of their parents and grandparents to be able to go to a restaurant or a bar or a bowling alley. I am so disappointed in our country right now.

Good. Then you give up 25% of your income and investments. Not me. Never. I worked too damn hard for it.
I am tired of hearing "to save only one life." If YOU are old, diabetic, obese, have high blood pressure, cancer, whatever....then YOU stay home, wear a mask, social distance, take a bath in sanitizer...whatever.....but DO NOT require it for the rest of us.

We did all the bullshit for 6 weeks now and the economy may never be repaired. And before you say "You may be an asymptomatic carrier and infect me or a loved one. "( I love the way people use that term "loved one.")

Fine....then YOU be the one to stay home! If you stay home ….then I cannot infect you! Problem solved! Many, many people have had enough!

I will continue to use hand sanitizers but that is it. No more masks (where I can get away with it); no more social distance; open up the damn businesses!

Living like this is not normal and the pendulum has swung the other way. People have had enough. Life is a risk.

Quote from Damon Runyon " All life is 6 - 5 against.

 

[MichaelB]

I call that censorship. You can find thousands of unsubstantiated medical opinions on both sides of thousands of issues on YouTube that have been there for years.

Why is it wrong to disagree with the WHO, especially since we all know they have been wrong several times? More importantly, why does YouTube deem it necessary to delete opinions contrary to the WHO? I think I know why but I can't say...my comment might already be too political.

I’m not arguing in favor or against WHO, just trying to clarify. You continue to mischaracterize their policy. We will not resolve this, so let’s just walk away.

 

[brewer12345]

What a nice, little tantrum! Looks like the predictions are true. If the lockdowns succeed, those recommending them will be pilloried rather than thanked.

 

[Gumby]

It has been a lesson passed down through the years that we do best when we work together, rather than separately. We should each do our part to get through this with the least amount of collective pain and destruction. There must be a balance between the immediate public health protection issues and the economic destruction issues, which may have their own public health ramifications down the road. And that balance point necessarily will change over time as events dictate. I certainly do not envy those whose job it is to determine where that balance lies.

One thing I do know, however, is that it is usually foolish to base decisions on how people "feel". All of us have rights, but "feeling" anything is not among those rights, primarily because it is entirely subjective. That is, there are people who will "feel safe" no matter what is happening and those who will never "feel safe". Our leaders should make determinations based on objective criteria regarding the health risks and the economic damage required to mitigate those risks, not based on our feelings.

 

[PatrickA5]

Unfortunately, what MrLOCO says is not uncommon. It's exactly what my DB says. So, us vulnerable people need to stay out of their way - or else.

 

[REWahoo]

The world has changed completely. Folks expecting to go back to the ways things were a few months ago are going to be deeply disappointed.

And we're hearing from some of them on this thread.

 

[garyt]

8% is also a false stat.

However, regarding protecting the vulnerable it seems that some people are okay with shutting down the economy indefinitely regardless of how many people are hurt. The evidence is growing that shows healthy people under a certain age have a very low risk of fatality, therefore a reasonable plan should be put in place.

Those who still feel threatened can isolate longer if they want.

Just playing devil's advocate, but what happens to people who still work but feel threatened? If they don't go back to work are they fired? Will their job be kept for them? Will the govt continue to supply income to them?
Lots of over 60 people still working out of need with some underlying conditions. What happens to them if they choose to stay home?

 

[fh2000]

We did all the bullshit for 6 weeks now and the economy may never be repaired. And before you say "You may be an asymptomatic carrier and infect me or a loved one. "( I love the way people use that term "loved one.")

Fine....then YOU be the one to stay home! If you stay home ….then I cannot infect you! Problem solved! Many, many people have had enough!
.

The CDC guideline for masks started off with 'do not wear because it will not protect you' to 'wear it to protect others', and never mention that 'masks actually can protect you'.

I believe this is all because of shortage of masks. If there are plenty (like they do in China, S Korea, Taiwan etc) all citizens will be rationed and issued with surgical masks.

According to Asian countries, below is the infection rate whether masks are worn or not:

1. Sick person with no mask ----> Healthy person with no mask (70% infection rate)
2. Sick person with mask on ---> Healthy person with no mask (5% infection rate)
3. Sick person with mask on ----> Healthy person also with mask on (1.5% infection rate)

Wearing a mask is to protect yourself also. If this is conveyed to public in US, I am sure more will be willing to wear.

 

[Chuckanut]

What a nice, little tantrum! Looks like the predictions are true. If the lockdowns succeed, those recommending them will be pilloried rather than thanked.

I think the point is that the lockdown did succeed in many areas and the hospitals were not overwhelmed. Then the goal posts were moved and the new goal keeps the lockdown in place.

I am not arguing for removing the lockdown restrictions. Actually, I support them for at least a few more weeks, and maybe longer for older people like me. I am trying to show why some people think they might be getting hornswaggled. My 2¢. Take what you will and leave the rest.

 

[Music Lover]

Just playing devil's advocate, but what happens to people who still work but feel threatened? If they don't go back to work are they fired? Will their job be kept for them? Will the govt continue to supply income to them?
Lots of over 60 people still working out of need with some underlying conditions. What happens to them if they choose to stay home?

Those are tough questions to answer. I suppose eventually there will be a "cut-off" point chosen where no more bridge funding will be provided. Regardless of when that is some people will say it came too late and others will say it's too soon.

 

[JustCurious]

I think the point is that the lockdown did succeed in many areas and the hospitals were not overwhelmed.

We do not know that because it's possible that the hospitals would not have been overwhelmed even if there were no lockdowns in place. Just because A and B happened at the same time does not mean that B happened because of A.

 

[JustCurious]

According to Asian countries, below is the infection rate whether masks are worn or not:

1. Sick person with no mask ----> Healthy person with no mask (70% infection rate)
2. Sick person with mask on ---> Healthy person with no mask (5% infection rate)
3. Sick person with mask on ----> Healthy person also with mask on (1.5% infection rate)

Do you have a source for this?

 

[mpeirce]

RE: Masks

Dr. Acton, the Director of the Ohio Department of Health, has described it as part of the Swiss cheese strategy:

You have a number of measures that alone are only partially effective, but as you add them all together they become quite effective at preventing spread.

“When we’re out and about, going to the store, wearing this can make a difference in us spreading those respiratory droplets to other people,” Acton said. “Again, it’s not 100 percent, its about 80 percent effective, but that 80 percent, like our swiss cheese layers of everything we’re doing to stay home, adds up collectively to slowing down the spread of this virus.”

 

[Midpack]

It has been a lesson passed down through the years that we do best when we work together, rather than separately. We should each do our part to get through this with the least amount of collective pain and destruction. There must be a balance between the immediate public health protection issues and the economic destruction issues, which may have their own public health ramifications down the road. And that balance point necessarily will change over time as events dictate. I certainly do not envy those whose job it is to determine where that balance lies.

One thing I do know, however, is that it is usually foolish to base decisions on how people "feel". All of us have rights, but "feeling" anything is not among those rights, primarily because it is entirely subjective. That is, there are people who will "feel safe" no matter what is happening and those who will never "feel safe". Our leaders should make determinations based on objective criteria regarding the health risks and the economic damage required to mitigate those risks, not based on our feelings.

+1. Well said, wish I was as concise. It’s the posts that lean into open everything now as well as those that suggest we all sacrifice to save one (vulnerable) life that [-]keep this thread going[/-] are naive and tiresome to me. YMMV

As always the leaders who have to make these decisions will be criticized by ‘those outside the arena’ no matter what they choose, where they lead.

 

[Midpack]

Just playing devil's advocate, but what happens to people who still work but feel threatened? If they don't go back to work are they fired? Will their job be kept for them? Will the govt continue to supply income to them?
Lots of over 60 people still working out of need with some underlying conditions. What happens to them if they choose to stay home?

That’s certainly an issue we have to confront, but it’s not a reason to hold back the majority of the population, at much lower risk. We have to balance public safety and economic damage, BOTH affect us all. I’d like to think most employers will work with vulnerable employees though some will take advantage. And making accommodations is already in our regulations for other circumstances, this may become another.

 

[fh2000]

Do you have a source for this?

It is in a foreign language. The key information is to, whoever is willing to believe, that masks can protect you also.

 

[harllee]

Why are people so angry about having to wear a mask? I have been wearing one when out in public and I don't see any big deal. Is it like when seatbelts were made mandatory and people just did not want to be told what to do?

 

[ivinsfan]

The world has changed completely. Folks expecting to go back to the ways things were a few months ago are going to be deeply disappointed.

After every big human event there is a new normal. The old normal doesn't magically reappear. The question is who decides the new normal and what are the parameters of the new normal.

Everyone has a valid viewpoint for their belieif in what the new normal should be. I can pretty much guarantee not ONE person will be 100% happy with the guidelines for the new normal.

If we'd all take a deep breath and let this sink in, things might move toward and consensus.

 

[fh2000]

Why are people so angry about having to wear a mask? I have been wearing one when out in public and I don't see any big deal. Is it like when seatbelts were made mandatory and people just did not want to be told what to do?

This is my view, in Asia, people are simply told to wear a mask to protect yourself. In US, it is said to wear one to protect others This is an honorable goal. But many think why do I need to burden myself, just to protect strangers?

If Americans were told that masks are actually to protect yourself on day one, I am sure the objection will be lighter.

 

[foxfirev5]

The CDC guideline for masks started off with 'do not wear because it will not protect you' to 'wear it to protect others', and never mention that 'masks actually can protect you'.

I believe this is all because of shortage of masks. If there are plenty (like they do in China, S Korea, Taiwan etc) all citizens will be rationed and issued with surgical masks.

According to Asian countries, below is the infection rate whether masks are worn or not:

1. Sick person with no mask ----> Healthy person with no mask (70% infection rate)
2. Sick person with mask on ---> Healthy person with no mask (5% infection rate)
3. Sick person with mask on ----> Healthy person also with mask on (1.5% infection rate)

Wearing a mask is to protect yourself also. If this is conveyed to public in US, I am sure more will be willing to wear.

Regardless of the #'s I can't believe that there is not more outrage that we were obviously misled regarding masks. Simply because they were not available. Lies and more lies.

 

[ivinsfan]

Regardless of the #'s I can't believe that there is not more outrage that we were obviously misled regarding masks. Simply because they were not available. Lies and more lies.

What's the point of outrage over something in the past..

 

[PatrickA5]

Why are people so angry about having to wear a mask? I have been wearing one when out in public and I don't see any big deal. Is it like when seatbelts were made mandatory and people just did not want to be told what to do?

It CAN'T be that big of a deal to the average person going to the store for 30 minutes. Now if I worked at the store and had to wear one for 8 hours, it probably isn't much fun - which accounts for the large numbers of workers I saw at Wal Mart that are using them as a neck accessory. Also, a lot of them weren't covering their nose, for some reason.

For most people that don't want to wear one, I think it's a matter of freedom of choice (or something like that).

I don't see that it's a problem with getting a mask anymore as there are many ways of buying or making a mask now.

 

[Teacher Terry]

Some seniors can’t afford to give up a fourth of their income. My kids are all suffering economically from this but agree with the shutdown. They don’t want to die for their jobs although they are healthy and range in age from 40-47. We have been extended to 5/15. We will have a slow opening with casinos being among the last. Normally we have a festival every weekend all summer and fall and those are cancelled. We go to restaurants at odd hours so usually not busy. My friend lives in Texas and restaurants can only be at 25% so many aren’t opening. They are predicting that flights will be more expensive because they will have to leave middle seats open, etc. We had round trip nonstop tickets from San Fran to Warsaw for 650.

 

[unclemick]

Hmm - ala Mike Tyson's having a plan til you get hit in the face or the late Johnny Cash's - four feet high and rising it is difficult to look dispassionately at the data when you are involved in the midst of the situation.

I hope I'm still around when the movie/s come out and the post mortem debates of the worldwide results ensue.

Heh heh heh - meanwhile I struggle to adjust my habit patterns on the fly as required in spite of my fondness for Curmudgeonism. I love my whining and bitching but DW sends me to the other room when I'm on a roll.

 

[gwraigty]

An Oversimplified Economic Tale:

Govt. said: We're shutting down non-essential businesses. But don't worry. Employees will get unemployment. Small business owners will get loans. Personal and commercial mortgages and rents will be deferred. Federal stimulus checks are going out to all in early April. Everyone will be able to continue to eat and sleep well until this passes.

Reality Check said: Hah! Good luck with that! Our computers haven't been upgraded since 2004. (Maybe the staff, too.) You'll be trying for days, maybe weeks, to get through the bottleneck to file for unemployment. Our website will crash. Our phone systems will hang up on you. When you finally succeed in filing, we'll make you wait several more weeks to be approved. When will you get your first check? Sorry, my crystal ball has gone dark. Check back tomorrow after you've gotten your latest ration from the food bank. Oh. Sorry to hear that you waited for 18 hours last time and they ran out of food before they got to you. Better luck next time. BTW, we ran out of money for those small business loans. Who knew there were so many small businesses out there? We're looking into maybe, possibly making more money available for those loans, but the guy who runs the printer needs some time off to catch up on his sleep. You understand. Oh. Your landlord doesn't. He wants his rent on time, even though you're not allowed to open up and run your business. Well, that is strange...But you got your federal stimulus check, right? (Cue the sound of crickets...)

The above Reality Check sounds completely ridiculous, like something out of a campy Sci-Fi Horror movie. Sadly, it comes from facts revealed in the daily press conferences in my state, the economic recovery task force committee meetings with testimonies of what shut down businesses of all types and sizes are going through, local news articles and related comments of what people and businesses in my city and county are going through, and if all those testimonies aren't enough, the pictures and videos of the miles-long lines of cars and people hoping to get some food before the distribution site runs out.

Given the above, I just don't think it's fair to accuse people of being willing to let other people die. Many unemployed people are scared, too. Some of them may be running out of money and food, especially if they haven't gotten a penny yet from unemployment after 6 or 7 weeks of being without an income. I'm glad I'm not in their situation. I don't begrudge them for wanting to get back to work. The government "help" has been "out-to-lunch" and appears to have taken a "leave of absence" for all that many unemployed people have seen of it.

And the unemployed with health conditions have a double whammy. There are no easy answers to any of this.