And Texas Caves In

way2roll wrote:

DallasSteve wrote:
And now Mr. Never Shake Hands Again, aka Dr. Fauci, says the total US death toll from the virus looks like it will be about 60,000. And we shut down this country for that? When they wanted to stir this country into hysteria they were saying a minimum of 100,000 to 200,000 with the possibility of 1 to 2 million under a worst case scenario. And now they say about 60,000 deaths. I'll take the under on that over/under bet. That means I think it will be less than 60,000. Who wants my money?

Over 3 million people die in this country every year. Call me when there's a real crisis.

One of the points you aren't grasping (out of a lot of points you aren't grasping) is that if the death toll is as low as 60k, it's largely due to the mandatory shut downs to inhibit infections and slow things down. Not sure why I waste my time typing this. Some folks prefer blinders to anything but what they want to believe. I am just glad people in a position to make these decisions are smarter than the folks who prefer higher body counts.

X2 couldn't agree more some people are totally selfish and thank God don't represent the majority. Arrogance is certainly predominant in some posters agendas. It is a shame bars are closed as some here need to go vent in an atmosphere more likely to find agreeable lemmings.

DallasSteve wrote:
And now Mr. Never Shake Hands Again, aka Dr. Fauci, says the total US death toll from the virus looks like it will be about 60,000. And we shut down this country for that? When they wanted to stir this country into hysteria they were saying a minimum of 100,000 to 200,000 with the possibility of 1 to 2 million under a worst case scenario. And now they say about 60,000 deaths. I'll take the under on that over/under bet. That means I think it will be less than 60,000. Who wants my money?

Over 3 million people die in this country every year. Call me when there's a real crisis.

One of the points you aren't grasping (out of a lot of points you aren't grasping) is that if the death toll is as low as 60k, it's largely due to the mandatory shut downs to inhibit infections and slow things down. Not sure why I waste my time typing this. Some folks prefer blinders to anything but what they want to believe. I am just glad people in a position to make these decisions are smarter than the folks who prefer higher body counts.

DallasSteve wrote:
And now Mr. Never Shake Hands Again, aka Dr. Fauci, says the total US death toll from the virus looks like it will be about 60,000. And we shut down this country for that? When they wanted to stir this country into hysteria they were saying a minimum of 100,000 to 200,000 with the possibility of 1 to 2 million under a worst case scenario. And now they say about 60,000 deaths. I'll take the under on that over/under bet. That means I think it will be less than 60,000. Who wants my money?

Over 3 million people die in this country every year. Call me when there's a real crisis.

Let me play Captain Obvious now .... the expected death toll has dropped because of the actions taken i.e. lockdown/stay at home orders. We shut down the country so we didn't get the 1 to 2 million worse case scenario.

x20 - We've already screwed our kids and grandkids. Our generation should be real ashamed of the mess we have left them with. They'd be better off if the coronavirus took our whole generation out.

"Wow, how this thread has run.

So many old, sick people in a panic. I'm 63. I have pretty good health, but I do have some risk factors like high blood pressure, even though I'm not fat. But I'm willing to risk my life (the very small risk that this is) by getting life back to normal so that they financial burden won't be so heavy on my children and grandchildren. But a lot of old and sick are so afraid of dying that they would rather put this burden onto future generations.

Who is really compassionate and who is really selfish in this debate?"

x10. In full disclosure, I'm two years younger and I believe 90% of this is fear porn and the high-powered medical folks falling in love with being on TV every day and being treated as the Grand Poobah ("Never shake hands again"...:R;) regardless, I'd be happy to not only risk but give up my life if it meant my kids and grandkids had the same opportunities that my generation has had....and to the immediate retort "you can't make that choice for me/others", well, the "keep it shut down" argument is making the choice to economically impair hundreds of millions of people, not just those losing their jobs now but the generations to come that will have a reduced standard of living. We've just acquired an additional 5? trillion dollars in national debt; will that happen every time a new disease springs up? We'll be a vassal state before much longer if that's the case.

Tick tock

pasusan wrote:

ExxWhy wrote:
Remind me again which hospitals have been overwhelmed?

Well - here's one...

"Detroit hospital workers say people are dying in the ER hallways before help can arrive"

Prior to the pandemic Detroit was considered to be one of the unhealthiest US cities ranking 165 out of 174 metro areas by Wallethub.com. Even worse, it's healthcare system ranked 170th out of 174. Combine that with it's dual demographic issues of poverty (3 times the national average) and the highest percentage of black population (blacks are proportionally at higher risk of major complications from COVID19) of any major city and you have a perfect storm for problems. Those problems do not translate to the rest of the country. Using Detroit as an evidence of a nationwide problem is not accurate.

schlep1967 wrote:

Walaby wrote:
In terms of criteria to return to work, I think one of the first considerations should be the extent of the virus in a particular locale (city/county). Now, impossible really to quantify that properly without testing everyone. But, clearly, some locales are better off and less infected than others. My county has a population of 157,000(ish) and currently has 96 confirmed cases, with 6 deaths. If those numbers stay, or start downward, then I would suggest that a locale like that can be a candidate for reopening sooner rather than later.

Clearly major cities are not going to be able to open as quickly as smaller population areas. BUT, do we, as a nation, make everyone abide by the criteria applied to large and densely populated areas? I would submit the answer should be no.

Mike

While this looks good on the surface, all it would take would be one out of town traveler stopping for gas in your county, and everything could start again.

This is not going to end in the next few months. We may go back to work and out to eat but people are still going to get sick. Right know it is hitting the large cities the hardest. Not overwhelming the Hospitals in those cities is the key to keeping deaths lower. And once it is slowed in the cities it will spread to the suburbs and out into the country. And then those people will have their turn in the cities hospitals. Because there are not many hospitals out in the country.

It’s hitting the large cities the hardest because the population density is highest. It’s not as prevalent in the suburbs because it never will be, not because it hasn’t gotten spread to there yet. So someone stopping in for gas won’t change anything really as the virus has already touched most every area of the country anyway. It’s like dropping matches randomly. Some areas will fizzle out and others will turn into a wildfire.

Oregon’s first documented case was in satellite town to Portland, around 7 weeks ago. Our hospitals are far from crowded. As others have said, the same measures are not needed everywhere.

I agree that the goal has always been to lessen the burden on the medical infrastructure. In places where that has/is happening we should consider loosing the reins a bit, IMO.

And now Mr. Never Shake Hands Again, aka Dr. Fauci, says the total US death toll from the virus looks like it will be about 60,000. And we shut down this country for that? When they wanted to stir this country into hysteria they were saying a minimum of 100,000 to 200,000 with the possibility of 1 to 2 million under a worst case scenario. And now they say about 60,000 deaths. I'll take the under on that over/under bet. That means I think it will be less than 60,000. Who wants my money?

Over 3 million people die in this country every year. Call me when there's a real crisis.

This is a "free country". We have the freedom to use different ways of finding our facts, and from different sources. Also, We have the freedom to be divided,....about 50/50 mas o menos. It keeps the forums going.

Wow, how this thread has run.

So many old, sick people in a panic. I'm 63. I have pretty good health, but I do have some risk factors like high blood pressure, even though I'm not fat. But I'm willing to risk my life (the very small risk that this is) by getting life back to normal so that they financial burden won't be so heavy on my children and grandchildren. But a lot of old and sick are so afraid of dying that they would rather put this burden onto future generations.

Who is really compassionate and who is really selfish in this debate?