And Texas Caves In

westernrvparkowner wrote:
Does the medical system even matter? If you listen to the experts and actually study the statistics it is possible to conclude the medical system is almost inconsequential. While we hear of treatments such as Chloroquine and Remdesivir much of the media and some of the "experts" say that the evidence of success is anecdotal at best. So apparently we are supposed to cross those off list as actual treatments. Over 80% of the patients who are put on respirators never recover, (and it is logical to assume at least some of those who survive would have survived anyway) so that isn't very helpful either. Is the medical system's current function in this pandemic to provide a bit of palliative care?

It seems to act like most viral diseases: you can't treat the disease, you treat the symptoms and hope the patient is strong enough to fight it off. Seems to be the nature of the beast.

Does the medical system even matter? If you listen to the experts and actually study the statistics it is possible to conclude the medical system is almost inconsequential. While we hear of treatments such as Chloroquine and Remdesivir much of the media and some of the "experts" say that the evidence of success is anecdotal at best. So apparently we are supposed to cross those off list as actual treatments. Over 80% of the patients who are put on respirators never recover, (and it is logical to assume at least some of those who survive would have survived anyway) so that isn't very helpful either. Is the medical system's current function in this pandemic to provide a bit of palliative care?

We need new equipment, like a meter that measures evil, one that measures intelligence, one that measures common sense, civic duty, fairness, humanity, constitutionality, etc etc
We need better voting guidance.

Where is the balance? Opening up too soon can result in much higher death rates because health care systems can become overwhelmed. Herd immunity is the ultimate objective but without a vaccine it will have to be done at a rate which will allow health care systems to cope, otherwise many will die who didn't need to. If fatalities remain in the range of seasonal flu, it is only because our health care systems aren't being overwhelmed. They certainly aren't in the order of seasonal flu in places like New York City, New Orleans, Detroit etc.

Even when government's do loosen up, will many people follow if they still see a threat to their lives? I won't. I think there will be some fundamental changes to society regardless of what governments do, at least until mass vaccination is possible.

Lantley wrote:
Lots of criticism but no substantial ideas on how to proceed. Should we have never shut down? What would the the infection rate have been with no shut down? How many deaths? Now that we have shut down do we just open everything back up tomorrow as though nothing ever happened?
Do we need to tread carefully and wait at least until accurate adequate testing is available nationwide.
Yes we know lots of people are unemployed that was deliberately done to hopefully save lives.
The pandemic, the deaths,the unemployment and the financial crisis are really a crisis created by nature. It has created a tough reality for all of us.
Once upon a time when the going got tough the tough got going. Unfortunately we don't understand tough living, sacrifice, doing things for the good of everyone. We are a bit too caught up in diversity that we can't grasp the idea of "Good of Everyone" vs. "I'm Good"
We live in a "look at me era" were we think sacrifice is something other people do. We think money solves all problems and that somehow if we could get are money back flowing it would resolve the crisis.
Opening the economy without ample testing in place nationwide , will not eliminate the virus, it will only set us back and create more cases, more suffering and more death.

The “me first” cuts both ways. People on both sides of this discussion want what they believe is the right thing for themselves AND for others. They’re just using a different metric to gauge that. The virus will take lives. Shutting down will too. Is saving the lives of primarily elderly folks with other health issues a priority over those that will succumb to other means? Those delayed “elective” medical procedures where cancer or other fatal disease may have been discovered, the prolonged overwhelming of the medical system with routine physical care when they do eventually reopen with a backlog, the suicides, domestic abuse, malnutrition and other collateral damage. There are no easy answers.

Taking measures like shutting some things down is appropriate but with the proper balance. In many places we are quite simply overkilling it to the point where the predictions of death totals are on the order of a seasonal flu, for which we take no severe government action. This pandemic is an out of the ordinary situation and I would argue that if we control it to the point where it isn’t much (medically) worse than other “normal” years then we went too far if for other reason than the collateral damage (in health and lives) we caused saving those additional lives now. I also believe that enough folks are sufficiently educated that opening back up will be nothing like before. Sure there will be plenty of reckless folks but fortunately it takes more than a few to keep a pandemic spreading.

Nobody (especially in government) wants to be the one who “didn’t do everything possible to save lives.” The problem is everyone is so focused on the traceable, measurable here-and-now virus deaths. I don’t see anyone looking at the opportunity cost (including lives lost) to our future.

This is all my opinion, as someone who is not suffering as a result of these measures. It is not about me; it’s about others and our future as a society.

pasusan wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:

rexlion wrote:
We can't wait 18 months to open up the country again. Not with crops rotting in the fields in Florida and California right now, and more crops due to be picked in the next weeks, and spring planting that must take place on time.

When we were asked to agree to give up our liberties due to this virus, we were promised that it would only be in place long enough to flatten the curve of new hospitalization cases. The curve in the US is past peak or peaking (depending upon the locale) right now. We the people should expect the government to keep its word and lift restrictions in the next week or two. Anything else is a betrayal of the citizens' trust.

America is the breadbasket of the world; 18 months of shutdown could cause mass starvation. Here's a story from NBC: crops rotting in fields

Considering the most serious of issues will be in high population density areas, there should be no reason not to get harvesting and planting going. Having a blanket restriction policy isn't necessarily a smart way to go about it. Big cities and high population density areas need to have different restrictions than non-urban areas.

Do you read the news? Farm workers are being hit hard with this. Things are not looking good...

No - I'm not going to cite any particular news source - just do a google search with the words farmworkers and coronavirus.

Okay, I did a Google search as you suggested and came across no data that shows the farmworkers are being hit hard. I've found many references to "it may happen", "it could happen", "farmworkers face many issues", "farmworkers not protected economically". But nothing that reference farmworkers being hit hard. Sorry, maybe you could supply a link or two that says that.

Lantley wrote:

time2roll wrote:

Lantley wrote:
Opening the economy without ample testing in place nationwide , will not eliminate the virus, it will only set us back and create more cases, more suffering and more death.

This could be the eventuality no matter what we do.

My suggestion was just above...

Limited reopening with restrictions such as face coverings should happen sooner than later as far as I am concerned. Yes it will put lives at risk. Remaining closed or remaining home should also be an option for those that feel that is best for them.

Just need to keep from overwhelming the medical system.

I understand your point but we cannot let it be a voluntary decision or luck of the draw to overwhelm the health system.
This is the tough part that lead to the shut down. We cannot let the health system be overwhelmed.
We cannot eliminate or stop the virus just yet (Vaccine) we can only slow it down (social distancing,the shut down).
Voluntary decision making based on do what you are comfortable with will lead to an overwhelmed health system.
A big problem with this virus is we don't know who has it. Many with it don't know they have it. We need testing in order to get ahead of the curve. We need the ability to tell a asymptomatic person to stay home.
We cannot leave it up to a asymptomatic person to use their discretion to stay home. We need the resources and ability to quickly diagnose a asymptomatic person.
Otherwise we are just spinning our wheels and the virus will overwhelm us, Which will be just as bad for the economy as the shutdown.

We have a few hurdles to overcome before we can really get back to normal.

I did not say all was optional. Try reading what I said because I agree with you.

If I said my true feelings about the hysteria and this lockdown, I would be banned on here for life!

time2roll wrote:

Lantley wrote:
Opening the economy without ample testing in place nationwide , will not eliminate the virus, it will only set us back and create more cases, more suffering and more death.

This could be the eventuality no matter what we do.

My suggestion was just above...

Limited reopening with restrictions such as face coverings should happen sooner than later as far as I am concerned. Yes it will put lives at risk. Remaining closed or remaining home should also be an option for those that feel that is best for them.

Just need to keep from overwhelming the medical system.

I understand your point but we cannot let it be a voluntary decision or luck of the draw to overwhelm the health system.
This is the tough part that lead to the shut down. We cannot let the health system be overwhelmed.
We cannot eliminate or stop the virus just yet (Vaccine) we can only slow it down (social distancing,the shut down).
Voluntary decision making based on do what you are comfortable with will lead to an overwhelmed health system.
A big problem with this virus is we don't know who has it. Many with it don't know they have it. We need testing in order to get ahead of the curve. We need the ability to tell a asymptomatic person to stay home.
We cannot leave it up to a asymptomatic person to use their discretion to stay home. We need the resources and ability to quickly diagnose a asymptomatic person.
Otherwise we are just spinning our wheels and the virus will overwhelm us, Which will be just as bad for the economy as the shutdown.

We have a few hurdles to overcome before we can really get back to normal.

Lantley wrote:
Opening the economy without ample testing in place nationwide , will not eliminate the virus, it will only set us back and create more cases, more suffering and more death.

This could be the eventuality no matter what we do.

My suggestion was just above...

Limited reopening with restrictions such as face coverings should happen sooner than later as far as I am concerned. Yes it will put lives at risk. Remaining closed or remaining home should also be an option for those that feel that is best for them.

Just need to keep from overwhelming the medical system.