And Texas Caves In

ExxWhy wrote:
If you gave me the choice between saving an 80 yr old with a 1 yr life expectancy vs saving some random 45 yr old from financial ruin, alcoholism, destruction of his household with a major impact on his children and all the future problems that results in, then yes I will say sorry old guy.

Please explain how fighting to keep my 80 year old brother Bill alive is going to turn your 45 year old nephew into a wife beating, alcoholic, suicidal maniac? This should make some great fiction.

Apparently it takes about 30-40 days for a person to starve. If that's true we should be getting reports of unemployment related starvation deaths pretty soon from the more proactive states. Texas deaths may take a few more weeks to show up.

wnjj wrote:

Boon Docker wrote:
Wow!
The US has 5% of the worlds population and 30% of the confirmed cases in the whole world.
For the authorities or anyone else advocating the lifting of the lock down is absolutely clueless beyond belief.
I'm sure glad I live in Canada where common sense still prevails.

Did you consider how many tests are available in India, or how much truthful information come from China? Baseless percentages sure make things look bad, don't they?

Per the CDC - 22,000 people have died in the past 30 days due to the COVID in the US alone. that's a real number - although I have a feeling that you will find some way to say it's false news, or incorrect due to some data error because you obviously hold PHD's in statistics and disease control and somehow can refute these numbers.

So question for you, Where's YOUR evidence that the mandatory shutdown will kill more people than that? What's the number and at what rate? Links and supporting data is always helpful.

way2roll wrote:

wnjj wrote:

way2roll wrote:

ExxWhy wrote:
What conditions have I changed to suit my argument? Simple question for you. Does the current situation with the economy largely shut down cost lives or not?

This banter back and forth is tiresome especially with someone who refutes evidence to start with. You ask questions that you don't really want truthful answers to. Tons of evidence to support that the shutdown has mitigated and slowed transmission. In other words, things would be much worse. You don't think that more sick or dead wouldn't be a drain on the economy? I'd provide links, but when anyone has done so you don't seem to think it has any value. So this is a moot point. Your arguments are largely baseless and completely slanted to so suit your agenda. If you think walking over bodies to save the economy is a good tactic, then I am thankful for the powers that be disagree with you. In any pandemic the most effective methods of control are quarantine to slow the progression and transmission. My teenager understands that. If you don't quarantine, things spread faster and more people die. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Well, maybe it is to some... You obviously think what you want to think, Good luck to you.

So in other words you won't answer his simple question, which as he pointed out is at the very heart of this debate. In my opinion, lives will be lost either way. Which ones are more important?

Sigh.....If anyone thinks that more lives will be lost due to a down economy than the uncontrolled spread of the COVID virus there is no logic or evidence that can overcome that level of reality detachment. If the argument is to let a global pandemic that has managed to kill so many people in such a short amount of time, go uncontrolled, because to quarantine people in an effort to save lives would actually kill more people as a by product due to drug and alcohol addiction, then there is no point in answering that question. It's idiotic.

You really think the only alternative to government-mandated shutdown orders is "uncontrolled spread"? You're right, that's tough to argue with. Consider, however, a middle ground where people voluntarily wash their hands more, avoid close contact with strangers and where the at-risk stay isolated and life starts getting back to normal. A lot of people's behaviors have been permanently altered regardless of what restrictions stay in place.

It's not just about addicts. That was merely one example. You're also forgetting those who are not get the routine care and disease screenings that save many lives. I'm sure there are more. It's easy to point at the data and quantify losses on the Covid19 side (well, if you ignore the constantly changing data there). It's not so easy to pin down the opportunity cost of over-reacting.

Also, as terrible as it sounds and few want to say this but ethically you have to weigh the cost of a nearly complete life with "underlying medical conditions" versus a younger one without.

Boon Docker wrote:
Wow!
The US has 5% of the worlds population and 30% of the confirmed cases in the whole world.
For the authorities or anyone else advocating the lifting of the lock down is absolutely clueless beyond belief.
I'm sure glad I live in Canada where common sense still prevails.

Did you consider how many tests are available in India, or how much truthful information come from China? Baseless percentages sure make things look bad, don't they?

DallasSteve wrote:
The last bastion of sanity has jumped on the "stay at home" bandwagon. They just sent me an email that they have closed all state parks to save the 1% who may die from the dreaded super virus. Texas was once a great state.

Hey - find a couple of friends, give each a big Texas handshake, grab a six pack of Lone Star - and tip 'em to the one percenters !!..:R

.

wnjj wrote:

way2roll wrote:

ExxWhy wrote:
What conditions have I changed to suit my argument? Simple question for you. Does the current situation with the economy largely shut down cost lives or not?

This banter back and forth is tiresome especially with someone who refutes evidence to start with. You ask questions that you don't really want truthful answers to. Tons of evidence to support that the shutdown has mitigated and slowed transmission. In other words, things would be much worse. You don't think that more sick or dead wouldn't be a drain on the economy? I'd provide links, but when anyone has done so you don't seem to think it has any value. So this is a moot point. Your arguments are largely baseless and completely slanted to so suit your agenda. If you think walking over bodies to save the economy is a good tactic, then I am thankful for the powers that be disagree with you. In any pandemic the most effective methods of control are quarantine to slow the progression and transmission. My teenager understands that. If you don't quarantine, things spread faster and more people die. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Well, maybe it is to some... You obviously think what you want to think, Good luck to you.

So in other words you won't answer his simple question, which as he pointed out is at the very heart of this debate. In my opinion, lives will be lost either way. Which ones are more important?

Sigh.....If anyone thinks that more lives will be lost due to a down economy than the uncontrolled spread of the COVID virus there is no logic or evidence that can overcome that level of reality detachment. If the argument is to let a global pandemic that has managed to kill so many people in such a short amount of time, go uncontrolled, because to quarantine people in an effort to save lives would actually kill more people as a by product due to drug and alcohol addiction, then there is no point in answering that question. It's idiotic.

way2roll wrote:

ExxWhy wrote:
What conditions have I changed to suit my argument? Simple question for you. Does the current situation with the economy largely shut down cost lives or not?

This banter back and forth is tiresome especially with someone who refutes evidence to start with. You ask questions that you don't really want truthful answers to. Tons of evidence to support that the shutdown has mitigated and slowed transmission. In other words, things would be much worse. You don't think that more sick or dead wouldn't be a drain on the economy? I'd provide links, but when anyone has done so you don't seem to think it has any value. So this is a moot point. Your arguments are largely baseless and completely slanted to so suit your agenda. If you think walking over bodies to save the economy is a good tactic, then I am thankful for the powers that be disagree with you. In any pandemic the most effective methods of control are quarantine to slow the progression and transmission. My teenager understands that. If you don't quarantine, things spread faster and more people die. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Well, maybe it is to some... You obviously think what you want to think, Good luck to you.

So in other words you don't want to answer his simple question, which as he pointed out is at the very heart of this debate. In my opinion, lives will be lost either way. Which ones are more important? There is balance needed here which can easily be taken way too far one way.

ExxWhy wrote:
What conditions have I changed to suit my argument? Simple question for you. Does the current situation with the economy largely shut down cost lives or not?

This banter back and forth is tiresome especially with someone who refutes evidence to start with. You ask questions that you don't really want truthful answers to. Tons of evidence to support that the shutdown has mitigated and slowed transmission. In other words, things would be much worse. You don't think that more sick or dead wouldn't be a drain on the economy? I'd provide links, but when anyone has done so you don't seem to think it has any value. So this is a moot point. Your arguments are largely baseless and completely slanted to so suit your agenda. If you think walking over bodies to save the economy is a good tactic, then I am thankful for the powers that be disagree with you. In any pandemic the most effective methods of control are quarantine to slow the progression and transmission. My teenager understands that. If you don't quarantine, things spread faster and more people die. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Well, maybe it is to some... You obviously think what you want to think, Good luck to you.

Wow!
The US has 5% of the worlds population and 30% of the confirmed cases in the whole world.
For the authorities or anyone else advocating the lifting of the lock down is absolutely clueless beyond belief.
I'm sure glad I live in Canada where common sense still prevails.