And Texas Caves In

Nothing has changed one bit around ole RVnet has it ROFLMAO?

fj12ryder wrote:
Do you suppose that might be because we have more tests to check for confirmed cases? More tests equals more confirmed cases. How many people do you think get checked in India? What about Spain, number 30 population and second most number of confirmed cases, or Italy, number 23 by population but third in number of cases. Pretty meaningless data, all things considered.

No. USA most recent figures are 3.2 tests per 100,000 population (near the bottom of the barrel). Canada is at a lousy 8 per 100 k, and some countries are at 16 per 100 k. Unfortunately I did not bookmark the page.

I did find this: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/17/us/coronavirus-testing-data.html But it is quite out of date.

shelbyfv wrote:

wnjj wrote:
there probably isn't anything more I can say about this.

Is that a promise?:R Seriously, I think most folks would prefer they or a family member didn't get sick with this thing. You're free to catch it if you want, just stay home and away from the hospital.

Yep. I promise I will not discuss the idea of direct starvation as a result of Covid19. It was nothing but an exaggeration by you for the sake of argument anyway. Just like saying anyone who thinks we should consider lifting government imposed restrictions automatically wants to "catch it" or wants to infect others.

wnjj wrote:

way2roll wrote:
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.

I enjoy a good discussion which consists of opinions, some of which is backed up by facts and some by thoughtful reasoning since facts cannot possibly exist for the future, only predictions.

Where you start to lose me is when you (as so many others on one side of this discussion seem to) make it personal. Why do you presume I will refute facts or snarkily assume have a PHD? I'm just a guy who can't stand the hyped, out of context "percentages" being constantly tossed around. You're also presenting a classic straw man: Never once did I say that more lives will be lost due to a mandatory shutdown.

My opinion: A prolonged shutdown will result in some lives lost, many more lives impacted and the amount of the government dependency expanded, likely permanently. It will be far too easy to print and hand out money every time there is a crisis, real or not. That in itself is a far greater danger. I'm not to naive to understand that is precisely what some (in particular some of those in charge) are wanting. There is no perceived "cost" to them when this happens in fact it's an upside.

wnjj

I think you make some great arguments. The problem is the "hide under my bed" folks don't want to have an intelligent discussion. They already have what they want so they want to squelch any serious discussion.

There are a lot of ways the shutdown will hurt and kill people. It is immoral to hurt and kill one group of innocent persons to save another group of innocent persons. That's all there is to it. It doesn't matter which path saves more lives. It is immoral to intentionally hurt or kill one group of persons even if it saves a larger group of cowards.

That's what we're doing with the shut down. By closing gyms, parks, and keeping people more sedentary, less mobile, there will be some long-term increase in obesity and diabetes and other fatal diseases. We are trading young and healthy lives to save old and unhealthy lives. WayToRoll talks about idiotic. You couldn't choose a more idiotic and immoral solution than the shutdown.

wnjj wrote:
there probably isn't anything more I can say about this.

Is that a promise?:R Seriously, I think most folks would prefer they or a family member didn't get sick with this thing. You're free to catch it if you want, just stay home and away from the hospital.

OK forget the confirmed cases and go with deaths, no testing involved.

US has 5% (1/20) of the worlds population with 20% (1/5) of the deaths world wide.

Deleted, double post.

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.

Do you suppose that might be because we have more tests to check for confirmed cases? More tests equals more confirmed cases. How many people do you think get checked in India? What about Spain, number 30 population and second most number of confirmed cases, or Italy, number 23 by population but third in number of cases. Pretty meaningless data, all things considered.

shelbyfv wrote:
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.

Yeah, because if something isn't white it must be black. :R Is there no gray area?

There are stories of lines and shortages at food banks if you believe them. If you don't think that will impact anybody's health or well being there probably isn't anything more I can say about this.

way2roll wrote:
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.

I enjoy a good discussion which consists of opinions, some of which is backed up by facts and some by thoughtful reasoning since facts cannot possibly exist for the future, only predictions.

Where you start to lose me is when you (as so many others on one side of this discussion seem to) make it personal. Why do you presume I will refute facts or snarkily assume have a PHD? I'm just a guy who can't stand the hyped, out of context "percentages" being constantly tossed around. You're also presenting a classic straw man: Never once did I say that more lives will be lost due to a mandatory shutdown.

My opinion: A prolonged shutdown will result in some lives lost, many more lives impacted and the amount of the government dependency expanded, likely permanently. It will be far too easy to print and hand out money every time there is a crisis, real or not. That in itself is a far greater danger. I'm not to naive to understand that is precisely what some (in particular some of those in charge) are wanting. There is no perceived "cost" to them when this happens in fact it's an upside.