Posted by all3 on 4/23/2020 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, let's allow everyone who unknowingly has the virus run around killing other people. "BRILLIANT" idea. We can make sure 99% of the population is infected in no time.

Again. NO ONE can infect YOU if you stay at home.

Do you believe that we'll get over this with most people never having gotten exposed? Seriously?

You also failed to answer the sidebar question.

Are you still receiving income?

Posted by bruceleefan on 4/23/2020 2:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/23/2020 11:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bruceleefan on 4/23/2020 10:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 4/15/2020 1:53:00 PM (view original):
I didn't see this thread before but this is still a silly idea. For one, who gets to define the "at risk"? Are we strictly limiting it to retirement homes? What about the workers there? Etc. etc. Difficult to do.

Hot take: I don't think the coronavirus is going to be used to strip all of us of our constitutional rights forever. Might sound silly to some of you.

"Not forever" huh?
what IS an acceptable timeframe for your rights to be stripped?

I already said the individual decides if they are at risk and wants to self quarantine.

There is a direct correlation between unemployment and suicide. Over 25M folks have lost their jobs during the lockdown so far.

The shelter in place was NEVER intended to "beat" the virus. It was a tactic used to SLOW the spread to allow hospitals to get adequately supplied and prepared. If any locale is supplied and ready, then there is no reason to keep that locale shutdown.

This is not as far fetched of an idea as you guys are making it out to be. In fact, by May many places will be employing this exact strategy, because it is the right strategy.

I think an acceptable timeline is as long as a deadly virus is spreading across danger.

"There is a direct correlation between unemployment and suicide. Over 25M folks have lost their jobs during the lockdown so far."

Sure, but the virus, if left unchecked, would probably kill more. Furthermore, I would rather have people willingly lose their life due to suicide over people losing their life over something completely out of their control.

"The shelter in place was NEVER intended to "beat" the virus. It was a tactic used to SLOW the spread to allow hospitals to get adequately supplied and prepared. If any locale is supplied and ready, then there is no reason to keep that locale shutdown."

Your assumption is that once we slow the spread, it can never pick up again. This is incorrect. There is a risk that if we reopen everything, the virus will come back harder in late summer/fall and then we are right back where we started.

Strictly responding to your last paragraph.

No, that is NOT my assumption at all.
It WILL pick up again. But NOW we are more aptly prepared.

Again, MOST people do not die from this. IF you feel you are "at risk", or just simply feel like it's not worth taking the risk of resuming your life, then you have every right to shelter in place until 2021 or even longer.

But shutting down the whole country indefinitely, putting millions out of work, and destroying lives of small business owners over a virus that is very low risk for over 95% of the population is not only unsustainable it is tyrannical.

Let's say we have a family who feels that they are suitably not "at risk" enough to be worried about the virus. They re-enter the workforce, and somehow catch the disease without knowing it. Later on, they pay a visit to Grandma at the old folks home. Uh-Oh! Now Grandma is at-risk!

The virus doesn't pick and choose who it affects. The more people who go out, the more people who have the risk of getting the virus, which makes the at-risk more vulnerable, regardless of their decisions. Furthermore, even the not "at risk" are going to need some sort of medical attention if they get the virus, which makes less time and resources for the others, who actually need the care. This is the entire point of "slowing the spread".

The fact that small business owners are hurt and people are getting laid off is a major problem, but this is a ******* pandemic, and that's going to be an unfortunate side effect of it. The government should absolutely be doing everything it can do to give those who have been laid off some stability. However, the best hope for the economy right now is the virus going away completely and killing off as few people as possible. I believe that re-opening everything will cause the virus to stick around longer, thus hurting the economy more. When America re-opens, I want a huge economic boom, not a small sputter before everything goes to **** again.

People who are trying to quarantine can still get the virus... we still have to shop, and we aren't in complete solitude 100% of the time.

Going to see grandma in the old folks home is stupid.

You think the virus will just magically "go away"? It won't.

The vast majority, (90%+) of people DO NOT require medical attention.

You believe that the DURATION of the virus is determined by how long we stay in lock down? This would only be true if EVERY SINGLE PERSON sheltered in place for about 4 to 6 weeks. You can't possibly believe that's ever going to happen.

Additionally we can still practice some degree of social distancing. We don't preteand there isn't any risk and go back to life before the virus, we still take the precautions and limit our exposure to others the best we can.

Suicide isn't the only deaths you'll see from decimating people's livelihoods. People will die in the streets, as they lose their jobs, cars, homes, etc.

If it saves just one life,
shouldn't we imprison everyone
for the rest of their lives?

No one ever responded to this either.

Obviously, no one agrees with the above, yet equally obvious is the fact that many do have SOME # where they're okay with this.

Why NOT imprison everyone? Will definitely save lives. I thought we were all about saving lives here.

Going to see grandma in the old folks home is stupid.

What about shopping? I need to get food and routine supplies, is there a zero percent chance that I will get the virus in that case, even if I choose to quarantine? You are honestly making the argument that if you quarantine, you have a zero percent chance of dying even if the economy re-opens. This argument makes zero sense empirically or logically. If it were true that everyone who chooses to stay at home is completely safe, I might agree with you.

The vast majority, (90%+) of people DO NOT require medical attention.

This is wrong. Even if not everyone will die from the virus, many will still require medical attention.

You believe that the DURATION of the virus is determined by how long we stay in lock down? This would only be true if EVERY SINGLE PERSON sheltered in place for about 4 to 6 weeks. You can't possibly believe that's ever going to happen.

Absolutely. Maybe not 4 to 6 weeks, but you don't think that quarantining in general will cause the virus to die out faster? From what I have read, you can still get the virus even if you have already had it. If we re-opened, there's a good chance the virus could still be an issue a year(s) from now.

Suicide isn't the only deaths you'll see from decimating people's livelihoods. People will die in the streets, as they lose their jobs, cars, homes, etc.

And that's where the government needs to step in to prevent this from happening.There is a light at the end of the tunnel, but it will come sooner if we all follow the protocol.

?Why NOT imprison everyone? Will definitely save lives. I thought we were all about saving lives here.

Randomly imprisoning people wouldn't save lives, and serves no purpose. This isn't analogous because there is no motive for the action. Guess what? Viruses and natural disasters have negative consequences. There isn't a perfect option. It sucks. But as a country, we need to unite and tough it out by not being morons.

"Why NOT imprison everyone?"

Because imprisoning folks requires big $$$ to feed and house them.
AND it's a tad bit in conflict with our civil liberty principles................

BUT ASKING folks to stay home and "ordering" non essential businesses to TEMPORARILY close by Governmental executive decree is (apparently) permissible, temporarily, under emergency declaration.

At least until some judge somewhere declares otherwise.

The $$ question, though, IS a valid question.
It IS easier to say keep it shut down IF you haven't lost all your income!

But, I've got another question for you.

Let's say you're a really rich adult like for example Robert Kraft, or anybody else you know and love that likes to frequent brothels, etd.

You sampling the wares on your visit this month? Or in May? How about June?
Willing to do that gorgeous beauty you just met who'd like to receive some biz? From YOU!

^^ good point that I forgot. I still don't support imprisoning people for violating stay-at home orders.

If you imprisoned everyone you eliminate:
all swimming pool drownings
all auto accidents
all gun related deaths

Just for starters.

To argue that it's wrong is fine.
To argue that it wouldn't save lives is ignorant or deceitful.

Sure, but you also wouldn't be able to feed anyone.

Posted by laramiebob on 4/23/2020 3:05:00 PM (view original):
"Why NOT imprison everyone?"

Because imprisoning folks requires big $$$ to feed and house them.
AND it's a tad bit in conflict with our civil liberty principles................

BUT ASKING folks to stay home and "ordering" non essential businesses to TEMPORARILY close by Governmental executive decree is (apparently) permissible, temporarily, under emergency declaration.

At least until some judge somewhere declares otherwise.

The $$ question, though, IS a valid question.
It IS easier to say keep it shut down IF you haven't lost all your income!

But, I've got another question for you.

Let's say you're a really rich adult like for example Robert Kraft, or anybody else you know and love that likes to frequent brothels, etd.

You sampling the wares on your visit this month? Or in May? How about June?
Willing to do that gorgeous beauty you just met who'd like to receive some biz? From YOU!

Cost shouldn't enter the equation.
We're talking about saving lives.

Yes, we are only violating your liberty "for your safety".
The Germans used this excuse all the time back in the 30s and 40s.

If Robert Kraft wants to bang a prostitute that's between him and the prostitute. I don't care one way or the other.

So no one will fess up about their own personal income?

Important context being omitted.

This dude is further out there than even b_l ever was. I've got to believe he's a



simply looking for something to do. Not wasting any more of my time. Good luck to those who choose to do so.

Bone Spurs acting up?

So crazy I had to be a troll huh?

"Locked-down California runs out of reasons for surprising surge - POLITICO"

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/23/california-covid-surge-450315


Buncha fckn sheep.