Quarantine the "at risk" Topic

all3
Posts: 9794 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 306
Prospect
4/15/2020 12:00 PM
bruceleefan
Posts: 785 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 68
Rookie
Anyone who believes two weeks of half assed shutdowns are going to "solve" this thing is kidding themselves.
4/15/2020 1:14 PM
DougOut
Posts: 44898 (0)
Hall of Famer
128
Prospect
Posted by bruceleefan on 4/15/2020 1:14:00 PM (view original):
Anyone who believes two weeks of half assed shutdowns are going to "solve" this thing is kidding themselves.
HI DINO!
4/15/2020 1:17 PM
tangplay
Posts: 12141 (0)
Pro
18 1 1
Veteran
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.
4/15/2020 1:53 PM
DougOut
Posts: 44898 (0)
Hall of Famer
128
Prospect
Not me. And I see both sides. Homes for elderly and sick should be protected.

Over 98% recovery rate. Risk is obesity, high blood pressure, age, cancer etc.

Risk is for people who will die sooner than later. Protect them. End of story.
4/15/2020 2:23 PM
bruceleefan
Posts: 785 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 68
Rookie
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.
4/23/2020 10:56 AM (edited)
bronxcheer
Posts: 17259 (0)
Hall of Famer
298
Hall of Famer
Die for Don the Con's "numbers"!!!!!!
4/23/2020 10:59 AM
tangplay
Posts: 12141 (0)
Pro
18 1 1
Veteran
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.
4/23/2020 11:07 AM
tangplay
Posts: 12141 (0)
Pro
18 1 1
Veteran
I don't feel oppressed because "my right to gather" is being somewhat violated during a ******* pandemic.
4/23/2020 11:07 AM
usf_bulls
Posts: 233 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 18 1
Prospect
Posted by tangplay on 4/23/2020 11:07:00 AM (view original):
I don't feel oppressed because "my right to gather" is being somewhat violated during a ******* pandemic.
No...and most people will not mind having a temporary disruption based on the circumstances.

However, in a strict sense, the constitution does not recognize the government's right to temporarily disrupt the Bill of Rights, even if there seems to be a perfectly compelling reason to do so. For those that insist on being stubborn or hardheaded, they not only have the right but cannot suffer penalty for refusing to comply.
4/23/2020 12:30 PM
tangplay
Posts: 12141 (0)
Pro
18 1 1
Veteran
I don't disagree, necessarily. You shouldn't go to jail for violating quarantine. But the government shouldn't encourage this behavior, either.
4/23/2020 12:47 PM
usf_bulls
Posts: 233 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 18 1
Prospect
Posted by tangplay on 4/23/2020 12:47:00 PM (view original):
I don't disagree, necessarily. You shouldn't go to jail for violating quarantine. But the government shouldn't encourage this behavior, either.
Yup.
4/23/2020 1:14 PM
bruceleefan
Posts: 785 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 68
Rookie
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.

4/23/2020 2:06 PM
bruceleefan
Posts: 785 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 68
Rookie
Posted by tangplay on 4/23/2020 12:47:00 PM (view original):
I don't disagree, necessarily. You shouldn't go to jail for violating quarantine. But the government shouldn't encourage this behavior, either.
Case after case of this happening though.

Women arrested for bringing children to the park.
Man arrested for paddle boarding alone in the ocean.

Lots more examples.

One more time.
EVERYONE is free to stay home if they are concerned, but you can't ask the country to shut down because of that concern. No one can infect you if you stay quarantined.
You do you, and let others do the same.

As an aside I like to poll those who condemn the idea of resuming business for context.

Are you still receiving income?
4/23/2020 2:15 PM (edited)
all3
Posts: 9794 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 306
Prospect
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.
4/23/2020 2:12 PM
◂ Prev 123456 Next ▸
Quarantine the "at risk" Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.