Well yeah fear never helps. But the raw numbers are starting to shoot some holes into the idea that if we weren’t scared we wouldn’t be overwhelmed. Areas where this thing is exploding are already hurting even places with our most resources.
This is starting to hit rural places that don’t have any hospital beds. We are certainly in and headed to an area where a lot of deaths are going to come from a lack of care. Even if all those deaths aren’t necessarily just corona.
New York is asking for 45,000 more medical personnel. Even if we say they don’t need half of that it’s a massive number. We’re looking at the potential for 1,000’s of deaths per day. And it’s probably impossible to calculate the true number of deaths related to the virus. Hospitals are already making choices on resources that will hurt those without the virus. It’s forcing them to try and pick and choose.
You made the argument that a drunk driver doesn’t know he’s drunk just like a person could be a covid carrier and not know but, you have already admitted you were aware you were drunk when you’ve been drunk. Also, no one starts out drunk. They knowingly pursue a course of action that leads to being drunk.
Why would making an analogy to something make you think it needs to be punished? Again you’re making an argument I’m not making and insisting that I make it.
I was merely saying that when you choose to drive drunk you put others at risk. When you intentionally don’t follow guidelines here you do the same. At least based on what medical professionals say.
I haven’t said anything about punishment nor advocated for Corona laws to punish people for being outside. I think it’s selfish to gather in large crowds right now. But I’m not advocating for anything you want me to be.
I did make it clear. But others ain’t accepting that shit. At least if I would have said criminals I wouldn’t have had to spend so many posts saying I didn’t. And then I could have also please the people who apparently really wish I would have.
If I say it’s worse than something that is punished (and don’t disagree with punishing the other thing), I can’t see how I could argue the worse thing shouldn’t be punished.
I meant from the potential to take lives. I could infect 100 people who could infect countless lives. It’s really easy to not drive drunk. It’s really hard to not infect people with a virus you may not even know you have.
I might have it right now and I’ve been multiple places in the state helping kids in emergencies. I could have infected a shit ton of people. But I didn’t know it. I couldn’t have prevented it. I can absolutely easily make sure I don’t get drunk and hit someone while drunk.
I thought he might be kidding but given the way arguments have been twisted I leaned towards no.
People have died and more people will. I guess the key question is what number of deaths is acceptable? Consciously or unconsciously this decision is made regularly and across various issues. This virus is being compared to a war. Wars have carefully considered collateral damage. What is the price we are willing to pay to save lives? Is the cost the same for one that would likely die within within a year or two due to natural causes (which you could argue COVID is) vs a young healthy individual.
It really goes back to the original point that it’s not black and white. Is giving an elderly person an extra month of life worth financial destruction for a young family? Is it worth millions of kids losing a few months of public education? Is it worth the economic harm that will undoubtedly make healthcare in the future less affordable for the poor than it already is? Is it worth the societal and governmental control repercussions we already see? Is the increase in government a silver lining?
I have no idea. I think what makes this different is we aren’t talking about a set thing. We don’t know if the number of dead is 100,000 with this action. Is it 5 million without it? We have no idea how long, how many people will get sick, etc. I don’t like the comparisons to actual war for a lot of reasons, but we can ignore them for now. You can’t reason with a virus and you can’t nuke a virus and get them to surrender like the Japanese.
How do we know they will be financially destroyed? What does that mean? For how long is that “destruction.” Are you under the impression that the elderly who are dying in a month the only people at risk? If they were I think this would change everything. Certain people more at risk doesn’t mean others aren’t. We are looking at the potential for thousands to be dead daily, and a shit ton more sick and hospitalized.
Why is this? We weren’t working on it and some didn’t give a shit when the economy was flying. Maybe this makes people realize how important health care for all is. I think it is more likely to advance health care coverage being not just for the rich instead of the opposite.
This is your only question that I can answer, but only with opinion. Neither of us can answer the other questions posed, nor can any expert - if one truly exists in this case.
I tend to agree with your response here, hence why I asked if it may be a silver lining. I’m not advocating for or against federal healthcare for all (not that I’m avoiding the debate I just don’t have the time to follow this site like I used to and when I try to multitask I say dumb things like Sweden is in the Western Hemisphere!), but if one was for it this would certainly be a case of “not letting a crisis go to waste”. You put Medicare for all to a public vote today and I’m sure it would pass.
More or less so yes. I’m probably about the same age as you two are, actually. I’m in full agreement with you, but also I really hate the idea that this sort of implied attitude of “hey you old people get out of our way–its the economy” has taken hold in certain specific areas of media (cough cough). Like, we’re talking about life. And if someone has any fucking respect at all for life in general they should not be saying that old people should just risk it (or implying in a roundabout way which is really just the cowardly way of saying the same thing). This goes back to what AG said about the callousness of people in his thread. I just want to scream.
I’m glad to have survived sir, and that your rant wasn’t directed at me! Thank you very much for the compliment. I try to contribute where I can (which admittedly isn’t as often as I’d like to think it is lol).
The thing is I think a lot of people take for granted that young people don’t want to be doing what they are now.
I work with a lot of kids 14-18. Most of my coworkers are between 25 and 45. Not the highest at risk people by far. And the vast majority of them don’t want to work not because they are lazy but because they don’t want to infect loved ones.
A lot of young people don’t want their parents and grandparents hospitalized or dead. Even if they have minimal fear of the consequences of them having it from their own health perspective.
It’s anecdotal but my perception is the exact opposite. Sure there’s the young, dumb, and invincible crowd ignoring this; but my experience is that it’s far more the baby boomer’s and gen x making the stock market the top priority right now. I’m not trying to get into a generational debate either. USMC already summed that up very well. Going by the 1980 cutoff we’re both millennials. I hear the millennial complaints regularly and like to remind older people that “technically” I’m one. The response is always something along the line of “well you’re different.”
No kidding. Everyone’s different. Quit allowing the MSM to create a generational bias. Morons and idiots transcend generation.
