I think this is the key. As a society we have a hard time bench marking these things and people have different personal levels. How much voter fraud is ok? How many traffic deaths are ok? How many gun deaths are ok? How many drunk driver accidents and deaths are ok? How many vaccine deaths or complications are ok?
The common line is 1 is too many - but that isn’t the true because we continue to allow these things in society. There is always a trade off X deaths are ok so that the rest of us can drive or drink or whatever. In this case it would be how many covid deaths and sicknesses are worth keeping society moving? For people that personally experienced a covid death or serious illness then you probably side towards the covid deaths are really important. If your business went bankrupt or your family or friends did you may side on the keeping business running and society open was more important. That personal experience is very relevant in forming your position. Kind of like if you had a relative killed by a drunk driver and your position on alcohol.
I don’t have an answer for that. It sounds harsh that we trade lives - but that is what we do. We trade lives for fun, access and convenience. The question isn’t do you trade lives, the question is how many lives are you willing to trade? How many lives is society willing to trade?
We have had and will continue to have a number of difficult decisions to make, including whether to get vaccinated, whether we should vaccinate children, etc.
Those discussions are complicated by the accumulation of data.
But painting huge swaths of the population who may have lost someone, are in danger of losing someone, or like @TheShowDawg have immediate access to realtime outcomes and data - all as having “Irrational fear” of the virus is especially cynical and unhelpful to the discussion.
One other small point about how hard the media gets blamed for sensationalizing / politicizing the virus. For all the discussion and debate they offer up about the virus, showing the harsh realities on a daily basis has not been done. To an extent that it can be argued that the real impacts of the virus have been swept away from public perception. We are all busy watching 19 year olds kids dunk basketballs and political talking heads grandstanding on TV like business as usual. But behind the scenes, people are still sick and dying. I’m not saying we should show that, but there is a tendency that the masses only pay attention and take things seriously when it is shoved in their faces. Cue up any number of people who had their face reality moments when it hit them personally. Sadly, that is the way of our society.
Long term complications and deaths from COVID among otherwise healthy people are rare. You mention above that “many” of the people that are contracting COVID are experiencing long term effects. Many is defined “a large number” or “majority”. Is there data to suggest that of the 132 mil people infected, over 65 mil will suffer long term effects? That certainly is a game changer and would sway my opinion tremendously.
I can’t answer the how many deaths questions. It’s rhetorical anyway and only used to support a holier than thou position. We as a society have always made that trade off. Since 2000 there have been 33 NCAA football player deaths. A much larger number % wise. Are you still watching/supporting NCAA football? What’s the number for you before you quit watching or supporting? The main issue with COVID deaths is we don’t know how many of the 2.9 mil would have happened anyway? With 80% of the deaths being people 65 or older its safe to assume a large amount.
I have never said anyone’s pain for losing someone from COVID is irrational. To suggest otherwise is dishonest.
I didn’t say “only 100”. That came from John Hopkins. Again to say I said it is dishonest.
It’s a terrible disease that has wreaked havoc and despair on many people unfortunately. Our reaction as a nation was slow and chaotic at best. We should be protecting/vaccinating those most vulnerable. The good news is that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
I am sorry this virus has affected you negatively. As I said before, you should take whatever precautions you deem necessary based on your experiences. It matters not to me. Just don’t try and force those measures on me or vilify and misrepresent me publicly.
My point originally was that a lot of the protocols that were put in place and still in place were born of irrational fear. As stated by others, once the data was clear who was affected, we should have pivoted but we didn’t.
So you don’t know the number of deaths and negative outcomes necessary to do so, but you feel perfectly comfortable reiterating that this is irrational fear?
When enough people die at an intersection, they put up a signal. Yes there is data but there is ultimately a number.
The argument falls apart though because everyone has to stop. Not just some, but all, to protect everyone. Why do you stop? Because the negative consequences and impact is to you and it is immediate.
If you think about it, it is actually an amazing parallel to what we are dealing with.
I haven’t done that and that’s rich coming from the guy who deleted all his posts that cursed me and called me names.
Just move on. My original post had nothing to do with you or was directed at you. It was a statement about how some people have developed an irrational fear. You ran with it and developed a narrative that didn’t exist. To prove some point I guess.
I understand it’s the current society we live in. Someone says something that you remotely may disagree with and you vilify, shout down or misrepresent what they say to shut them up. You may even resort to a juvenile act of changing your message board name. To cover your own hide, you delete posts where you may have done the same thing you’re accusing the other person of doing. It’s unfortunately where we are. I’m sorry you feel the need.
I am sure you are a fine person who just has a different opinion of me. You win. I’m out.
So what is the number of deaths allowable daily for us to return to normal? 1, 2, 22, 222, 2222? I fear that this may well go on ad infinitum. There is money still to be had.
Certain number of things have to happen at intersection to get a light or past knowledge of conduct at intersections form policy. It’s just data as you state. Once it is place then people follow what society has established for public safety. The problem right now is we have data that is suspect and no guideline for what society is deeming as ok. Just individuals sharing their personal thresholds. Not a collective societal threshold. I just find it interesting how different so many are with this topic - really big ranges from YOLO to don’t leave your house.
Maybe out of this we can form some sort of pandemic response plan - lockdowns and such - that kick in with mortality rate of X or virus spreading at a certain pace. I have no idea what is right, but establish some guidelines would probably help society go along with these rules greatly.
I think the biggest mistake we could make from this is not learning that we need to take the threat seriously and have these discussions and planning occur before hand. The way we have handled this has been a tragedy on many levels (with vaccine development and now recent deployment being our saving grace). As you are suggesting, we can do better for next time. We have no excuse not to.
I fear that doing so would be a very slippery slope. I believe that any freedoms temporarily forfeited must be given back extremely quickly. However, it appears that once forfeited these freedoms are very difficult to get back and may never be returned. Will those in charge have our or their best interest at heart?
Society responds better when the rules and expectations are known. I understand why we have been they way we have since we havent really had to deal with his in the modern age, but going forward mask wearing and lockdowns and the such would go over much better if we all know what the guidelines are. It would take much of the political game out of the equation.
Anytime the government takes control and power it makes me nervous. I think it’s more dangerous though to not have the guidelines. RIght now Cooper is still operating under emergency powers. Why? Because we have no guidelines to make him stop. We need on paper when these freedoms are suspended and when they are returned so that elected officials and government has something to be held to.
A big problem with this pandemic is that it doesn’t only hurt the people who take the bigger risks. If we could allow people to make their own decisions and it only affects them, then great, go do what you want, just don’t ask everyone else to pay for it when the gamble goes wrong. The people taking gambles unfortunately affect people around them as much or more than those people themselves. There was a story about a wedding in Maine from last year that went forward despite the pandemic. 62 people went to the wedding and didn’t take many precautions. Seven people died as a result, but none of the people that died were even at the wedding: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-a-small-wedding-in-maine-became-a-deadly-covid-19-superspreader
The same is true when we have each state making their own decisions. As long as we have open borders between the states, then what one state does can affect everyone. Having a national standard response would be great, though it would have to be flexible since many diseases spread differently, with different transmission rates and paths, and communities can be so different in how people tend to interact (big cities, places with more extended families, etc.). But having each state responding so differently undermines the effectiveness of the response (including the economic effects).
So are you saying the people that went to the wedding and died were bound and dragged to the wedding against their will?? (sarcasm of course)
Everyone that attended that wedding made a conscious decision to risk exposure and go. There is nothing wrong with that and anyone that went to that wedding should not be vilified for anything that happened to others that willingly went. I’m sure there were people invited that did not go due to concerns as well. And that’s ok too. Hell, weddings can be streamed and facetimed for those not wanting to miss it and too scared to risk exposure, right?
To me…that’s the crux of all of this…the right to weigh the risks individually and make a decision.
You have the right to mask up, isolate, vaccinate and anything else you like. But those that are willing to understand and take the risks should be allowed to as well.
If you choose to stay 100% completely safe then you can do so. Lock down and vaccinate…have everything delivered and mask up every time you go out. If you do that, the other side literally poses no risk to you at all no matter how reckless you think they are because you will not be around them anyway. You are free to make the decision not go to the wedding and risk hanging around those that have voluntarily chosen to weigh the risk and go anyway.
Also…is it not rue that there are 2 ways to stop the spread?
Those on lockdown are stopping the spread by limiting exposure to others…
But those that are out and exposed are stopping the spread by herd immunity (since over 90% of those infected survive).
Right? Aren’t we attacking this from both sides and just arguing about it?
Every person should have the right to be as cautious as they want to be or not at all…and in the end both sides are contributing to stomping the virus out.
Why is there so much vitriol on this? Other than the media and the politicians want it that way.