The Coronavirus thread

Poll
2 votes (14.28%)
2 votes (14.28%)
2 votes (14.28%)
1 vote (7.14%)
2 votes (14.28%)
3 votes (21.42%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
1 vote (7.14%)
1 vote (7.14%)

14 members have voted

July 20th, 2020 at 6:24:10 AM permalink
Tanko
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 0
Posts: 428
Quote: RonC
Cuomo signed a stupid order without thinking it through.


That order really worked.

This is what the crowds look like now.

NYS is averaging 18 Covid deaths per day. Thats 0.00009% of the 20 million population.

In NYC, the average is 0.00011% of the population.

Nine daily deaths in a city of 8.4 million and Cuomo says he sees “Storm clouds” over NYC.

18.3% unemployment rate. 25% of tenants and 90% of businesses can’t pay their rent.

No concern over any of that until after election day.
July 20th, 2020 at 6:31:52 AM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 145
Posts: 10281
Quote: RonC

Anyway, back on point, Cuomo signed an order that a high school student, maybe a grade schooler, could see right through. .


Yes, for anyone intending to break the order anyway.

You're thinking like a kid. If there is a way to get around the intent, then it's okay for you to do it. That's no more true than if a bicycle is unlocked, you can take it. You tell your kid to be home by 10, and she shows up at 9:59am the next morning and claims you didn't say pm, so it's okay.
Trump says his supporters are dumber than a sack of rocks
July 20th, 2020 at 7:06:00 AM permalink
kenarman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 11
Posts: 2199
The head public health officer has just announced that people shouldn't be wearing non medical masks outdoors in Eastern Canada right now. It is 30 deg. C. and high humidity. Masks apparently can make it hard to breath and heat you up in those conditions.

"While mask wearing is more common now, and recommended in many places, health authorities aren't blind to the risks of wearing them in such conditions, saying it's better to go mask-free when outside."
"but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin
July 20th, 2020 at 7:08:51 AM permalink
Mission146
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 15
Posts: 1119
Quote: rxwine
Yes, for anyone intending to break the order anyway.

You're thinking like a kid. If there is a way to get around the intent, then it's okay for you to do it. That's no more true than if a bicycle is unlocked, you can take it. You tell your kid to be home by 10, and she shows up at 9:59am the next morning and claims you didn't say pm, so it's okay.


Taking an unlocked bicycle is theft.

We're talking about adults having the ability to make health decisions for themselves without the need for Big Daddy Government telling them what to do.

Furthermore, who cares about violating the intent of the order when the order itself is profoundly stupid? If the bars/restaurants are restricting the occupancy and enforcing social distancing, and the customers are complying with the masks and distancing, then all parties involved should otherwise be allowed to do whatever the hell they want to. Of course the restaurant/bar wants to be able to sell a dirt cheap food item to keep SOOPOO's party in the establishment drinking...and do you know why?

ANSWER: Because places are trying to stay open and remain at least minimally profitable. The fact of the matter is that the margins on alcohol, particularly liquor, blow the margins on food completely out of the water and it's not even close. You've got vodka going for $6/shot on a bottle that the establishment purchased for $30-$40, ergo, ridiculously good margins that are necessary to EVEN BE ABLE to offer food at prices that customers would be willing to accept. You've got $7-8 bottles of Woodbridge wine that these places are selling for $20-some bucks.

I understand the safety concerns, but Jesus Christ, you've got to at least give the businesses a fighting chance at survival, here. It's all fun and games until the Democrats don't have a tax base for their plans anymore...and then they're going to learn really fast what happens when you have royally &*$%^#%&*^%#$'d up.

There are also some issues of rights at play, here, so here are a few from the other side that I understand:

1. The Coronavirus, thus far, does not have what many people would consider a terrifying mortality rate. We also understand that the elderly and infirm have a substantially higher mortality rate than those who would not qualify in those categories. There are people who correctly say, "Even if I were to get it, the math says that it is unlikely to be devastating to me or my family," and that's a fair point.

Since when did we come to the conclusion that every single individual in this country has to make collectivistic health-based decisions at the expense of both the livelihoods of others (if not themselves) as well as at the expense of what they consider to be their quality of life?

2. Even people in the affected classes (elderly and infirm) might themselves be willing to chance contracting CV-19 to less than desirable results rather than stop living their lives and doing the things they enjoy doing. If they're willing to put their own lives at-risk, how the hell is it for you or anyone else to tell them that they can't?

---

Finally, the fact of the matter is that there is a middle ground to be found here that I consider fairly reasonable: People should make the individual choice to wear the masks when they are near other people and to abide by the social distancing guidelines. They should take at least those two efforts to not potentially jeopardize the health of people who they do not know and do not live with. That aside, if people want to eat or drink indoors while following the aforementioned guidelines, then let them, it's their choice to make.

Back when abortion was a hot topic with few Republicans on board, what was one of their arguments?

ANSWER: If those women would just take personal responsibility by not having sex, then they would not need the abortions to begin with.

So, then the Democrats say, "You can't mandate personal responsibility like that, and they might already be trying to be responsible by using protection. You cannot force people to choose between having children they don't want and not having sex."

Oh...but now FORCED personal responsibility is all of a sudden okay? You can terminate a pregnancy, but how dare you drink inside of a bar with COVID-19 going on!? PUH-LEASE.
"Mondlicht leuchtet fahl auf moosbedecktes Menschengebein."
July 20th, 2020 at 8:49:22 AM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 3
Posts: 3351
Quote: Mission146
Whitmer throwing her hat in with Wolf, Cuomo and Newsom for the title of Der Führer, I see.


Gov Greg Abbot, Texas, closed bars at the end of June. I don't know if they have been allowed to reopen. Does he make your list?
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/06/26/texas-bars-restaurants-coronavirus-greg-abbott/

Here is a more current (July 13) list of states with closed bars:
https://www.eater.com/2020/7/1/21310415/restaurants-bars-shutdown-closed-covid-19-cases-spiking
Idaho, Florida, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Nevada, California, Louisiana
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
July 20th, 2020 at 8:57:15 AM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 3
Posts: 3351
Quote: Mission146


<snipped>

Finally, the fact of the matter is that there is a middle ground to be found here that I consider fairly reasonable: People should make the individual choice to wear the masks when they are near other people and to abide by the social distancing guidelines. They should take at least those two efforts to not potentially jeopardize the health of people who they do not know and do not live with. That aside, if people want to eat or drink indoors while following the aforementioned guidelines, then let them, it's their choice to make.

Back when abortion was a hot topic with few Republicans on board, what was one of their arguments?

ANSWER: If those women would just take personal responsibility by not having sex, then they would not need the abortions to begin with.

So, then the Democrats say, "You can't mandate personal responsibility like that, and they might already be trying to be responsible by using protection. You cannot force people to choose between having children they don't want and not having sex."

Oh...but now FORCED personal responsibility is all of a sudden okay? You can terminate a pregnancy, but how dare you drink inside of a bar with COVID-19 going on!? PUH-LEASE.


Wearing a mask is more than deciding whether or not to take personal responsibility to reduce your chances of getting sick,
it is also a matter of public health and safety, to reduce the chances of OTHERS getting sick if YOU already have covid-19, particularly if you are contagious but asymptomatic.

If it was just a matter of personal responsibility, then I would be more inclined to agree with you, and let people decide for themselves how much they want to put themselves at risk.

It isn't just that, though, since not wearing a mask is putting other people at increased risk.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
July 20th, 2020 at 9:09:59 AM permalink
Mission146
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 15
Posts: 1119
Quote: Dalex64
Gov Greg Abbot, Texas, closed bars at the end of June. I don't know if they have been allowed to reopen. Does he make your list?
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/06/26/texas-bars-restaurants-coronavirus-greg-abbott/

Here is a more current (July 13) list of states with closed bars:
https://www.eater.com/2020/7/1/21310415/restaurants-bars-shutdown-closed-covid-19-cases-spiking
Idaho, Florida, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Nevada, California, Louisiana


Throw them on the list, as well. Although, the ones that I named are all reflected in your list already. It’s not just the bars, many states had dine-in completely shutdown for a time...barbershops...etc. For a time, the only businesses allowed to operate were those classified as, “Essential,” which seemed like a fairly arbitrary classification aside from grocery and health-related retailers.

I’m not a Republican, so a Republican Governor taking a certain action is not going to change my opinion of the action itself. As relates things of this nature, I either agree with the mandate or I don’t, the person/party implementing said mandate is immaterial.
"Mondlicht leuchtet fahl auf moosbedecktes Menschengebein."
July 20th, 2020 at 9:15:42 AM permalink
Mission146
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 15
Posts: 1119
Quote: Dalex64
Wearing a mask is more than deciding whether or not to take personal responsibility to reduce your chances of getting sick,
it is also a matter of public health and safety, to reduce the chances of OTHERS getting sick if YOU already have covid-19, particularly if you are contagious but asymptomatic.

If it was just a matter of personal responsibility, then I would be more inclined to agree with you, and let people decide for themselves how much they want to put themselves at risk.

It isn't just that, though, since not wearing a mask is putting other people at increased risk.


It doesn’t matter because that’s always true of any communicable disease. I could legitimately see that as being the next step, “Oh, hey, the flu, common cold and strep throat are all contagious...maybe we should keep these mask mandates going to prevent the spread of those.”

I definitely take your point. In fact, the masks are MORE about not spreading it if you potentially have it rather than preventing oneself from getting it. That’s not my problem with it. We probably agree completely on whether or not people SHOULD wear masks...just not whether or not folks should be forced to do so by the Government.

In any case, we agree on the purpose of the masks; we disagree on what sort of Government action that justifies.
"Mondlicht leuchtet fahl auf moosbedecktes Menschengebein."
July 20th, 2020 at 9:20:08 AM permalink
RonC
Member since: Nov 7, 2012
Threads: 7
Posts: 1408
Quote: rxwine
Yes, for anyone intending to break the order anyway.

You're thinking like a kid. If there is a way to get around the intent, then it's okay for you to do it. That's no more true than if a bicycle is unlocked, you can take it. You tell your kid to be home by 10, and she shows up at 9:59am the next morning and claims you didn't say pm, so it's okay.


Wow. What a childish response.

The actual intent of the rule was to stop large gatherings of people drinking in places that function as bars, lounges, etc. The intent was to make things safer. SOOPOO was both within the rule and was already meeting the intent of it...keeping people away from each other with proper social distancing,

Again, the rule could have been better written, addressed the correct problem areas, and not impacted business that were not crowding people together.
China Lied...How Many There Really Died?
July 20th, 2020 at 9:23:33 AM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 3
Posts: 3351
From the Surgeon General



three separate quotes from Surgeon General Jerome Adams from the interview:

“Please understand that we are not trying to take away your freedoms when we say, ‘Wear a face covering.’”

“We were wrong back in February and March based on the fact that we didn’t think there would be this high a degree of asymptomatic spread of coronavirus,”

“once we realized that the science was different for this virus, we changed our recommendations,”
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan