Coronavirus General Discussion

[dualstow]

167B674F-7F9B-4782-99C3-470C3951F1F4.jpeg (84.13 KiB) Viewed 6313 times

[I Shrugged]

Well AZ is officially going to be the guinea pigs... The last 2 weeks have been our highest in both cases and deaths yet (matter of fact just last Friday was our largest day for both to date)... and our governor just officially announced that in spite of that we are doing full open up this Friday. He already opened restaurants yesterday. Gyms are slated to open tomorrow and he plans to have full open by the end of the week. I'm guessing this is not going to end well. WTF was the point in even locking down to begin with if he was just going to open us back up when cases and deaths are still increasing???

Because the health care system can handle it. Since there is no cure, there’s not much choice but to open up.

[pmward]

Well AZ is officially going to be the guinea pigs... The last 2 weeks have been our highest in both cases and deaths yet (matter of fact just last Friday was our largest day for both to date)... and our governor just officially announced that in spite of that we are doing full open up this Friday. He already opened restaurants yesterday. Gyms are slated to open tomorrow and he plans to have full open by the end of the week. I'm guessing this is not going to end well. WTF was the point in even locking down to begin with if he was just going to open us back up when cases and deaths are still increasing???

Because the health care system can handle it. Since there is no cure, there’s not much choice but to open up.

I disagree there. Even China is treating their citizens better than we are here and doing anything they can to protect their population. Just opening full up and letting the virus rip through the population is ridiculous. They should have at least done a phased approach to test the waters for a couple weeks. I'm thankful that at least I have a job that I can continue to work from home. But those that do not, they just lost their freedom to be protected from the virus, because now they are stuck having to go back to work or be fired. I feel sorry for these people, as they really are put in a position that they have no choice. It is a folly that is likely to end very badly.

[drumminj]

But those that do not, they just lost their freedom to be protected from the virus, because now they are stuck having to go back to work or be fired.

I'm not sure "freedom" is the right word here.

Firstly, I don't think you can have a freedom not to be exposed to something, and secondly, they never had such ability....what about their freedom to not be exposed to every other virus in the world that people are carrying around?

The freedom is in the ability to choose...they still have that ability -- to stay home from work, quit and find another job, etc. However, the government has taken away business owner's ability to open and run their business, and the rest of us to engage in commerce.

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... under.html

the_wuhan_virus_lockdown_is_a_colossal_blunder

[pmward]

But those that do not, they just lost their freedom to be protected from the virus, because now they are stuck having to go back to work or be fired.

I'm not sure "freedom" is the right word here.

Firstly, I don't think you can have a freedom not to be exposed to something, and secondly, they never had such ability....what about their freedom to not be exposed to every other virus in the world that people are carrying around?

The freedom is in the ability to choose...they still have that ability -- to stay home from work, quit and find another job, etc. However, the government has taken away business owner's ability to open and run their business, and the rest of us to engage in commerce.

Freedom works both ways. Granting freedom of choice exclusively to industry/business takes away freedom from it's workers as the workers have no ability to choose. Being fired is not a choice for most people. It is a governments duty to protect its citizens, and my state is failing to do so. A certain particular sect likes to tout the word "freedom" to only mean freedom in the things that benefit them individually, while restraining the freedom from the people who would benefit otherwise. Last I checked the U.S. was built around freedom of people not freedom of business, yet it has devolved to the point where businesses outrank human liberties. We can agree to disagree though because I'm not in the mood to argue. I'm mainly just disappointed in how irresponsible and careless my local government is being.

[drumminj]

Freedom works both ways. Granting freedom to industry/business takes away freedom from it's workers as the workers have no ability to choose. Being fired is not a choice for most people. It is a governments duty to protect its citizens, and my state is failing to do so. A certain particular sect likes to tout the word "freedom" to only mean freedom in the things that benefit them individually, while restraining the freedom from the people who would benefit otherwise. We can agree to disagree though because I'm not in the mood to argue.

Is the choice to accept a job/go to work not sufficient? Are you suggesting that all individuals are entitled to a job of their choosing with the conditions they prefer? Who's obligated to provide such a job and the conditions?

Freedom of choice != freedom of consequences. You seem to be suggesting that it's good that businesses/owners have had their freedom of choice taken away as it frees employees from the consequences of their potential decisions.

[pmward]

Freedom works both ways. Granting freedom to industry/business takes away freedom from it's workers as the workers have no ability to choose. Being fired is not a choice for most people. It is a governments duty to protect its citizens, and my state is failing to do so. A certain particular sect likes to tout the word "freedom" to only mean freedom in the things that benefit them individually, while restraining the freedom from the people who would benefit otherwise. We can agree to disagree though because I'm not in the mood to argue.

Is the choice to accept a job/go to work not sufficient? Are you suggesting that all individuals are entitled to a job of their choosing with the conditions they prefer? Who's obligated to provide such a job and the conditions?

Freedom of choice != freedom of consequences. You seem to be suggesting that it's good that businesses/owners have had their freedom of choice taken away as it frees employees from the consequences of their potential decisions.

No, there are circumstances that the choice of accepting a job or being fired are not sufficient. Workers have rights too, one of them being the right to a safe and healthy work environment. It's not just the businesses way or the highway. And yes, if it is not possible for a business to provide a safe work environment for their employees and customers, then the government should lock them down. The only reason the government exists is to provide safety and welfare for its citizens. Business profits are not more important than the safety of the people.

FWIW, there is a large petition going around here with thousands of local business signatures asking the governor to change his mind and keep the lockdown in place until the data shows an actual decline in cases. The problem is that our cases and deaths per week have both been continuously increasing week after week even in a lockdown. It's a recipe for disaster. Just because hospitals have capacity doesn't mean we should condone the sacrifice of the population in order to fill those hospital beds.

[Xan]

FWIW, there is a large petition going around here with thousands of local business signatures asking the governor to change his mind and keep the lockdown in place until the data shows an actual decline in cases. The problem is that our cases and deaths per week have both been continuously increasing week after week even in a lockdown. It's a recipe for disaster. Just because hospitals have capacity doesn't mean we should condone the sacrifice of the population in order to fill those hospital beds.

I thought the reason for the lockdown was not to prevent everyone from getting the virus, but to ensure that medical resources were available for the tiny proportion of people who needed hospitalization as a result of getting it.

That's how the lockdowns were sold, anyway. Would never have flown if the goal were to stay locked down until the virus is gone. Because that's crazy.

[pmward]

FWIW, there is a large petition going around here with thousands of local business signatures asking the governor to change his mind and keep the lockdown in place until the data shows an actual decline in cases. The problem is that our cases and deaths per week have both been continuously increasing week after week even in a lockdown. It's a recipe for disaster. Just because hospitals have capacity doesn't mean we should condone the sacrifice of the population in order to fill those hospital beds.

I thought the reason for the lockdown was not to prevent everyone from getting the virus, but to ensure that medical resources were available for the tiny proportion of people who needed hospitalization as a result of getting it.

That's how the lockdowns were sold, anyway. Would never have flown if the goal were to stay locked down until the virus is gone. Because that's crazy.

I never said they had to stay locked down until the virus was gone. I'm also not talking about grocery stores here... I'm talking about things like massage parlors, gyms, sports, shopping malls, and cramped office buildings where companies have to option to allow employees to work from home but want them in person to be monitored. Things that are high contact, high spread, and unnecessary at best. Our curve here has not "flattened". Matter of fact, we've been getting worse in spite of lockdown measures in recent weeks.

Perhaps I should take a step back and give the full backstory here? Last week Ducey announced a phased rollout plan. His plan was to open up things like barber shops and sit down dining first, provided they agreed to certain protective, sanitary, distancing, etc measures. Then the plan was to wait a couple weeks to see how it impacted the data before going into the next phase. Then, less than a week after that announcement, only 1 day after the "first phase" of business openings he came shockingly out of the blue yesterday, scraped the phased rollout, and said we were going full stop open by Friday. Why the sudden change? Especially since our data has gotten WORSE not better since his announcement of the phased opening. I was in support of the phased opening because it was at least going to rely on the data. I'm really confused as to why Ducey had this sudden shift. In this case, in our specific state, this makes no sense and is a very dangerous gamble. Why is unnecessary business survival seen as more important that human survival? In what world is that an acceptable tradeoff? He is literally sacrificing our population, thousands of potential lives, so a few unnecessary small businesses like massage parlors can survive. In the face of an increasing "curve", this is only going to increase it further. Why do we have to put our hospitals at max capacity before it is worth keeping steps in place to protect human lives? This is fundamentally a debate of which is more important, human life or money. And I for one find it sad that the state I live in is choosing money.

[upside]

Plus, it was kind of interesting that Cuomo is a better epidemiologist than most epidemiologists.

Because he figured out that the most at-risk people are old? Congratulations, Sherlock! Have we not known that for weeks, if not months? Cuomo is the mental giant who sent seniors treated for COVID-19 back into nursing homes.

[upside]

This is fundamentally a debate of which is more important, human life or money. And I for one find it sad that the state I live in is choosing money.

False dichotomy alert.

[WiseOne]

FWIW, there is a large petition going around here with thousands of local business signatures asking the governor to change his mind and keep the lockdown in place until the data shows an actual decline in cases. The problem is that our cases and deaths per week have both been continuously increasing week after week even in a lockdown. It's a recipe for disaster. Just because hospitals have capacity doesn't mean we should condone the sacrifice of the population in order to fill those hospital beds.

Why do they need a government lockdown, when they are welcome to stay closed voluntarily if that's what they want?

The goal of the lockdowns was never to limit the virus's spread, because that is not possible. Just to slow it enough to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. The point of my earlier post, though, is that there is zero evidence that lockdowns accomplish this, and the data from New York hospital admissions plus the evidence that it was ALREADY SPREADING as early as last November supports this view. Did you not see the statistic that less than a fifth of patients admitted to the hospital with COVID had jobs, and that a fifth of the admissions were from nursing homes? And that only 4% of admitted patients didn't have a predisposing underlying health condition?

Last I checked, nursing home residents and people with chronic medical conditions aren't exactly the restaurant-going, gym rat demographic. It's pretty easy to keep these people protected while not shutting down the economy: all they have to do is stay put. Especially since they're mostly retired or on disability. The other people in their household would also have to be careful of course, but that can be handled without closing businesses. I fail to understand why retail stores can't stay open for curbside pickup and/or allowing limited #s of people in the store, to maintain distancing. And requiring masks to enter a store. All that's being done here, and it's working fine.

[pmward]

FWIW, there is a large petition going around here with thousands of local business signatures asking the governor to change his mind and keep the lockdown in place until the data shows an actual decline in cases. The problem is that our cases and deaths per week have both been continuously increasing week after week even in a lockdown. It's a recipe for disaster. Just because hospitals have capacity doesn't mean we should condone the sacrifice of the population in order to fill those hospital beds.

Why do they need a government lockdown, when they are welcome to stay closed voluntarily if that's what they want?

The goal of the lockdowns was never to limit the virus's spread, because that is not possible. Just to slow it enough to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. The point of my earlier post, though, is that there is zero evidence that lockdowns accomplish this, and the data from New York hospital admissions plus the evidence that it was ALREADY SPREADING as early as last November supports this view. Did you not see the statistic that less than a fifth of patients admitted to the hospital with COVID had jobs, and that a fifth of the admissions were from nursing homes? And that only 4% of admitted patients didn't have a predisposing underlying health condition?

Last I checked, nursing home residents and people with chronic medical conditions aren't exactly the restaurant-going, gym rat demographic. It's pretty easy to keep these people protected while not shutting down the economy: all they have to do is stay put. Especially since they're mostly retired or on disability. The other people in their household would also have to be careful of course, but that can be handled without closing businesses. I fail to understand why retail stores can't stay open for curbside pickup and/or allowing limited #s of people in the store, to maintain distancing. And requiring masks to enter a store. All that's being done here, and it's working fine.

During a lockdown, people that stay locked down and socially isolated had less cases and deaths than those that did not stay isolated. This is not a surprise at all. Opening the economy up full steam however will cause a major increase in all populations.

I have no issues with curbside pickup, or doing a phased rollout and implementing measures like limited capacity, mandatory masks, increased sanitary regulations, etc. But that is not what we are doing here. He is opening up full stop, with recommendations but not requirements for safety. It's asinine. Like I said, for our state, and at this point in time, his plan makes no sense. It is also contradictory to everything he has said since this started. He claimed he would rely on data and only open if we were trending down in numbers. He reiterated this stance as soon as last week. The 180 flip yesterday is shocking to be honest. It also does not take a math degree to look at the numbers and know this is not likely to end well.

[Xan]

If the hospitals are not at 100% capacity, then all forms of lockdowns must end. The goal of the lockdown was to make sure that people didn't die as a result of insufficient medical capacity. Full stop. The goal was never to prevent everyone from getting the virus.

[WiseOne]

During a lockdown, people that stay locked down and socially isolated had less cases and deaths than those that did not stay isolated.

Please cite the source for this data and the actual numbers? I'm interested to see it, because that conflicts with data already out there e.g. there is no difference in coronavirus mortality between states that locked down early vs. late. Plus that would conflict with the info from NY that few hospital cases consisted of people going to work (17%) and taking public transportation (4%).

[pmward]

During a lockdown, people that stay locked down and socially isolated had less cases and deaths than those that did not stay isolated.

Please cite the source for this data and the actual numbers? I'm interested to see it, because that conflicts with data already out there e.g. there is no difference in coronavirus mortality between states that locked down early vs. late. Plus that would conflict with the info from NY that few hospital cases consisted of people going to work (17%) and taking public transportation (4%).

The states that locked down early vs late is meaningless, because the states that locked down late mostly did not have a problem early. There is no data in reopening early vs late. My state is the guinea pig for that. If 2-3 weeks from now our data looks good, then my theory will be proven wrong. Until such time though, there is no real data to support your case.

[pmward]

If the hospitals are not at 100% capacity, then all forms of lockdowns must end. The goal of the lockdown was to make sure that people didn't die as a result of insufficient medical capacity. Full stop. The goal was never to prevent everyone from getting the virus.

In your opinion. Thankfully, your opinion really doesn't matter or change anything. Of course, neither does mine. So instead we sit here and vent our frustrations in a thread that is meaningless and changes nothing.

[Xan]

If the hospitals are not at 100% capacity, then all forms of lockdowns must end. The goal of the lockdown was to make sure that people didn't die as a result of insufficient medical capacity. Full stop. The goal was never to prevent everyone from getting the virus.

In your opinion. Thankfully, your opinion really doesn't matter or change anything. Of course, neither does mine. So instead we sit here and vent our frustrations in a thread that is meaningless and changes nothing.

Well, the lockdowns weren't my idea. The people whose idea it was said "flatten the curve". If the hospitals are less than 100% capacity, then the curve has been flattened. Is that not right?

[pmward]

If the hospitals are not at 100% capacity, then all forms of lockdowns must end. The goal of the lockdown was to make sure that people didn't die as a result of insufficient medical capacity. Full stop. The goal was never to prevent everyone from getting the virus.

In your opinion. Thankfully, your opinion really doesn't matter or change anything. Of course, neither does mine. So instead we sit here and vent our frustrations in a thread that is meaningless and changes nothing.

Well, the lockdowns weren't my idea. The people whose idea it was said "flatten the curve". If the hospitals are less than 100% capacity, then the curve has been flattened. Is that not right?

Technically a flat curve is not hospitals less than 100% capacity. A flat curve is data that is steady and not increasing. Our curve in AZ is not flat, the curve in the graph is clearly up and to the right.

[Xan]

The goal wasn't a "flat" curve, it was a "flatter" curve. One that keeps the number of cases below the medical capacity. Note how the total number of cases (the area under the curve) is the same, or perhaps even higher in the "flatter" scenario. So if you don't bump up against 100% capacity, you are unnecessarily elongating the amount of time of the whole thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/flatten ... virus.html

[jalanlong]

If the hospitals are not at 100% capacity, then all forms of lockdowns must end. The goal of the lockdown was to make sure that people didn't die as a result of insufficient medical capacity. Full stop. The goal was never to prevent everyone from getting the virus.

In your opinion. Thankfully, your opinion really doesn't matter or change anything. Of course, neither does mine. So instead we sit here and vent our frustrations in a thread that is meaningless and changes nothing.

Well, the lockdowns weren't my idea. The people whose idea it was said "flatten the curve". If the hospitals are less than 100% capacity, then the curve has been flattened. Is that not right?

Yes but they have moved the goalposts now. It started as "flatten the curve." Then it moved to "14 days of downward trend in cases." Now it seems to be in a grey area of "until we have enhanced testing" and "until Covid-19 is no longer a threat." Those were Gavin Newsom's words yesterday anyway.

[pmward]

The goal wasn't a "flat" curve, it was a "flatter" curve. One that keeps the number of cases below the medical capacity. Note how the total number of cases (the area under the curve) is the same, or perhaps even higher in the "flatter" scenario. So if you don't bump up against 100% capacity, you are unnecessarily elongating the amount of time of the whole thing.

I'm going to agree to disagree here. I think human life is more important than massage parlors, movie theaters, and gyms staying in business. We will find out in a few weeks how this turns out. In the meantime, there's really no point in debating. The decision has already been made, and the science experiment will be live and underway in my local population by the end of the week.

[pmward]

If the hospitals are not at 100% capacity, then all forms of lockdowns must end. The goal of the lockdown was to make sure that people didn't die as a result of insufficient medical capacity. Full stop. The goal was never to prevent everyone from getting the virus.

In your opinion. Thankfully, your opinion really doesn't matter or change anything. Of course, neither does mine. So instead we sit here and vent our frustrations in a thread that is meaningless and changes nothing.

Well, the lockdowns weren't my idea. The people whose idea it was said "flatten the curve". If the hospitals are less than 100% capacity, then the curve has been flattened. Is that not right?

Yes but they have moved the goalposts now. It started as "flatten the curve." Then it moved to "14 days of downward trend in cases." Now it seems to be in a grey area of "until we have enhanced testing" and "until Covid-19 is no longer a threat." Those were Gavin Newsom's words yesterday anyway.

Data changes. As do the recommendations of public health experts in the wake of this emerging data.

[upside]

The goal wasn't a "flat" curve, it was a "flatter" curve. One that keeps the number of cases below the medical capacity. Note how the total number of cases (the area under the curve) is the same, or perhaps even higher in the "flatter" scenario. So if you don't bump up against 100% capacity, you are unnecessarily elongating the amount of time of the whole thing.

I'm going to agree to disagree here. I think human life is more important than massage parlors, movie theaters, and gyms staying in business. We will find out in a few weeks how this turns out. In the meantime, there's really no point in debating. The decision has already been made, and the science experiment will be live and underway in my local population by the end of the week.

By your logic, we should make the speed limit five miles per hour, since "human life is more important" than getting somewhere faster.

[upside]

If the hospitals are not at 100% capacity, then all forms of lockdowns must end. The goal of the lockdown was to make sure that people didn't die as a result of insufficient medical capacity. Full stop. The goal was never to prevent everyone from getting the virus.

In your opinion. Thankfully, your opinion really doesn't matter or change anything. Of course, neither does mine. So instead we sit here and vent our frustrations in a thread that is meaningless and changes nothing.

Well, the lockdowns weren't my idea. The people whose idea it was said "flatten the curve". If the hospitals are less than 100% capacity, then the curve has been flattened. Is that not right?

Yes but they have moved the goalposts now. It started as "flatten the curve." Then it moved to "14 days of downward trend in cases." Now it seems to be in a grey area of "until we have enhanced testing" and "until Covid-19 is no longer a threat." Those were Gavin Newsom's words yesterday anyway.

Data changes. As do the recommendations of public health experts in the wake of this emerging data.

LOL! Spoken like a true nanny state apologist. Please enlighten us with this "new data" that would justify changing the goal of the lockdown.