Discussion in 'Free Fire Zone' started by wooley12, Mar 13, 2020.
Because: The only people who were coming into the hospitals were COVID-19 patients and emergencies.
Dierenbach: Is it time for a new approach to coronavirus?
our reaction isn’t to protect the elderly and those with underlying conditions. No, instead we decide to force over 214 million people under 65 with no underlying condition who are under virtually no threat from coronavirus to restrict their activities, socially distance from each other, and go into lockdown.
Instead of targeting the vulnerable population for assistance and infection avoidance, we shut down our economy. Many of the vulnerable are elderly and out of the workforce, yet we target the workforce and push 33 million people out of their jobs. We destroy countless small businesses, risk food shortages due to the supply disruption, drive oil prices so low that it could devastate thousands of Coloradans and cause political instability and international conflicts to rise, scare people who need medical attention away from emergency room visits, and cause domestic violence to rise.
What we’re doing is unsustainable.
Protests against the lockdowns are erupting across the country. Lockdown supporters call the protesters self-centered murderers who only care about getting haircuts or going to bars. Arbitrary orders create confusion and social unrest. In Michigan, you couldn’t sell seeds, while in Colorado, you can have a gathering of 10 people, but they aren’t allowed to play a game of basketball. The mayor of Los Angeles has threatened longer lockdowns as punishment for disobedience.
In the beginning, the logic behind locking down was sound. Coronavirus is a highly transmissible disease with a significant number of carriers who are asymptomatic and contagious at the same time. The experts said if the virus remained unchecked, it would produce a surge of victims that would overwhelm our healthcare system and result in excess deaths due to lack of care for both coronavirus sufferers and others needing medical attention. News from China and Italy confirmed this possibility.
But “flatten the curve” morphed into “hide until solution;” the solution being a possible vaccine or effective treatment at some undeterminable point in the future. States that never saw a surge went into lockdown and remain there today.
New York City, which is well past their peak medical usage, remains on lockdown. Many states that are ostensibly opening up are doing so at an extremely slow pace. Colorado, which is supposedly opening up (but not really), is attempting to keep the coronavirus cases at a level that is so low, herd immunity might not be reached for years.
A excellent example why one must read and digest the entire article, rather than just the click bait title.
Let's begin with the nurse they use to 'put a face' on the issue. Mrs Donathan is 42 year veteran nurse laid off. If my math is correct that puts her in the mid 60's, right in the high risk zone for catching Covid 19. She also state her husband is also suffering layoffs. If they are a normal couple, they are likely within 5 years of each other, so probably in his 60's as well. So is it a great idea to keep high risk people on staff?
Let's dig a little deeper shall we. The article states hospitals aren't 'making much money', why aren't they getting rich? They are not doing so many elective surgeries and procedures. What is a elective surgery you ask? A elective surgery is a procedure scheduled in advance because is does not involve a medical emergency. Covid 19 is a emergency if you need to go into a hospital to treat it.
The article states people are only going to hospitals for covid and emergencies. What a novel concept, only going to a hospital when you need to. The article concludes with the need to better allocate resources and personnel. More nurses and staff need to be cross trained in ER and ICU aspects of medical care it says.
A crisis exposes the flaws in the system. Health care in the US is a big business and is geared more to make a profit then to keep us healthy and safe. We spend vast sums to correct problems when we could spend far less to prevent them. Health care workers over specialize in certain areas because that is where the money is.
My wife and I have delayed 6 appointments due to the virus. 2 are elective. Cataract surgery. Multiply that by 50 million and that is a big chunk of change.
What do you mob think are the chances of this crisis fundamentally changing the US health system?
So, victims of a broken health system then.
The US health system is not financially viable without it's cash cow of elective(mostly unnecessary) surgeries.
Your telling me that all of the population under 65 has no medical issues what so ever...Calling BS on that one.
We saw how well protecting the elderly, while keeping the economy relatively open worked out for Sweden.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling...
You have claim ed only the Left does this...Apparently the Right does to. But, when the Left does it, it is unacceptable. When the Right does it, it is A-OK.
Still waiting to see one...Apparently, they are not all over the country.
Mostly, that is true. The vibe from them is what I call Entitlement Whore...They are entitled to do X, any damn all who oppose them.
Not surprisingly, this is a right wing false claim. Michigan did not ban the sale of seeds.
Colorado did not ban the playing of basketball, they closed the courts. When was the last time you saw only 10 guys at a large multi-court center? Me, never, there is usually 50 at the centers.
Get back to this later, way to much dis-information for a 15 minute break.
Depends on how long this crisis lingers and the results of the November elections. If Trump loses and the republicans lose control of the Senate the same dynamic seen in 2008 may arise. The Affordable Care Act came from that election.
In real terms probably limited to moderate change only. Health care in the US is a very large dinosaur and I'm not sure Covid 19 will be a big enough asteroid to radically alter evolution.
Not old but comorbidited people are vulnerable. As it happens, for obvious reasons, most comorbidited cases are old folks.
but they weren't so the anwer is yes, it is.
Proof please...The article mentions nothing on their health issues or lack there of...You are assuming that the did not have any co-morbidity issues.
No WM...You said the nurse was not comorbid...
Proof that the nurse was not comorbid.
wm made the essential point in a much larger post above; "But “flatten the curve” morphed into “hide until solution;” the solution being a possible vaccine or effective treatment at some undeterminable point in the future. States that never saw a surge went into lockdown and remain there today."
That is exactly what has happened. I suppose it is fear that makes people unable to grasp the simple fact that the virus will continue no matter how long they remain locked in the basement. You can come out now or you can come out later, but no matter when you come out the virus will be there. The initial lockdown in crowded states probably saved lives by not allowing the health system to be overwhelmed, but we are a long way past the point of diminishing returns. We are at a point where people are looking at losing their homes. Businesses are going into bankruptcy, so many will not have jobs when the lockdowns are lifted. Prices are rising for essential commodities, and we are seeing shortages. We are also seeing unrest among those put in jeopardy by the lockdown.
And AGAIN, not a single infection will be prevented by all of this. The virus will continue, and continue to mutate, and our economic implosion will have no affect on the course of the virus.
Here in Arizona we haven't had a "stay at home" order. People can do as they please. Parks and natural areas are open for recreation. People are encouraged to be outdoors. The restaurants are open (for take out). Nobody is wearing masks, or very few are, I'm certainly not. The result; 500 deaths among 7 million people. Where are those deaths? Well, nursing homes certainly, because once introduced the elderly and infirm cannot fight off the infection. The Navajo Nation is hard hit for the same reasons, many ill people (diabetes is almost universal among anyone of a certain age there) and crowded living conditions. People there are family oriented and tend to live in family enclaves with several generations of people. When young Joe-Bob gets the virus (and is only mildly ill) he can't help but spread it to older generations that do not have his youth and vigor.
So, if you're old and infirm stay locked down. Don't be a 'Karen' and fight younger people (who have almost no risk) from continuing their lives.
Funny. When I hear you call Karen I want to punch you in the throat. And I don't even know what the slur is. Ageism. Let's just gas the old. You seem to want me dead.
What do you not understand about: "So, if you're old and infirm stay locked down. Don't be a 'Karen' and fight younger people (who have almost no risk) from continuing their lives."
"Karen" is a widespread meme. Karen is the broad that calls the cops because her neighbor is having a BBQ in his backyard instead of staying indoors or whatever.
We're becoming a nation of Karens. Young working age people have almost zero risk from this virus. Why call for a lockdown to continue for them since it does not affect you? Stay locked down if you think your situation warrants that, but why destroy the lives of other people?
Learn something every day.
WHAT DOES KAREN MEAN?
Karen is a mocking slang term for an entitled, obnoxious, middle-aged white woman. Especially as featured in memes, Karen is generally stereotyped as having a blonde bob haircut, asking to speak to retail and restaurant managers to voice complaints or make demands, and being a nagging, often divorced mother from Generation X.
Is this what you meant called me a Karen? If I was debating military expenditures it would by one thing. If it was someone telling me I should not be a Karen and should prepare to die so they could get a haircut and had the balls to my face I'd punch that person in the throat.
But that will never happen. Internet warriors with aliases have no balls. AMIRIGHT?
Seems to me it is the opposite...
The Karens are the ones that want to open up. They are the ones being inconvenienced and do not care about the aged & infirm who's lives are actually at risk.
We stand on the shoulders of those that came before us, if the economy is so great, it is because of what they did.
Are we to simply wall them up as a reward for their actions?
Anyone using as slur in a debate is a lacking, my opinion. But some here have supported the torture of the aged so I'm I not surprised at the continued narcissism before honor or morality ME ME ME. Not My Country, ME.
You do sound awfully entitled there, being retired and unaffected by the economic misery caused by the lockdown, but arguing that those that are affected shouldn't be able to pay their rent or mortgage by working. Can't you see that? What they do doesn't affect you at all, so why inflict misery on them?
And guess what, I'm in the same boat as you. I'm comfortably retired, have no bills to worry about and am unaffected by younger people that want to resume their jobs.
The difference is that I am not arguing to destroy their lives to no purpose. The virus continues, lockdown or not... Landlords and mortgage companies want their money. lockdown or not.