Should Protestors Against the Lockdowns Be Stopped? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

SHOULD THE ANTI-LOCKDOWN PROTESTORS, STOP OR CONTINUE?

STOP
14
56%
CONTINUE
11
44%
#15139786
Unthinking Majority wrote:This is a slippery slope fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

You are preaching to the choir. I am no fan of goofy debate fallacies. And the slippery slope fallacy can be quite goofy if the examples that are presented have no merit. The government has enormous power and the left has the proclivity to increase the power of the government to control our lives. As of now they are willing to alter free speech and impose restrictions on how people should conduct their lives. It is no accident that small firms and everyday citizens have decided to leave California (a gorgeous state with great weather) and move to Texas (less regulations).

The problem is young people spread it to older people, like their parents or grandparents. Schools opened for a couple of months and cases have exploded. Old people have to go out and buy groceries too etc.


That is not such a big hurdle to overcome and the work could be accomplished with education. If I was King I would have a plan on how to put the those at risk on hermetic quarantine. It is not an impossible task and it may save lives while at the same time prevent the demolition of the young people that go to work everyday. It is way cheaper for the government to pay cash to the elderly than to pay cash a huge fraction of population. In fact, the elderly already get a check from the government so the savings would be greater.

I am the first one to admit this would not be perfect as some people would ignore the guidelines and bring the virus to grandma. However, putting the entire population on lockdown is not perfect either (just look at Europe). By now we should be able to know which are the type of gatherings that spread Covid the most and which areas are relatively safe. I bet grocery stores are low in the list and gyms are high.

Americans have it ass-backwards on dealing with COVID and are dying as a result. 270,000 dead Americans and their families don't care about some person complaining about wearing a mask.


Let's be cold for just a minute regarding those figures.

A 2016 report that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) compiled found that more than 2 million people in the United States die every year. The leading causes of death in the U.S. are heart disease and cancer, with around 635,000 deaths and 600,000 deaths per year, respectively.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl ... spectively.

Image

Let's assume this year we will have 2.4 million dead people instead of 2.0 million. That would roughly be a 16-17% increment in deaths. However, the bulk of the excess deaths were nursing home patients, people over 80, and those with multiple risk factors.
According to the actuarial tables those over 80 have a 4 to 11% chance of dying by natural causes.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html If we add morbid conditions the rate is likely much higher.

It is safe to assume that a fraction of the 270k you mention as Covid deaths would have died in 2020 of a natural death. In any event it is not an overwhelming task to hermetically isolate the elderly and keep them safe while at the same time keeping the young people employed.

Lastly, I admit this plan would never be implemented as politicians tend to do whatever is best for their election. The Dems thrive on chaos and COVID is a great excuse to preach chaos.
#15139798
@Julian658

Exactly how do you “hermetically seal” the old away from everyone else?

In my family, we have an elderly woman who lives in a multigenerational family home, with her two daughters, 2 grandkids, and her great grand kid who is now five. More than one of these people is also high risk for other reasons.

Now, please explain how he five year old goes to school and does not infect the others or out then at risk.
#15139828
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Julian658

Exactly how do you “hermetically seal” the old away from everyone else?

In my family, we have an elderly woman who lives in a multigenerational family home, with her two daughters, 2 grandkids, and her great grand kid who is now five. More than one of these people is also high risk for other reasons.

Now, please explain how he five year old goes to school and does not infect the others or out then at risk.


No system is perfect POD. Yes, keeping the old in isolation is hard. But, not as hard as keeping the entire population of infected people in quarantine.

A five year old infecting other five year olds is not a big deal as nearly 100% of the kids do well or are asymptomatic. If the five year infects the parents who are likely in their 20s or 30s they will likely have a very minor illness or no symptoms. All we would need to do is to keep the grandkids away from the grandparents. Any old teacher would be sent home to be in isolation. Is this perfect? Hell no!!! However, it is no worse of better than trying to isolate the entire population. As I said before, at the end of the day this is a disease of the elderly and the immunologically compromised. If you take this people out of the equation Covid 19 is an extremely mild viral illness.

However, the left needs the chaos as well as the concept of a population that depends on the nannie state. That is why Jane Fonda said Covid 19 was the gift of God to the left.

As of today Sweden, the nation that did not do a lockdown has 660 Covid deaths per million. This is better than 22 nations that had lockdowns. See worldometer numbers today 11-27-20.
#15139831
As I said before, at the end of the day this is a disease of the elderly and the immunologically compromised. If you take this people out of the equation Covid 19 is an extremely mild viral illness.


[rule 2 violation deleted. Prosthetic Conscience]

This is not true. [rule 2 violation deleted]

First there are very serious lasting consequences from this disease in people of all ages. We do not even know all of what they are now but even young people are affected.

Secondly, like most right wingers, you can't be bothered to do what it takes to save lives. CDC estimates that we in the US will lose 60,000 people in the next three weeks. Even if you take another shutdown off of the table (and I don't because I have care for my fellow citizens) a simple national mask and distancing rule would save 10's or even hundreds of thousands of lives; people of all ages. But what is the right wing doing? Gov Desantis of Florida has ordered that mayors NOT impose mask wearing or limit seating in restaurants. This is nothing short of murder and right wingers, like you, grin and support him. The SCOTUS seems to think that the right to assemble in unprotected crowds is somehow more important than the right to life. Bizarre.

We seem to be dragging our feet on the vaccines that we know can protect hospital workers. The president has yet to order mandatory PPE protection. Businesses around the country are allowing people to shop without even a simple mask. Where is the messaging on TV? The massive advertising campaign to wear masks? Where is the ban on large outdoor gatherings?

No son. The right wing in the US is directly responsible for outrageous and irresponsible behavior and so are you. Your post above, if believed, could actually lead to deaths. [rule 2 violation deleted]
#15139837
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Julian658

You did not answer my question.

Again, how do we isolate the old person in my example? Be specific.


Quite easy:

Set up a section in the household that is apart from the rest of the family. Teach all young people to wear masks around the old and the old to wear masks. Keep the old out of circulation and allow the young people to go to work. One of my co--workers tested positive for Covid 19. She lives with both elderly parents who had been segregated in the household. She now tested negative and her parents never got sick. It is basically a policy of handle with care when it comes to the elderly. I have a friend that is out working and in contact with people all day long. Since Covid he has not visited the home of his elderly parents. He talks to them from the sidewalk and brings them groceries. The idea is to minimize the contact of young people with those at risk. This is common sense. Any young person that is out should be extra careful with the elderly and stay away. Obviously the system is not perfect. However, this is better than destroying the lives of average people, causing unemployment, food lines, suicide, government dependency, and forcing the state to put the entire population on welfare checks. The latter is obviously the goal of the left.
#15139841
Julian658 wrote:Quite easy:

Set up a section in the household that is apart from the rest of the family. Teach all young people to wear masks around the old and the old to wear masks. Keep the old out of circulation and allow the young people to go to work.


And how would you enforce this authoritarian rule to break up families?

Also, why do you think breaking up families is better than inconveniencing the rest of us?
#15139855
Pants-of-dog wrote:And how would you enforce this authoritarian rule to break up families?

Also, why do you think breaking up families is better than inconveniencing the rest of us?

The state cannot enforce any of these rules. One would hope people have some common sense. I would never promote any authoritarian mandates as I am a libertarian. As to why you think the inconvenience to the young and healthy people that need to earn a living is nothing totally baffles me. Yes, it would be better to isolate those at risk rather than to destroy the economy. :roll: :roll:
#15139856
Julian658 wrote:The state cannot enforce any of these rules. One would hope people have some common sense. I would never promote any authoritarian mandates as I am a libertarian. As to why you think the inconvenience to the young and healthy people that need to earn a living is nothing totally baffles me. Yes, it would be better to isolate those at risk rather than to destroy the economy. :roll: :roll:


So your idea is unenforceable. And if it is not enforced, we get even more people dying than there are now. Congratulations, you just made Covid worse.

And yes, you do promote authoritarian mandates, like forcing old people to be separated from their families.

And your scare tactics about the poor economy are not an argument. The economy is not more important than people’s lives. But it is interesting that you think it is more important than the lives of people.
#15139860
Pants-of-dog wrote:So your idea is unenforceable. And if it is not enforced, we get even more people dying than there are now. Congratulations, you just made Covid worse.


They are no more or less enforceable than what we have now. The only difference is that people do not lose their jobs and ability to earn a living.

And yes, you do promote authoritarian mandates, like forcing old people to be separated from their families.

The above does not require a response. Try to be more serious when stating your point. A communist like you saying that a libertarian is promoting authoritarianism is a Freudian projection.

And your scare tactics about the poor economy are not an argument. The economy is not more important than people’s lives. But it is interesting that you think it is more important than the lives of people.


The bulk of the dead are very old people, many with multiple risk factors. These folks already have a very short lifespan ahead of them. Don't be so melodramatic.
#15139869
Julian658 wrote:They are no more or less enforceable than what we have now. The only difference is that people do not lose their jobs and ability to earn a living.


Actually, mask use and closing restaurants and bars are easily enforceable.

And your idea that jobs are.more important than human lives is noted.

The above does not require a response. Try to be more serious when stating your point. A communist like you saying that a libertarian is promoting authoritarianism is a Freudian projection.


So you have no rebuttal to my point about how authoritarian your proposal is. Again, forcibly separating families is authoritarian.

And that is exactly what you propose.

The bulk of the dead are very old people, many with multiple risk factors. These folks already have a very short lifespan ahead of them. Don't be so dramatic.


So you are saying that you think being able to go for a drink is more important than the life of an old person.
#15139877
Pants-of-dog wrote:
So you are saying that you think being able to go for a drink is more important than the life of an old person.


That is the best Kathy Newman impersonation ever! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Image
#15139896
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Julian658

Then what are you saying?

Please be clear what you mean when you mention the fact that most fatalities are old people or people with illnesses, and how it pertains to government measures to stop Covid.


For the love of God POD

Covid 19 is a terrible virus fully capable of wiping out the nursing home population, those that are immunocompromised, and the very old. The plan should be designed with that in mind.

Let me give you an example of the government stupidity:

In many states public schools are closed and are trying to teach kids via zoom. In many instances this has been an abysmal failure as this has never done before and the teachers are just experimenting. They can't even tell if the kids are there for the zoom class or whether they are playing video games. The kids in this government system are falling behind rapidly. Meanwhile the Catholic schools are opened and the kids are getting a top notch education a billion times better than the kids waiting for a zoom call at home. How is this done? First the students are young and healthy. The likelihood of dying from Covid in this group is near zero. All they had to do was remove kids that are immunocompromised (a very tiny number) and put the old teachers with risk factors on sabbatical. Young school teachers under age 55 are fine to teach. They monitor temperature and test if needed. Anyone that tests positive goes home to convalesce and returns when recovered.

Now, whatever you do: Do not impersonate Kathy Newman again!
#15139904
Or, Julian. We could just wait 6 months, supporting the economic losses of the folks with government aid, and reopen everything after a massive vaccination program.

There is no need to risk the lives of anyone unnecessarily.

Note. Your fictional 54 year old teacher is at risk. So are the kids. We do not know enough about lasting ill effects of this disease to risk a generation for a few bucks and a few months of convenience.

On edit. Do you want all doctors and nurses who are at risk for death or disability to go home? Good luck with your care after than bad car crash or your mycoplasma pneumonia. You can just die. Or do what you want old people and those at risk to do and stay home?

Let us see if you can support your own advise.

The COVID crisis calls for a variety of specialties but none more than pulmonary specialists. Even if someone your age gets it they may be hospitalized and they may need this specialty. Only 15% of Pulmonary specialists are under 55. So if they stay home the death toll among all ages of people who need respiratory help (whether covid or not) will skyrocket. Young will fall in great numbers. You didn't know that did you?

42.3% of physicians are over 55. You suggest they all stay home. What then? Can you imagine the chaos and death toll from half of the doctors disappearing? Want to talk about nurses? Medical researchers? Professors of medicine/nursing/associated specialists. Maybe you want to fudge the numbers. Kick the age up to 60 and you still find 30% of all practicing physicians and a much higher percentage of cardiologists and surgeons.

You see Julian, you are not thinking through this problem. You are taking a spare and shallow approach. You google one thing and believe you have found "the answer". Now I want to see if you are a troll or if you are really paying attention and want to find the truth. Read what I posted and post your solutions for this problem. BTW. You cannot intubate someone over the phone. You cannot auscultate over the phone. You cannot perform surgery over the phone. We are waiting. Want to admit that you are wrong or are you going to double down on your ignorance?
Last edited by Drlee on 27 Nov 2020 21:37, edited 1 time in total.
#15139906
Drlee wrote:Or, Julian. We could just wait 6 months, supporting the economic losses of the folks with government aid, and reopen everything after a massive vaccination program.

There is no need to risk the lives of anyone unnecessarily.

Note. Your fictional 54 year old teacher is at risk. So are the kids. We do not know enough about lasting ill effects of this disease to risk a generation for a few bucks and a few months of convenience.

Every time you go out in the open you are at risk of death by lightening. Sure, there is a risk!
#15139907
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Julian658

Then what are you saying?

Please be clear what you mean when you mention the fact that most fatalities are old people or people with illnesses, and how it pertains to government measures to stop Covid.


Go back and re-read the post POD.
#15139914
Pants-of-dog wrote:I did.

You sidestepped the question and went off on another tangent.

Since you cannot clarify, can we continue to assume that you think the lives of old and sick people do not merit closing bars?

Please, stop playing the Kathy Newman card over and over again.

Of course everything must be done to preserve life, but this must be done with logic. Emotional arguments are not helpful, but sadly most people respond to emotional arguments and you are no exception.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Election 2020

So which is it, Doug? Traitor or bitch? Why did[…]

I feel like we are confounding stuff here. Are we[…]

A police officer was beaten to death at that riot[…]

Yup! It's certainly not a simple yes/no situation[…]