171–180 of 393 posts
It seems highly likely that the US is headed where the whole of Europe is now: over 100,000 positives, over 5,000 deaths. We waited too long for actions like this. It will take a month before we see a drop in cases and deaths
A month? Wouldn't it be more like 1-2 weeks?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is happening in my area right now. The number of cases is little to none, but the governor threw a blanket lock down on bars and restaurants, etc, over the whole state. It was too early for my area for sure. So in the meantime, businesses and people's livelihoods are already being destroyed.
The number of infected though is unknown because we haven't tested many people. When it is known then lock down on bars restaurants etc. will be too late.
As others have said, the point of a lock down should to prevent the hospitals from getting overwhelmed, prevent ventilator shortages, etc. Nobody even knows if a preemptive lock down can 'squash' the virus. While testing is being ramped up, aren't there other ways to determine outbreaks? Can't our leaders communicate with hospitals and find out number of open beds, ventilators, an influx of patients with suspected symptoms?
It is still going to be around once we come of of hiding, whenever that is, so it's possible we are just delaying the acceleration phase and we end up with the same result later instead of facing it now. I'm not saying there is never a time for a lock down, I just wonder if my local leaders panicked and did it to early, because they didn't know what else to do?
So in my area, the hospitals are fine. People are not flooding in the doors. Meanwhile thousands of jobs & businesses are being torched. My mom is a massage therapist, and is out of work for the foreseeable future. I just think there are smarter ways to go about it.
There is no doubt Cuomo should be the national point person for the response to the crisis based on his performance so far. He is independently working with regional manufacturing to retool to make critical medical PPE and ventilators, and has organized a regional coalition including CT, NJ, and PA. I have not agreed with him all the time, but his crisis management has been exemplary and he will have saved many lives…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But we are already inundated by outrage journalism, cancel culture, and public shaming. The last thing we need is more of that. The problem with "outrage culture" isn't the outrage; it's the target of the outrage. This is real stuff, consequential, non-trivial. It's good to be outraged when people behave outrageously. It's not so good when what you're trying to do is get a stranger fired for a tweet you could easil…
It may be good - the outcome determines if it is good. We do not know the outcome because it lies in the future, but the human mind provides the host such a high resolution image of it that it can easily be mistaken for actual reality if one isn't disciplined.
I'm not strongly committed to the argument that it's good. A better word might be "appropriate" or "justified." The point is that this kind of outrage is very different from what we normally call "outrage culture." The implication in a phrase like "outrage culture" isn't that outrage is an invalid human emotion; it's that it's not being tuned/targeted correctly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably the only time it's appropriate for outrage culture and to focus on the negative is exactly right now. Shame and tell everyone whenever possible to stay the fuck inside because those are going to be the people that make you stay in lockdown for 6 months instead of 2. Otherwise this will be 10x worse in the US
It appears Seattle may have "flattened the curve" too much as new cases have flatlined. Sounds good!? But healthy young people aren't building up antibodies. Which means when we end social distancing, the virus will start spreading just like it did before. The goal here isn't to prevent everyone from getting it. The goal is to slowly build up heard immunity, in a way that doesn't overly burden the healthcare system,…
There is currently no plan in place to penalize individuals for gathering socially Then people won't take the rules seriously. Lots of people in this country still don't believe or understand how much damage this virus can inflict.
Legally, does the state and federal goverment have the power to control the movement of people? Does the state have the power to control my movement from my own home to the end of the street for my daily walk?
There is currently no plan in place to penalize individuals for gathering socially Then people won't take the rules seriously. Lots of people in this country still don't believe or understand how much damage this virus can inflict.
Legally, does the state and federal goverment have the power to control the movement of people? Does the state have the power to control my movement from my own home to the end of the street for my daily walk?
At this point wouldn't it be better to just implement a Chinese-style martial law lock-down? The damage to the economy is already here. Might as well shut things down for 3-4 weeks and slowly open up sections of a city. That seems better to me then dragging this thing out for 3 months or longer. I feel like these "stages" of lock-down are doing nothing but delaying the inevitable which will cause more damage in the l…
I don't think authoritarian tactics like that, while effective, would fly in the US. I for one would not be ok with that. Once the government takes that authority once, who knows what they end up doing with it when they see they can get away with it.
My neighborhood might comply, but there's a real risk that police state tactics would lead to massive social unrest, rioting, and total economic collapse in pockets across the country. If anyone thinks this is impossible, may I refer you to the 1960's.
On the other hand, what the authoritarian minded commenters seem to miss is how powerful social pressure and distributed decision making can actually be.
There is currently no plan in place to penalize individuals for gathering socially Then people won't take the rules seriously. Lots of people in this country still don't believe or understand how much damage this virus can inflict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not make the death fast? The argument is for euthanasia not a poor life to slowly die.
It's not "death fast", it's: 1) way more deaths and a complete congestion of medical services vs. 2) less deaths, manageable medical service and a period of painful stagnation for the economy. If you get critically sick or injured (not COVID19 related) and hospitals are overflowing, you will suffer when no one can see you because of COVID19 cases.