111–120 of 214 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Testing when? When you have symptoms? Too late. 330 million people testing weekly? Not possible. There is no realistic way to mass test everyone in a meaningful way.
How much money would it take to make testing everyone a realistic possibility? How much money are we losing by just shutting everything down? Which one costs more?
For how much I understand the need to lower the curve and reduce the R0 of the infection, I start to see also another argument. We are basically pausing the life of younger people, indefinitely, to protect the elders. Again, since the quarantine started in my area I exist twice to buy groceries and that's all. So I understand the need and the importance of it. But should I really throw away on year of my life? Should…
It’s hard to isolate the elderly if they are so old that they need care by the young.
Isolating the not-quite-so-old that can self-isolate is easy.
As somebody who has been tracking and interested in this story since late January, the one thing I can without qualifications is that whatever seems true now will change in a few weeks' time. In general the outlook has gotten better as the data got better and we were able to compare notes, although there have been some setbacks, too. I don't think we'll ever, ever get back to "normal" as this is the pandemic we've be…
People keep saying this, but it's a meaningless sentiment. The "normal" of today was never going to be the "normal" of two years from now, with or without this pandemic. It's not like the world was going to be frozen in time until this coronavirus came along.
Before 9/11 we didn't have to take off our shoes to fly. Now we usually do. Im sure there will be plenty of similar changes due to the pandemic, and most of them will be similarly easy to adapt to, just as we adapt to so many other changes year after year.
But this threat that we may never "get back to normal" rings hollow to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We are basically pausing the life of younger people, indefinitely, to protect the elders. No, we're pausing the life of everyone to protect everyone. If you overload the hospital systems then everyone dies. If you pause and keep things barely managable then mostly only old people die.
I believe we both agree that locking down 20/30 years old people who still have to study, to meet people, to make experience, to find lovers and to find themselves is very different that lock down 70/80 years old people right? Then there is no doubts that the virus hit hardest the elders. Again, what I am saying is that younger people are hit by the lockdown much more than the elders while being the less concerned ab…
The problem with saying this is that it's incorrect. Many elders suffer during lockdown in the exact same ways and in some cases to the exact same extent that younger people do, including in the ways you imagine: socially, sexually, economically.
Additionally, there are many young people (many of them here on HN) who do just fine during lockdown because WFH and online interaction actually promote their senses of well being. [0]
The insistence with which you have been asserting that young people are being "punished" reveals adherence to an agenda more than an evenhanded analysis of the facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having some states do the right things and others not doing so is kind of like having a pool with a peeing section.
The same is true for nations. Any argument for forcing the states to be subordinate to the federal government is also an argument for forcing the federal government, and all other national governments, to be subordinate to a single supra-national entity.
As we enter summer, the question no one is asking is: Can mosquitoes transmit this virus like they do malaria?
For how much I understand the need to lower the curve and reduce the R0 of the infection, I start to see also another argument. We are basically pausing the life of younger people, indefinitely, to protect the elders. Again, since the quarantine started in my area I exist twice to buy groceries and that's all. So I understand the need and the importance of it. But should I really throw away on year of my life? Should…
If not, can you explain again what you are saying?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We are basically pausing the life of younger people, indefinitely, to protect the elders. No, we're pausing the life of everyone to protect everyone. If you overload the hospital systems then everyone dies. If you pause and keep things barely managable then mostly only old people die.
I believe we both agree that locking down 20/30 years old people who still have to study, to meet people, to make experience, to find lovers and to find themselves is very different that lock down 70/80 years old people right? Then there is no doubts that the virus hit hardest the elders. Again, what I am saying is that younger people are hit by the lockdown much more than the elders while being the less concerned ab…
* Any concern for the COVID-resilient groups running around spreading the germs to more susceptible? How do we measure what level of social life one is allowed to have while putting other groups at risk?
* Enforcement. How do we advertise and enforce these new rules? Will certain people feel discriminated against? Should police card/arrest people if they look just a little too gray/old/wrinkly?
I think just "talking" about this will be opinions vs opinions. We should start with numbers and then try to see what makes sense.
For how much I understand the need to lower the curve and reduce the R0 of the infection, I start to see also another argument. We are basically pausing the life of younger people, indefinitely, to protect the elders. Again, since the quarantine started in my area I exist twice to buy groceries and that's all. So I understand the need and the importance of it. But should I really throw away on year of my life? Should…
> But should I really throw away on year of my life? You don't have to throw it away. There are plenty of productive ways to spend your time. Yes, social isolation is burdensome. But it's damn sight better than being dead.
I'm extremely skeptical of any analysis that discusses political non-viability at this point. If you asked any commentator 2 months ago whether it was politically viable to issue general stay at home orders, or to give every American a bunch of free money, or to pass a multi-trillion dollar stimulus bill, they would have told you no.
Giving every American a token cash handout is something Republicans have done before, it's hardly unbelievable if you actually have historical context. And by far most of that bill is corporate handouts. And the oversight has been fired. Everything about this aligns exactly with what you'd expect politically. It's a debacle. Furthermore, while there has been a lot of shutdown, it's not equal across the board. Tons of…