Coronavirus

[MikeG]

What on earth makes you think we 'accept' these things?

For every one of those, tremendous amounts of money is spent every year in research and treatment. These examples don't make your case in any way whatsoever.

Go look in the grocery store shelves if you think that we don't accept these things. Frankly... looking at the self-inflicted harm we do with our diets, it is pretty clear that we DO accept a lot of deaths from defective products. Unlike infectious disease, the ones from lifestyle take decades to manifest themselves, so we block those out in our minds.

 

[MikeG]

Unfortunately, we're not in the "past", but the here and now, and we're losing an unacceptable number of people, possibly because many don't want to believe that some simple measures would work.
Answer your own last sentence...what do you consider an "acceptable" number of deaths ? And would you consider one of your family members"acceptable" ?
I truly hope it never happens, but I'd bet it would change your perspective.

There ya go.... you've answered the question of what you consider acceptable. Something between the normal flu total, and where we are with this situation.

 

[Grumpaw]

So, your going to compare a Ranger spewing out particles that are not good to other Rangers, to some idiot who doesn't believe masks are worthwhile, spewing "particles" on your son/daughter/wife/family member ?
If I'm lucky enough to get thru this along with my loved ones, I'll gladly give my Ranger up.

 

[MikeG]

And we are at 240,000 covid deaths in 9 months, and numbers are increasing now faster than they were at the beginning. So according to your numbers covid is the 3rd leading cause of death by a large margin with numbers showing no sign of stopping it's massive climb. By January deaths are likely to be well over 300,000.

Not to mention most of those things on those lists are not contagious. No one gets gets in a car accident from not washing their hands. I can't walk into a store and give you cancer from not wearing a face mask.

If wearing masks could lower the mortality rate even 1% thats 2,400 lives saved. How is there a rational argument against that? It costs nothing, it doesn't change your personal life, doesn't effect your freedom. You just slip something over your face at the damn grocery store.

Agreed that wearing a mask might well slow the rate of transmission.... a little. And that will add up over time. Shutting down the economy, and telling everyone to stay home, will shut it down even more (for a while). So which do we choose? There will be an effect on the death rate, with either, and an effect on society (with associated consequences), with either.

I'm not advocating either with this post, just saying we have to make a conscious decision.

 

[fastpakr]

Nothing about your argument makes the slightest bit of rational sense. A mask doesn't have some magical parallel in your example to the 'fuel economy and performance will suffer'. The context in which it is worn doesn't do that. If you're going out on a run, then don't wear it. For walking around it has absolutely zero effect on your ability to breathe. And please don't start with the garbage about micron size as if it doesn't actually do its job. The idea that it doesn't work is nothing but a conspiracy theory. When used properly there are measurable effects.

 

[MikeG]

So, your going to compare a Ranger spewing out particles that are not good to other Rangers, to some idiot who doesn't believe masks are worthwhile, spewing "particles" on your son/daughter/wife/family member ?
If I'm lucky enough to get thru this along with my loved ones, I'll gladly give my Ranger up.

I was trying to put the question in non-emotional terms, but clearly that didn't go over too well nor was it accepted as an abstract discussion of actions / consequences. I'd worry a lot less about the vehicles in the driveway, than loved ones, myself.

 

[Grumpaw]

There ya go.... you've answered the question of what you consider acceptable. Something between the normal flu total, and where we are with this situation.

Don't know where you got that inference...I don't think any of the 250,000 death from this are acceptable.
And, as for the list you posted, almost all are deaths by personal choices...If one smokes, they should accept they might get cancer.
If you overeat, you should accept that you might become obese or have coronary problems.
Ect ect ect.

 

[Dirtman]

Go look in the grocery store shelves if you think that we don't accept these things. Frankly... looking at the self-inflicted harm we do with our diets, it is pretty clear that we DO accept a lot of deaths from defective products. Unlike infectious disease, the ones from lifestyle take decades to manifest themselves, so we block those out in our minds.

You're comparing poor choice that effects ones own life, and a disease where your poor choices cost OTHERS their lives. If your steady diet of twinkies didn't kill you but somehow killed everyone you came in contact with, you'd probably stop eating twinkies, or you'd just be a dick. Sorta like how people who refuse to wear masks are dicks.

 

[MikeG]

Nothing about your argument makes the slightest bit of rational sense. A mask doesn't have some magical parallel in your example to the 'fuel economy and performance will suffer'. The context in which it is worn doesn't do that. If you're going out on a run, then don't wear it. For walking around it has absolutely zero effect on your ability to breathe. And please don't start with the garbage about micron size as if it doesn't actually do its job. The idea that it doesn't work is nothing but a conspiracy theory. When used properly there are measurable effects.

I agree that there should be a way to measure the effects. So let's go measure them. It will help make the decision easier.

On a related note... I find it completely absurd that professional sports players are on the field with no masks, yet the coaches and team support people have to have them. That tells me they are making a conscious decision to put salary / team revenue over health risks, no matter how small those risks might be for the (presumably healthy) team members.

 

[MikeG]

Don't know where you got that inference...I don't think any of the 250,000 death from this are acceptable.
And, as for the list you posted, almost all are deaths by personal choices...If one smokes, they should accept they might get cancer.
If you overeat, you should accept that you might become obese or have coronary problems.
Ect ect ect.

But the flu isn't a personal choice, neither is MSRA, nor are innocent people killed by drunk drivers, family members dying from second-hand smoke, and so on.

Nor people murdered by convicted criminals let out of jail, and so on. Car crashes by idiots texting, road rage.... you get the idea.

As a society we have in fact accepted that there are going to be a certain number of deaths of innocent people, by various causes that might have been preventable by different means.

 

[fastpakr]

I agree that there should be a way to measure the effects. So let's go measure them. It will help make the decision easier.

If only there were qualified people doing such a thing...

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

 

[fastpakr]

But the flu isn't a personal choice, neither is MSRA, nor are innocent people killed by drunk drivers, family members dying from second-hand smoke, and so on.

Perhaps it was poorly written, but the way you presented your idea compared those things as justification for not responding with active steps to the current situation.

 

[19Walt93]

Herd immunity sounds great but it occurs after the most susceptible have died. A vaccine will be the key to controlling Covid IF we can get people to take it. I was talking to a (very liberal) friend last week, after she said she wouldn't take a covid vaccine I said that was how we eradicated small pox. She then told me that the small pox vaccine created AIDS? WTF? We're close to the same age and were both vaccinated against small pox and neither has AIDS. Neither of use is an IV drug user or male homosexual, either. People die every year from the flu and some people won't get vaccinated because it isn't 100% effective. If it's even 40% effective it's worth it, if you had a 40% chance of winning the lottery wouldn't you buy a ticket?

 

[Dirtman]

If you had a 40% chance of winning the lottery wouldn't you buy a ticket?

I feel if there was a 40% chance of winning that would mean only about 10 people bought tickets so the jackpot would be about $0.15 cents. With tickets costing $1.00... no... still not worth it.

 

[Grumpaw]

But the flu isn't a personal choice, neither is MSRA, nor are innocent people killed by drunk drivers, family members dying from second-hand smoke, and so on.

Nor people murdered by convicted criminals let out of jail, and so on.

There are always going to be exceptions, nothing is an absolute.
But if, at the beginning of this mess, had we been told the truth, and a nationwide attempt to curb the spread, by ALL of us, we would not be in the position we're in now.
Our politicians fought along party lines, not giving a tinkers damn about the long term effects on the public.
And now we're paying the price, both health wise and monetarily.