SirLurksALot said:
You seem angry. Maybe you should take a step back and try to get control of your emotions. It's just an internet discussion board.
Thank you. What an excellent post.BeowulfShaeffer said:
A philosopher you aren't.
It's quite easy to value someone you don't know that has already died. I value Albert Einstein; I value John of the Cross; I value Albert Schweizer; I value Yogi Berra. I know none of them personally. Three of them died before I was born, but I'm still able to value them.
In this particular case we have a nurse that I didn't know and didn't learn about until after she died. However, I still value her contribution to us as humans--dying in the fight to save others, and I mourn her loss. I have empathy for her family. I'm able to have empathy for the families of those who are mourning loved ones lost to this disease outbreak. I can easily value them all without having known them.
Back to what the CDC has said (published)...they used the adjective 'serious'. Was that a mistake? What do you interpret that adjective to mean? Does it mean anyone with any semblance of these underlying conditions or do they mean that the underlying conditions have to be of a serious nature?HotardAg07 said:
You can find this all on CDC's website.
Here is how theWhite HouseCDC? defines Vunerable Individuals, who should stay home until Phase 3:Quote:
1. Elderly individuals.
2. Individuals with serious underlying health conditions, including high blood pressure, chronic lung disease, diabetes, obesity, asthma, and those whose immune system is compromised such as by chemotherapy for cancer and other conditions requiring such therapy.
https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/infographic/chronic-diseases.htm
Dr.HeadCase said:
This is the problem with this board. OP has already made his agenda clear in previous posts and is posting to stir up debate and now this thread has derailed into another political cluster f.
