hard to prove or disprove. They put lockdown measures in place 4 weeks ago, so either they experienced a lot transmission during lockdown and recent decline after 3 to 4 weeks.... or the typical spike and fall of a virus is on display.cone said:
so hard lockdown worked?
cone said:
so hard lockdown worked?
Because just because you're comfortable with accepting the risk doesn't mean you won't be part of the population that has severe disease and contributes to overwhelming hospital systems and overworking healthcare workers.DFWTLR said:
Isn't the end when a large majority of people have either had it or are vaccinated? I don't think a large majority will even get vaccinated, so locking down until that actually happens doesn't seem realistic.
If people are not comfortable going out why not just stay home, and let those of us who are continue to do so and support the businesses that need customers and revenue?
cone said:
well, with the end in sight, lockdowns make more sense than ever before
you can actually plan and understand the amount of money needed to make it to a reasonable vaccine rollout
No, they don't. Not sure why you keep saying this. You lose jobs / livelihoods right here at the end. The destruction that can cause can easily outweigh any benefit you get from it. 10 months in makes it even harder for some. It's already been hard enough. no telling what this will do, and what kind of public backlash you'd have. You'd likely have millions telling the gov't to f*** off anyways. It's not sensible to suggest now.cone said:
well, with the end in sight, lockdowns make more sense than ever before
you can actually plan and understand the amount of money needed to make it to a reasonable vaccine rollout
What's the supposed "bigger picture" though. Here is where things get murky and where those who want any kind of control get tempted by the wiggling worm they see, like a fish in a lake who goes to eat what seems like an easy meal only to become the meal when it turns out to be a turtle luring the poor fish to it's demise. In the end, a free society cannot just rest on other's seeing the bigger picture when, especially in this case, the odds that they become a super spreader are pretty damn low. It goes against human nature of a free society. And so many suffer b/c of this bigger picture when state and local governments pick and choose which businesses are "essential" and which are not. For instance, gyms have had only one case of a super spreader even, a small, closed room cycling class. That was back before the first major shutdowns. Nothing since. Yet gyms in states that are open have had no major (or even minor) outbreaks. Bear in mind that a large number of gyms do not enforce a mask policy. I have trained at various gyms around the DFW metroplex and most folks are maskless. I do not bring this up to debate masks, but to show that even without masks, between May and Dec 1 in TX, there hasn't been a case of a spreading event and at this point, if there is one, it's obviously so rear that it isn't worth making policy about. And we have already seen that strong, healthy individuals are much more likely to have better immune systems than people locked in their homes. And lets be honest, how many people who lack the discipline to go train are really going to workout at home? Few. Gyms SHOULD be considered essential. No doubt about it.bigtruckguy3500 said:Because just because you're comfortable with accepting the risk doesn't mean you won't be part of the population that has severe disease and contributes to overwhelming hospital systems and overworking healthcare workers.DFWTLR said:
Isn't the end when a large majority of people have either had it or are vaccinated? I don't think a large majority will even get vaccinated, so locking down until that actually happens doesn't seem realistic.
If people are not comfortable going out why not just stay home, and let those of us who are continue to do so and support the businesses that need customers and revenue?
I'm not saying lockdowns are the answer, but I think slowing the spread is at least part of it. And people need to understand that there's a bigger picture than just their personal risk tolerance.
bigtruckguy3500 said:Because just because you're comfortable with accepting the risk doesn't mean you won't be part of the population that has severe disease and contributes to overwhelming hospital systems and overworking healthcare workers.DFWTLR said:
Isn't the end when a large majority of people have either had it or are vaccinated? I don't think a large majority will even get vaccinated, so locking down until that actually happens doesn't seem realistic.
If people are not comfortable going out why not just stay home, and let those of us who are continue to do so and support the businesses that need customers and revenue?
I'm not saying lockdowns are the answer, but I think slowing the spread is at least part of it. And people need to understand that there's a bigger picture than just their personal risk tolerance.
Yep.This is what a free republic is, and I wouldn't give it up for anything.The_Fox said:bigtruckguy3500 said:Because just because you're comfortable with accepting the risk doesn't mean you won't be part of the population that has severe disease and contributes to overwhelming hospital systems and overworking healthcare workers.DFWTLR said:
Isn't the end when a large majority of people have either had it or are vaccinated? I don't think a large majority will even get vaccinated, so locking down until that actually happens doesn't seem realistic.
If people are not comfortable going out why not just stay home, and let those of us who are continue to do so and support the businesses that need customers and revenue?
I'm not saying lockdowns are the answer, but I think slowing the spread is at least part of it. And people need to understand that there's a bigger picture than just their personal risk tolerance.
There is nothing, nothing, more important than the individual risk determination.
It doesn't make a difference if doctors are stacking dead manatees in hospital corridors like cord wood, we should not be restricting whether someone can earn a living for their family, travel, and determine their own mitigation strategy, or lack thereof.
The lethality of this virus does not even begin to merit the idiotic response that we have seen in this nation.
The_Fox said:bigtruckguy3500 said:Because just because you're comfortable with accepting the risk doesn't mean you won't be part of the population that has severe disease and contributes to overwhelming hospital systems and overworking healthcare workers.DFWTLR said:
Isn't the end when a large majority of people have either had it or are vaccinated? I don't think a large majority will even get vaccinated, so locking down until that actually happens doesn't seem realistic.
If people are not comfortable going out why not just stay home, and let those of us who are continue to do so and support the businesses that need customers and revenue?
I'm not saying lockdowns are the answer, but I think slowing the spread is at least part of it. And people need to understand that there's a bigger picture than just their personal risk tolerance.
There is nothing, nothing, more important than the individual risk determination.
It doesn't make a difference if doctors are stacking dead manatees in hospital corridors like cord wood, we should not be restricting whether someone can earn a living for their family, travel, and determine their own mitigation strategy, or lack thereof.
The lethality of this virus does not even begin to merit the idiotic response that we have seen in this nation.
They stopped poverty, too.amercer said:
Lockdowns absolutely work. Look at China.
The questions have always been, can a free country actually do it, and are they worth it?
Other than an actual zombie apocalypse, I don't see how a Chinese level lockdown would ever be worth it in a free country. Piecemeal efforts, with only partial buy in from the public have expectedly poor results though.
Nobody won this year. But just maybe, the vaccine tech that's been developed, and our greater understanding of how pandemics spread mean that we'll never do this again.
TexasAggie008 said:
On the cliche political spectrum of "to what extent should the government provide a social safety net?" - we all fall somewhere.....and where each of us falls correlates heavily to how we've each viewed covid from the beginning I'd bet.
Guessing those who are pro-large safety net side have viewed Covid from day 1 as a blatantly obvious example of a situation that CLEARLY calls for the government and public health experts to keep us "safe" by any means necessary - they're trained professionals after all...the more aggressive the mitigation efforts (lockdowns, masks, you name it) the better.
Things like in-person work and school and vacations and holidays and restaurants can wait, and - obviously - the government can and should keep the checks coming to those who can't safely work during this. Oh and the massive debt that would be racked up to keep people afloat during this dire emergency? That can easily be made whole if we'd simply modernize our tax system in line with our western allies and embrace a more "fair" society going forward.
Schools have proven to be safer for the kids transmitting the disease than at home where they have a much higher chance of getting it from an adult.TexasAggie008 said:
On the cliche political spectrum of "to what extent should the government provide a social safety net?" - we all fall somewhere.....and where each of us falls correlates heavily to how we've each viewed covid from the beginning I'd bet.
Guessing those who are pro-large safety net side have viewed Covid from day 1 as a blatantly obvious example of a situation that CLEARLY calls for the government and public health experts to keep us "safe" by any means necessary - they're trained professionals after all...the more aggressive the mitigation efforts (lockdowns, masks, you name it) the better.
Things like in-person work and school and vacations and holidays and restaurants can wait, and - obviously - the government can and should keep the checks coming to those who can't safely work during this. Oh and the massive debt that would be racked up to keep people afloat during this dire emergency? That can easily be made whole if we'd simply modernize our tax system in line with our western allies and embrace a more "fair" society going forward.
No they do not. When you account for the repercussions from the lockdowns, in addition to the fact that a virus will do what a virus does, no they do not work. I would not believe anything coming our of China, so referencing them is probably not the best approach.amercer said:
Lockdowns absolutely work. Look at China.
The questions have always been, can a free country actually do it, and are they worth it?
Other than an actual zombie apocalypse, I don't see how a Chinese level lockdown would ever be worth it in a free country. Piecemeal efforts, with only partial buy in from the public have expectedly poor results though.
Nobody won this year. But just maybe, the vaccine tech that's been developed, and our greater understanding of how pandemics spread mean that we'll never do this again.
