Unless someone is going to hide away in their own space for the next 18 months until a vaccine comes along, they are risking getting it. Worse, as I’ve demonstrated many times in this thread, flattening the curve is not (absent the one contention by Ravenman), about having people avoid getting sick. For the vast majority, anyone who thinks they can avoid it is deluding themselves.
There are two notions for me that drive the basis for my arguments. The first is that flattening the curve is about reducing rates, not reducing counts. There are several cites on that, so it isn’t a baseless thought. The other notion is that the asymptomatic rate is higher than first thought. Studies from Roosevelt and Princess showed those rates to be 60% and 18%, I believe. There are studies being done in Wuhan and in NY to look at those, and based on those outcomes we will likely learn more. A higher asymptomatic rate implies a lower mortality rate. Since we have data that suggests the mortality rate is lower than first thought, it is safer to open up than when we didn’t know much of anything.
Again, none of these are thoughts that are about wanting to open up just because of the money. I’m driven far more by the impact this is having on the unemployed and the pain this is causing those that are collateral damage to what we are doing. We have data that says we can keep systems from being overwhelmed. We have data that shows the death rate isn’t as high as first feared. Let’s start to take care of the rest of society and stop the panic mode we are in.
That’s an easy question you can answer yourself. Just ask all the people in the grocery store next time you go. Start with the “essential” workers. They’re the ones risking everybody’s life for money.
It is odd that you ask my opinion on what flattening the curve means to me, I give you what o think is a thoughtful answer, and you then say I’m wrong. I’m not sure what the point is for asking my opinion if you already know the answer.
By default, Americans are not under an obligation to give up their paychecks because other people are out of work or suffering in other ways. It is you who is suggesting a massive change from the default. I am contending that if you want to change the rules of the game — such that individuals must bear the financial cost of their policy positions — then the saw should cut both ways.
If you want Dr. Fauci to give up his paycheck because others are out of work, that’s a massive change from “the default.” It is only fair that businesses under this new construct also take on additional responsibilities if the ground rules change.
Or, we can just avoid the whole idea of punishing people for their policy suggestions and deal with the crisis in ways that are more effective than vindictive.
I think that the less personal contact we have with strangers the better, don’t you?
What a ridiculous request. :rolleyes:
BTW, all the workers I’ve seen have worn long sleeves and a mask, and kept at least six feet away from the customers.
I was not talking about your straw man, I was talking mostly about people in the hospitals, that for a few weeks were overwhelmed and had people not being taken care properly and dying waiting for that care in hospital halls. One should also add here the hospital care workers that ran out of proper equipment because of the increase of sick people showing up, and as a result got sick and also died.
It is the difference between an ignorant retort and one that has validity, your failure is that timelines are being ignored and IIRC I noticed in another thread that the number of beds you talk about was late to come.
In my area almost none of them have worn a mask and there is zero chance they have consistently stayed 6 feet away from customers. It’s impossible.
But my response was more of a rhetorical one to point out we are not self isolating in any sense of the word. Sure, we’re not shoulder to shoulder spitting coronal epitaphs at sports officials but we’re not living in filtered isolation either.
I’ve tried pointing out the fallacy of sheltering in place and how the concept has likely killed more elderly by confining them to well intentioned petri dishes.
But for the most part we accomplished what we started out to do. Slow the rate of infection to a manageable level. We wanted to use the function of time to our advantage. We are getting to the point where the trade off between death and financial ruin is in transition. My governor just announced how we’re going to make the transition. We’re going to use what we’ve learned to maintain a higher level of protection and bring people back into the workforce in a controlled manner.
The reason I asked is because if we can’t agree on what we are trying to accomplish (flattening the curve), we won’t be able to understand the rest of what each of us is saying.
I’m advocating for getting BACK to the default. It isn’t me calling for everyone to stay at home and not patronize anything but “essential” services. The default is for people to be allowed to go about their lives. If you want to advocate for people not being allowed to do that, at the cost of millions of jobs, you need to be prepared to make sacrifices instead of just asking others to sacrifice.
Agreed! If we are going to move away from the default, we need to make everyone pitch in. On the other hand, if we are going to allow a return to more normal, that need is obviated.
How is asking everyone to pitch in and sacrifice instead of asking just a few to sacrifice vindictive? As a society we are simply everyone in the society to make sacrifices. That isn’t vindictive at all.
Again, your evidence that hospitals were overrun is a story about two patients that were delayed being checked on and weren’t responded to promptly. Why you are calling that a strawman is unclear to me.
The only way those two patients are relevant as to whether they indicate a failure of the hospital system is if they died because of lack of care. Even if they are relevant, you are still talking about 2 and 2 patients only. That is hardly the disaster we saw in other places. It demonstrates that the healthcare system was brought to the edge, not that it collapsed. It more supports my case than yours.
It’s not. But believe it or not, you are not the first person in the history of the world to come up with the idea that people should give up part of their paycheck for the common good. It’s called income tax. If you want to have a sensible discussion of this, frame it in terms of what you think should be happening with tax policy - who should be taxed more and where should the money go?
Read it again, you talked about not having care, the cites are not only dealing with that.
Wrong still, I also was referring to the ones dying in the hospital because they did not get all the care they could have because the hospitals were flooded, your statement really looks ridiculous as it clearly it was not just 2 people. And everyone can notice that you are ignoring the doctors and nurses that had to go with inadequate protection, again most likely brought by the spike in cases happening at the same time, and not coming later in less concentrated numbers as when a flattened curve takes place.
Using this logic no one could have ever supported declaring war on Japan and Germany in WWII unless they were willing to put themselves on the front line.
As for this crisis, aren’t you basically just saying we need far higher taxes to spread some of the economic pain around? If so, then yes. I agree. Of course we need FAR higher taxes (income and investment taxes at the very least). We have needed this for some time (probably since the 50’s or 60’s).
I personally feel that NBA refs should start calling traveling more than once a season. But I’m not a NBA player so I’ve got no skin in the game.
I personally feel that minorities should be treated more fairly. But I’m not a minority so I’ve got no skin in the game.
I personally feel that public schools should be paid for out of general taxes, not only property taxes. But I’ve got no children so I’ve got no skin in the game.
Last economic downturn. We got furloughed, we took pay cuts, we lost benefits, our salaries were frozen for years.
There’s a salary schedule I was hired under back in 2007. That year, there was talk about what could be done to improve pay for teachers. Then the Great Recession struck. If the schedule I was hired under had never received improvements, had only been adjusted for inflation, I would’ve earned an extra $60,000 over the past 13 years, enough to almost pay off my house, or a very substantial college fund for my kids. Instead, my kids spent part of that time on Medicaid.
And now we’re getting ready to enter a much more serious financial downturn. You bet your ass I’m worried.
Well, how about this? If we open early, there are going to be a lot more people who get very sick. Some of them will bankrupt themselves paying hospital bills. I assume that you’re willing to go broke to pay those bills for them, right?
Nobody has to go broke for us to maintain public health. That’s a choice we made. We should increase government debt and pay people to stay home until we have comprehensive test coverage and hospital capacity to protect & care for the essential workers right now, and a vaccine to protect everybody else as soon as we can.
This is a perfect time for the government to take on debt. Interest rates are at historic lows. Inflation is at historic lows, Oil is at historic lows. Let’s print some money and send it directly to families! This is the most ideal time to do it!
In all your examples, including the declaration of war, there is a demonstrable benefit enacting the policies. If extreme sacrifices are going to be asked of people there better be an extreme risk associated with not acting or the benefits from acting must be extreme.
Asking to pay for public schools has demonstrable benefit in an educated society.
Treating people more fairly has a demonstrable benefit of providing for a better society and equality for all people.
Not declaring war on Germany and Japan had a huge risk to the US with political, social and economic implications. The benefit of stopping a mad ruler from nearly overtaking Europe are demonstrable.
When the virus started to spread there was a demonstrable risk to not acting, See Italy an Spain. The cost and sacrifices we took as a society were justifiable. Since then, we have learned the risks are much less than first feared while the costs continue to mount. It certainly does not appear those worst fears can still be justified. To continue to call for the continued sacrifices and quite possibly even more, particularly when the ones calling for them aren’t the ones who will actually need to sacrifice, is wrong.
The only defensible position for continuing this is the risk of overrunning medical systems. At this point, it certainly appears we have lots of margin for opening up without risking that. If others are saying it is still too risky, I’d be far more willing to give that opinion some weight if they were the ones that actually had something to risk.
I’ve been advocating for substantial increase to teacher’s salaries for a long time. My ex is a special ed teacher. I’ve heard of far too many teachers struggling. Maybe now that so many parents have had to try to educate their own kids they’ll realize what a valuable asset our teachers are. Good luck to you. Sincerely.
You realize that just takes us back to the original definition of flattening the curve, yes? The same number of people are going to get sick with or without a lockdown. Even worse, and this is one of the reasons I want to try to save as many jobs as possible, if they get sick without insurance they are screwed. If we can keep more jobs more people keep insurance and can help pay for medical care they are going to need one way or another.
I’m very willing to pay for universal healthcare, yes. As a matter of fact, it would likely SAVE me money.
You appear to be making two different bad arguments.
Your OP argues, very poorly, that a person may not advocate any policy that harms anyone, unless the advocate is willing to take on an extreme level of harm themselves. It makes no allowance for advocating a policy that harms a small group but protects a much larger group, nor does it make allowance for advocating both the policy that harms and a policy that mitigates that harm (e.g., increasing unemployment benefits). It’s a very poor argument.
Your argument that I just quoted implies that there’s no demonstrable benefit to continuing the lockdowns. EPIDEMIOLOGISTS DISAGREE.
The thing is, if you’re right that the lockdowns should stop, then the poor “you’re a hypocrite” argument is irrelevant. But you’re not right on this.
Wait… have we in fact learned that? What was learned, and when did we learn it?
From what I sit, all we’ve learned is that social distancing does keep the curve down, that there are more asymptomatic spreaders than we thought, and that the virus may have been causing fatal strokes in young adults who are only now getting postmortem tests.
I don’t think you can accurately say we’ve overestimated the risk of the virus, unless you mean in the minds of the general public who are operating off TV news stories rather than reported scientific data. My grandma went from thinking “we’re all going to die” to “I didn’t die and I need to visit my beautician”. I love my grams but I’m not going to base public policy on what she saw on Tucker Carlson.