If this follows the three act structure of most movies, understand that we are still in Act One.
I think/assume eventually we may move to a situation where people under the age of 55 who do not have serious comorbidities are free to move around assuming they wear respirators, but everyone else (people over age 55 and those with serious health issues) are still under lockdown.
I could see something like that.
I also think we are going to have to start prioritizing not just testing the sick, but testing for antibodies to see who has already had it. That way those people who have already had the disease are given priority to move freely in society to perform necessary functions. People who have had it and survived fine will be prioritized for important jobs.
That’s easy to type. It’s hard to actually do. The government does not have unlimited amounts of money. Some people have to leave the house to work or everyone else will die of starvation and thirst.
The difficulty of doing this, like the virus, rises exponentially with time. A total lockdown for a couple of weeks isn’t really hard at all. Four weeks isn’t that bad. “As long as it takes,” though, eventually hits the wall of logistical reality.
I’m not sitting here telling you I don’t agree with social distancing. I’m at home too and going nowhere, and that’s fine. I am happy to do my part; I’m not one of those nitwits who went to spring break anyway because “you know, bro, gotta party, you know? Party on.” I’m just telling you the plain truth; there’s a limit to what the populace will tolerate, and there is a point at which a total lockdown just cannot be sustained.
Nobody is suggesting a “total lockdown”. Here is what I proposed:
We can get a good amount of work done with 1/4 of employees coming in and another 1/4 working overnight. Enough to keep people fed and supplied. Or have different groups of employees work on alternate days. And theres a ton of logistical and administrative work we can do from home now.
The EU is asking Netflix to slow down its streams making social distancing yet more annoying.
“20th century-level picture quality” sounds a little ridiculous to me…
Thats honestly not a bad idea though.
Better to have everyone watching in 480 or 720p, than to have a minority of people watching in 4k while lots of other people are seeing buffering on 480.
My utilities have announced that they will not cut off people while this crisis is going on. But eventually, back bills must be paid. After people are back at work they will “work with customers” on schedules to pay arrears while keeping current on fees, so they don’t get cut off.
I’m waiting for an order from either the mayor or the governor that there can be no evictions until the crisis has passed. I’m a lot less worries about paying utilities than I am about paying rent. My rent alone is more than all my utilities put together, and those include my cell (my only phone) and my cable/internet.
Very true, plus if it is something like an amusement park for example and by chance someone gets the covid-19 and dies and the lawyers can prove it is because the amusement park opened too early the claim could be in the millions.
Misewell be safe than sorry and wait till the virus peaks like China says that it has in Wuhan, not that I would believe China about anything.
Well, then you get into questions like if there’s enough money to keep all the small businesses and landlords afloat, and for how long, and how to make sure you could enforce strict quarantine without your troops and police getting sick too. Not to mention the fact that we’re not a week into national efforts and already there’s a thread in this very forum wondering if any of it is doing any good.
I’ll need more convincing before I accept a lockdown, even partial, for several months or more is something anybody anywhere in the world will countenance, no matter how good an idea it is medically.
I’m not saying that. I think the discussion needs to be had instead of this “curve flattening” shit. All people are “worth” saving, but old people die from natural causes.
The question isn’t whether people are worth saving. The question is whether an 85 year old would rather trash his grandchildren’s future so he can live to age 88.
But again, we can’t even mention it because of the hysterics that you are putting out in this thread.
Why don’t we talk about banning cars under your statements?
Hysterics, eh? I’d like to see some detail on that trashing of grandchildren’s futures. It’s interesting how often letting some people die is so important to securing other people’s grandchildren’s futures. But the how and why of it never gets deeper than broad platitudes.
Back when it was government death panels deciding it was time for grandma’s life support to be unplugged, it was outrageous, but now that it’s everyone having to pitch and suffer some hardship for the greater good, well, that’s just not a reasonable expectation.
Damn, edit wont work, for the above link:LOCKDOWN! Entire state of California now under “shelter in place” order
“Please! Take grandpa! Take grandma! They’ve only got a couple years left anyhow - and they’re the shit years, too. Just don’t take MAH MONAHY!!”
Just who is going to be enforcing these mandates? How? What are the penalties for non-compliance? I do not see these things mentioned at all.
Businesses can be shut down or risk their state licensing, but you cannot actually make a private individual stay home.
A mandate without penalties is just a suggestion.
People will tolerate this as long as infections and death rates keep going up. Especially to where everyone knows someone who had covid 19 and died (that’s a 2% fatality rate).
While I haven’t run the numbers, cutting the military increases over the past 5 years, and reinstating taxes to where they were pre-Trump ought to cover that trillion dollar stimulus package.
And what about the homeless? I have not heard this addressed.
How would you make this kind of determination regarding who would have to die, though? Would it be some sort of… decision panel?
The 2016 election suggests that many in that age bracket would trash their grandchildren’s future in exchange for a tax cut that might not even benefit them.