Acceptable losses?
-
Any number of deaths are acceptable because it's out of our control. Stay at home orders failed to stop it from spreading and were never designed to stop it. They were put in place to not overwhelm the hospital system. The hospital system has not been overwhelmed.
Its not on Trump, or Biden to save the nation through nannying. It didn't work for the Spanish flu and it's not working now. All the lockdowns do is continue the pain for as long as humanely possible. People have gotten the idea of what it's for all twisted up in their fear and panic.
-
To answer your question I would provide the best possible information to people and let them make their own decisions and focus the power of the government on protecting nursing homes and long term care facilities and making treatment readily available to people rather than holding the costs of it over their heads as a reason to not seek treatment.
-
I see it as NO deaths are "acceptable" - you try to limit the scope of it. The initial "stay home" was fine by me, after 3? weeks of that, the roar of the pandemic was gone for the most part.
Still, it lurks here and there, transmitted from person to person again. But you can't go past what we've done - and closing all those businesses - I think I wouldn't have done that for more than two weeks.
It limited what could have happened, went for too long, ...we're a free people - give us CORRECT INFO and advice, and let the American people make their own decisions.
The assisted living in Texas where the fatherinlaw is...they had window visits only. Now, who is going to travel cross country for a window visit? Now, they realize the senior citizens there are upset they haven't had loved ones visit, and don't get much from the "window visits".
I know a great percentage of folks are in those assisted llving/nursing homes/etc, but testing seems to be required and let those who don't have it, enter and visit. When you are 97, you can't wait a year for a lot of folks to visit - they may not be there later.
No deaths are acceptable - and China did this on purpose, there is no other explanation. China must pay, and pay dearly. Time to just shut them the hell out for lies about the virus.
-
Cal that's not exactly what I'm looking for my friend. What would you do if you had the power? I realize you're more nervous than most on this issue. Also I'm not looking for politics just proposed action.
WSS
-
Cal that's not exactly what I'm looking for my friend. What would you do if you had the power? I realize you're more nervous than most on this issue. Also I'm not looking for politics just proposed action.
WSS
Cal that's not exactly what I'm looking for my friend. What would you do if you had the power? I realize you're more nervous than most on this issue. Also I'm not looking for politics just proposed action.
WSS
I missed the mark with my rambling? well, crap. lol
If I had the power - I would have shut down, asked the American people to stay in, like they did, but a month and a half? nope. Two weeks at max, and asking for social distancing and masks....only voluntary.and shutting down of businesses - that's pretty tough.
China did this to us - we were screwed over by their lies about covid, with the WHO's complicity. I don't have much of a better idea, outside of shortening the stay at home instructions, and not shutting down all businesses.
Like Cysko said - protecting the elderly should have been a main focus.
China and the WHo = "was not transmittable person to person". that murdered hundreds? of thousands around the world.
If I had the power, I would arrange a world wide boycott of trade with china. just end it.
-
Well the wording of the question "what is the acceptable death rate" ? is absurd to begin with. Not a single death is acceptable really..
It is inevitable that people will die. We know that thousands die from the flu...so knowing what we know about COVID, the appropriate way to ask the question would be... "What should the death rate not exceed before it becomes unacceptable?
The way the question is asked by lefties is meant only to put on the spot the person that its directed at, to make it appear that they are being cold and insensitive. Notice that Libs begin to ask that question when they it becomes evident they are losing the debate. That is what happened to Steve.
-
Well the wording of the question "what is the acceptable death rate" ? is absurd to begin with. Not a single death is acceptable really..
It is inevitable that people will die. We know that thousands die from the flu...so knowing what we know about COVID, the appropriate way to ask the question would be... "What should the death rate not exceed before it becomes unacceptable?
The way the question is asked by lefties is meant only to put on the spot the person that its directed at, to make it appear that they are being cold and insensitive. Notice that Libs begin to ask that question when they it becomes evident they are losing the debate. That is what happened to Steve.
Well the wording of the question "what is the acceptable death rate" ? is absurd to begin with. Not a single death is acceptable really..
well I disagree. Life itself is fraught with danger and we can't make everybody completely safe from everything. When I had cancer I was given a choice whether or not to have chemo. With the chemo guarantee success? Nope. Could it possibly kill me? Yep. Could not getting it lead to death ? Yes. But we could actually make a lot more people a lot more safe from a lot more things but it would take Draconian measures which we aren't prepared to accept. For instance at the first inkling of covid-19 we could have closed the borders completely. Not just a half-assed wishy-washy way we did it. Again that would have been pretty harsh. I've been berated for saying this before but if we lowered the speed limit across the United States to 30 miles an hour we would save hundreds if not thousands of people who died in high speed traffic accidents. But we accept that risk and those numbers. That's all I mean. We could try to enforce healthy diets and daily exercise. How many people die from heart attacks due to weight related problems? We know people are going to die from the effects of smoking yet cigarettes are still legal.
It is inevitable that people will die. We know that thousands die from the flu...so knowing what we know about COVID, the appropriate way to ask the question would be... "What should the death rate not exceed before it becomes unacceptable?
The way the question is asked by lefties is meant only to put on the spot the person that its directed at, to make it appear that they are being cold and insensitive. Notice that Libs begin to ask that question when they it becomes evident they are losing the debate. That is what happened to Steve.
I'm completely aware of why those questions are asked Gorka. But there is an acceptable risk and we take it everyday. I remember a similar situation Phil Donahue was grilling somebody about the Iraq War and asked if he would sacrifice his son or daughter to free the people of Iraq. Bogus question? Sure. I might have turned it around to the issue of police being ambushed and shot. Would you sacrifice your son or daughter to protect the life of a black woman being beaten up by her husband?
still I'm just asking what any of the guys here would do if it had been in their power to make the rules. That's all not a gotcha.
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Phil Donahue? Damn you're old?
-
Well the wording of the question "what is the acceptable death rate" ? is absurd to begin with. Not a single death is acceptable really..
well I disagree. Life itself is fraught with danger and we can't make everybody completely safe from everything. When I had cancer I was given a choice whether or not to have chemo. With the chemo guarantee success? Nope. Could it possibly kill me? Yep. Could not getting it lead to death ? Yes. But we could actually make a lot more people a lot more safe from a lot more things but it would take Draconian measures which we aren't prepared to accept. For instance at the first inkling of covid-19 we could have closed the borders completely. Not just a half-assed wishy-washy way we did it. Again that would have been pretty harsh. I've been berated for saying this before but if we lowered the speed limit across the United States to 30 miles an hour we would save hundreds if not thousands of people who died in high speed traffic accidents. But we accept that risk and those numbers. That's all I mean. We could try to enforce healthy diets and daily exercise. How many people die from heart attacks due to weight related problems? We know people are going to die from the effects of smoking yet cigarettes are still legal.
It is inevitable that people will die. We know that thousands die from the flu...so knowing what we know about COVID, the appropriate way to ask the question would be... "What should the death rate not exceed before it becomes unacceptable?
The way the question is asked by lefties is meant only to put on the spot the person that its directed at, to make it appear that they are being cold and insensitive. Notice that Libs begin to ask that question when they it becomes evident they are losing the debate. That is what happened to Steve.
I'm completely aware of why those questions are asked Gorka. But there is an acceptable risk and we take it everyday. I remember a similar situation Phil Donahue was grilling somebody about the Iraq War and asked if he would sacrifice his son or daughter to free the people of Iraq. Bogus question? Sure. I might have turned it around to the issue of police being ambushed and shot. Would you sacrifice your son or daughter to protect the life of a black woman being beaten up by her husband?
still I'm just asking what any of the guys here would do if it had been in their power to make the rules. That's all not a gotcha.
well I disagree. Life itself is fraught with danger and we can't make everybody completely safe from everything. When I had cancer I was given a choice whether or not to have chemo. With the chemo guarantee success? Nope. Could it possibly kill me? Yep. Could not getting it lead to death ? Yes. But we could actually make a lot more people a lot more safe from a lot more things but it would take Draconian measures which we aren't prepared to accept. For instance at the first inkling of covid-19 we could have closed the borders completely. Not just a half-assed wishy-washy way we did it. Again that would have been pretty harsh. I've been berated for saying this before but if we lowered the speed limit across the United States to 30 miles an hour we would save hundreds if not thousands of people who died in high speed traffic accidents. But we accept that risk and those numbers. That's all I mean. We could try to enforce healthy diets and daily exercise. How many people die from heart attacks due to weight related problems? We know people are going to die from the effects of smoking yet cigarettes are still legal.
It is inevitable that people will die. We know that thousands die from the flu...so knowing what we know about COVID, the appropriate way to ask the question would be... "What should the death rate not exceed before it becomes unacceptable?
And I agree with you!! ^^^
Not debating that at all. My only objective here was to object on how the question is being asked! I had conveyed that in my opening sentence.
With war comes the ultimate sacrifice. It is inevitable men will die, but I couldn't imagine that anyone asked "What should be the acceptable death rate of our soldiers in Vietnam?"
I think whats goin on here is that you and I perceive "acceptable" differently when used this way.
-
well I disagree. Life itself is fraught with danger and we can't make everybody completely safe from everything. When I had cancer I was given a choice whether or not to have chemo. With the chemo guarantee success? Nope. Could it possibly kill me? Yep. Could not getting it lead to death ? Yes. But we could actually make a lot more people a lot more safe from a lot more things but it would take Draconian measures which we aren't prepared to accept. For instance at the first inkling of covid-19 we could have closed the borders completely. Not just a half-assed wishy-washy way we did it. Again that would have been pretty harsh. I've been berated for saying this before but if we lowered the speed limit across the United States to 30 miles an hour we would save hundreds if not thousands of people who died in high speed traffic accidents. But we accept that risk and those numbers. That's all I mean. We could try to enforce healthy diets and daily exercise. How many people die from heart attacks due to weight related problems? We know people are going to die from the effects of smoking yet cigarettes are still legal.
It is inevitable that people will die. We know that thousands die from the flu...so knowing what we know about COVID, the appropriate way to ask the question would be... "What should the death rate not exceed before it becomes unacceptable?
And I agree with you!! ^^^
Not debating that at all. My only objective here was to object on how the question is being asked! I had conveyed that in my opening sentence.
With war comes the ultimate sacrifice. It is inevitable men will die, but I couldn't imagine that anyone asked "What should be the acceptable death rate of our soldiers in Vietnam?"
I think whats goin on here is that you and I perceive "acceptable" differently when used this way.
And I agree with you!! ^^^
Not debating that at all. My only objective here was to object on how the question is being asked! I had conveyed that in my opening sentence.
With war comes the ultimate sacrifice. It is inevitable men will die, but I couldn't imagine that anyone asked "What should be the acceptable death rate of our soldiers in Vietnam?"
I think whats goin on here is that you and I perceive "acceptable" differently when used this way.
For the record that referred to hoorta and his semi facetious question about how many deaths are acceptable 100,000? 200,000? And of course it's a meaningless question because there are hundreds of thousands of deaths every year that we can't and won't stop.
WSS
-
Hey, I'm just trying to get an idea of when this over blown hoax would become real news to righties. I asked the same question way back when people started taking it seriously. The couple people who were brave enough to answer said when the deaths out number flu deaths last year (in US). (~40k) Righty's talking point have shifted to well it's only old people dying so it's not that big of a deal or as seen in this thread hey people die all the time.
So make up your own watermark. What would make you change your mind and admit this is a big deal. Anything? (Well I mean other than Cheetos Jesus admitting it.)
-
Hey, I'm just trying to get an idea of when this over blown hoax would become real news to righties. I asked the same question way back when people started taking it seriously. The couple people who were brave enough to answer said when the deaths out number flu deaths last year (in US). (~40k) Righty's talking point have shifted to well it's only old people dying so it's not that big of a deal or as seen in this thread hey people die all the time.
So make up your own watermark. What would make you change your mind and admit this is a big deal. Anything? (Well I mean other than Cheetos Jesus admitting it.)
Hey, I'm just trying to get an idea of when this over blown hoax would become real news to righties. I asked the same question way back when people started taking it seriously. The couple people who were brave enough to answer said when the deaths out number flu deaths last year (in US). (~40k) Righty's talking point have shifted to well it's only old people dying so it's not that big of a deal or as seen in this thread hey people die all the time.
So make up your own watermark. What would make you change your mind and admit this is a big deal. Anything? (Well I mean other than Cheetos Jesus admitting it.)
In other words you have nothing to contribute? Thanks.
WSS
-
Hey, I'm just trying to get an idea of when this over blown hoax would become real news to righties. I asked the same question way back when people started taking it seriously. The couple people who were brave enough to answer said when the deaths out number flu deaths last year (in US). (~40k) Righty's talking point have shifted to well it's only old people dying so it's not that big of a deal or as seen in this thread hey people die all the time.
So make up your own watermark. What would make you change your mind and admit this is a big deal. Anything? (Well I mean other than Cheetos Jesus admitting it.)
In other words you have nothing to contribute? Thanks.
WSS
In other words you have nothing to contribute? Thanks.
WSS
If that is what you got from that, you might be a CJ's supporter.
-
My friend Hoorta asked me at another post how many deaths would be acceptable dealing with the current pandemic. I'm assuming that's as opposed to how much short and long-term economic damage is acceptable?
Try to factor in how many lives do you think you could possibly save or lose.
Assuming that a presidential order would pass Supreme Court muster what would you do? You have the option to open up everything or issue a stay-at-home hoarder across the board. You could order every American to wear a mask anytime they're outside of their car or home. Or any variation or any combination of any kind of restrictions or lack thereof. I'm actually interested in everybody's idea. Try to be serious if at all possible. Thanks!
PS if you could try to make it about actual prevention remedy horse solution instead of politics that would be great.
WSS
My friend Hoorta asked me at another post how many deaths would be acceptable dealing with the current pandemic. I'm assuming that's as opposed to how much short and long-term economic damage is acceptable?
Try to factor in how many lives do you think you could possibly save or lose.
Assuming that a presidential order would pass Supreme Court muster what would you do? You have the option to open up everything or issue a stay-at-home hoarder across the board. You could order every American to wear a mask anytime they're outside of their car or home. Or any variation or any combination of any kind of restrictions or lack thereof. I'm actually interested in everybody's idea. Try to be serious if at all possible. Thanks!
PS if you could try to make it about actual prevention remedy horse solution instead of politics that would be great.
WSS
I think our current cautious approach (at least in Ohio) is the way we're going to go. Too many people are fed up with restrictions and are willing to take their chances.
For the record that referred to hoorta and his semi facetious question about how many deaths are acceptable 100,000? 200,000? And of course it's a meaningless question because there are hundreds of thousands of deaths every year that we can't and won't stop.
WSS
Well Steve I did ask. The right answer depending on your POV could be anywhere between 0 and 1,000,000. People have gotten covid fatigue, the country is slowly reopening- and the deaths are going to be whatever they are. Cases have spiked in several states that reopened, so it's not just "going away" any time soon.
We do know the death rate should you go symptomatic is a darn sight higher than seasonal flu, and it's damn contagious. As you opined in a different thread- is the virus mutating to a less virulent strain? Maybe.
LOL, here's the hoorta's fair and balanced that I just saw on AOL. It's certainly possible a lot, maybe the majority of covid cases are asymptomatic- but it's going to take more than one study before I'm willing to say that is in fact the case.... https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/06/25/cdc-says-covid-19-cases-in-us-may-be-10-times-higher-than-reported/24537120/
And please President (debunked) Hydroxy with the BS that the # of cases are going up because of increased testing. The % of positive cases relative to the # tested is going up. But you can't wrap your head around that factoid.
If the above article is accurate- we may well see an explosion of cases resulting from asymptomatic carriers infecting a susceptible population that will become symptomatic. Stay tuned.
PS- on a personal level- I'm taking a middle of the road approach. Do wear a mask (usually) in stores, Purell my credit card every time I use it. But that hasn't stopped me from going to my favorite restaurants once or twice since they reopened, and our Friday Afternoon Happy Hour Wine Swill is back in business. There's usually 10-15 of us regulars, and no one is wearing masks there.
-
-
-
And we have all those high risk senior citizens on retirement here.... Shelter in place, oldsters....
-
And we have all those high risk senior citizens on retirement here.... Shelter in place, oldsters....
And we have all those high risk senior citizens on retirement here.... Shelter in place, oldsters....
still don't want a wall? we'd BETTER build it. Illegals are contributing to the rise in covid in the southern states.
Which, some of us have told you libs again and again and again - with them comes an influx of diseases.
-
And we have all those high risk senior citizens on retirement here.... Shelter in place, oldsters....
still don't want a wall? we'd BETTER build it. Illegals are contributing to the rise in covid in the southern states.
Which, some of us have told you libs again and again and again - with them comes an influx of diseases.
still don't want a wall? we'd BETTER build it. Illegals are contributing to the rise in covid in the southern states.
Which, some of us have told you libs again and again and again - with them comes an influx of diseases.
Blame it all on those pesky immigrants.... That was minor Cal.... It was Arizona essentially ignoring health precautions for months. Governor Ducey is more to blame... https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/how-arizona-lost-control-of-the-epidemic/2020/06/25/f692a5a8-b658-11ea-aca5-ebb63d27e1ff_story.html?fbclid=IwAR1AxzDArbtUENAlxpDiQBP03V0P_R5jnIPdDXV-ZS-x0-yag6WX0422Mn0
And I still (and always will) think the Wall is a huge waste of money.... Saw President Trump got to visit it this week, and probably kiss it too.... I haven't forgotten he diverted money that was earmarked for the armed forces to his pet project either.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login