Anti-vaxxers have been out in full force preaching that they will never take the vaccine. I hope society in general penalizes them harshly. They are a danger to society.
It’s called Darwinism, and you are seeing it in action.
There is also economic Darwinism and those countries and individuals who are exposed and recover fastest are going to have a huge advantage. A people who are repeatedly locked down as a response to COVID is an unacceptable response.
So what would be an acceptable response be?
If we can’t rely on people policing themselves on social distancing and protecting themselves and each other when they are outside their homes, how do we proceed?
If there are so many people against it, why don’t they have a sensible alternative, because just re-opening everything and zero enforcement of social distancing and PPE isn’t working.
It’s a horrible choice, you live and you’re bankrupt or you work and may get sick and die or end up with long term health issues, or if you’re lucky have minimal issues.
I would rather run up the national debt on saving people physically and financially then spending it frivolously on bloat and pork projects, but neither party would do that.
Your solution results in insolvency for businesses and the collapse of the country enforcing such draconian controls.
I don’t have a solution. Not one that can take care of risk of life and risk of economic collapse. Right now, it appears that one has to choose one or the other.
I didn’t see your answer to what would be a reasonable alternative.
Lockdowns combined with contact tracing etc. clearly work. There are so many examples around the world of the effectiveness of that approach. Including New York. Flare-ups can be dealt with once you have contact tracing in force. It's absolutely ludicrous to say the only two choices are let the old and vulnerable die while the young work and party on, or destroy the economy by locking down. Many other nations have shown that there is a better way.
Is it a resurgence? Most randomized testing has shown infection rates around 20% so way more of the population is infected than originally thought.
Also, lol at people thinking we can actually stop this virus. It's going to run its course wherever it rears its ugly head.
It's second wave. Australia has been pretty good with almost zero new cases for weeks, but it only took a few cased to cause another state-spread. Needless to say the said state is locked down to contain the virus inside and to avoid nation wide spread.
Anti-vaxxers have been out in full force preaching that they will never take the vaccine. I hope society in general penalizes them harshly. They are a danger to society.
It’s called Darwinism, and you are seeing it in action.
There is also economic Darwinism and those countries and individuals who are exposed and recover fastest are going to have a huge advantage. A people who are repeatedly locked down as a response to COVID is an unacceptable response.
So what would be an acceptable response be?
If we can’t rely on people policing themselves on social distancing and protecting themselves and each other when they are outside their homes, how do we proceed?
If there are so many people against it, why don’t they have a sensible alternative, because just re-opening everything and zero enforcement of social distancing and PPE isn’t working.
It’s a horrible choice, you live and you’re bankrupt or you work and may get sick and die or end up with long term health issues, or if you’re lucky have minimal issues.
I would rather run up the national debt on saving people physically and financially then spending it frivolously on bloat and pork projects, but neither party would do that.
Your solution results in insolvency for businesses and the collapse of the country enforcing such draconian controls.
I don’t have a solution. Not one that can take care of risk of life and risk of economic collapse. Right now, it appears that one has to choose one or the other.
I didn’t see your answer to what would be a reasonable alternative.
My answer is people have to choose for themselves because politicians are incapable. For the 99% of people who will suffer only mild cold or flu-like symptoms or be “out of commission” for only several weeks (you know, just like with a flu), they can choose to work and take mild precautionary measures. For those who are at the highest risk (and everyone knows exactly what that means these days) they can choose to more radically adjust their lifestyle and remain isolated and hopefully not experience the worst. Or some might even choose to risk death over becoming so isolated. But it should be left to individuals to choose.
Oh, and one more thing. None of us will live forever, so this asinine notion that we are all rare diamonds who must be protected at all costs has got to go.
Anti-vaxxers have been out in full force preaching that they will never take the vaccine. I hope society in general penalizes them harshly. They are a danger to society.
It’s called Darwinism, and you are seeing it in action.
There is also economic Darwinism and those countries and individuals who are exposed and recover fastest are going to have a huge advantage. A people who are repeatedly locked down as a response to COVID is an unacceptable response.
So what would be an acceptable response be?
If we can’t rely on people policing themselves on social distancing and protecting themselves and each other when they are outside their homes, how do we proceed?
If there are so many people against it, why don’t they have a sensible alternative, because just re-opening everything and zero enforcement of social distancing and PPE isn’t working.
It’s a horrible choice, you live and you’re bankrupt or you work and may get sick and die or end up with long term health issues, or if you’re lucky have minimal issues.
I would rather run up the national debt on saving people physically and financially then spending it frivolously on bloat and pork projects, but neither party would do that.
Your solution results in insolvency for businesses and the collapse of the country enforcing such draconian controls.
I don’t have a solution. Not one that can take care of risk of life and risk of economic collapse. Right now, it appears that one has to choose one or the other.
I didn’t see your answer to what would be a reasonable alternative.
My answer is people have to choose for themselves because politicians are incapable. For the 99% of people who will suffer only mild cold or flu-like symptoms or be “out of commission” for only several weeks (you know, just like with a flu), they can choose to work and take mild precautionary measures. For those who are at the highest risk (and everyone knows exactly what that means these days) they can choose to more radically adjust their lifestyle and remain isolated and hopefully not experience the worst. Or some might even choose to risk death over becoming so isolated. But it should be left to individuals to choose.
Oh, and one more thing. None of us will live forever, so this asinine notion that we are all rare diamonds who must be protected at all costs has got to go.
The statistics are clear that most who get it will have mild symptoms. It is the elderly and immunocompromised who are at serious risk.
I’ll share this. I’m 58 and my wife is 51. We both had it about 6 weeks ago. I had a fever ranging from 100.5-101.5. Controlled it with a combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen. Fever lasted 2-3 days. My lungs became inflamed. The inflammation was quite pronounced and I could see how if it got worse how some might have a serious problem. But after a few days that melted away too. No cough. No runny nose. Worked from home all through it and didn’t skip a beat. My wife’s symptoms were a bit different and lasted longer. She had a fever that lasted more like 9-10 days. She had nausea, diarrhea, and at a later stage lost her sense of smell, which has since recovered. So your mileage may vary.
I have heard that blood type is a factor influencing how well you get through it. My blood is type O+ and my wife’s is B+. Os apparently do better. But consider that unconfirmed rumor and speculation.
Comments
Oh, and one more thing. None of us will live forever, so this asinine notion that we are all rare diamonds who must be protected at all costs has got to go.
The statistics are clear that most who get it will have mild symptoms. It is the elderly and immunocompromised who are at serious risk.
I’ll share this. I’m 58 and my wife is 51. We both had it about 6 weeks ago. I had a fever ranging from 100.5-101.5. Controlled it with a combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen. Fever lasted 2-3 days. My lungs became inflamed. The inflammation was quite pronounced and I could see how if it got worse how some might have a serious problem. But after a few days that melted away too. No cough. No runny nose. Worked from home all through it and didn’t skip a beat. My wife’s symptoms were a bit different and lasted longer. She had a fever that lasted more like 9-10 days. She had nausea, diarrhea, and at a later stage lost her sense of smell, which has since recovered. So your mileage may vary.
I have heard that blood type is a factor influencing how well you get through it. My blood is type O+ and my wife’s is B+. Os apparently do better. But consider that unconfirmed rumor and speculation.