Getting back to (old) normal (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2020-05-21 8:37 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Getting back to (old) normal Here's the biggest problem, and it has been since day one. https://www.scribd.com/document/462319362/A-Doctor-a-Day-Letter-Signed#from_embed |
|
2020-05-21 4:56 PM in reply to: 0 |
1520 Cypress, Texas | Subject: RE: Getting back to (old) normal Originally posted by Rogillio ...Some will continue to live in fear and avoid the movie theater and restaurants but in time they will see the risk is very low and will resume normal life. It shouldn't be fear that it makes you want to social distance. It should be rational thinking. Ya...if you are not over 65 years old, not pregnant, don't have heart disease, etc. your risk is very low. If you are a fit triathlete the risk is even lower. Even for the people at high risk it isn't anymore risk than the flu that goes around every year without people thinking twice. So, don't be afraid. Do follow the social distance guidelines though. I can't remember the exact number that was coming out at the beginning of March, but it was something like a prediction of 1 million deaths if we did nothing and something like 10,000 deaths if we social distance. The social distancing however wouldn't work if only the high-risk people were doing it. Everyone had to do it for it to work. I think we are at about 100,000 deaths in the USA so we are doing 10 times worse than we were asked to do on the social distancing but we are still 10 times better off than if we had done nothing. I missed my brother's 40-year-old birthday celebration and my mom's 65-year-old birthday. Ya, that sucked but I will have time to make up for it in the future. Right now I want to be helping the country keep things under control. I want to be part of the 10% that are doing things right not part of the 90% that are treating this as a joke, but yes, when the risk is low there is not a lot of incentive to be perfect and we all will be more relaxed than we should with some things.
Edited by BlueBoy26 2020-05-21 5:00 PM |
2020-05-22 5:23 AM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Getting back to (old) normal Originally posted by BlueBoy26 Originally posted by Rogillio ...Some will continue to live in fear and avoid the movie theater and restaurants but in time they will see the risk is very low and will resume normal life. It shouldn't be fear that it makes you want to social distance. It should be rational thinking. Ya...if you are not over 65 years old, not pregnant, don't have heart disease, etc. your risk is very low. If you are a fit triathlete the risk is even lower. Even for the people at high risk it isn't anymore risk than the flu that goes around every year without people thinking twice. So, don't be afraid. Do follow the social distance guidelines though. I can't remember the exact number that was coming out at the beginning of March, but it was something like a prediction of 1 million deaths if we did nothing and something like 10,000 deaths if we social distance. The social distancing however wouldn't work if only the high-risk people were doing it. Everyone had to do it for it to work. I think we are at about 100,000 deaths in the USA so we are doing 10 times worse than we were asked to do on the social distancing but we are still 10 times better off than if we had done nothing. I missed my brother's 40-year-old birthday celebration and my mom's 65-year-old birthday. Ya, that sucked but I will have time to make up for it in the future. Right now I want to be helping the country keep things under control. I want to be part of the 10% that are doing things right not part of the 90% that are treating this as a joke, but yes, when the risk is low there is not a lot of incentive to be perfect and we all will be more relaxed than we should with some things.
Your idea of rationale thinking and mine differ somewhat. You take it as a matter of faith that the lockdowns worked. I’ve seen reports to the contrary. We will never know. Correlation does not equal causation. Who’s to say that had we not locked down the rate of infection would not have dropped anyway. Maybe those most likely to be infected were already infected so the rate of new cases dropped. The rate of suicide, child abuse and domestic violence has gone up. Were those lives less valuable than these that died of covid? Those at risk should have self isolated and those that were not should have gone on with life as usual. That will forever be my opinion. That and $8 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks....if they were open. ETA Just read this. Evidently Trump agrees. And this is why he is still so popular among conservatives. We think alike. “People say that’s a very distinct possibility,” Trump said when asked a possible second wave while in Michigan. “It's standard. And, we're going put out the fires. We're not going to close the country.” Edited by Rogillio 2020-05-22 5:29 AM |
2020-05-23 6:31 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
, Arizona | Subject: RE: Getting back to (old) normal Rog, I feel silly asking this, but you do understand how viruses spread right? They don't magically teleport from person to person, close proximity is needed and common surfaces. If you isolate yourself it isn't a "matter of faith" that your chances of staying healthy are greatly increased, no matter the scale. The EU offers some interesting contrast to observe. Sweden has been very much anti-lockdown, where as Norway, Denmark, and Finland have imposed strict lockdowns. These countries have similar welfare systems and demographics, yet Sweden's per-capital death rate is 4 to 10 times higher than each of these countries, in fact it's the highest in the EU in recent weeks. |
2020-05-24 5:46 AM in reply to: Synon |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Getting back to (old) normal Originally posted by Synon The EU offers some interesting contrast to observe. Sweden has been very much anti-lockdown, where as Norway, Denmark, and Finland have imposed strict lockdowns. These countries have similar welfare systems and demographics, yet Sweden's per-capital death rate is 4 to 10 times higher than each of these countries, in fact it's the highest in the EU in recent weeks. And according to this https://www.ft.com/content/93105160-dcb4-4721-9e58-a7b262cd4b6e they did not help save the economy. Not very surprising given how important the world economy is. |
2020-05-24 5:59 AM in reply to: Synon |
Expert 1183 Fort Wayne, IN | Subject: RE: Getting back to (old) normal Originally posted by Synon Rog, I feel silly asking this, but you do understand how viruses spread right? They don't magically teleport from person to person, close proximity is needed and common surfaces. If you isolate yourself it isn't a "matter of faith" that your chances of staying healthy are greatly increased, no matter the scale. The EU offers some interesting contrast to observe. Sweden has been very much anti-lockdown, where as Norway, Denmark, and Finland have imposed strict lockdowns. These countries have similar welfare systems and demographics, yet Sweden's per-capital death rate is 4 to 10 times higher than each of these countries, in fact it's the highest in the EU in recent weeks. I took a look at this website https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus It supports your comment regarding death rate comparisons for these countries, but what I find interesting is that the ratio of the number of cases per capita are much closer together. I would like to see the demographics of the deaths. Cases/1M Deaths/1M Sweden 3288 396 Denmark 1950 97 Norway 1541 43 Finland 1188 55 |
|
2020-05-24 8:01 AM in reply to: nickster |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Getting back to (old) normal Originally posted by nickster Originally posted by Synon Rog, I feel silly asking this, but you do understand how viruses spread right? They don't magically teleport from person to person, close proximity is needed and common surfaces. If you isolate yourself it isn't a "matter of faith" that your chances of staying healthy are greatly increased, no matter the scale. The EU offers some interesting contrast to observe. Sweden has been very much anti-lockdown, where as Norway, Denmark, and Finland have imposed strict lockdowns. These countries have similar welfare systems and demographics, yet Sweden's per-capital death rate is 4 to 10 times higher than each of these countries, in fact it's the highest in the EU in recent weeks. I took a look at this website https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus It supports your comment regarding death rate comparisons for these countries, but what I find interesting is that the ratio of the number of cases per capita are much closer together. I would like to see the demographics of the deaths. Cases/1M Deaths/1M Sweden 3288 396 Denmark 1950 97 Norway 1541 43 Finland 1188 55 Sweden acknowledges having done a poor job protecting the elderly |
|
Biden gets on board Pages: 1 2 | |||
16 year old Greta speaking on climate change at UN Pages: 1 2 3 4 |