Originally Posted by Mecca:
That would be the biggest question, to a person with his stance, in a world of survival of the fittest what is an acceptable loss?
If it kills 500k by just going back to normal you ok with that? With if it touches a million?
If a vaccine isn't developed, what are we going to do to ultimately stop people from dying. We cannot stay locked up for 12 months, a year, 18 months, etc.... If we do that, the death toll will surely be greater than it would have if we did nothing just to poverty and starvation alone. [Reply]
Life isn't going back to normal. Not all grandparents are going to die. Neither end of the spectrum is absolute, but the core of the argument seems to be how willing are you to let seniors die, is it not? [Reply]
Originally Posted by LoneWolf:
Is not having football games going to stop people from eventually getting infected. The shutdown was never about lowering the total number of people infected over time. It was about flattening the curve.
If this virus is as infectious as they say and there isn't a vaccine available, the majority of the population is eventually going to get this virus. That is just the cold hard facts. If you are willing to stay locked up in your house until a vaccine is available, have at it. I'm guessing the vast majority of the population isn't.
Nice word salad. Answer the question, Give us the cold hard facts, How many are you willing to let die for us to watch football in the stands? [Reply]
Originally Posted by LoneWolf:
If a vaccine isn't developed, what are we going to do to ultimately stop people from dying. We cannot stay locked up for 12 months, a year, 18 months, etc.... If we do that, the death toll will surely be greater than it would have if we did nothing just to poverty and starvation alone.
So poverty and starvation matter now......they didn't about 6 weeks ago. [Reply]
Life isn't going back to normal. Not all grandparents are going to die. Neither end of the spectrum is absolute, but the core of the argument seems to be how willing are you to let seniors die, is it not?
Im more than willing because them (old people) dying will be their own choice.
Me going out and work isn't and CAN'T have any effect on them unless THEY CHOOSE to go out. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
Nice word salad. Answer the question, Give us the cold hard facts, How many are you willing to let die for us to watch football in the stands?
Alot,
Because if you go out its your own choice. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
It’s not that simple. There’s no guarantee that my grandparent will die in that scenario or that they will live in yours. Not at all.
It’s all a risk, and I’m going to roll the dice on the more logical approach considering the mortality rate and all of the unknowns and lack of guarantees either way.
I still won’t get close to them until it’s safe. I’ll still make sure they and everybody around them is being safe.
The reality is they aren’t 100% safe either fucking way.
The problem is that many people don't have that luxury. For example:
LoneWolf goes to a Chiefs game and gets infected.
He brings that back to his kid, who gets infected.
His kid goes to school and infects a child who lives with his grandparents.
Grandparents are now exposed.
That's how all of this works. Everyone can claim that they're fine because they are healthy, but the more active people are, the more likely people are going to die - even many people who never leave their house. [Reply]
So let me tell a story here, a friend of mine that I've known for 20+ years developed a heart condition in his 30s. He's now 38 and has to take medication daily, his mom is a stage 4 cancer patient who has had rounds and rounds of chemo as she's managed to now live 4 years with it.
She lives with him and he does all of their shopping and he does his best to take care of her. He's scared shitless of this entire thing because he has no choice but to leave even though he's at risk because he has no other option. Yet somehow in this place of where we are should he and his mom just be sacrificial :-) because oh well we're bored? [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
The problem is that many people don't have that luxury. For example:
LoneWolf goes to a Chiefs game and gets infected.
He brings that back to his kid, who gets infected.
His kid goes to school and infects a child who lives with his grandparents.
Grandparents are now exposed.
That's how all of this works. Everyone can claim that they're fine because they are healthy, but the more active people are, the more likely people are going to die - even many people who never leave their house.
Eh, there's some issues here but for the most part yeah. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
So let me tell a story here, a friend of mine that I've known for 20+ years developed a heart condition in his 30s. He's now 38 and has to take medication daily, his mom is a stage 4 cancer patient who has had rounds and rounds of chemo as she's managed to now live 4 years with it.
She lives with him and he does all of their shopping and he does his best to take care of her. He's scared shitless of this entire thing because he has no choice but to leave even though he's at risk because he has no other option. Yet somehow in this place of where we are should he and his mom just be sacrificial :-) because oh well we're bored?
Fuck them. It's their own fault if they die. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
The problem is that many people don't have that luxury. For example:
LoneWolf goes to a Chiefs game and gets infected.
He brings that back to his kid, who gets infected.
His kid goes to school and infects a child who lives with his grandparents.
Grandparents are now exposed.
That's how all of this works. Everyone can claim that they're fine because they are healthy, but the more active people are, the more likely people are going to die - even many people who never leave their house.
The reality of this sucks, I know.
Your answer to it is still unreasonable. You just chose to ignore the rest of my post that demonstrates why. [Reply]
