ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 8:39 am
psych, how do you feel about abortion?
My thinking has evolved over the years.it is not something I would do, but I don’t feel like I have a right to tell others what to do with their bodies, nor to shame them for not doing what I would do.
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” - Mark Twain
"The pushback risks undercutting a major pillar in health authorities’ strategy for reopening Europe’s economy: Allow the young and healthy to resume activity while keeping the people most susceptible to the disease in isolation. That could allow countries to avoid another wave of deadly infections and future economic shutdowns.
European authorities began issuing guidelines in April aimed at limiting the activities of people above a certain age once the lockdown lifted, assuming older generations were willing to cooperate. Younger people, who face fewer health risks from the virus, had only a month earlier fulfilled their end of the social contract—calling off weddings, vacations and staying home from work and school—in order to protect their parents and grandparents.
Instead, the guidelines sparked a wave of opposition from one of Europe’s largest and wealthiest demographics. Older people decried the move as ageist, forcing governments to backpedal."
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” - Mark Twain
The hospital where Mrs 99 works has the contract with the prison here. Seems there are a lot of male inmates testing positive, women are not being tested. If they get sick, they end up on my wife's floor.
In other great news, my daughter, son in law and grand daughter tested positive today.
Primarily elderly, unhealthy, and immune compromised. That’s a risk I’m willing to take.
It's not about you, it's about the people you could infect.
People who are worried about their health should stay home, not those who are healthy. It’s common sense.
It is virtually impossible to stay home 100% if you are an at-risk individual. Everyone needs to resupply. Many are at-risk because of underlying medical conditions that require them to go to a doctor's office, to treatment or to a pharmacy.
Screaming about the violation of YOUR civil liberties in having to wear a mask when you go out while subsequently telling others they should just stay in their houses for potentially months more is the absurdity we're talking about. And even if a person does manage to stay in their house 100% over the next few months, they can do so only thanks to people bringing them what they need as in delivery drivers and in-home health care workers. And if you are one of the tens and tens of thousands of people who are carrying COVID-19 but show zero symptoms and the person you breathe on at the store turns out to be the person resupplying that at-risk person holed up in their home then you have just increased their chance of death.
I still haven't had to wear a mask yet...so I think the mask thing gets a little blown out of proportion for nearly everyone living outside of major cities where there are more scenarios where masks make sense.
I have 1 in my car. I take it with me everywhere I go... and most people are wearing them when in places where they are required or places where it makes sense to wear one....even when out for work the other day (never got out of the car) in a small rural town I noticed multiple people coming out of the dollar general wearing masks....so I think for the most part people want to do the right thing when it comes to masks.
It's not about you, it's about the people you could infect.
People who are worried about their health should stay home, not those who are healthy. It’s common sense.
It is virtually impossible to stay home 100% if you are an at-risk individual. Everyone needs to resupply. Many are at-risk because of underlying medical conditions that require them to go to a doctor's office, to treatment or to a pharmacy.
Screaming about the violation of YOUR civil liberties in having to wear a mask when you go out while subsequently telling others they should just stay in their houses for potentially months more is the absurdity we're talking about. And even if a person does manage to stay in their house 100% over the next few months, they can do so only thanks to people bringing them what they need as in delivery drivers and in-home health care workers. And if you are one of the tens and tens of thousands of people who are carrying COVID-19 but show zero symptoms and the person you breathe on at the store turns out to be the person resupplying that at-risk person holed up in their home then you have just increased their chance of death.
I’ve never said anything about objecting to wearing a mask.
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” - Mark Twain
I think what HD is saying is that its totally reasonable for high risk individuals to remain in lock down for the foreseeable future until a vaccine or effective treatment is in place.
For others its reasonable to begin resuming life in some form of new normal because they're healthy enough that they'll likely survive covid19 if they get it. This category should absolutely still be cautious and take measures to help prevent the spread.
Everyone has different risk factors and risk tolerance. Everyone has to weigh their personal situation (health and financial).
I am being overly cautious...but I'm also aware that everything can't stay shutdown for the next 6months+. Eventually there will be massive business closures (its already happening). Eventually we will run out of food supply if enough people aren't working. There just isn't a 1 size fits all solution.
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 1:38 pm
I think what HD is saying is that its totally reasonable for high risk individuals to remain in lock down for the foreseeable future until a vaccine or effective treatment is in place.
For others its reasonable to begin resuming life in some form of new normal because they're healthy enough that they'll likely survive covid19 if they get it. This category should absolutely still be cautious and take measures to help prevent the spread.
Everyone has different risk factors and risk tolerance. Everyone has to weigh their personal situation (health and financial).
I am being overly cautious...but I'm also aware that everything can't stay shutdown for the next 6months+. Eventually there will be massive business closures (its already happening). Eventually we will run out of food supply if enough people aren't working. There just isn't a 1 size fits all solution.
That is essentially what I am saying. Somebody has to work and spend money to pay taxes to take care of those who can’t. I hate to keep using the term “common sense”, but it fits.
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” - Mark Twain
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 1:38 pm
I think what HD is saying is that its totally reasonable for high risk individuals to remain in lock down for the foreseeable future until a vaccine or effective treatment is in place.
For others its reasonable to begin resuming life in some form of new normal because they're healthy enough that they'll likely survive covid19 if they get it. This category should absolutely still be cautious and take measures to help prevent the spread.
Everyone has different risk factors and risk tolerance. Everyone has to weigh their personal situation (health and financial).
I am being overly cautious...but I'm also aware that everything can't stay shutdown for the next 6months+. Eventually there will be massive business closures (its already happening). Eventually we will run out of food supply if enough people aren't working. There just isn't a 1 size fits all solution.
That is essentially what I am saying. Somebody has to work and spend money to pay taxes to take care of those who can’t. I hate to keep using the term “common sense”, but it fits.
Hey, wouldn't it be cool if, somehow, there were tax dollars available for these scenarios....and not being used to buy a 3rd yacht or a 5th vacation home?
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 1:38 pm
I think what HD is saying is that its totally reasonable for high risk individuals to remain in lock down for the foreseeable future until a vaccine or effective treatment is in place.
For others its reasonable to begin resuming life in some form of new normal because they're healthy enough that they'll likely survive covid19 if they get it. This category should absolutely still be cautious and take measures to help prevent the spread.
Everyone has different risk factors and risk tolerance. Everyone has to weigh their personal situation (health and financial).
I am being overly cautious...but I'm also aware that everything can't stay shutdown for the next 6months+. Eventually there will be massive business closures (its already happening). Eventually we will run out of food supply if enough people aren't working. There just isn't a 1 size fits all solution.
That is essentially what I am saying. Somebody has to work and spend money to pay taxes to take care of those who can’t. I hate to keep using the term “common sense”, but it fits.
Hey, wouldn't it be cool if, somehow, there were tax dollars available for these scenarios....and not being used to buy a 3rd yacht or a 5th vacation home?
Thats not how capitalism works. Also, you should be glad because if it worked that way youd be out of a job. No titos margs by the pool
