Kansas Crimson

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 1:10 am

Geezer wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2020 6:38 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2020 6:16 pm

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.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 8:39 am psych, how do you feel about abortion?

Mjl wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 8:35 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 1:10 am

Geezer wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2020 6:38 pm

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.

Common sense is a term used by people either stupid or mentally lazy who can't justify things.

So everyone those people interact with also need to stay home. And everyone those people interact with. And everyone those people interact with.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 1:10 am

Geezer wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2020 6:38 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2020 6:16 pm

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.

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 12:48 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 1:10 am

Geezer wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2020 6:38 pm

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.

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.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 1:44 pm

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.

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 2:05 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun May 10, 2020 1:44 pm

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?