News & Experiences continued

antmanb

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,137
@Louis why are you still banging on about lockdown, when we're not in lockdown, there are no proposals to go back to restrictive lockdowns. It would also be helpful if you didn't jump around the globe when you're making your arguments because it really feels like you pick a country in the world (or a state within the US) to make some nebulous point that is irrelevant to most of the discussions that we are having.

You also seem to have beef with any attempt to enforce compliance with guidelines by screaming MARSHALL LAW, TOTALITARIAN STATE! And then your proposition for a solution is:
If you really want to prevent unnecessary death and illness, then focus on finding a sustainable path forward built on trust, compromise, and compliance, v. totalitarian, traumatic restrictions that have zero chance of adoption or success.
How exactly do you propose that happens? As evidenced in this very thread, one person's totally acceptable restriction in light of a public health crisis is another person's MARSHALL LAW. So how do you propose we get on a path of trust and compromise and compliance? And what do you suggest happens with people who don't comply?

Earlier in the thread you reacted to @MacMadame posting an article saying that 76%(?) of Californians agree with stricter lockdown asking:
How are you going to get the remaining 24% of people to comply? We're not talking about a small number of people.
How are you going to get people to compromise and comply in your scenario?
 

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
14,662
You know, I don't agree with a lot of things the government does, but I have yet to be forced at gunpoint.

Just because people do not agree does not mean they are going to revolt. Most people grumble a whole lot more than anything else.

Flipping your statistics back upright, are you not at least a little surprised that so many people disagree with you?
Not all surprised, because the devil is in the detail. People can agree with those statements while exempting their own behavior. What defines "essential errands?" Some of the biggest proponents of lockdown here have carved out some pretty large and risky "essential" exemptions for themselves. Various studies have shown that 80%+ of people say they're following rules, but more like 20% are actually following the rules to the letter of the law (insofar as it's even clear).

As for revolts: it's been pretty clear to me for awhile that parts of the U.S. are in open revolt. I thought the storming of the Michigan capital made that clear. (Back in the days when protests were bad and were going to kill everyone, before they were good again and existed in a magic bubble, in our world of fake news and alternative facts.)

@Louis why are you still banging on about lockdown, when we're not in lockdown, there are no proposals to go back to restrictive lockdowns.
The U.S. is considering such proposals. Serbia attempted lockdown and was met with violence. Spain is protesting against lockdown. Belgium - whose lockdown approach worked so well the first time, making it the worst country in Europe - is also talking about new restrictions. Entirely predictably, some of the countries that had the most severe lockdowns are also now having resurgence in cases as people have lost the will to care.

How are you going to get people to compromise and comply in your scenario?
Reduce restrictions and enforce the rules that really matter - masks indoors, one meter / three feet of social distancing, ventilation, reasonable crowd controls.
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
36,443
How are you going to get the remaining 24% of people to comply?
The same way we get them to comply with all laws. As @Prancer says, people mostly obey the law even if they disagree and grumble. For the rest, there is the normal recourse... incentives and disincentives. PR campaigns. Money and other resources so staying at home is possible (i.e., for people who can't WFH and/or don't have sick days) and people can get help with the mental issues. Fines for the scofflaws. Even confinement for the really bad ones -- like the idiots who test positive for C19 but won't quarantine.

(including Andrea Bocelli)
Okay, that was funny.

For a smart guy, you make some really dumb arguments. Lots of black and white thinking. It's either everything opens up or we have martial law. Nothing in between.

What I want to know is: why, if countries who had strict lockdown were able to get the vir*s under control, is strict lockdown not possible or a good idea? Personally, I think we know enough about the vir*s now that strict lockdown isn't necessary. IF people do the things we know work to stop the spread.

The big problem I see is not that we can't have lockdowns without tanks rolling through our towns ( :rolleyes: ) but that people say they want X (not to be locked down) but won't do Y (the things that will make that possible). That is a failure on the part of our government, IMO, and that is what has to be dealt with or nothing will work, but especially not opening everything back up.
 

PRlady

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,148
Tobacco use and obesity do terrible, long-lasting things to the body, too.....We need to be spending more effort on doing something to curb these known killers, which also dramatically increase risk of dying from c0vid*19, than worrying about potential long-term effects of c0vid-19 which are affecting only a small proportion of people. Too much time spent on edge cases means too little progress in other areas that can have much higher impact with lower effort.

C0vid-19 is here to stay, flattened curve or not. We need to learn to live with it. Yes, large numbers of people will die, even if the proportion is 0.05% of those infected. I may be one of them. You may be one of them. Teachers will be among them. Students will be among them. Not to sound fatalistic, but (short of in a few places like New Zealand) there's nothing we can do to eradicate it - people catch the ***** while sheltering in place, e.g., New York. Even countries with long, protracted shutdowns have not eradicated it. Full lockdown is impossible - people still need to get food, go to the doctor, etc., and most places have too many cases for "normal" lockdown to have a realistic chance at eradication - which in turns means closed borders until a vaccine is developed. Lockdown also kills people, and may kill more people than the lives it saves (depending on the R rate) based on British government studies.

This is an impossible picture, and we all must accept that: we cannot stop people from getting sick and dying. There is plenty we can and should do to slow the spread, like masks, distancing, sanitation practices, and shields - and I'm in full support of those being enforced, and of severe consequences for idiots who do not obey the rules.

We have to move past denial, anger, bargaining, and depression into this acceptance new, post-c0vid world. The only alternative is cowering in place until a vaccine is available, tested, and available - which is not fool-proof by any means (2/3 of people in NYC say they were sheltering in place when they caught c0vid), and by which point something else may well have killed you or life will have gone by.

I've decided I like wearing a mask - more to protect myself from secondhand smoke, which is a bigger killer than c0vid-19.
Twenty percent of young people with the crud end up with long cases which may leave permanent damage. The figures are higher for older people. We could end up with more than a million more Americans permanently disabled.

Tobacco use has been declining for decades but obesity is climbing, including in places transitioning from developing countries to developed. It’s a byproduct of prosperity, jobs that require sitting all day and very powerful agribusiness. Solving it is a long-term problem, but it doesn’t kill at the rates the crud does.

I’m not saying another complete lockdown is possible but people are voting with their feet. Restaurants, hotels, airlines, sports and entertainment are out of luck until there’s a widely disseminated vaccine.

And the GOP governors who “revolted” at continued restrictions are now imposing them along with mask requirements. Dying voters are not a good electoral proposition, as even Trump is realizing. The loud resistance is getting a lot softer in hotspot states like Texas.
 

antmanb

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,137
The U.S. is considering such proposals.
Where in the US, and what kind of proposals - like the strictest point in the UK where we were all allowed out for an hour of exercise and to go to essential shops? Or like Spain where no exercise was allowed and only essential shopping was allowed? Or more like the UK now? Or some hybrid in between?

Serbia attempted lockdown and was met with violence.
Same question as above - what kind of lockdown? Was violence the right response to it?

What happens if people aren't happy with the masks indoors rules and 1m distance that you propose below as being the ones that matter to people? What if people are violent as a reaction to those rules? Does that mean the rules are wrong and the violence was right? Or if a majority of people agree that the rules are right what do we do about the violence, or taking it down a notch - to people who don't want to comply? To those people they would use the same arguments that you use to say this is Marshall Law or that the restrictions are more a totalitarian response in what should be a democracy?

Belgium - whose lockdown approach worked so well the first time, making it the worst country in Europe - is also talking about new restrictions. Entirely predictably, some of the countries that had the most severe lockdowns are also now having resurgence in cases as people have lost the will to care.
I don't think Belgium is the example that proves your point. Belgium had a lockdown that was very similar to the UK, I believe in the beginning shop restrictions actually only applied at the weekends before all non essential shops were closed. Belgium also has the added factor of being a small country which borders three others and therefore would be reliant on similar restrictions being in place in each of its neighbouring countries, however, the Netherlands didn't fully lockdown, certainly not at the same time as Belgium. Lots of people who live in Belgium, work in the Netherlands and vice versa, and sure enough the Flanders region that borders the Netherlands has been the hardest hit region. I don't think that is surprising given the general flow of the population across that border and the different guidelines that were in place for each country.

The UK didn't have the most restrictive lockdown rules either and yet it boasts the highest numbers of death in Europe.

The other factor that I think is as important as the actual detail of what lockdown meant for each country, is how compliant the population was. The weather was unseasonably warm in the UK and Northern Europe and people breached the lockdown rules a lot in the UK and Belgium (from what I've read), the hot Easter weekend being the point at which many people started to blatantly breach lockdown rules.

Reduce restrictions and enforce the rules that really matter - masks indoors, one meter / three feet of social distancing, ventilation, reasonable crowd controls.
And what do you do about the people who disagree that those restrictions are fair and say they live in a democracy not a totalitarian state and that enforcement of those restrictions amounts to marshall law?
 

Hedwig

WoolSilk Fanatic
Messages
18,373
For the hundreths time- Belgium counts Cpvid deaths differently. All probable cases are counted as ykw deaths even without a test.
but like the last 100 times I wrote it, People will chose to ignore it...
 

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
14,662
Re: Andrea Bocelli, you have one of the most respected Italians testifying in front of Parliament and the whole country that he believes lockdown restrictions were too severe, humiliating, offensive, and a bunch of other choice words. Several political parties agree with the stance (and of course one trotted him out there). People are acting like lockdown was universally supported in in Italy when it was far from the case.

For a smart guy, you make some really dumb arguments. Lots of black and white thinking. It's either everything opens up or we have martial law. Nothing in between.
I don't see how masks indoors, one meter of social distancing, and crowd restrictions (200 indoors / 1000 outdoors) is black or white. It's absolutely in between. It is simple, specific, actionable, and does not play favorites - in stark contrast to most of the restrictions in the US.

What I want to know is: why, if countries who had strict lockdown were able to get the vir*s under control, is strict lockdown not possible or a good idea? Personally, I think we know enough about the vir*s now that strict lockdown isn't necessary. IF people do the things we know work to stop the spread.
Except it's not at all under control in places like Spain and Belgium. Lockdown might work in a place like New Zealand, which can caught the ***** early, closed its borders indefinitely, and is using actual military-enforced quarantine, but it's not working in regions that don't have those factors.

People are acting like this is a foolproof strategy, but at best it's a mixed bag. These countries have not beaten the ***** any more than Sweden has.

What happens if people aren't happy with the masks indoors rules and 1m distance that you propose below as being the ones that matter to people? What if people are violent as a reaction to those rules?
There is broad enough support for these rules that enforcement is possible. We all have to compromise, but compromise (especially quick compromise) is far easier to achieve when you can find a solution with a vast majority is at least OK with. Looking at US politics, Brexit, or anything else split 50-50, you're not going to get quick compromise, and you're not going to get compliance. God knows I'm no epidemiologist, but it sure seems to me (and I've read a few articles from epidemiologists that say similar things) that workable solutions with high levels of compliance are better than pie-in-the-sky ones with low levels of compliance....

For the hundreths time- Belgium counts Cpvid deaths differently. All probable cases are counted as ykw deaths even without a test.
but like the last 100 times I wrote it, People will chose to ignore it...
And, as pointed out at least 100 times, even if you subtract out all of the "suspected" but not confirmed deaths, Belgium still has one of the highest to the highest rates of *********-19 cases and deaths in the world. This claim is largely fake news. All countries have counting issues, and Belgium's are not so severe as to substantially change its status as the worst country in Europe, despite lockdown.
 

antmanb

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,137
Re: Andrea Bocelli, you have one of the most respected Italians testifying in front of Parliament and the whole country that he believes lockdown restrictions were too severe, humiliating, offensive, and a bunch of other choice words. Several political parties agree with the stance (and of course one trotted him out there). People are acting like lockdown was universally supported in in Italy when it was far from the case.
:rofl: Andrea Bocelli one of the most respected Italians :rofl: he's not even one of the most respected Italian singers so forgive me for still :rofl:

There is broad enough support for these rules that enforcement is possible. We all have to compromise, but compromise (especially quick compromise) is far easier to achieve when you can find a solution with a vast majority is at least OK with. Looking at US politics, Brexit, or anything else split 50-50, you're not going to get quick compromise, and you're not going to get compliance. God knows I'm no epidemiologist, but it sure seems to me (and I've read a few articles from epidemiologists that say similar things) that workable solutions with high levels of compliance are better than pie-in-the-sky ones with low levels of compliance....
Then why did you respond to @MacMadame assertion that 74% of Californians are in favour of stricter lockdown with a question about how you would deal with the other 26%? 74% of people agreeing something is an incredibly high number - you're never going to get 100% so nearly three quarters of a population agreeing to something is huge. You find yourself in the quarter of the population that doesn't agree - you describe the restrictions as being like a totalitarian state, that enforcement of those rules is marshall law. So how do the rest of the population who agree with the level of restrictions, and are in the overwhelming majority that agrees these restrictions should be in place get someone like you who disagrees to comply?
 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,432
As for revolts: it's been pretty clear to me for awhile that parts of the U.S. are in open revolt. I thought the storming of the Michigan capital made that clear. (Back in the days when protests were bad and were going to kill everyone, before they were good again and existed in a magic bubble, in our world of fake news and alternative facts.)
In revolt as the numbers of cases and deaths continue to rise. :confused:

@Louis, when I read your posts I continually feel that you don't see the ***** as a serious threat - which it is. I was born a rebel and have always believed that it is necessary to question authority, rather than obey it.

But in this case I'll follow the recommendations of public health officials because I don't want to get sick and die, or cause others to get sick and die.

Civil liberties can't be enjoyed if one is dead, or while one is suffering from a horrible illness. And even if one is asymptomatic, one can infect another person, a loved one. I'm sure people in that situation would consider trading civil liberties to save the life of their loved ones.

In my Canadian province, BC, we've had wonderful guidance under the leadership of Dr. Bonnie Henry - who has been written up in the New York Times, even had her shoes emulated/sold online, and been given an indigenous name, She Who is Calm in the Storm. Her motto during the ********* has been 'be kind, be calm, stay safe'.

Thanks to her leadership we have done exceptionally well at flattening the curve here, both within Canada and in relation to the broader world. I'm quite happy to follow recommendations (we've no mandates here) for behavior during the *********, and most people I know are the same. Though I'll admit that a friend came over to visit the other night and we didn't even remember to socially distance while enjoying wine and appies on the patio. We are feeling a bit too safe in my province at the moment, and letting our guard down - not a good thing.

To me, it's very ironic that people are screaming about civil liberties when exercising those liberties could cause their death or cause others to become sick and possibly die.

There is just no cure for stupidity.
 
Last edited:

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
36,443
Re: Andrea Bocelli, you have one of the most respected Italians testifying in front of Parliament and the whole country that he believes lockdown restrictions were too severe, humiliating, offensive, and a bunch of other choice words. Several political parties agree with the stance (and of course one trotted him out there).
Oh please. It's no different than Trump having Kanye West testify that masks are unmanly. IOW, it means absolutely nothing unless you already agree with him.
 

gkelly

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,371
I don't see how masks indoors, one meter of social distancing, and crowd restrictions (200 indoors / 1000 outdoors) is black or white. It's absolutely in between. It is simple, specific, actionable, and does not play favorites
Well, let's say that these restrictions (and no others) are adopted universally.

Or better to say 2 meters social distancing indoors.

Well, some businesses etc. will be able to adapt and prosper because they have plenty of indoor and/or outdoor space to achieve the appropriate social distancing with the number of people they need to accommodate to meet their minimum numbers to operate effectively.

And others will not. Because of the nature of the business/enterprise.

How many schools, public or for-profit, can keep all students 1-2 meters apart from each other and from the teachers at all times, as discussed at length in the school-opening thread?

How many bars/nightclubs would actually be able to keep all patrons 1-2 meters apart, or accommodate enough patrons in those conditions not to lose money every night they're open?

How many personal services providers whose business is entirely intimate personal contact with the customers?

How many public transportation or leisure transportation vehicles can maintain that kind of spacing?

How many sports or performing arts would be able to operate in person with all participants appropriately distanced, and masked? Not even considering whether it would be financially viable without live audiences in normally close-packed venues.

Etc.

If these rules and only these rules are enforced, some businesses would not be able to open legally, or would lose money if they tried.

That's not "playing favorites" -- that's the reality of the restrictions needed to minimizes infection not matching the way these businesses were designed to be run.

It would be possible not to forbid any particular type of business from opening, but to require that they adhere to the restrictions you listed. Some will be fortunate enough to have the numbers and the available space to comply. Others will not.

So should every business etc. that opens be subject to frequent inspections to ensure that they are in compliance with the rules?


Now, there are certain "essential services" (e.g., medical care) that would require exceptions to the restrictions. Should the exceptions be offered by general categories of service (which might be seen as playing favorites), or should each essential business or practitioner be closely monitored before and after receiving the exception to open?
 

Louis

Private citizen
Messages
14,662
@Louis, when I read your posts I continually feel that you don't see the ***** as a serious threat - which it is.
I do see it as a serious threat, albeit one with a 99.95% survival rate.

I also see overreach of government as a serious threat. Look at Hungary and Poland using the v*rus to advance autocracy. The U.S. president, and several governors - largely Democrats - are behaving far too much like autocrats for my liking.

Civil liberties can't be enjoyed if one is dead, or while one is suffering from a horrible illness.
Nor can they if autocratic government takes them away.

Oh please. It's no different than Trump having Kanye West testify that masks are unmanly. IOW, it means absolutely nothing unless you already agree with him.
It's very different. Kanye is not widely respected and has been overtly political. Bocelli is a neutral figure, and his comments were widely regarded as surprising. Allezfred said to ask and see what kind of responses Italians would have re: having lesser measures in place. No need to ask -- it's a public discussion, people can see for themselves. It's perfectly acceptable here to have views that lockdown went too far. I guess we need to import some Thought Police from the U.S.
 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,432
Nor can they if autocratic government takes them away.
Oh, I agree. But I don't live in a country with an autocratic government, and the same is true of many countries is the western, developed, democratic world.

As I pointed out previously, we are not being mandated to socially distance and wear masks in my Canadian province. We are for the most part doing so voluntarily. Though we do have our anti-maskers protesting here as well.

IMO constraining civil liberties or recommending that they be constrained is not unreasonable given the *********.

Since people in my province have cooperated with recommendations from the beginning, we are doing very well - though there have been some recent outbreaks due to young holidayers in one part of the province. And some young people here, like everywhere, aren't taking the BB seriously.

In my opinion, if an autocrat is needed to enforce measures to combat ****, something is wrong.

I don't get why anyone would fight for a civil liberty that permitted them to get sick and die or potentially get others sick and lead to their death.
 
Last edited:

missing

Well-Known To Whom She Wonders
Messages
3,506
Yesterday's U.S. reported fatalities was close to 1500, with California, Texas, and Florida accounting for about half of them.

Florida won't be issuing test results for a while, since they're closing down many of their testing sites due to the approaching tropical storm.

Worlds #1 tennis player, Ash Barty of Australia, has decided not to come to New York for the U.S. Open due to CV19 concerns. She remains undecided about whether to compete at the French Open, which would be about 3 weeks later.

Iceland, concerned about recent breakouts, is reinstating stricter guidelines.

A jump in local transmissions has led Icelandic authorities to tighten *********-19 restrictions once more. The new measures take effect at noon tomorrow, July 31. The current gathering limit of 500 individuals will be lowered to 100 and the two-metre distancing rule, which had been declared optional from May 25, will once again become mandatory in public spaces. The stricter measures were announced in a press conference in Reykjavík this morning.
 
Last edited:

missing

Well-Known To Whom She Wonders
Messages
3,506
Herman Cain has died of CV19.

He attended Trump's Tulsa rally.


MSNBC

@MSNBC


BREAKING: Businessman and former US presidential candidate Herman Cain has died at age 74 after battling ********, according to a statement on his website. "Herman Cain has gone to be with the Lord."
 

once_upon

Voter
Messages
15,686
You knew it was only going to be a matter of time before a well known GOP political person would die of *********. According to one of his websites, 5 days ago they posted they expected him to have a long recovery but expected him to recover. That this was a shock
 
Last edited:

allezfred

#EpidemiologistsNotEconomists
Staff member
Messages
56,396
YKW seems to be particularly nasty in that people seem to be on the road to recovery and then it does a number on them again.
 

Buzz

Socialist Canada
Messages
33,563
Herman Cain has died of CV19.

He attended Trump's Tulsa rally.


MSNBC
@MSNBC


BREAKING: Businessman and former US presidential candidate Herman Cain has died at age 74 after battling ********, according to a statement on his website. "Herman Cain has gone to be with the Lord."
May he Rest In Peace.
 

missing

Well-Known To Whom She Wonders
Messages
3,506
The Miami Marlins are up to 17 positives amongst their players (out of 30), and while I sympathize with them, I admit to laughing out loud when I read the following:

The Marlins remain in Philadelphia, where they played last weekend and have been undergoing daily testing. The prospect of the team's season restarting Tuesday at home against the Philadelphia Phillies remains in question.

If, instead, the Marlins play that series in Philadelphia, they could bus to New York to face the Mets, then head via bus to Buffalo, New York, where the Blue Jays plan to play their home games this season. In that scenario, the Marlins would not return home until their Aug. 14 series against Atlanta, though Miami-Dade County currently requires a 14-day quarantine for people coming into town from New York, further complicating matters.


Yesterday Florida had over 200 listed fatalities and over 9000 positive test results.

New York had 15 listed fatalities and 800 positive test results.
 

once_upon

Voter
Messages
15,686
YKW seems to be particularly nasty in that people seem to be on the road to recovery and then it does a number on them again.
Both in older people and younger people.

If you don't die, there will be long term side effects. This seems to be true in almost all cases - mild to critical ill. Even if survival rate is 99%, the chronic long term effects on the body will be impacting the individual, society, and medical costs for decades/generations to come.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
56,517
If, instead, the Marlins play that series in Philadelphia, they could bus to New York to face the Mets, then head via bus to Buffalo, New York, where the Blue Jays plan to play their home games this season. In that scenario, the Marlins would not return home until their Aug. 14 series against Atlanta, though Miami-Dade County currently requires a 14-day quarantine for people coming into town from New York, further complicating matters.
My favorite thing was that the Blue Jays had their home opener last night---at Nationals Park in D.C. :inavoid:
 

rfisher

Let the skating begin
Messages
63,086
Both in older people and younger people.

If you don't die, there will be long term side effects. This seems to be true in almost all cases - mild to critical ill. Even if survival rate is 99%, the chronic long term effects on the body will be impacting the individual, society, and medical costs for decades/generations to come.
And that's the real issue with this disease. We have no idea what the long term consequences will be, but the data is indicative that they are not good. This has been the situation with novel zoonotic diseases throughout our evolutionary history. The archaeology of disease is fascinating and difficult, but the innovation of using CT to examine human remains is giving us much more insight than we see in the material records. In the 1950s unknowing parents had scarlet fever or chicken pox parties so their kids could "get these out of the way." Except scarlet fever led to mitral valve prolapse in females 20 years after the fact and chicken pox to shingles both of which can be worse than the original illness. YKW impacts so many different systems, particularly the circulatory system and long term cardiac damage. From people who clearly didn't die. So, while total deaths might impact a small percentage of the global population, the health impact is so much greater.
 
Last edited:

Cachoo

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,823
The Miami Marlins are up to 17 positives amongst their players (out of 30), and while I sympathize with them, I admit to laughing out loud when I read the following:

The Marlins remain in Philadelphia, where they played last weekend and have been undergoing daily testing. The prospect of the team's season restarting Tuesday at home against the Philadelphia Phillies remains in question.

If, instead, the Marlins play that series in Philadelphia, they could bus to New York to face the Mets, then head via bus to Buffalo, New York, where the Blue Jays plan to play their home games this season. In that scenario, the Marlins would not return home until their Aug. 14 series against Atlanta, though Miami-Dade County currently requires a 14-day quarantine for people coming into town from New York, further complicating matters.


Yesterday Florida had over 200 listed fatalities and over 9000 positive test results.

New York had 15 listed fatalities and 800 positive test results.
I saw a doctor on MSNBC today that said 300 children were hospitalized in Florida with *********. That is terrible though we've been lucky so far with our youth. As bad as this is it could have been far worse if this was particularly tough on the young.
 

Parsley Sage

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,632
My favorite thing was that the Blue Jays had their home opener last night---at Nationals Park in D.C. :inavoid:
Against the team that used to be the Montreal Expos!

2 members of the Phillies staff have now tested positive. The weekend games against the Jays are now in limbo.
 

VALuvsMKwan

Wandering Goy
Messages
7,033
@antmanb, with all due respect, and there is a lot, the term is martial law (derived from the Roman god of war, Mars). Every time I see Marshall in your posts reminds me of the Marshall Plan in Europe following WWII (and to inhabitants of some countries and areas, that might have seen more like the former than as helpful).
 

Prancer

Needs More Sleep
Staff member
Messages
50,298
Not all surprised, because the devil is in the detail. People can agree with those statements while exempting their own behavior. What defines "essential errands?" Some of the biggest proponents of lockdown here have carved out some pretty large and risky "essential" exemptions for themselves. Various studies have shown that 80%+ of people say they're following rules, but more like 20% are actually following the rules to the letter of the law (insofar as it's even clear).
Again, so black and white. What does "following to the letter" even mean? You've made comments, for example, about people in New York spreading contagion within households and how this proved that people aren't doing what they are supposed to and staying in lockdown. But even in lockdown, essential workers had to go to work and everyone was allowed to go to places like grocery stores, so it's not like people couldn't get the crud even following the law to the letter.

As for revolts: it's been pretty clear to me for awhile that parts of the U.S. are in open revolt. I thought the storming of the Michigan capital made that clear.
Yes? And did Trump send out the troops?

Reduce restrictions and enforce the rules that really matter - masks indoors, one meter / three feet of social distancing, ventilation, reasonable crowd controls.
And how are you planning to enforce those rules? It's pretty clear to me that parts of the country are in open revolt against mask rules, for example, and are refusing to follow them and are protesting. People are ignoring "reasonable" crowd controls and social distancing rules and some places are just ignoring them entirely.

What kind of enforcement do you favor in those cases?

I’m not saying another complete lockdown is possible but people are voting with their feet.
Yep. Just as my Republican governor said when groups were storming the capital demanding re-opening--people will not go out if they don't feel safe doing so--even if they don't follow the rules to the letter during lockdown.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 15, Guests: 17)

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information