We’re all in this together

[Bullseye]

Yeah, that’s the cliched mantra almost anyone who gets in front of a camera seems to sing. This article brings that mantra into tight focus, however, and makes strong valid points.

It should be obvious by now that the adoption of measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has become politicized. Consider the presidential campaigns: President Donald Trump held large indoor rallies with mostly mask-less supporters, while President-elect Joe Biden seemed to have a mask sutured to his face and spent much of the campaign in isolation.
- - - -
This disparity is unfortunate, because it has never been truer that “we’re all in this together,” or more obvious that we need to rev up our efforts to minimize the probability of spreading COVID-19 infections, if we are “to return to normal activities.” A key metric, the percentage of positive tests for the virus, is currently unacceptably high – the seven-day average is currently over 9%, while the target is to keep it under 3%.

Although as a rightie I should be against lockdowns, mask requirements, etc. I’m not. If a month or two of inconvenience could accelerate our progress towards normalcy, I’ll bite my tough, don my mask, and run away from unmasked heathens.

This image is probably the best explanation I’ve seen of the layered defense we need to conquer the virus.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Yeah, that’s the cliched mantra almost anyone who gets in front of a camera seems to sing. This article brings that mantra into tight focus, however, and makes strong valid points.



Although as a rightie I should be against lockdowns, mask requirements, etc. I’m not. If a month or two of inconvenience could accelerate our progress towards normalcy, I’ll bite my tough, don my mask, and run away from unmasked heathens.

This image is probably the best explanation I’ve seen of the layered defense we need to conquer the virus.

View attachment 67307251

Exactly

Each measure on its own is imperfect, but combine multiple measures and the chance of transmission drops.

If social distancing decreases it by say 80%, add wearing a mask, might decrease it further to 90%

 

[Vern]

Although as a rightie I should be against lockdowns, mask requirements, etc. I’m not. If a month or two of inconvenience could accelerate our progress towards normalcy, I’ll bite my tough, don my mask, and run away from unmasked heathens.

I had to give the "swiss cheese of safety" presentation at my company so I can appreciate graph. Anyhoo, you can be against partial shutdowns**, a good case can be made either way. I think they were vital in the beginning. Now I think limiting capacity is the way to go. I've been to Atlantic city 3 times and have dined out a few times lately. I simply would not do either if they didnt limit capacity. But BE, you just cant be against mask mandates if only for the simple reason it protects others not just yourself. Stores and businesses mandated them and thats great but we shouldnt have had to wait until July for Walmart to require them and it shouldnt be up to walmart to enforce them. Thats the role of govt and it requires leadership.

**yea, we only had partial shutdowns. I was always able to go shopping and order out. China and Italy had soldiers in the streets enforcing actual lockdowns.

 

[Bullseye]

Exactly

Each measure on its own is imperfect, but combine multiple measures and the chance of transmission drops.

If social distancing decreases it by say 80%, add wearing a mask, might decrease it further to 90%

It adds up, iMHO. The swiss cheese analogy is brilliance - no single action can protect you, but each added layer adds to your safety; and importantly - even with all the layers in place there’s still a chance of catching the virus.
I curse and swear every day at the restrictions we’re subjected to, but being a pragmatist, I have to go along until a better answer comes along.

 

[Rogue Valley]

It adds up, iMHO. The swiss cheese analogy is brilliance - no single action can protect you, but each added layer adds to your safety; and importantly - even with all the layers in place there’s still a chance of catching the virus.
I curse and swear every day at the restrictions we’re subjected to, but being a pragmatist, I have to go along until a better answer comes along.

The economy can't be fixed until COVID is neutralized.

Maskless Trump and the "no shutdowns" GOP have been going about it ass backwards.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Yeah, that’s the cliched mantra almost anyone who gets in front of a camera seems to sing. This article brings that mantra into tight focus, however, and makes strong valid points.



Although as a rightie I should be against lockdowns, mask requirements, etc. I’m not. If a month or two of inconvenience could accelerate our progress towards normalcy, I’ll bite my tough, don my mask, and run away from unmasked heathens.

This image is probably the best explanation I’ve seen of the layered defense we need to conquer the virus.

View attachment 67307251

A month or two of inconvenience? We already had 8 months of devastation. Lockdowns and masks don't stop the virus. The virus is gradually becoming less dangerous. It never was all that dangerous except to high risk groups.

The lockdowns have created poverty and despair. The technocrats don't care, they'll be fine whatever happens.

High case counts mean nothing. It all depends on exactly what tests they use and exactly how they do them. They can make the case counts as high as they want to make them.

 

[Bullseye]

I had to give the "swiss cheese of safety" presentation at my company so I can appreciate graph. Anyhoo, you can be against partial shutdowns**, a good case can be made either way. I think they were vital in the beginning. Now I think limiting capacity is the way to go. I've been to Atlantic city 3 times and have dined out a few times lately. I simply would not do either if they didnt limit capacity. But BE, you just cant be against mask mandates if only for the simple reason it protects others not just yourself. Stores and businesses mandated them and thats great but we shouldnt have had to wait until July for Walmart to require them and it shouldnt be up to walmart to enforce them. Thats the role of govt and it requires leadership.

**yea, we only had partial shutdowns. I was always able to go shopping and order out. China and Italy had soldiers in the streets enforcing actual lockdowns.

I think the issue is that we need to use what we have but not assume we have the 100% solution. Yes, masking requirements require some form of government action. But IMHO it should be as local as possible; state governors are, again IMHO, the HIGHEST level at which authority should reside. I also think local entities should be able to tighten, but not loosen requirements.
ETA: just heard on local news Governor Gavin Newsom will be announcing “modified” restrictions later this afternoon; a good bet is that he won’t be loosening them.

 

[Bullseye]

A month or two of inconvenience? We already had 8 months of devastation. Lockdowns and masks don't stop the virus. The virus is gradually becoming less dangerous. It never was all that dangerous except to high risk groups.

The lockdowns have created poverty and despair. The technocrats don't care, they'll be fine whatever happens.

High case counts mean nothing. It all depends on exactly what tests they use and exactly how they do them. They can make the case counts as high as they want to make them.

Watcha good in place of masks and lockdowns? That’s the point. What other path would you have us take?

 

[Bullseye]

The economy can't be fixed until COVID is neutralized.

Maskless Trump and the "no shutdowns" GOP have been going about it ass backwards.

It doesn’t need “fixing”. It’s coming back strongly; all the building blocks are in place. Oh, and early on Trump got shot down for claiming he had teh authority to shutdown or open the economy; rightfully that responsibility fell on the state governors.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Watcha good in place of masks and lockdowns? That’s the point. What other path would you have us take?

If I say that something doesn't work, am I required to have a better solution? We've had lockdowns and masks and isolation for 8 months and they're saying there's a second wave. We don't even know if that's true, because testing can create the illusion of another wave. They can tell us whatever they want and at least half the country mindlessly believes it.

The pandemic is probably running its course, and will become sort of like the seasonal flu that we've been dealing with every year all our lives. Maybe some people will want the experimental long term adverse effects unknown vaccine.

The whole thing didn't have to be this horrible, didn't have to create all this misery and despair. All of our lives have been disrupted, even if we weren't hurt financially. And the financial long term consequences might be devastating for all of us. Except, of course, the ultra rich folks running this show. They'll be ok.

 

[eohrnberger]

I think the issue is that we need to use what we have but not assume we have the 100% solution. Yes, masking requirements require some form of government action. But IMHO it should be as local as possible; state governors are, again IMHO, the HIGHEST level at which authority should reside. I also think local entities should be able to tighten, but not loosen requirements.
ETA: just heard on local news Governor Gavin Newsom will be announcing “modified” restrictions later this afternoon; a good bet is that he won’t be loosening them.

Do you think that there's going to be protests in response?
Like:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12/03/macs-staten-island-bar-covid-cuomo/

?

 

[Vern]

I think the issue is that we need to use what we have but not assume we have the 100% solution. Yes, masking requirements require some form of government action. But IMHO it should be as local as possible; state governors are, again IMHO, the HIGHEST level at which authority should reside. I also think local entities should be able to tighten, but not loosen requirements.
ETA: just heard on local news Governor Gavin Newsom will be announcing “modified” restrictions later this afternoon; a good bet is that he won’t be loosening them.

I agree BE, use what we have and not assume its 100%. Every part helps the goal. But the fact is, it is ideology that drives your opinion that it should be left up to governors. And maybe a case could have been made in the beginning to leave it up to governors but it is a national problem. It should be treated like a national problem. And the people in SD and ND are simply lucky that by the time it got to the midwest, Covid wasnt as lethal.

 

[Bullseye]

I agree BE, use what we have and not assume its 100%. Every part helps the goal. But the fact is, it is ideology that drives your opinion that it should be left up to governors.

Nope, it’s the Constitution and common sense. Having each state manage its situation - with guidance and advice from CDC, ensures the most efficient solution. Dr’s Birx and Fauci continually communicated with the governors and their staffs. AND as I mentioned above Trump’s initial attempt to claim authority for closings and openings was rapidly shot down by the left.

And maybe a case could have been made in the beginning to leave it up to governors but it is a national problem. It should be treated like a national problem. And the people in SD and ND are simply lucky that by the time it got to the midwest, Covid wasnt as lethal.

No, it’s NOT a “national problem” it’s a collection of 50 state problems. California’s problems and challenges are different than Alaska’s, for instance. And no SD and ND weren’t “simply lucky” the managed their situations based on local conditions.

 

[Bullseye]

Do you think that there's going to be protests in response?
Like:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/12/03/macs-staten-island-bar-covid-cuomo/

?

All ready seeing that here in California - numbers in most counties have gone through the roof and Gov Newsom announced Monday if we don’t get our crap together restrictions with get tougher - He’s making some form of announcement later this afternoon. Given that 51 of 55 counties have jumped to the worst level, it’s not hard to guess what he’s going to say. Also LA county has already gone to a restrictive lock down so there’s precedent.

 

[Rogue Valley]

It doesn’t need “fixing”. It’s coming back strongly; all the building blocks are in place. Oh, and early on Trump got shot down for claiming he had teh authority to shutdown or open the economy; rightfully that responsibility fell on the state governors.

You live in a different America than I then.

Businesses in every state (especially restaurants) are begging for more stimulus just to stay solvent.

 

[eohrnberger]

All ready seeing that here in California - numbers in most counties have gone through the roof and Gov Newsom announced Monday if we don’t get our crap together restrictions with get tougher - He’s making some form of announcement later this afternoon. Given that 51 of 55 counties have jumped to the worst level, it’s not hard to guess what he’s going to say. Also LA county has already gone to a restrictive lock down so there’s precedent.

I stand by my earlier post (was it this thread?). The people have had enough, are fed up.

 

[Bullseye]

You live in a different America than I then.

Businesses in every state (especially restaurants) are begging for more stimulus just to stay solvent.

Last unemployment rate came in better than Obama had through more than half his term; same with payroll employment. Stock markets 40-50% higher than Obama’s. GDP grew 33% last quarter. The’s my America. Are you in Central America?

 

[Bullseye]

I stand by my earlier post (was it this thread?). The people have had enough, are fed up.

I agree, but the medicine being distasteful doesn’t mean it isn’t good for you. I can’t help but wonder what WOULD have happened if we’d strongly adhered to masking and distancing requirements:

 

[eohrnberger]

I agree, but the medicine being distasteful doesn’t mean it isn’t good for you. I can’t help but wonder what WOULD have happened if we’d strongly adhered to masking and distancing requirements:
View attachment 67307269

The most 'distasteful' about that 'medicine' is that the nations' leaders think those rules only apply to the 'little people', and not themselves.
'Rules for thee but none for me!', multiple 'Let Them Eat Cake' moments.

That's bound to stick cross-ways in the worst possible way in any reasonable person's craw, and it should equally stick cross-ways in those leader's craw, but somehow platitudes and insincere apologies (one Mayor in Cabo recording a 'stay home, don't travel' video) appear to be sufficient to placate some. :doh:

Sorry, but no. That's not how this works. Especially if the claim is 'We’re all in this together' pablum for the sheeple.

 

[SkyFox76]

I agree, but the medicine being distasteful doesn’t mean it isn’t good for you. I can’t help but wonder what WOULD have happened if we’d strongly adhered to masking and distancing requirements:
View attachment 67307269

It would be interesting to know if all those people in that picture are still alive and well, or even people they then went on to mingle with. I said at the time states let up too soon because people just headed back to ignoring the warnings and acting like Covid was gone. Just like all the people that travelled or held gatherings over Thanksgiving. Certainly I sympathize with people who's jobs have been compromised and for the people who's businesses have also suffered, but I do have to wonder if given a choice would they have rather struggled through another couple of months and see our numbers drop so that maybe now we wouldn't be topping out in so many places and the set backs would be severe. Not to mention all the poor people who've died in the year, some from their own stupidity or even someone not caring and compromising the health of their parents or grandparents. Now here we are looking dead in the eyes of what the experts warned of.

 

[Bullseye]

It would be interesting to know if all those people in that picture are still alive and well, or even people they then went on to mingle with. I said at the time states let up too soon because people just headed back to ignoring the warnings and acting like Covid was gone. Just like all the people that travelled or held gatherings over Thanksgiving. Certainly I sympathize with people who's jobs have been compromised and for the people who's businesses have also suffered, but I do have to wonder if given a choice would they have rather struggled through another couple of months and see our numbers drop so that maybe now we wouldn't be topping out in so many places and the set backs would be severe. Not to mention all the poor people who've died in the year, some from their own stupidity or even someone not caring and compromising the health of their parents or grandparents. Now here we are looking dead in the eyes of what the experts warned of.

I think the survival rate for the demographic is something like 99.999%.

 

[SkyFox76]

I think the survival rate for the demographic is something like 99.999%.

Except survival doesn't necessarily come without aftermath.

 

[Good4Nothin]

It would be interesting to know if all those people in that picture are still alive and well, or even people they then went on to mingle with. I said at the time states let up too soon because people just headed back to ignoring the warnings and acting like Covid was gone. Just like all the people that travelled or held gatherings over Thanksgiving. Certainly I sympathize with people who's jobs have been compromised and for the people who's businesses have also suffered, but I do have to wonder if given a choice would they have rather struggled through another couple of months and see our numbers drop so that maybe now we wouldn't be topping out in so many places and the set backs would be severe. Not to mention all the poor people who've died in the year, some from their own stupidity or even someone not caring and compromising the health of their parents or grandparents. Now here we are looking dead in the eyes of what the experts warned of.

We had 8 months of lockdowns, and the virus is, according to the authorities, still going strong. So why would more of the same have a different result?

We didn't need the lockdowns, and if we had needed them they didn't work. A new virus comes along and does its thing and dies out.

 

[Bullseye]

Except survival doesn't necessarily come without aftermath.

For some. What’s your point?

 

[SkyFox76]

We had 8 months of lockdowns, and the virus is, according to the authorities, still going strong. So why would more of the same have a different result?

We didn't need the lockdowns, and if we had needed them they didn't work. A new virus comes along and does its thing and dies out.

8 months of lockdowns? Where? At best we had 3-4 months before people just threw up their hands and said nope, you can't tell me what to do. And yes they did work because we saw numbers began to decrease.