A false dichotomy, if the Coronavirus cannot be completely eliminated

I don't think the virus is fake but........ I will leave it at that. Well, I will say I believe the number of deaths are not accurate nor the number of people tested. The other thing I believe, I will keep to myself.

Do you think that the number of deaths and people tested is being reported as too high or too low?
 

For Chic
Good luck trying to get your rights back now that we've got 'em.

You have my rights?


We scared you good and it worked.
How many of the "we" are there?


And the sad thing is many people no longer even want to go out because they're so buying into this and that was just what they wanted in the first place.
Who are the they that you refer to?

What Rights have been lost?

Dealing with an unknown does take doing things no one in the world is used to. Learning from what worked for the black plague is an approach that worked back then. But we know several billion people have been born since then & economys have expanded beyond what it was like then.

Different times but the need to talk precaution is still warranted.
 

If they came out with a vaccine for C-19, I would not take it.. I don't even take flu shots. NO THANKS.

I'd probably like to see a few folks taking it before I stepped up to the plate, but think I'd trust a vaccine for this dreadful virus then, (if I need one, and most of those who have maybe been infected never knew it, so could be immune already?).

The "normal flu jab" has been a boon to me, in the two years I've had it, (I'd been offered it many times before and declined it, but one winter when my immune system may have been weakened due to stress, I succumbed to flu like infections repeatedly, hence my change of heart).
 
We all have to choose who we trust and who we believe. I myself choose to trust the majority of medical professionals and scientists regarding the potential expanse and effect of COVID-19 if we relax restrictions now.

I do agree that we need to find ways for people who's jobs have been eliminated due to the restrictions to be able to safely start working again even if it isn't in their old job.

I am one of those people who does not believe the COVID-19 deaths and cases are being over reported. Some stories I have seen have compared the normal death rates for various areas with the current death rates. In the instances they highlighted the COVID-19 deaths do not account for all of the increase in deaths leading me to believe that the COVID-19 deaths are actually being under reported.

At least one of the normal death rate causes, auto accidents, have been reduced as a result of the restrictions. I haven't heard or seen any reports on the reduction in traffic deaths so this is just ignorant speculation on my part, but I'm confident that it will eventually be shown to be true.
 
We all have to choose who we trust and who we believe. I myself choose to trust the majority of medical professionals and scientists regarding the potential expanse and effect of COVID-19 if we relax restrictions now.

I do agree that we need to find ways for people who's jobs have been eliminated due to the restrictions to be able to safely start working again even if it isn't in their old job.

I am one of those people who does not believe the COVID-19 deaths and cases are being over reported. Some stories I have seen have compared the normal death rates for various areas with the current death rates. In the instances they highlighted the COVID-19 deaths do not account for all of the increase in deaths leading me to believe that the COVID-19 deaths are actually being under reported.

At least one of the normal death rate causes, auto accidents, have been reduced as a result of the restrictions. I haven't heard or seen any reports on the reduction in traffic deaths so this is just ignorant speculation on my part, but I'm confident that it will eventually be shown to be true.


You seem to consider the hope the virus can be defeated eventually by lockdown is a realistic one, (I hope I'm not misrepresenting your views, and am sorry if I've covered this with you before?)?

My ex. brother in law, who is no fool, seemed to think this was the "only" way to go, (he has serious health issues so would be at greater risk if ther ewas an early let up of restrictions more than others perhaps).

i dont think the virus can be beaten this way, not now and/or maybe not ever, although I'll be as happy as everyone else if a 100% successful vaccination programme can be rolled out worldwide, before every country goes completely broke. .:unsure:
 
You seem to consider the hope the virus can be defeated eventually by lockdown is a realistic one, (I hope I'm not misrepresenting your views, and am sorry if I've covered this with you before?)?

My ex. brother in law, who is no fool, seemed to think this was the "only" way to go, (he has serious health issues so would be at greater risk if ther ewas an early let up of restrictions more than others perhaps).

i dont think the virus can be beaten this way, not now and/or maybe not ever, although I'll be as happy as everyone else if a 100% successful vaccination programme can be rolled out worldwide, before every country goes completely broke. .:unsure:

What I think the restrictions accomplish are the following:
  • Reduces the number of infections so that health facilities and personnel are not overwhelmed
  • Reduces the number of infections to reduce the number of vulnerable people who are exposed to the virus and reduces their infection rate
  • Gives us time to find more effective treatments for those who are infected
  • Gives us time to determine if having been infected once prevents one from being infected again
  • Gives us time to determine if a person who has been infected and recovered can be "reinfected" enough to be contagious without becoming sick again themselves.
  • Gives us time to find ways to reduce the restrictions while not significantly increasing the likelihood that more people will be infected.
 
What I think the restrictions accomplish are the following:
  • Reduces the number of infections so that health facilities and personnel are not overwhelmed
  • Reduces the number of infections to reduce the number of vulnerable people who are exposed to the virus and reduces their infection rate
  • Gives us time to find more effective treatments for those who are infected
  • Gives us time to determine if having been infected once prevents one from being infected again
  • Gives us time to determine if a person who has been infected and recovered can be "reinfected" enough to be contagious without becoming sick again themselves.
  • Gives us time to find ways to reduce the restrictions while not significantly increasing the likelihood that more people will be infected.
Agreed on all points.
Also, locally, there's been a decrease in "out there" crime- not because individuals are cooperating with the rules, but because much has been closed so there are fewer places to go and hang around.
I can imagine this benefit will stop, though, as the governor is reopening too much, too soon.
 
I just saw today's "news."
"In the past 24 hours, there have been 23,000 new cases of Coronavirus."
But....today's update: "Thankfully, we're flattening the curve & seeing less cases. Our measures are working."
 
What I think the restrictions accomplish are the following:
  • Reduces the number of infections so that health facilities and personnel are not overwhelmed
  • Reduces the number of infections to reduce the number of vulnerable people who are exposed to the virus and reduces their infection rate
  • Gives us time to find more effective treatments for those who are infected
  • Gives us time to determine if having been infected once prevents one from being infected again
  • Gives us time to determine if a person who has been infected and recovered can be "reinfected" enough to be contagious without becoming sick again themselves.
  • Gives us time to find ways to reduce the restrictions while not significantly increasing the likelihood that more people will be infected.

If more people ultimately die because of the poverty caused by the lockdown iniated recession/depression, would you look back on the policies being followed with the same level of contentment do you think?

I don't mean to be quite as critical as that sounds, because most people I'd guess would be of the same mind as yourself, btw.
 
If more people ultimately die because of the poverty caused by the lockdown iniated recession/depression, would you look back on the policies being followed with the same level of contentment do you think?

I don't mean to be quite as critical as that sounds, because most people I'd guess would be of the same mind as yourself, btw.

I don't find your question at all critical and am enjoying the conversation.

I'm not that concerned about people dying due to poverty in the western world, but I am concerned about how various third world countries will be able to handle the situation.

I'm of the opinion that we have the resources and people to address the poverty issues but it's a matter of whether or not they will be mobilized to for that purpose. At this point in time I think the potential deaths due to removing restrictions outweighs the possibility of issues due to the restrictions. However I am open to changing my mind based on what happens as things progress.
 
If they came out with a vaccine for C-19, I would not take it.. I don't even take flu shots. NO THANKS.
We get flu shots every September, for a long time...I had.pneumonia last summer...It was dreadful....So I'll get my second shot in Sept.
We had vaccine's going back to my school days....I didn't die...What ever the Doctor wants me to have....I will do it....I'm 75 years old....
I'm walking and Talking....The pneumonia was the first time I got sick in a very very long time....We were at a party in the summer....
Everyone was hugging and dancing....So I will be very careful the next time I'm with a crowd....Hey, I'm living longer then my Mom...
God Rest Her Soul.....
 
I don't find your question at all critical and am enjoying the conversation.

I'm not that concerned about people dyinOne nen to poverty in the western world, but I am concerned about how various third world countries will be able to handle the situation.

I'm of the opinion that we have the resources and people to address the poverty issues but it's a matter of whether or not they will be mobilized to for that purpose. At this point in time I think the potential deaths due to removing restrictions outweighs the possibility of issues due to the restrictions. However I am open to changing my mind based on what happens as things progress.

I know when you say, quote:"I'm not that concerned about people dying due to poverty in the Western world", you don't mean you are unable to care how many die obviously, from poverty related issues!

However, let's say the leaders of Western countries take an extremely cautious view of the risks of deaths increasing from Covid 19 when their lockdown rules are relaxed, some saying "two years" to prevent, they think, the pandemic reemerging, then there will be some pretty dire consequences I'd suggest.

One of the dire consequences being families, or at least extended families becoming estranged. People maybe dying from causes other than this virus, never having seen or held their grandchildren or children again, to look at one aspect beyond the wholesale economic devastation. Can you remain fairly sanguine about these things, I know they're only speculation,?

Across the world already there are changes being made to rules allowing families a bit more freedom, but our UK government, hounded for its handling of this crisis so far, appears willing to force all kinds of damage on us, we may be unable to endure, or recover from in my view.
 
I know when you say, quote:"I'm not that concerned about people dying due to poverty in the Western world", you don't mean you are unable to care how many die obviously, from poverty related issues!

However, let's say the leaders of Western countries take an extremely cautious view of the risks of deaths increasing from Covid 19 when their lockdown rules are relaxed, some saying "two years" to prevent, they think, the pandemic reemerging, then there will be some pretty dire consequences I'd suggest.

One of the dire consequences being families, or at least extended families becoming estranged. People maybe dying from causes other than this virus, never having seen or held their grandchildren or children again, to look at one aspect beyond the wholesale economic devastation. Can you remain fairly sanguine about these things, I know they're only speculation,?

Across the world already there are changes being made to rules allowing families a bit more freedom, but our UK government, hounded for its handling of this crisis so far, appears willing to force all kinds of damage on us, we may be unable to endure, or recover from in my view.

I communicated poorly and I'm not sure how to put forth my thoughts regarding concerns that COVID-19 restrictions will increase poverty which will lead to more poverty related deaths. At this point I'm willing to risk that to decrease the number of COVID-19 related deaths. I think the poverty issue is one that can be addressed effectively if we choose to do so.

Regarding your concerns that the restrictions are preventing people who are not dying of COVID-19 from being able to see their families. I do think that something should be done to address such concerns.

I'm sorry that you are having to deal with the UK government forcing damages on you. I have many colleagues in the UK who are on a meeting I attend every weekday morning. I haven't heard such concerns from them but then again they are generally younger and also don't currently have their employment disrupted so that might be the reason they are not having the same concerns that you are.
 
I'm sorry that you are having to deal with the UK government forcing damages on you. I have many colleagues in the UK who are on a meeting I attend every weekday morning. I haven't heard such concerns from them but then again they are generally younger and also don't currently have their employment disrupted so that might be the reason they are not having the same concerns that you are.

I didn't mean to suggest I'm suffering personally and damage caused by our UK government, except inconvenience. It is the damage to the country's economy I'm referring to, or envisaging will not recover well if there is not such a sentimental discourse surrounding this pandemic I feel cannot be defeated in the way they're suggesting, (to people like my vulnerable brother in law, who perhaps thinks it can). :censored: .
 
The thread title, including the words,"A false dichotomy..." was given a different twist, by someone using those exact same words on a UK radio station last night.

She said there was a false dichotomy between likely economic damage due to the lockdown, and the number of deaths caused by the virus, (because the deaths themselves would have had an economic impact is her argument, and one others have put forward too).

I'd say, if "deaths" is her criteria in relation to economic damage, she's got to factor in deaths that will result from failing economies, and she isn't obviously, and yet whoever she is may be getting paid to give her views, and "inform the public", as they'd like to have it.

I may be completely wrong about all this, but I see our leaders as having lost their nerve, and over reacted, and are trying to pretend they can minimise risk, with a viral disease that won't go away completely, no matter what they do, (except in the circumstances a 100% effective vaccine is developed and rolled out successfully worldwide in time to save our economies and all the lives at risk).
 
I don't think the virus is fake but........ I will leave it at that. Well, I will say I believe the number of deaths are not accurate nor the number of people tested. The other thing I believe, I will keep to myself.
LOL. Don't want to risk annoying the robots, eh?
 
No he doesn't. Check section 242 of article 18. It is a crime for a person of any color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the constitution of the United States.

Thats 18 USC 242, and it does not apply to forcing a business to close under the pandemic.
 
Initially I was so on board about quarantining which medical experts told us in early March would flatten the curve and we'd all get out by the end of April. Happily we relinquished our freedoms. Day by day the story changed. Well the curve isn't flattening as we expected. Let's close everything non essential. Shelter in place. Just Stay Home! And restrictions will lift in May. By early April, No this isn't enough. We must impose a curfew. And you should wear masks if you must go out for groceries etc. We hope to reopen by June or July. Wearily people surrendered yet more of their few remaining freedoms. By mid April. We're nearing the peak we think the curve is going to flatten, there are fewer new cases. But we're going to double down on restrictions. And then came the cherry on the parfait - you really can't go out again until we have a vaccine and that's two years away.

Good luck trying to get your rights back now that we've got 'em. We scared you good and it worked. And the sad thing is many people no longer even want to go out because they're so buying into this and that was just what they wanted in the first place.
"sad thing is many people no longer even want to go out because they're so buying into this and that was just what they wanted in the first place."

first of all...not "buying into" anything here. i don't want to get this virus and die if i can help it. nothing wrong with that at all. i would think that would be perfectly normal behavior.

can i ask what makes you think they (whoever they are) want us to not want to go out and why?
 


Back
Top