Trump just announced 3 things:
1)The elderly and those vulnerable to viruses should stay home.
2) Don’t gather in groups larger than 10 people.
3)It will be probably July or August before this “washes through”...
Trump just announced 3 things:
Suggestions an mandates are very different things.
Nobody is paying attention to nuances right now... they hear don’t be near more than 10 people and that’s what they’ll do.audiophile wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:51 pmSuggestions an mandates are very different things.
Stopping abortions would have saved 40 +million more lives than the potential danger of Covid-19.lovinlife101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:16 pmOh, so fewer people dying is the goal?TC Talks wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:29 pmMy industry just laid off about 2,500,000 people today. It's an uncertain future, but it can go well (fewer people die) or it can go poorly. If only we had a pandemic response team that could have started working on this in October. Just think how much money we saved as a nation by eliminating that socialistic endeavor. Has it occurred to you that your guy in DC just fuck every small business in the US? Isn't that part of the problem here?
Guess how many lives we could have saved if they weren’t aborted?
You make a good point...Rate This wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:57 pmNobody is paying attention to nuances right now... they hear don’t be near more than 10 people and that’s what they’ll do.audiophile wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:51 pmSuggestions and mandates are very different things.
Because the folks who don’t will spread it at will and defeat the purpose.audiophile wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:52 pmYou make a good point...Rate This wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:57 pmNobody is paying attention to nuances right now... they hear don’t be near more than 10 people and that’s what they’ll do.audiophile wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:51 pmSuggestions and mandates are very different things.
Many will comply, so why do under EO's and threat of jail?
But the problem is that if everyone is asked pretty please then some people won’t and the people who catch it from the morons are in the line of fire essentially. That’s not their fault. The people who cannot follow simple directions need some consequences for what they’ve done to the broader society... I think misdemeanors are probably appropriate or maybe fines. Essentially the individualist stuff was cute when it was 10 cases in the U.S. but we are into how it effects society at this point. Not individuals. I can’t really think of another way to stop it from spreading besides what they are doing...
How dare Americans change their lives to contain a virus that is deadly to the elderly and those with pre-existing health issues!And most alarming to me out of all of this, as it pertains to the long-term viability of our republic, is not this relatively non-deadly virus, but rather the degree to which Americans seem to be willing to so quickly give up their personal freedoms all in the name of security or in the name of saving lives.
What qualifies as "reasonable" in your estimation?I am perfectly fine with REASONABLE measures being taken. But the government telling small business owners that they no longer have control over what hours they can operate or what otherwise legal services they can offer - that is totalitarianism. And the current restrictions are NOTHING compared to what we're going to see 2 to 3 weeks out.
I'm so tired of this "this is about saving lives" argument, because in my opinion, it is a disingenuous argument. Americans are completely unwilling to put down their cell phones while driving (to the tune of killing 6,000 Americans every year) or to drive slower (to the tune of 30,000 Americans killed in the past 50 years due to our higher speed limits - I wish I could find that study). THEY ARE UNWILLING TO DO THESE BASIC THINGS TO SAVE THOUSANDS OF LIVES EVERY YEAR. But they're willing to live in near lock-down conditions to save the lives of people at risk for dying from the Coronavirus? Numbers which at least thus far pale in comparison to the two types of easily avoidable deaths I just mentioned if people simply gave up a tiny fraction of the rights which they're being asked to give up now? I'm sorry, but something just doesn't add up here. Until someone can explain to me what it is that makes these particular lives more worth saving than others, then I consider this a BS argument.MWmetalhead wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 6:56 pmHow dare Americans change their lives to contain a virus that is deadly to the elderly and those with pre-existing health issues!And most alarming to me out of all of this, as it pertains to the long-term viability of our republic, is not this relatively non-deadly virus, but rather the degree to which Americans seem to be willing to so quickly give up their personal freedoms all in the name of security or in the name of saving lives.
Firstly, I think the decisions should be left to officials at a more local level than at the state level because there is not a one-size-fits-all solution for the entire state of Michigan. That said, there are a few things that nearly everybody agrees works:MWmetalhead wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2020 6:56 pmWhat qualifies as "reasonable" in your estimation?I am perfectly fine with REASONABLE measures being taken. But the government telling small business owners that they no longer have control over what hours they can operate or what otherwise legal services they can offer - that is totalitarianism. And the current restrictions are NOTHING compared to what we're going to see 2 to 3 weeks out.