Are you more concerned about the actual virus?

[Elijah John]

1) Are you more concerned about the actual coronavirus itself?

2) Or about panic buying disrupting the supply chain of basic groceries and the effect on the economy.

3) Should the President consider imposing rationing of basic necessities so that everyone can get enough?

4) Should the President encourage papermills and other sources in the chain to ramp up production and delivery?

5) With all the emphasis on testing, testing and more testing, have the authorities neglected the basics of life?

For the first time (as I was typing this) I heard President Trump advise against the hoarding of groceries. I wish he'd do more of that.

[AgnosticBoy]

.
[Replying to post 36 by AgnosticBoy]

Let's consider the effects of applying your idea of restricting only 'high risk' people (over 45) and removing restrictions on low risk people (44 and under).

Those 45 and over are likely to include many or most:
Business owners and senior managers
Bankers, financiers, money managers
Doctors, senior nurses, hospital administrators
Senior military leaders
Politicians, senior bureaucrats
Teachers, principals, professors,

What will the 'low risk' people be doing with businesses, banks, hospitals, schools closed or operating without leadership? Having a party?

Well I wouldn't isolate all of the older population if they are immune to the virus.
They can take up some of the same measures that people are doing for essential businesses today.

[Danmark]

But he'll still probably be voted back in by the 538 actual voters rather than Faith Spotted Eagle or Colin Powell or any of the other choices, when he brags about how he stopped the death toll hitting 100,000 even though the national debt will be over $25 trillion and the DEBT to GDP ratio will be headed toward 160% or more as predicted for 2024. https://www.usdebtclock.org/
https://www.usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html

Right now the national polls give Biden a clear lead. There is quite a spread in percentage points, but every poll in the last month or so gives Biden a lead of from 2 to 11 points, with an average lead of about 6%
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... ional.html

But we all know that is not the most important number. Trump lost the popular vote, but rec'd more electoral votes. The key 'battleground' or 'swing states' is the key. So far it looks like Biden wins there too, but some of those margins are razor thin
and change every day.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... orida.html

With the President's response to COVID 19 and Biden only recently becoming the presumptive nominee, it's hard to imagine a more volatile moment for polling data.

[2Dbunk]

WhenChina dec he declared himself the "War President" he should have then ACTED like one: During any war has the president relied on the individual states to do this or that ? No! Martial law was instituted and all available resources were brought to bear on the enemy, by ALL the states! That's what happened in China, So. Korea, New Zealand and Hong Kong, and look at their "remarkable" results.

Actually, President Trump should not have declared 'martial law'. That has been declared on a national level only once in American history. In fact, Trump received push back when he suggested that the entire state of New York be quarantined. Such statements may simply panic the population.

Though he claimed to be the "war president" he deferred to the individual states for coronavirus protocols, relinquishing his leadership. Now that the pandemic has peaked, he wants TOTAL control of America's re-entry back to normalcy. Is he just picking a fight with the governors who see his control differently, or is this Donald Trump just being Donald Trump? Consistency is in the eye of the beholder.

For instance, why would you quarantine someone who is immune to the disease? Why would you quarantine someone who is a low risk for developing any severe symptoms from Covid-19?

No one knows for sure who may be immune -- scientists don't even know if those recovered from the virus can catch it again! Until instant testing to see if a person is infected is available, or a vaccine is available, I am keeping my distance from others.

[2Dbunk]

.
[Replying to post 36 by AgnosticBoy]

Let's consider the effects of applying your idea of restricting only 'high risk' people (over 45) and removing restrictions on low risk people (44 and under).

Those 45 and over are likely to include many or most:
Business owners and senior managers
Bankers, financiers, money managers
Doctors, senior nurses, hospital administrators
Senior military leaders
Politicians, senior bureaucrats
Teachers, principals, professors,

What will the 'low risk' people be doing with businesses, banks, hospitals, schools closed or operating without leadership? Having a party?

Certainly good points!

But I would add those youngsters' mothers and father, aunts and uncles to your list.

How many of these "immune" younger generation are carriers but show no visible symptoms? Until these carriers can be identified with proper testing, everyone is vulnerable.

[AgnosticBoy]

.
[Replying to post 36 by AgnosticBoy]

Let's consider the effects of applying your idea of restricting only 'high risk' people (over 45) and removing restrictions on low risk people (44 and under).

Those 45 and over are likely to include many or most:
Business owners and senior managers
Bankers, financiers, money managers
Doctors, senior nurses, hospital administrators
Senior military leaders
Politicians, senior bureaucrats
Teachers, principals, professors,

What will the 'low risk' people be doing with businesses, banks, hospitals, schools closed or operating without leadership? Having a party?

In a sense, the low risk population will have a covid-19 party by infecting each other. But then they will eventually recover and develop immunity and won't have anyone to infect. In fact, their antibodies can be used for future vaccines.

To address your other points, I can say that there would definitely have to be workarounds. If anyone from the high risk population needed to manage or teach, then they should definitely practice social distancing, wear masks, stay in the office as much as possible, etc. This is already happening when you have senior staff having to work at places that the governors are okay with staying open, like hospitals, banks, food stores, the military. Of course, in some cases you do have young doctors, managers, bankers, etc.

Either way, it would certainly be better to have SOME going back to work as opposed to ZERO.

[AgnosticBoy]

No one knows for sure who may be immune -- scientists don't even know if those recovered from the virus can catch it again! Until instant testing to see if a person is infected is available, or a vaccine is available, I am keeping my distance from others.

Actually, scientists have a pretty good idea based on how immunity has worked from other outbreaks. This is not even the first coronavirus outbreak. There was the SARS outbreak in 2003.

Besides that, if you hide the people that would develop only MILD symptoms, then you should also be hiding them from the common cold and flu since those also cause mild symptoms.

[2Dbunk]

Agreed that he has a balancing act on his hands: economic stability on one hand and physical health concerns on the other. Which would you rather err on: the tide dropping -- stranding all boats -- everyone suffering financial loss for x amount of time, but surviving to continue where we left off? Or people returning to normal activity without knowing where the invisible KILLER lurks, vulnerable to another wave similar to what occurred in Hong Kong (where citizens suffered renewed restrictions). Submitting to the latter will certainly cost more lives.

Your point here is a false dichotomy. You can balance keeping the economy open with reducing covid-19 deaths. Your view seems to be based on FEAR which is why I question atheists trust in science.

Statistics can always be manipulated to support an argument, and I apologize for not weighting the different age groups; it was unintentional. But my dichotomy is valid to some degree. Besides there is the risk of the virus mutating into the younger sector -- until we know what we are dealing with, it may be wise to err on the safer side. 0.02% of a million cases (and that number could be substantially higher) is equal to 20,000 deaths -- your mom and pop in the mix -- would you wait another week or ten days from the scheduled "opening of business as usual" if that death rate could be pared by 10%, 20% or even 50%?

Stay safe!

[AgnosticBoy]

Statistics can always be manipulated to support an argument, and I apologize for not weighting the different age groups; it was unintentional.

But it is important to keep in mind that I didn't do anything to "manipulate" the stats. It has been widely reported that only the elderly and those with pre-existing chronic disease are at a high risk for severe symptoms.

If anything, I've found liberals trying to manipulate the results by trying to sneak in an age range, 45-54 y/o, with the young population to make the stat of hospitalizations and severe symptoms bigger. They didn't want to look at the stat that only involves the age range 0-19 where there are little to no severe cases.

But my dichotomy is valid to some degree.

It is not based on the evidence that I've offered for my plan. Under my plan, there would not be a high death toll. There will likely not even be any "severe" cases. In fact, in deciding to open the economy, one thing most agree with is that it must be done on a gradual basis. My plan fits right in because it gets the low risk or even those that have recovered out first. And then you let out the rest once immunity starts increasing.

Besides there is the risk of the virus mutating into the younger sector -- until we know what we are dealing with, it may be wise to err on the safer side.

Notice that you're willing to make a BIG decision (keeping the economy closed) based off of something that has not happened nor do you know the likelihood of it happening. That's what I call FEAR-based. Meanwhile, you've attempted to attack my view that is based very much on the reality of what has happened, and that's based on what we know (regarding immunity, etc.) from pre-existing viruses. Allow me to let the experts address your fears:

Mutation. The word naturally conjures fears of unexpected and freakish changes. Ill-informed discussions of mutations thrive during virus outbreaks, including the ongoing spread of SARS-CoV-2. In reality, mutations are a natural part of the virus life cycle and rarely impact outbreaks dramatically.

Our media streams and scientific communications flooded with trepidation and misrepresentation of mutations surrounding the outbreak of a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, exemplify this attitude. Headlines featuring ‘DNA sleuths’ searching for ‘dangerous mutations’ in the new virus inculcate an expectation that the virus will inevitably mutate to become more deadly1. News reports warning that mutating viruses may spread more rapidly evoke visions of a doomsday scenario in which public health efforts to control the epidemic are rendered futile2.

Unlike science fiction, however, the dramatization of virus mutation is not innocuous, and we need only look to other recent outbreaks to realize the extent to which overinterpreting the impact of mutation directly affects our health and safety.

Actually, we do know what we are dealing with and should make decisions based on that. This is what my plan is based on. You're wanting to make BIG decisions, keeping the economy shut, based on what we do NOT know.



No plan is free of this risk. It may mutate after we open the economy under your timeline. There may never be certainty on this for some time. So do we keep the economy closed based off of some unknown risk? That's unnecessary.


I'd have to refer back to what we do know. We know that the vast majority of the low risk population will experience mild symptoms. We know the virus has not mutated into anything that would


But since this has not happened, and there's no saying that even if it does, that it will not lead to any difference in the degree of symptoms experienced, then I'd say go by what we have and know. What we know is that what's out there now causes very mild symptoms in the low risk population. We also know that people can RECOVER from the virus and there has been many more recoveries than deaths. So when you factor in there being NO evidence of mutations, and evidence that many can recover


0.02% of a million cases (and that number could be substantially higher) is equal to 20,000 deaths -- your mom and pop in the mix -- would you wait another week or ten days from the scheduled "opening of business as usual" if that death rate could be pared by 10%, 20% or even 50%?

Stay safe![/quote]

The word mutation "naturally conjures fears of unexpected and freakish changes," he wrote. "In reality, mutations are a natural part of the virus life cycle and rarely impact outbreaks dramatically." RNA viruses, or those that have RNA as their main genetic material instead of DNA, including SARS-CoV-2, mutate constantly and do not have the mechanisms to fix these "mistakes," as human cells do, for example.

But most of these mutations negatively affect the virus. If mutations are not beneficial to the virus, they are typically eliminated through natural selection, the mechanism of evolution whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive. Other mutations survive and get embedded into the "average" genome of a virus.

[AgnosticBoy]

Statistics can always be manipulated to support an argument, and I apologize for not weighting the different age groups; it was unintentional.

But it is important to keep in mind that I didn't do anything to "manipulate" the stats. It has been widely reported that only the elderly and those with pre-existing chronic disease are at a high risk for severe symptoms.

If anything, I've found liberals trying to manipulate the results by trying to sneak in an age range, 45-54 y/o, with the young population to make the stat of hospitalizations and severe symptoms bigger. They didn't want to look at the stat that only involves the age range 0-19 where there are little to no severe cases.

Besides there is the risk of the virus mutating into the younger sector -- until we know what we are dealing with, it may be wise to err on the safer side.

Notice that you're willing to make a BIG decision (keeping the economy closed) based off of something that has not happened nor do you know the likelihood of it happening. That's what I call FEAR-based. Meanwhile, you've attempted to attack my view that is based very much on the reality of what has happened, and that's based on what we know (regarding immunity, etc.) from pre-existing viruses. Allow me to let the experts address your fears:

Mutation. The word naturally conjures fears of unexpected and freakish changes. Ill-informed discussions of mutations thrive during virus outbreaks, including the ongoing spread of SARS-CoV-2. In reality, mutations are a natural part of the virus life cycle and rarely impact outbreaks dramatically.

Our media streams and scientific communications flooded with trepidation and misrepresentation of mutations surrounding the outbreak of a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, exemplify this attitude. Headlines featuring ‘DNA sleuths’ searching for ‘dangerous mutations’ in the new virus inculcate an expectation that the virus will inevitably mutate to become more deadly1. News reports warning that mutating viruses may spread more rapidly evoke visions of a doomsday scenario in which public health efforts to control the epidemic are rendered futile2.

Unlike science fiction, however, the dramatization of virus mutation is not innocuous, and we need only look to other recent outbreaks to realize the extent to which overinterpreting the impact of mutation directly affects our health and safety.

Source: Nature

And lets here it from CNN, which is where people are getting a lot of their FEARS from:

A recent scientific article suggested that the novel coronavirus responsible for the Covid-19 epidemic has mutated into a more "aggressive" form. Is this something we need to worry about? No, and here's why.
…
The first claim that the coronavirus is mutating is actually true, and it's perfectly fine!
...The effects of mutation in real life are nuanced and generally innocuous. Using the idea of mutation to incite fear is harmful, especially in the midst of an epidemic like Covid-19.

A particularly fraught question during epidemics is whether the causative pathogen will mutate to become more dangerous. This is the wrong question. Mutation is a mundane aspect of existence for many viruses, and the novel coronavirus is no exception. The genetic material of the virus is RNA, not DNA like in humans. Unlike with human DNA, when viruses copy their genetic material, it does not proofread its work.

Because RNA viruses essentially operate without a spell-check, they often make mistakes. These "mistakes" are mutations, and viruses mutate rapidly compared to other organisms. While this might sound frightening, mistakes during replication usually produce changes that are neutral or even harmful to the newly generated virus. Neutral mutations, which neither improve nor hinder viruses' survival, may continue to circulate without any noticeable change in the people they infect. Mutations that are harmful to the viruses are less likely to survive and are eliminated through natural selection.

Fortunately, when mutations occur that help a virus spread or survive better, they are unlikely to make a difference in the course of an outbreak. Viral traits such as infectiousness and disease severity are controlled by multiple genes, and each of those genes may affect the virus' ability to spread in multiple ways. For example, a virus that causes severe symptoms may be less likely to be transmitted if infected people are sick enough to stay in bed. As such, these traits are like blocks in a Rubik's cube; a change in one characteristic will change another. The chances of a virus navigating these complex series of trade-offs to become more severe during the short timescale of an outbreak are extremely low.

Source: CNN

0.02% of a million cases (and that number could be substantially higher) is equal to 20,000 deaths -- your mom and pop in the mix -- would you wait another week or ten days from the scheduled "opening of business as usual" if that death rate could be pared by 10%, 20% or even 50%?

Stay safe!

People die everyday from the many things that life throws at us. Everyday is a risk to our lives so there is no such thing as a Risk-free life. Even isolating yourself can lead to health risks. Damaging the economy and people's livelihoods comes with its own consequences, as well. So viewing this on a scale with the risk of everything else in life, which does not prevent me from going out and doing business and living life, I can say "yes" that I would continue business as usual if such only created a .02% risk of death.

[Zzyzx]

.

Either way, it would certainly be better to have SOME going back to work as opposed to ZERO.

The number of people working is decidedly NOT zero. There ARE people working – hospitals, banks, food stores, hardware stores, trash collection, law enforcement, manufacturing, transportation, and other 'essential' businesses and services.

The current 'official' unemployment rate is 4.3% as of March 26th (and the actual suggested to be 13%). Thus, between 85 and 95 percent of the workforce is NOT unemployed.

What businesses do you propose reopening? Restaurants, bars, amusement parks, beauty parlors, massage businesses?