Irvinecommuter
New member
qwerty said:
Then why have any laws or regulations? Are the laws against drunk driving really going to stop drunk driving...it's the behavior of drunk drivers that matters.
99% Survival rate
- Thread starter nosuchreality
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Then why have any laws or regulations? Are the laws against drunk driving really going to stop drunk driving...it's the behavior of drunk drivers that matters.
There may very well be some long term effects of covid. But I think we need to pump the brakes a little bit on trying to make everything covid related. At the rate we are going we are going to attribute heart attacks, high cholesterol, diabetes, etc to covid. Is there a possibility that this person was going to have the tongue issue regardless of covid? Could it just be a coincidence? Not trying to be dismissive of any long term effects but let?s just slow down and see if more tongue issues develop before we attribute tongue issues to covid.
Coming to a courthouse near you: I committed murder because covid made me do it
Considering that there is evidence that COVID caused long-term/permanent damage to organs like the brain, the lung, and heart, it's not that difficult to imagine.
How much evidence is enough evidence? That also has little to do with the impact COVID is having right now in both mortality and overwhelming of the health care system.
Why do you always run through this parade of horribles arguing style? Society and governments make laws all the time without falling into the pit of horribles.
It?s about things that will make a difference. Its socializing that is the issue. My guess is that we could all go to the grocery store/Costco/target etc and there probably wouldn?t be much spread because you aren?t hanging out and talking to people. Have a mask regulation/rule/requirement while people socialize in their home at thanksgiving and Christmas isn?t going to make much of a difference.
Again...the argument can be made as to any laws or regulation. Why have them since people are just going to ignore them.
Good luck man and hope you guys stay safe.
Notice how Kings isn't around anymore?
No We wouldn?t go if we knew someone there actually had it. If given a preference I would rather not get covid. It?s the same reason I wouldn?t go into a house that?s on fire, but if the house catches on fire while I?m there then not much I can do. I?m not going to stop living my life because of covid. Perhaps that makes me ignorant and/or selfish but that is why every adult can choose what risk they are willing to take. Everyone is welcome to stay home if they wish.
Just sucks for society as a whole.
Not wearing masks and gathering in bars is part of the same me before society mindset.
With testing, proper contact tracing and an expectation that people take minimal steps, we could be in a much better place. More businesses open, more people working.
You do realize you made argument for bars to be closed.
Some number of people regardless of the efforts we make will die from covid. With about 4 million active cases and likely another 4-8 million more undiagnosed out there, the reality is between do we hold it to 100,000 dead over the next six months? Or do we roll with 1% dying of the 100,000,000 that easily could get it if we just roll? A bad flu year 60,000,000 infections over the next four months, that's with vaccines. 100 Million is not hyperbole.
1,000,000 dead and another 3, 4 or maybe 5 million of more with permanent lung damage, brain damage, heart damage, blood clot amputated foot or leg etc.
A two week moratoriam on bars? Seems like a no brainer. A month? Still acceptable. Longer? If needed but lets put in place business safety need, emergency laws to suspend rents if business if required to be closed. Loan payments automatically deferred for pro perty owner until end of loan term until lockdown ends. Of course, longer is a bigger and that problem is cause by people not doing their part.
The more people don't do minimal the longer we have pressure to do more drastic restrictions to prevent the collapse of our medical network.
But I'm trying to find TP!!!
It amazes me... you would think they would have fixed that supply chain by now.
Relax. So defensive. I'm only asking because you seem to tout the fact that you're not going to be wearing a mask at an indoor gathering of 15-20 people. But you also wouldn't go if you knew someone there had COVID. But since COVID isn't obvious and you really don't know who has it, I'm just curious how you reconcile that. Because the house on fire analogy doesn't really work here. If it caught on fire while you're there... you would leave. I'm just confused as to how that correlates to COVID. You would leave mid bite if someone told you they had COVID? That's good I guess.
Then why have any laws or regulations? Are the laws against drunk driving really going to stop drunk driving...it's the behavior of drunk drivers that matters.
qwerty
Well-known member
eyephone said:
There may very well be some long term effects of covid. But I think we need to pump the brakes a little bit on trying to make everything covid related. At the rate we are going we are going to attribute heart attacks, high cholesterol, diabetes, etc to covid. Is there a possibility that this person was going to have the tongue issue regardless of covid? Could it just be a coincidence? Not trying to be dismissive of any long term effects but let?s just slow down and see if more tongue issues develop before we attribute tongue issues to covid.
Coming to a courthouse near you: I committed murder because covid made me do it
Irvinecommuter
New member
qwerty said:
Considering that there is evidence that COVID caused long-term/permanent damage to organs like the brain, the lung, and heart, it's not that difficult to imagine.
How much evidence is enough evidence? That also has little to do with the impact COVID is having right now in both mortality and overwhelming of the health care system.
Why do you always run through this parade of horribles arguing style? Society and governments make laws all the time without falling into the pit of horribles.
qwerty
Well-known member
Irvinecommuter said:
It?s about things that will make a difference. Its socializing that is the issue. My guess is that we could all go to the grocery store/Costco/target etc and there probably wouldn?t be much spread because you aren?t hanging out and talking to people. Have a mask regulation/rule/requirement while people socialize in their home at thanksgiving and Christmas isn?t going to make much of a difference.
Irvinecommuter
New member
qwerty said:
Again...the argument can be made as to any laws or regulation. Why have them since people are just going to ignore them.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
@Mety:
There is still a disconnect. What you believe or choose is not the same as logic.
There is still a disconnect. What you believe or choose is not the same as logic.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
qwerty said:
Good luck man and hope you guys stay safe.
Notice how Kings isn't around anymore?
qwerty
Well-known member
bones said:
No We wouldn?t go if we knew someone there actually had it. If given a preference I would rather not get covid. It?s the same reason I wouldn?t go into a house that?s on fire, but if the house catches on fire while I?m there then not much I can do. I?m not going to stop living my life because of covid. Perhaps that makes me ignorant and/or selfish but that is why every adult can choose what risk they are willing to take. Everyone is welcome to stay home if they wish.
Irvinecommuter
New member
qwerty said:
Just sucks for society as a whole.
nosuchreality
Well-known member
qwerty said:
Not wearing masks and gathering in bars is part of the same me before society mindset.
With testing, proper contact tracing and an expectation that people take minimal steps, we could be in a much better place. More businesses open, more people working.
You do realize you made argument for bars to be closed.
Some number of people regardless of the efforts we make will die from covid. With about 4 million active cases and likely another 4-8 million more undiagnosed out there, the reality is between do we hold it to 100,000 dead over the next six months? Or do we roll with 1% dying of the 100,000,000 that easily could get it if we just roll? A bad flu year 60,000,000 infections over the next four months, that's with vaccines. 100 Million is not hyperbole.
1,000,000 dead and another 3, 4 or maybe 5 million of more with permanent lung damage, brain damage, heart damage, blood clot amputated foot or leg etc.
A two week moratoriam on bars? Seems like a no brainer. A month? Still acceptable. Longer? If needed but lets put in place business safety need, emergency laws to suspend rents if business if required to be closed. Loan payments automatically deferred for pro perty owner until end of loan term until lockdown ends. Of course, longer is a bigger and that problem is cause by people not doing their part.
The more people don't do minimal the longer we have pressure to do more drastic restrictions to prevent the collapse of our medical network.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
eyephone said:
But I'm trying to find TP!!!
It amazes me... you would think they would have fixed that supply chain by now.
qwerty said:
Relax. So defensive. I'm only asking because you seem to tout the fact that you're not going to be wearing a mask at an indoor gathering of 15-20 people. But you also wouldn't go if you knew someone there had COVID. But since COVID isn't obvious and you really don't know who has it, I'm just curious how you reconcile that. Because the house on fire analogy doesn't really work here. If it caught on fire while you're there... you would leave. I'm just confused as to how that correlates to COVID. You would leave mid bite if someone told you they had COVID? That's good I guess.
qwerty
Well-known member
@NSR - yeah I know I made the argument about closing bars, doesn?t mean I would agree with it.
I agree with you on the way the initial shutdown should have been handled or future shutdowns. If we wanted to minimize the economic harm of a shutdown the government/Fed should have just halted all payments due to banks and essentially press pause. Without hitting the pause button it created a bigger mismatch of cash coming in vs cash going out for people. The banks are are essentially supported by the Fed/govt anyway because they are too big to fail so they are pseudo nationalized entities anyway.
I agree with you on the way the initial shutdown should have been handled or future shutdowns. If we wanted to minimize the economic harm of a shutdown the government/Fed should have just halted all payments due to banks and essentially press pause. Without hitting the pause button it created a bigger mismatch of cash coming in vs cash going out for people. The banks are are essentially supported by the Fed/govt anyway because they are too big to fail so they are pseudo nationalized entities anyway.