[RationalExpectations]

When I read about it being inconvenient for some people to simply wear a mask in public retail & restaurant gatherings, I think of their travails in the same context as that of 17 year-old Juliane Koepcke.

Juliane Koepcke was sucked out of an airplane in 1971 after it was struck by a bolt of lightning. She fell 2 miles to the ground, strapped to her seat - and somehow survived the fall, with only a few broken bones.

Alone, she endured 10 days in the Amazon Jungle prior to making her way downriver to find human beings and ultimately to civilization.

Yes, wearing a mask in public to protect other people is a big inconvenience.

[equid0x]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

And if we bother to look we can find studies showing much higher death rates, like the draft study now under construction at JHU.

The governor is in the hot seat, he has the sworn duty to protect the people in the state, casino profits be damned. The governor can't do a full blown, no-strings re-open until there is strong scientific consensus that it can be done safely. Once he uncorks this genie it's not going back in the bottle.

MY reality is that this thing can and will kill both my wife and I, and no amount of gun waving "protestors" at any state house is going to move my thinking, nor should it move anyone else's view of the danger.

But your Governor is Doug Ducey, is he not?

I didn't realize the casino industry was such a major player in Arizona. Are there a lot of casinos there?

[OmegaSupreme]

Originally Posted by RationalExpectations

When I read about it being inconvenient for some people to simply wear a mask in public retail & restaurant gatherings, I think of their travails in the same context as that of 17 year-old Juliane Koepcke.

Juliane Koepcke was sucked out of an airplane in 1971 after it was struck by a bolt of lightning. She fell 2 miles to the ground, strapped to her seat - and somehow survived the fall, with only a few broken bones.

Alone, she endured 10 days in the Amazon Jungle prior to making her way downriver to find human beings and ultimately to civilization.

Yes, wearing a mask in public to protect other people is a big inconvenience.

Austria made wearing masks mandatory on April 6. Their coronavirus cases are now down 90%. You can look at other countries like Czech Republic for more evidence. They work, plain and simple. Not wearing one is completely irresponsible.

https://www.sciencetimes.com/article...face-masks.htm

[equid0x]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

You don't understand how things work in this state. That is understandable, as you see it only as a tourist. One day a casino executive will call the governor and say 're-open the state', and then the state will re-open.

If Sisolak can order a full scale shutdown, I don't see why he can't order a full scale reopening.

I also don't agree with the arguments being made that we can't re-close or scale back if another spike occurs. We already "pulled the plug" during the closure. What's the difference if we do it again? The economic damage is already done.

[JohnG72]

Originally Posted by Oistrakh12

They were also much stricter with their quarantines. Children weren't even allowed out of the house at all in Spain

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/as...of2&yptr=yahoo

They also have much denser populations, older populations, and a far worse per capita infection rate.

[equid0x]

Originally Posted by tijlover

Go ahead and open and a recent poll (The Week magazine) is saying 80% of Americans think it's too soon to re-open. So what does that tell you? And then there's the pandemic extremists who are not going to go to any business that opens until a vaccine arrives. My cousin and wife won't even visit me again until there's a vaccine. And there's lots of those kind of people out there!

What on Earth is "The Week" magazine?

People really need to check their sources.

I'm aware of a WaPo/UMD study with numbers similar to what you quote. However, the poll was taken at a hard left University, published by a hard left paper owned by a hardcore leftist who financially benefits from the shutdowns.

[equid0x]

Originally Posted by simply1

You don’t seem to understand exponential growth.

Please show us the exponential growth on the charts published by Nevada DHHS

[VLWH]

Originally Posted by RationalExpectations

When I read about it being inconvenient for some people to simply wear a mask in public retail & restaurant gatherings, I think of their travails in the same context as that of 17 year-old Juliane Koepcke.

Juliane Koepcke was sucked out of an airplane in 1971 after it was struck by a bolt of lightning. She fell 2 miles to the ground, strapped to her seat - and somehow survived the fall, with only a few broken bones.

Alone, she endured 10 days in the Amazon Jungle prior to making her way downriver to find human beings and ultimately to civilization.

Yes, wearing a mask in public to protect other people is a big inconvenience.

Yes, but was she wearing a mask.

[equid0x]

Originally Posted by JohnG72

We did it for six weeks before the dam burst. Did anyone else do it much longer? Italy and Spain STILL have worse infections and death rates than we do and they both opened up a couple weeks ago.

China shutdown much longer....

Simply put... we are not a communist/socialist state and our system of Government is specifically designed to prevent tyranny namely because that was the system of Government the founders of this country left behind.

Also, I doubt the uptake of lockdown orders overseas was as strong as the media portrays and some would believe. US news agencies are notoriously bad at covering international issues. There were several videos posted showing people holding parties in Italy during the shutdowns all of which have conveniently disappeared from YouTube.

[equid0x]

Originally Posted by Oistrakh12

They were also much stricter with their quarantines. Children weren't even allowed out of the house at all in Spain

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/as...of2&yptr=yahoo

Spain is implementing UBI so nobody there needs to be concerned with losing their homes or starving to death.