Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or, it indicates that they were in an immuno-suppressed condition to start with - chemo, diabetes, lung conditions, etc. - and it's not that they "had the virus really bad" but that they were not able to fight it off, sadly. More than 99% of people who are healthy and get the virus survive it.
Are you suggesting we don't put anybody on a respirator because they're probably gonna die anyway?
I have not seen anyone say those shouldn't be hospitalized. The economy doesn't need to be shutdown and forcibly tanked to hospitalize those that need it.
Well if the hospitals collapse due an influx of patients flooding the hospitals at one time then yes those who need to be hospitalized will not be able to be. That's the point of closing businesses and staying home. to flatten the curve. To SLOW the spread of the virus, not completely stop it. To give our hospitals and hospital staff a chance to treat all of those that need to be treated.
I disagree that Trump supporters accept this virus will effect them disproportionately. First, many Trump supporters don't even believe there is a virus lol.. Second, I personally know 4 people with the virus and not one of them is a Trump supporter. NY has basically half the US cases and trust me the majority of NY'ers are NOT Trump supporters.
So you're basing your entire view of Trump supporters based on the fringe nut jobs. Got it. I need to ignore whatever you have to say because it's obviously meaningless. Plus you live in New York, where pretty much everyone instinctively hates Trump and probably Trump supporters too. After all, Trump wants to make all of America great, not just California and New York. That PO lefties like nothing else, and they will do everything they can to stop him, even if they have to destroy the economy and everyone's lives in the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisanicole1
Well if the hospitals collapse due an influx of patients flooding the hospitals at one time then yes those who need to be hospitalized will not be able to be. That's the point of closing businesses and staying home. to flatten the curve. To SLOW the spread of the virus, not completely stop it. To give our hospitals and hospital staff a chance to treat all of those that need to be treated.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...
Still not worth shutting down the economy and everyone's lives, no matter how you try to spin it.
Outrageous attempt to tank the economy, make people dependent on government for every facet of
their life and justify government run healthcare. All of these more dangerous than any virus.
Is it mere coincidence that impeachment failed and a "crisis" came along?
There wasn't this hysteria when the community organizer was president and the infection/death cases
were far more than now.
These statewide restriction are an assault on our freedoms and unacceptable power grabs by the left
who never let a crisis go to waste. They're more than willing to create a crisis if it benefits their socialist
views.
The relatively low numbers of infection/deaths in this country simply don't justify the reaction. Turn us into easily controlled sheep this time and the next time will be easier. This will be the norm under the left wing socialists.
President Trump put early restrictions on travel and took action to reduce the spread which other countries
did not do. Italy has a large Chinese population and a lot of elderly. So do many other countries with many
more cases.
Once we surrender our freedoms we may never get them back. That's the goal of the left. Don't let that
happen.
How else could the mark of the beast ever be ushered in? People have to be desperate enough to go along with it.
The question is how many? And is it worth destroying the economy?...
I'm not quite sure what putting people on respirators or not has to do with destroying the economy.
Let's put it this way: If you had the virus and started have serious problems breathing, would you want to be put on a respirator if the opportunity to do so was afforded you?
Or, it indicates that they were in an immuno-suppressed condition to start with - chemo, diabetes, lung conditions, etc. - and it's not that they "had the virus really bad" but that they were not able to fight it off, sadly. More than 99% of people who are healthy and get the virus survive it.
Do people realize how many Americans have compromised health? How many Americans are obese, diabetic, have cancer, have asthma, have hypertension, have kidney disease, or abuse drugs and alcohol?
So you're basing your entire view of Trump supporters based on the fringe nut jobs. Got it. I need to ignore whatever you have to say because it's obviously meaningless. Plus you live in New York, where pretty much everyone hates Trump and probably Trump supporters too. After all, Trump wants to make all of America great, not just California and New York. That PO lefties like nothing else.
Fine, sentence your children and grandchildren to lives of poverty. Nothing in a functioning economy is preventing the vulnerable like you from staying in your homes for a lengthy time.
Why get on MY case? Your President and various state and local governments are making the decisions here. I was already at home quarantined for three weeks with bronchitis before all the Covid-19 panic hit. I haven't been out of the house for almost 6 weeks now except for a couple of WalMart grocery curbside pickups (which they've now ceased) and a visit to the walk-in clinic for meds. I'm turning into a hermit.
Are you suggesting we don't put anybody on a respirator because they're probably gonna die anyway?
Not sure where you got that idea, unless you're just trying to make me look bad. I pointed out that it's not a matter of someone getting the virus "really bad" but that they other health conditions had them in such a weakened condition that they were not able to fight it off. Did you not read that 99.2% of people who died from this virus (in Italy) had an underlying serious health condition?
Not sure where you got that idea, unless you're just trying to make me look bad. I pointed out that it's not a matter of someone getting the virus "really bad" but that they other health conditions had them in such a weakened condition that they were not able to fight it off. Did you not read that 99.2% of people who died from this virus (in Italy) had an underlying serious health condition?
So what?
Do we just go ahead and let those people die anyway? Or do we at least make an attempt to save their lives, even if the odds are against it working?
I say we do the latter. Doing nothing and letting them die is surrender.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
