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.
I just read a really good editorial in the Sioux City Journal (since our local paper is a weekly I read the Journal and the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader on other days.) The article was written by Dana Milbank. I don't know exactly what he does for a living. A health reporter?
Dana Milbank is a political columnist, more or less "aligned" with the Democratic Party. E.g., his wife is the daughter of a Democratic Congressman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainbowFamilyRedWhite&Blu
I think I understand your sentiment here but between the elderly, the diabetic and morbidly obese, those with underlying conditions like lung/respiratory conditions, high blood pressure and more, your still talking about 50 or 60% of the populace.
The virus will never be completely eliminated, and there will always be another virus coming along when there's an effective treatment for this one. There are also other causes of death (like being hit by a drunk driver. In my life I've known several people who were killed by drunk drivers).
The world will never be a completely safe place. You take reasonable precautions, i.e., precautions that are reasonable in your opinion, and live your life (e.g., don't drive when drunk drivers are most likely to be out). The point though is it's a personal decision how you want to balance risk vs. living the life you want.
I keep hearing people argue that other peoples' personal decisions are (potentially) affecting them, and therefore they should have the right to make decisions for those other people to protect themselves. There is no hard and fast answer to this. Sometimes I agree with this sentiment. E.g., I think people who are convicted of driving drunk should be sufficiently restricted to ensure they don't drive again. Unfortunately, my fellow voters disagree with me.
In the case of this virus, I think the decision should be left up to each person. People in the high risk group can protect themselves, and the economic impact of shutting down the economy for months is so severe I believe more harm will be done by shutting down the economy than by the virus.
And again, if any individuals want to accept that economic impact for themselves they can, I just don't think they should be able to require other people to accept that economic impact too.
Ultimately it will be decided by voters. If not how this particular virus is dealt with, how future viruses are dealt with.
Ultimately it will be decided by voters. If not how this particular virus is dealt with, how future viruses are dealt with.
This virus, and the viruses (virii?) that existed in the past, can be found in many, many countries where there is no such thing as voting.
The only agency humans have is whether or not to provide education, funding and supplies to scientists who work on vaccines and cures. Then humans (those that have a choice) will have to decide whether to do or not do what the scientists recommend. And those that don't have a choice will have to live or die with the decisions made by the few.
The problem is that those who don't have a choice or a vote are affected by the choices/votes of the few who do.
Those recent immigrants at Smithfield are the victims of Noem and her crazed, illiterate, selfish supporters.
The problem is that those who don't have a choice or a vote are affected by the choices/votes of the few who do.
The people killed by drunk drivers are also affected by the choices of others, unfortunately. Even more unfortunately, in the case of drunk driving, it's just a trade off of someone having a good time vs. other peoples' lives. One can't even make the case that it's trading off between two things that are very important, as can be made between the corona virus and the economy.
The reality is everything everyone does affects every other person. Sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. Sometimes a great deal, sometimes a small amount. There is no hard boundary where people can affect or control other peoples' actions. Drunk drivers very directly affect others a great deal, but voters haven't forced a prioritization of those innocent lives (at least not yet). I don't agree with that choice, but in the US, ultimately, where the boundary is drawn is decided by voters.
"I'm making the assumption here that many workers (at Smithfield) are Chinese"...highly unlikely....more likely they are majority Hispanic.
Regards
Gemstone1
Doubtful that you'll find anyone working there from China. The plant is OWNED by a Chinese company, which translates into it's owned by China. Over 25 languages are spoken in that plant. The majority speak Spanish (from Mexico, Central America, & South America), but there's a huge number from several African countries and many eastern European countries as well, such as Bosnia, the Ukraine, & Russia.
"Your rights end where my nose begins"... unless you choose to blow a lugie in my gen er rawl direction, then ur rights end at a 27 foot radius from the tip of my schnoz.
It would be nice, but not probable, to think everyone would make the best decisions regarding (other) people's health and safety, but y'all know that's not happening so we need to honor the science and the protocols advised. I understand the economic factors may be more impactful, in the aggregate, but our status is triage, atm.
"Your rights end where my nose begins"... unless you choose to blow a lugie in my gen er rawl direction, then ur rights end at a 27 foot radius from the tip of my schnoz.
It would be nice, but not probable, to think everyone would make the best decisions regarding (other) people's health and safety, but y'all know that's not happening so we need to honor the science and the protocols advised. I understand the economic factors may be more impactful, in the aggregate, but our status is triage, atm.
I understand the argument about others affecting one's health and safety. However, people don't make the unquestionably right decision about drunk driving, and my fellow voters don't think it important to prioritize innocent lives over having fun. So that argument, while valid, is applied inconsistently.
I understand the argument about others affecting one's health and safety. However, people don't make the unquestionably right decision about drunk driving, and my fellow voters don't think it important to prioritize innocent lives over having fun. So that argument, while valid, is applied inconsistently.
Good morning, I can see your argument and agree with parts of it. However, I notice the use drunk driving as an example when in my opinion another disease should be used for comparison. The victims of drunk driving are the victiims of someones behavior and poor choices. The victim of a Covid19 carrier are the victims of someone who contracted the disease through no fault of their own and may not even be aware that they have been infected themselves, let alone risking the lives of others.
If a driver under the influence kills someone, they should be punished. That typically means incarceration. If someone unknowingly kills someone by unkowningly carrying the Covid19, they are not accused of committing an illegal or violent act resulting in death. It's a highly contagious disease unknowingly passed from person to person making it so much more dangerous than the flu, for instance.
Good morning, I can see your argument and agree with parts of it. However, I notice the use drunk driving as an example when in my opinion another disease should be used for comparison. The victims of drunk driving are the victiims of someones behavior and poor choices. The victim of a Covid19 carrier are the victims of someone who contracted the disease through no fault of their own and may not even be aware that they have been infected themselves, let alone risking the lives of others.
If a driver under the influence kills someone, they should be punished. That typically means incarceration. If someone unknowingly kills someone by unkowningly carrying the Covid19, they are not accused of committing an illegal or violent act resulting in death. It's a highly contagious disease unknowingly passed from person to person making it so much more dangerous than the flu, for instance.
Pulling their license isn't meant as punishment, it's meant to prevent them from driving drunk in the future.
The logical argument of economy versus virus only makes sense if you "mentally" assign the virus risk below some Threshold Of Misery (less than the ToM of the bad economy).
It's a matter of assumptions - and the only way to make the equation like this: Economy > Virus is to assume the virus "ain't so bad."While everything is a risk - like being hit by a drunk driver, or eaten by a shark - if you were eaten by a shark when you stepped outside, you'd stay home, economy be damned.
It's a matter of risk tolerance - and some huge assumptions - that this virus won't be "worse" than you think it will be. There is no agreed upon "number" that makes it better or worse - so no doubt someone's "better" is another's "worse" - and this is the problem.
We don't really have another "cause of death" right now that is so easily fixed simply by going broke.
And it's a legitimate argument that going broke itself also is a cause of death. Tough times, tough calls. I'm glad I'm not a politician.
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.
