U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-25-2020, 12:09 PM
 
1,422 posts, read 719,721 times
Reputation: 1319

Advertisements

I wonder if anybody even listened to what he said. He said he would be willing to risk this virus if it means his grandkids will get a chance at the American dream like he did, and he thinks that other people his age will be willing to do the same. He doesn't "want" people to die. This is why Democrats are losing all credibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2020, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
13,525 posts, read 30,060,248 times
Reputation: 7151
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
I'm talking hard numbers. Sorry if my question isn't clear enough:

Question: Will less people (numerically) die from the flu (not COVID19) each year if we went on a 'lock down'?
Answer: Yes or No? (A simple one word response will do).

Optional: If 'Yes', then do you support a 'lock down' every year during flu season. Why or why not?
I said 'magnitude', which means hard numbers.


Yes, and no. Because the flu number reduction would be very small and in many cases avoidable via other mechanisms than lockdown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2020, 12:20 PM
 
510 posts, read 250,531 times
Reputation: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainwreck20 View Post
I said 'magnitude', which means hard numbers.

Yes, and no. Because the flu number reduction would be very small and in many cases avoidable via other mechanisms than lockdown.
So doing a lockdown (during flu season) would save zero additional lives? Yes or no?

I'm not saying do a lockdown instead of other mechanisms. Definitely do all the mechanisms we are currently doing, but ALSO perform a lockdown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2020, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
13,525 posts, read 30,060,248 times
Reputation: 7151
Did you read my answer? Anyway, you are trying to ignore the entirety of the big picture and try to confine it to one nonsensical set of answers. Have at it .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2020, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Wylie, Texas
2,185 posts, read 2,791,241 times
Reputation: 3751
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
So doing a lockdown (during flu season) would save zero additional lives? Yes or no?

I'm not saying do a lockdown instead of other mechanisms. Definitely do all the mechanisms we are currently doing, but ALSO perform a lockdown.
Holy cow. five pages later and you are still blabbering on about the flu. This is about the CORONAVIRUS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2020, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
13,525 posts, read 30,060,248 times
Reputation: 7151
Quote:
Originally Posted by supfromthesite View Post
I wonder if anybody even listened to what he said. He said he would be willing to risk this virus if it means his grandkids will get a chance at the American dream like he did, and he thinks that other people his age will be willing to do the same. He doesn't "want" people to die. This is why Democrats are losing all credibility.
Eh, I know what he is saying, not twisting it. He is saying the downside of lock down outweighs the upside, in a strictly unemotional sense. The problem is, I don't think he believes the downside is as bad as the experts say it could be. And I don't know that he can speak for the majority of people that might/will die, of course.

The cynic in me, and somewhat bolstered by my dealings in industry, is that he is getting heat from the corporations to not hurt them so much by a lock down. It is nothing about life or death.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2020, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Wylie, Texas
2,185 posts, read 2,791,241 times
Reputation: 3751
Quote:
Originally Posted by supfromthesite View Post
I wonder if anybody even listened to what he said. He said he would be willing to risk this virus if it means his grandkids will get a chance at the American dream like he did, and he thinks that other people his age will be willing to do the same. He doesn't "want" people to die. This is why Democrats are losing all credibility.
Did he take a poll of all the grand parents to verify this? Even more important, his hero Donald Trump is 73 and a grandparent. So is he saying that Trump should be willing to die right now as well? Interesting IF that is the case.

Not sure how old you are, but the American economy has survived worse than this. We dont even have to go back as far as the Great Depression. 2008 saw TRILLIONS of dollars of wealth wiped out. MILLIONS lost homes. Unemployment rate in the double digits. Yet as recently as 1 month ago we had made up all those losses and then some. Without requiring the blood sacrifice of millions. So I would say to you and Patrick. Have a coke and a smile and sit down somewhere. Or you can feel free to lead by example. I think the rest of us are good either way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2020, 12:39 PM
 
510 posts, read 250,531 times
Reputation: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by biafra4life View Post
Holy cow. five pages later and you are still blabbering on about the flu. This is about the CORONAVIRUS.
Nobody seems to want to answer my question.

I'm starting to think it's because people are in support of sacrificing lives for the Economy in the case of the flu, but that would be hypocritical of them to admit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2020, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Houston
2,899 posts, read 2,363,904 times
Reputation: 2370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainwreck20 View Post
Eh, I know what he is saying, not twisting it. He is saying the downside of lock down outweighs the upside, in a strictly unemotional sense. The problem is, I don't think he believes the downside is as bad as the experts say it could be. And I don't know that he can speak for the majority of people that might/will die, of course.

The cynic in me, and somewhat bolstered by my dealings in industry, is that he is getting heat from the corporations to not hurt them so much by a lock down. It is nothing about life or death.
Taking Patrick literally, he may have a point from a very individual perspective. However, libertarian principles justify government intervention in the private economy or personal actions when others are at direct risk of injurious harm to their health or property to which they didn't previously agree (in terms of risk). So, his argument may be tenuous when applied outside himself and his family. Even if a majority of voters agreed with him, it still might not be justifiable (you can't have tyranny of the majority if it violates libertarian principles).

Knowing politicians (of all stripes), your cynicism may be justified. I personally think he's trying to subtly (or maybe not so subtly) undergird an argument that has been circulating among some on the "conservative" end of the spectrum (whatever that means nowadays) that advocacy for mandatory social distancing, "lockdowns", "stay-at-home" policies, etc. are a conspiracy by liberals / leftists who believe the level of capitalist freedom in the U.S. is so intrinsically unjust that it must be destroyed, and its supportive politicians thrown out of office (by folks who vote with their pocketbooks), in order to implement a new more socialist system predicated on an arbitrary and grievance-based rubric of "social equity." This kind of accusation may encourage better turnout among like-minded voters to keep Republicans in office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2020, 12:45 PM
 
Location: Houston
2,899 posts, read 2,363,904 times
Reputation: 2370
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPatel304 View Post
Nobody seems to want to answer my question.

I'm starting to think it's because people are in support of sacrificing lives for the Economy in the case of the flu, but that would be hypocritical of them to admit.
My view is that society has generally achieved an unspoken agreement about sacrificing lives from the flu (though many would never admit that) based on what we've become used to as far as virulence, ability to spread etc. I wonder if it would change if a new strain of flu arrived next season that had more of COVID-19's characteristics in this regard.

EDIT: I would include our ability to blunt the impact of influenza via vaccines and treatment as well as far as what we've grown used to. But of course, a lot of folks still die from it, and we're willing to tolerate it in terms of government policy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top