you did an excellent job of stating the argument... no lie it was a good read. But, there was no substance for us to be able to weigh whether one side was overstated or understated. I call those types arguments amorphous. Here is a question to see if you really are rational on this subject or just pretending to be. If you knew locking down the low risk caused more deaths and more mental and physical harm than not locking down... would you favor lock down?
You seem to be thinking I’m in favor of another lockdown. I would have thought the context of what I was saying implied I was looking for a way for people to conduct their affairs outside during a dangerous epidemic. The lockdown almost six months ago was a good idea when dealing with a highly infectuous pathogen with known dangerous and unique attributes. The idea was to flatten the curve while allowing mass production of PPE and disinfecting agents to come online as well as to create effective policy as more was discovered about this virus. The lockdown, as poorly implemented as it was, did indeed flatten the curve. I say poorly implemented because it was not uniformally applied and could have gone further to include a complete border lockdown. Indeed, Trump could have used Covid as an opportunity to further his platform agenda such as border control and bringing back manufacturing to provide needed preparedness during major crisises, but I digress. I agree a lockdown at this point will be net counterproductive. However, we need to have effective policy in place to deal with the current crisis and to consider that we are not likely to get as much early warning with future viruses like we did with Covid. Especially under a biological attack scenario. Therefore, with PPE and disinfecting agents in plentiful supply, but with Covid infections on the rise again, what are the missing elements? The missing element is consistent, proper utilization of PPE and other best practices concerning infectuous diseases. It is the reduction of high risk of spread situations, such as large groups of people in a confined area for an extended peoriod of time. It is the recognition of the latent difficulty of controlling the spread of Covid in travel situations, especially given the delay of symptoms after an infection of a highly contageous virus. So how do we get a consistent effort out of the general population to take the necessary steps to reduce and ultimately prevent the spread of Covid? It ultimately comes down to leadership and personal responsibility. Trump has said some things that were counterproductive in controlling the spread of Covid that his supporters lapped up. I understand the argument about personal freedom, but when it comes to infectuous diseases, one person’s “Personal freedom” can be someone else’s death or disability. Death or disability does not fit into most people’s definition of being free, I’d suspect. This is where personal responsibility and ethics comes in. As a adult, you take on personally responsibility and inconvenience for the benefit of your community. The community that also recognizes and upholds your rights, by the way. Back to Trump. I believe if Trump were to say something based on the body of current knowledge concerning Covid and the current accelerating trend of infections that more stringent efforts are necessary by all of us. I understand that Trump may feel he would be losing face with such a statement, but it is what responsible adults do in order to help protect our community.
I realized it seemed like I made an assumption about your position. I even dialed it back a bit knowing I really did not know. I do wish the lockdown people considered the all damage they are doing when they considered lockdowns. I certainly wish the politicians would do the balancing out loud.
I would. I would also ask you the following commitment and credibility questions: 1. Do you certify the information you are presenting here are the result of unfluenced opinions? 2. What is the methodology of the survey and it’s questions? 3. Are you comfortable in national policy being derived, at least in part, based the results of your survey? 4. Have you considered that changes in national policy could significantly affect the lives of a large number of people? Are you comfortable with that knowledge? We must not be afraid of saying things or avoiding taking actions over fears we wouldn’t be believed. Those who are honest develop a reputation of credibility that deserves consideration by policy makers as well as others.
Please do not take this the wrong way, because I very much respect you as a poster on this forum. But I am not going to spend time time and resources on a poll that only you and I would believe, to confirm something I already believe to be true one way or the other. I run a business whose responsibility is not related to COVID or polling. My board would want to know what the point of such an exercise would be.
Coronavirus live updates: US surgeon general tweets herd immunity could lead to many deaths Jerome Adams posted the comment on his official Twitter account Wednesday. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/live-updates/coronavirus/?id=73730458#73733978 U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams said Wednesday that a "herd immunity" approach to combating COVID-19 could "lead to many complications/deaths." Adams posted the comment on his official Twitter account, along with a link to a recent article from The Journal of the American Medical Association entitled "What is Herd Immunity?" "The summary: Large numbers of people would need to be infected to achieve herd immunity without a vaccine; this could overwhelm health care systems and lead to many complications/deaths," Adams tweeted. "So far, there is no example of a large-scale successful intentional infection-based herd immunity strategy." Instead, Adams urged people to "wear masks," "wash hands" and "watch distances." The surgeon general's comments come after the White House embraced a controversial declaration by a group of scientists calling for an approach that relies on "herd immunity." The so-called Great Barrington Declaration, which claims on its website to have been signed by more than 9,000 medical and public health scientists around the globe, opposes lockdowns and argues that authorities should allow the novel coronavirus to spread among young, healthy individuals while protecting the elderly and the vulnerable. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top expert on infectious diseases, has called the concept "ridiculous" and "total nonsense."
Some people will go to great lengths, and shut their eyes to all manner of contradictory evidence, to get their much needed dose of confirmation bias. In other news, hello Tsing.
Actually, I am happy to review my beliefs when evidence is presented to the contrary. But I have to say that evidence I consider is data and numbers, math and actual research. Opinions, editorials and attacks on character, or discredit hit pieces in "news" format are for others who base their positions on party and narrative. You are welcome to get into the conversation if you have more of the former and less of the latter.