So there you have it, gwb-trading's daughter is a nurse and therefore his opinion is more important than yours. Forget your 1st Amendment rights, they have been usurped because his daughter is a nurse. How dare you protest anything the government does? 22 million people lost their livelihoods in the last weeks so that we can give a bunch of 80 year olds with COPD a few extra weeks to live. gwb-non-trading has deemed that these people have no right to protest.
He's entitled to his opinion just like you are to yours. My opinion is that if you go to a protest - no matter whether you are protesting or counter protesting, then you are equally guilty and deserve what you get should violence or dissent arise. I also agree that dropping a nuke on the economy because of this is a colossal mistake and a massive overreaction.
Where is all this defense for the right to protest when athletes were kneeling...is the right to protest protected or only if you agree with the message and method?
Well, that's a complicated question. First, there's no doubt that people support the narrative - regardless of whether it is legal or constitutional, as long as it supports their values. This happens 24/7 nowadays. On the left, and on the right. But the when athletes who are employees of an organization (such as the NFL, for example) protest at a game, they are protesting at their work site. No different that someone in my company who suddenly decides at 10AM in the office to rally people and protest some cause they believe in. We'd probably fire them, or at least warn them and then fire them if they didn't comply. If the NFL allows it, then it should be allowed as it is their call. The problem people have (that I have) is that the NFL will allow certain protests (like kneeling) and then turn around and tell players you can't honor the memory of someone by putting a tag on your helmet. I get that they don't want to set precedence, but they really shouldn't be involved in the protest business at all. The smart way would be to ban all such activity, but tell players - "hey, what you want to support is your business. Just don't do it on the field when we're paying you." Because allowing it is supporting it in today's hyper partisan world.
Well put. But something similar can be said for protestors who on a work day go out and block traffic in front of the state capital and defy a rule for social distancing. You have a right to protest but not a right to freedom of consequence (i.e. if NFL fined a player or if a State fined a person). ALso how do these poeple know they are not carrying Corona and spreading it right here: Lots of people with no masks or social distancing protesting about having to social distance and stay home thus violating the rule that was put in place to protect people from the spread of the virus. Also it was reported by several sources with pictures that a nearby hospital had difficulty getting ambulances in because of the car traffic as part of the protest. I understand the right of these people to protest but they are protesting an action against a virus that is spreading very quickly by doing exactly what the virus needs to spread faster. We laughed at the idiot spring breakers who said Fuck Covid and went out on the beaches and then spread it around the country. What about these people?
First, if you take a day off of work to go protest, and you do it within your organization's PTO policies, that's your business. Protesting is overused lately, but there is a time and place for it. In Michigan, the idiot governor doesn't get to tell people they can't have someone over their house. But she tried to. Americans are very sensitive about their freedoms, and you have to approach restricting them in a very careful manner, or you're going to get blowback. Second, not everyone considers this as much of a crisis as you. I'm not saying this to pick a fight with you. I just think what we will learn in the next year about this virus will be stunning and show we acted incorrectly in a bunch of ways. I believe many many more of us have had it than we know and there is quite a significant herd immunity out there. Were I the one making the shots, I'd have strongly advised the elderly or sick, or those who have had access to the elderly and sick to seriously consider restricting themselves, wearing a mask and to ensure washing their hands, etc. All the things you do during any flu or cold crisis, but this one is particularly nasty. I'd never have shut down the economy. I'd not have forced people to stay inside. If Spring Breakers are going to go to the beach, nothing I am going to say is going to stop them. I'd let governors know they should make decisions for their own states, but provide them access to all the federal resources they needed, and so on and so forth. But I believe we've performed a gigantic overreaction, and so do many people. And just like every other issue, there are some who take that realization to anger, and that leads them to protest.
If we did nothing and people keep dying then everyone would complain that we acted too slowly and did not do enough. Damned if you do..damned if you don't... Michigan went too far to be honest because in my state we have stay in place orders but not those stupid restrictions on travel in the state. Also landscapers, delivery people, exterminators, plumbers etc... are still working and out and about following safe guidelines. Verizon would not come to the house but did send me the equipment I needed for self installation. If Spring Breakers are going to the beach, the governor could have closed the beaches. remember you can be safe but if 15 kidiots come back to your area carrying it and spread it to many others and create a hospital overload then it does affect us all. let's stop worrying about the old people many of you claim were dying anyway because the 4 people I know of who died were not in their 70s or 80s or even close to dying and had no other condition (one was 49 actually). More importantly....herd immunity with a novel disease is not the answer, not sure why people keep bringing that up. What will it take to achieve herd immunity with SARS-CoV-2? As with any other infection, there are two ways to achieve herd immunity: A large proportion of the population either gets infected or gets a protective vaccine. Based on early estimates of this virus’s infectiousness, we will likely need at least 70% of the population to be immune to have herd protection. In the worst case (for example, if we do not perform physical distancing or enact other measures to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2), the virus can infect this many people in a matter of a few months. This would overwhelm our hospitals and lead to high death rates. In the best case, we maintain current levels of infection—or even reduce these levels—until a vaccine becomes available. This will take concerted effort on the part of the entire population, with some level of continued physical distancing for an extended period, likely a year or longer, before a highly effective vaccine can be developed, tested, and mass produced. The most likely case is somewhere in the middle, where infection rates rise and fall over time; we may relax social distancing measures when numbers of infections fall, and then may need to re-implement these measures as numbers increase again. Prolonged effort will be required to prevent major outbreaks until a vaccine is developed. Even then, SARS-CoV-2 could still infect children before they can be vaccinated or adults after their immunity wanes. But it is unlikely in the long term to have the explosive spread that we are seeing right now because much of the population will be immune in the future.
Yes... it is my opinion. I clearly separate out facts with evidence to support my points... versus my opinion in this forum. Bottom line --- and this is my opinion. Some of these liberate protestors will enjoy a visit from Darwin in about three weeks. And it is all due to their own disrespectful actions. Unfortunately they will take other innocent people with them --- including healthcare providers.