Lockdown Fans: What Is Your Endgame Plan?

[candycorn]

Again, to try to stay remotely on topic; I think we should listen to science...

Here I have quoted science to you twice. You chose to ignore it.

Keep trying to take the high ground. Mine will always be higher.

I'm sure you're quite high at the moment. Booze or narcotics...I'm not sure which.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Again, to try to stay remotely on topic; I think we should listen to science...

Here I have quoted science to you twice. You chose to ignore it.

Keep trying to take the high ground. Mine will always be higher.

I'm sure you're quite high at the moment. Booze or narcotics...I'm not sure which.

You have been reduced to ad hominem and namecalling.

By all means, continue embarrassing yourself.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wow...you are a moron. Do you enjoy not knowing simple definitions and contradicting yourself as much as you enjoy lying?

I know simple definitions.

I also know that words and actions can be one of two things:

1. Be the same.
2. Be different.

The latter seems to be your case. How much more do I have to simplify this for you?

 

[Dr Grump]

People who want the lockdowns to continue spend a lot of time shouting slogans and congratulating themselves on how they're "the only ones who care about saving lives", but I have yet to hear any of them tell us what their actual plan is for an endgame, or how they envision the future going forward if we were to cave in to their demands.

So I'd really like to know: if you could convince all the governors to continue the lockdowns, what do you think that looks like? How long do you want it to last, and/or what is your metric for ending it? And then what happens? What's your plan going forward from there? Do you have one?

A good place to start is when there are no new cases.

You couldn't figure that out all by yourself? Wow!

IOW, you're stupid enough to think that the virus will just die if we hide long enough.

Whatta fucking retard.

There's a reason I have him on ignore, and it IS because he's never, ever had anything to say which even the most generous person could pretend was of value.

I know you have me on ignore, too. I don't have anybody on ignore. I love to see ignorance on display. Makes me feel better about myself.

As to the OP. Like NZ and Australia, everybody will start opening for business again. Both countries have almost flattened the curve and new cases are negligible. There might be a resurgence if were not careful, but lockdown measures are decreasing. You know why? Good leadership.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I love to see ignorance on display. Makes me feel better about myself.

Is that why you post? Just to see yourself post?

Hey, whatever floats your boat, bro.

 

[nightengale]

People who want the lockdowns to continue spend a lot of time shouting slogans and congratulating themselves on how they're "the only ones who care about saving lives", but I have yet to hear any of them tell us what their actual plan is for an endgame, or how they envision the future going forward if we were to cave in to their demands.

So I'd really like to know: if you could convince all the governors to continue the lockdowns, what do you think that looks like? How long do you want it to last, and/or what is your metric for ending it? And then what happens? What's your plan going forward from there? Do you have one?

A good place to start is when there are no new cases.

You couldn't figure that out all by yourself? Wow!

So how long will that take, to get down to ZERO new cases, in a country of 335 million?

A year? 18 months?

Who is going to be do all the work while the rest of the nation is sitting in bed and watching Netflix?

How long do you think the current essential workers will be willing and able to do everything while the elite sit in their homes and try new kale recipes?

And what about our basic food supply lines? And our necessary medications? How long will those be available if we shut down our country for a year or two?

In fact, we would have a complete economic collapse, a massive food shortage, the dollar would be worthless and there would be civil unrest and social upheaval.

You couldn't figure that out all by yourself? Wow.

 

[Nosmo King]

People who want the lockdowns to continue spend a lot of time shouting slogans and congratulating themselves on how they're "the only ones who care about saving lives", but I have yet to hear any of them tell us what their actual plan is for an endgame, or how they envision the future going forward if we were to cave in to their demands.

So I'd really like to know: if you could convince all the governors to continue the lockdowns, what do you think that looks like? How long do you want it to last, and/or what is your metric for ending it? And then what happens? What's your plan going forward from there? Do you have one?

No one is a "lockdown fan". Everyone wants to get back to normal activities. Why is the Right wing the short-sighted and the knuckle dragging Trumpians trying so hard to make health and safety a wedge issue? Whose advise is more prudent during a pandemic: economists or epidemiologists? Science must dictate the wisdom.

The problem is "science" is frequently wrong. Witness the dozens of major errors regarding the corona virus. Remember when it couldn't be transmitted human to human? How about when it was supposed to have a 3.4% mortality rate. I could post many other examples. Scientist are wrong all the time.

Do you want then to rely on political leaders who said we have it under control, there are only 15 cases and soon it will be down to two, hydroxyclhoroquine is an effective treatment what have you got to lose, investigat injections of disinfectants? If reliability is your metric, think twice before you dismiss expertise in favor of happy talk.

 

[Nosmo King]

Science must dictate the wisdom.

QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM.

candycorn

And since you liked the post where this quote came from, you have lost this debate.

Do you advocate abandoning science? In favor of what?

 

[HappyJoy]

People who want the lockdowns to continue spend a lot of time shouting slogans and congratulating themselves on how they're "the only ones who care about saving lives", but I have yet to hear any of them tell us what their actual plan is for an endgame, or how they envision the future going forward if we were to cave in to their demands.

So I'd really like to know: if you could convince all the governors to continue the lockdowns, what do you think that looks like? How long do you want it to last, and/or what is your metric for ending it? And then what happens? What's your plan going forward from there? Do you have one?

A good place to start is when there are no new cases.

You couldn't figure that out all by yourself? Wow!

That will never happen

Not with our president.

Not with any president

Looks like South Korea, Singapore and other countries are flattening out that curve and reducing their numbers of active cases. Why can't Trump?

You mean why cant democrat governors in deep blue states?

The NYC area got hit early and it's densely populated. Not sure what the political party the governor is a member of makes a difference in that case.

California acted early though and on a per capita basis their numbers look great considering they were also hit early. They took action quick and it's been paying off ever since. Same in Washington, probably the first epicenter in the United States and now they aren't worth mentioning.

More than likely due to the reliance on Mass Transit. Subways and commuter rail are perfect vectors for pathogens.

For all their hippie spewing crap, Californians have never wanted to give up their cars and their commutes to the mountains.

In the Bay Area where they have kept COVID at bay they use mass transit quite often. BART runs through the entire bay area and San Francisco has MUNI.

LA on the other hand has less public transportation and their numbers while in control are higher than the Bay Area. Why would that be? For starters those 5 or 6 counties that imitated the first massive stay at home orders.

I don't doubt that mass transportation has an effect. A large one for that matter, but social distancing at least in San Francisco and it's surroundings has made an impact and your point (as much as it is one) just proves that.

BART isn't a pimple on the ass of the NYC subway system, or the other three commuter lines, either by reach or by passenger volume and concentration.

It carries a lot of people all day long and it's more than LA has and SF has a lower infection rate per capita.

it carried less and less because SF couldn't control the crime on it.

And again, until we know the asymptomatic and minor symptom case ratio, any calculations are based on either hospital admittance, limited testing, or extrapolation based on minimal data.

San Francisco is responsible for patrolling BART? That's interesting considering about 90% of it is outside the city.

Oh, now you care about testing and can't possibly come to any conclusions even though that's what you've been doing.

 

[Dr Grump]

Is that why you post? Just to see yourself post?

Hey, whatever floats your boat, bro.

Naw. There are several reasons I post. Same as everybody else.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do you advocate abandoning science? In favor of what?

Nope. I advocate science. I simply don't advocate it being used as a weapon to curtail our basic freedoms like both of you do.

If you support using science to do just that, never lecture me on 'freedom' or 'the right to choose' again. Ever.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No one is a fan of the lockdowns. Some people just love their mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers and are not eager to sacrifice them to President Trump's reelection campaign.

Curious, do you want people to sacrifice their jobs and income to Joe Biden's election chances instead?

 

[Dr Grump]

Nope. I advocate science. I simply don't advocate it being used as a weapon to curtail our basic freedoms like both of you do.

Exhibit A about not putting people on ignore so I can see wilful ignorance.

You think the whole purpose of scientists and doctors giving their QUALIFIED opinions on COVID-19 is all about curtailing freedoms? That's what they are trying to do? They're not trying to stop people dying?
If I believed in a god I'd swear to him or her you couldn't make this shit up,

 

[TemplarKormac]

No one is a fan of the lockdowns. Some people just love their mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers and are not eager to sacrifice them to President Trump's reelection campaign.

that group apparently does not include Fredo’s brother, the New York governor who insisted that chinese disease patients be sent to nursing homes

How many dead Americans do you think are "acceptable" losses? Give us a number.

How many Americans will die in abject poverty and starvation when they lose their jobs due to the draconian lockdowns you wish to impose?

Give us a number.

 

[candycorn]

Again, to try to stay remotely on topic; I think we should listen to science...

Here I have quoted science to you twice. You chose to ignore it.

Keep trying to take the high ground. Mine will always be higher.

I'm sure you're quite high at the moment. Booze or narcotics...I'm not sure which.

You have been reduced to ad hominem and namecalling.

By all means, continue embarrassing yourself.

You went there first. I debate in the manner in which I'm debated.
We've established that you're a habitual liar because you can't have an honest discussion or an honest anything else.

 

[Dr Grump]

How many Americans will die in abject poverty and starvation when they lose their jobs due to the draconian lockdowns you wish to impose?

None. Unless they choose to.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You think the whole purpose of scientists and doctors giving their QUALIFIED opinions on COVID-19 is all about curtailing freedoms?

Nope. But Hitler tried to use science (albeit flawed) to justify his genocide of 6 million people.

So, what if a scientist says that endemics data suggest we open this country back up. Is his opinion 'qualified' or stupid?

Duplicity at it's finest.

 

[candycorn]

Wow...you are a moron. Do you enjoy not knowing simple definitions and contradicting yourself as much as you enjoy lying?

I know simple definitions.

I also know that words and actions can be one of two things:

1. Be the same.
2. Be different.

The latter seems to be your case. How much more do I have to simplify this for you?

"On this board people mean different things from what they actually say."

Apparently words can mean anything to you. Again...you seem to have a problem with basic definitions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Again, to try to stay remotely on topic; I think we should listen to science...

Here I have quoted science to you twice. You chose to ignore it.

Keep trying to take the high ground. Mine will always be higher.

I'm sure you're quite high at the moment. Booze or narcotics...I'm not sure which.

You have been reduced to ad hominem and namecalling.

By all means, continue embarrassing yourself.

You went there first. I debate in the manner in which I'm debated.

No, you don't. You chose to ignore the fact you advocated for perpetual lockdowns.

"Follow the science"

Make all the excuses you wish. You still lose.

 

[nightengale]

People who want the lockdowns to continue spend a lot of time shouting slogans and congratulating themselves on how they're "the only ones who care about saving lives", but I have yet to hear any of them tell us what their actual plan is for an endgame, or how they envision the future going forward if we were to cave in to their demands.

So I'd really like to know: if you could convince all the governors to continue the lockdowns, what do you think that looks like? How long do you want it to last, and/or what is your metric for ending it? And then what happens? What's your plan going forward from there? Do you have one?

A good place to start is when there are no new cases.

You couldn't figure that out all by yourself? Wow!

That will never happen

Not with our president.

Not with any president

Looks like South Korea, Singapore and other countries are flattening out that curve and reducing their numbers of active cases. Why can't Trump?

We have 300 million more citizens than So Korea has. And they are a small country that has much less international travel that we did at the time.

We probably should have closed our borders down completely much sooner than we did. But it is interesting that the Dems attacked Trump when he did first shut down the flights from China.

NOW people say we should have done what other countries did, which was to totally cut off ALL international flights immediately. I wonder how that would have gone over ?

A small country, with little diversity, can 'track' their citizens much easier and more effectively that a very large country with as many states as we have. I don't think it is a fair comparison.

Other than our large urban centers, we have been doing pretty well, statistically.