Lockdowns Did Not Work

[U2Edge]

Bush was the worst president of all time. You really need to learn history. I respect Trump as did 62mil or so other people. Don’t put words in my mouth. You’re not even an American.

Trump is easily the worst president of all time. Bush jnr comes in second. There are at last four or five others ahead of Bush snr.

I never said you didn't respect Trump, and said that nobody on the other side didn't. That aside, I disagree. I think a vast swathe of that 62 million didn't respect him. They just hated Hillary more.

So what if I'm not American. I have an opinion. Using that gauge, I expect you won't be commenting on any thread about any other country in the world except the US. Glad to know.

Because GW put us in Iraq, cost us $8trn with his stupid endless wars and we had the Great Recession because of him. If you believe Trump is worse you’re just being irrational. Trump haters have weak constitutions. They don’t hate his policies they hate his character. Cry me a river. I am so sick of our country becoming soft. The PC culture is ruining the US.

Total expenditure on Iraq and Afghanistan up to 2020 is 1.7 Trillion dollars. Every year it has been a fraction of the total defense budget and has declined rapidly over the past 5 years. In terms of total defense spending per year as a percentage of GDP, the United States spent more on defense during the peacetime of the 1980s than it has from 2000 to 2020. In the 1980s total defense spending averaged 6% of GDP. From 2000 through 2020, it has only averaged 3% to 4% of GDP.

 

[Fueri]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

 

[U2Edge]

Only 429 infections to date in a country of 24 million.

These numbers can not be verified. Taiwan is not recognized to be a country by China and everything coming out of Taiwan is approved by Chinese censors. Given their populace they should have, at minimum, 300,000 cases and deaths into 10,000's as other countries in the region do. What they are reporting, though China, is very unrealistic.

As for Trump not closing the US down, had he done that without even a death to justify it would have been suicide. Trump was skewered by Biden, Pelosie, Schumer, Coumo, Deblasio, among many others. They were encouraging everyone to get out and have fun... All was well... But even with what the democrat idiots did the majority of the nation did not burn up with this virus only the cities that were led by democrats and piss poor leadership did.

Sorry, but CHINA has no control over TAIWAN. TAIWAN has an advanced military, over 300,000 troops, with advanced combat aircraft, tanks, surface ships, Submarines, and ballistic missiles. They don't take any shit from China at all. They are a FREE DEMOCRACY and CHINA has no more control over TAIWAN than they do over TEXAS. THIS IS NOT HONG KONG. TAIWAN is an independent state and functions as an independent state, regardless of China's claims on TAIWAN. China can't censor ANYTHING coming out of TAIWAN.

In fact, it was TAIWAN's intelligence service's that were able to found out what was going on in China with the virus and why TAIWAN was so early in instituting travel bans and travel restrictions.


The most accurate and quality performance in fighting this pandemic has happened in TAIWAN. Every country in the world should follow TAIWAN's example.

And that's why Tawains ports have chinese ships and thier telecommunications are routed through china..... RIGHTTTTTTTTTTTTT You do that and become a servent of China... Go for it... Idiot!

TAIWAN is 100 miles from mainland China and conducts its trade and travel independently of China. If any of China's warships dared to enter one of Taiwan's harbors they would be sunk. Commercial trade is conducted, just as it is in Los Angeles with Chinese business's, but TAIWAN is just as independent of TAIWAN as California is.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Isolated for how long? 5 years? There would be anarchy. 5 years LMAO!!!! You are medically insane. Economic damage is devastating not "bad". If old people are in nursing homes how many years do they have left to live? Link that "vast" majority support the lockdown and will that be the case if it lasts five years.

Start a new thread with a 5-year lockdown and see how many on this board agree with you. Living in isolation is not living, it is a pseudo prison sentence. You want to punish 99% to save 1%. Crazy. Why would you get "no" customers? I bet restaurants and bars would be jammed.

 

[U2Edge]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

Not the same. People were free to live and innovate. Sports were abundant and concerts. Family gatherings, etc. You want to shut all that down. That is extreme crazy talk to save those who are fat and unhealthy. Why can they not stay isolated and allow the rest of us to live?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

I do and people weren't locked down. They were living and rebuilding. And it wasn't global economic damage. What you propose is anarchy. The fact that you do not see that is crazy. Link that most Americans want a 5-year lock down. LOL.

 

[U2Edge]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Isolated for how long? 5 years? There would be anarchy. 5 years LMAO!!!! You are medically insane. Economic damage is devastating not "bad". If old people are in nursing homes how many years do they have left to live? Link that "vast" majority support the lockdown and will that be the case if it lasts five years.

Start a new thread with a 5-year lockdown and see how many on this board agree with you. Living in isolation is not living, it is a pseudo prison sentence. You want to punish 99% to save 1%. Crazy. Why would you get "no" customers? I bet restaurants and bars would be jammed.

Most people on this board are Trumpers who would continue supporting Trump if he raped a teenage girl on live TV.

The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and can take the hit, in order to save lives. People are not going to go to movies, concerts, Church, bars, nightclubs, sporting events, if they feel it is not SAFE and will get them sick or cost them their lives.

The only way out of this pandemic is lockdown until new cases are low enough to be managed through contact tracing. Or a vaccine is finally developed. Until then, you can open your business if you want, but the consumer is not going to give you any business.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Isolated for how long? 5 years? There would be anarchy. 5 years LMAO!!!! You are medically insane. Economic damage is devastating not "bad". If old people are in nursing homes how many years do they have left to live? Link that "vast" majority support the lockdown and will that be the case if it lasts five years.

Start a new thread with a 5-year lockdown and see how many on this board agree with you. Living in isolation is not living, it is a pseudo prison sentence. You want to punish 99% to save 1%. Crazy. Why would you get "no" customers? I bet restaurants and bars would be jammed.

Most people on this board are Trumpers who would continue supporting Trump if he raped a teenage girl on live TV.

The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and can take the hit, in order to save lives. People are not going to go to movies, concerts, Church, bars, nightclubs, sporting events, if they feel it is not SAFE and will get them sick or cost them their lives.

The only way out of this pandemic is lockdown until new cases are low enough to be managed through contact tracing. Or a vaccine is finally developed. Until then, you can open your business if you want, but the consumer is not going to give you any business.

#1) Bullshit. People will go. You won't because you're a coward. Open it up and see what happens.
#2) Wealthiest but for FIVE YEARS of no work or sports or concerts or movies, you will have a revolt.
#3) Vaccine. LOL why don't we shut the country down every flu season? 30-50k die annually then. This was overblown.
#4) The consumer will. This does not impact young people the way it impacts older people.

If you're saying people won't go anyway then open it up and see what happens. Start a thread that you want a FIVE YEAR lockdown and see if even one person agrees. Do you have a job or are you a student (I suspect) who lives with their parents?

 

[U2Edge]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

Not the same. People were free to live and innovate. Sports were abundant and concerts. Family gatherings, etc. You want to shut all that down. That is extreme crazy talk to save those who are fat and unhealthy. Why can they not stay isolated and allow the rest of us to live?

40% of the American population is obese. Then there are those who are not obese who have other conditions. Bottom line, most of the population is NOT SAFE!

People can still live an innovate from home. In fact, 37% of the labor force is able to do their current job without leaving their house. Another 25% are engaged in "Essential Services". For the 1/3 of the labor force that is not working, they can be paid to stay at home, just like the government paid 1/3 of the labor force in the 1940s to go overseas and kill Germans and Japs.

Lockdown is necessary. The damage done is repairable. Innovation is actually happening more rapidly right now than at any time in the past 20 years. Bars, nightclubs, Church, concerts, sporting events, will have to wait maybe a few years while this passes on. All those things will eventually return though. The economy will evolve and change during this time as well. As a society, we will most likely be better off once we get through this pandemic.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

Not the same. People were free to live and innovate. Sports were abundant and concerts. Family gatherings, etc. You want to shut all that down. That is extreme crazy talk to save those who are fat and unhealthy. Why can they not stay isolated and allow the rest of us to live?

40% of the American population is obese. Then there are those who are not obese who have other conditions. Bottom line, most of the population is NOT SAFE!

People can still live an innovate from home. In fact, 37% of the labor force is able to do their current job without leaving their house. Another 25% are engaged in "Essential Services". For the 1/3 of the labor force that is not working, they can be paid to stay at home, just like the government paid 1/3 of the labor force in the 1940s to go overseas and kill Germans and Japs.

Lockdown is necessary. The damage done is repairable. Innovation is actually happening more rapidly right now than at any time in the past 20 years. Bars, nightclubs, Church, concerts, sporting events, will have to wait maybe a few years while this passes on. All those things will eventually return though. The economy will evolve and change during this time as well. As a society, we will most likely be better off once we get through this pandemic.

#1) Link that most is not safe. LOL. 94% of deaths are to those who had at least one underlying condition.

#2) Really? Barber shops, gyms, NBA, NFL, NCAA sports, NHL, PGA, MLB --- you want to shut it all down for 5 years. Taxation would decline significantly and no more police and or fire. No more movies, sitcoms, etc. Concerts. You basically end the world to save a few people who would die anyway.

#3) Lockdown is necessary not to overwhelm the healthcare system. We have built up enough capacity to handle it.

#4) Your lack of logic is comical. I'll start the thread so people can mock you.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

Show one model that illustrates death of 5 million LOL. The highest total was 2.2 million.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LOL. 94% of deaths are to those who had at least one underlying condition.

Yep, a real knee slapper. Asshole.

 

[Fueri]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

If you think most Americans think we can, or should, do this for 3-5 years you're crazier than I thought.

The government threw a few bucks around to keep people afloat in the near term to minimize near term effect and they've minimized blowback as a result, and most people are not feeling the pain-yet. The government cannot do that for 3-5 years.

We'll see what "most americans" think in 6 months when the recession deepens, more people lose their jobs, even those that can work at home, when they're getting tossed out of their homes and realize that we havent stopped this anyhow.

Your analysis is so utterly flawed and without any consideration of secondary consequences or how this would unfold over that type of timespan that 'absurd' doesn't even come close.

Chaos, poverty and starvation will consume major portions if the globe effecting tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. It is already happening 2-3 months in. You clearly have a pretty loose grip on reality if you think this won't get worse

Believe what you want, again. Honestly I don't care what your deranged logic is telling you, but I do know that it isn't even logic.

Hiroshima did it. Countries rebuilt. Lets do that again, but on purpose. Good grief.

 

[U2Edge]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Isolated for how long? 5 years? There would be anarchy. 5 years LMAO!!!! You are medically insane. Economic damage is devastating not "bad". If old people are in nursing homes how many years do they have left to live? Link that "vast" majority support the lockdown and will that be the case if it lasts five years.

Start a new thread with a 5-year lockdown and see how many on this board agree with you. Living in isolation is not living, it is a pseudo prison sentence. You want to punish 99% to save 1%. Crazy. Why would you get "no" customers? I bet restaurants and bars would be jammed.

Most people on this board are Trumpers who would continue supporting Trump if he raped a teenage girl on live TV.

The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and can take the hit, in order to save lives. People are not going to go to movies, concerts, Church, bars, nightclubs, sporting events, if they feel it is not SAFE and will get them sick or cost them their lives.

The only way out of this pandemic is lockdown until new cases are low enough to be managed through contact tracing. Or a vaccine is finally developed. Until then, you can open your business if you want, but the consumer is not going to give you any business.

#1) Bullshit. People will go. You won't because you're a coward. Open it up and see what happens.
#2) Wealthiest but for FIVE YEARS of no work or sports or concerts or movies, you will have a revolt.
#3) Vaccine. LOL why don't we shut the country down every flu season? 30-50k die annually then. This was overblown.
#4) The consumer will. This does not impact young people the way it impacts older people.

If you're saying people won't go anyway then open it up and see what happens. Start a thread that you want a FIVE YEAR lockdown and see if even one person agrees. Do you have a job or are you a student (I suspect) who lives with their parents?

1. Well, Georgia is the test case. Lets see how many people are at restaurants, bars, movie theaters, concerts, churches, and sporting events over the next several weeks. We'll know soon enough how much business is being done in "reopened Georgia".

2. 37% of the labor force can do their jobs without leaving their house. Another 25% are engaged in essential services and are still on the job. Its only about 1/3 of the labor force that is not at work. The government can pay them to stay home just as they paid the 1/3 of the labor force to go overseas and kill German and Japs in World War II.

3. We don't shut the country because of seasonal flu, because we have a vaccine that can prevent it from killing people. The problem is that only 50% of the country gets their vaccine shots. If everyone did, you could reduce seasonal flu deaths by 90%. Seasonal flu is less deadly and less transmissible than coronavirus. Seasonal Flu and coronavirus are not comparable at all.

4. Anyone with an underlying health condition can be impacted by the disease. If they are not impacted by the disease, they can help spread the disease and allow to kill other people. The coronavirus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. In this case, that oxygen comes from un-isolated people.

Georgia is already following your experiment of opening up. We'll see how many concerts, sporting events, packed bars, clubs, and other places they have over the next month.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

LOL. 94% of deaths are to those who had at least one underlying condition.

Yep, a real knee slapper. Asshole.

Facts don't care about your feelings, snowflake.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

If you think most Americans think we can, or should, do this for 3-5 years you're crazier than I thought.

The government threw a few bucks around to keep people afloat in the near term to minimize near term effect and they've minimized blowback as a result, and most people are not feeling the pain-yet. The government cannot do that for 3-5 years.

We'll see what "most americans" think in 6 months when the recession deepens, more people lose their jobs, even those that can work at home, when they're getting tossed out of their homes and realize that we havent stopped this anyhow.

Your analysis is so utterly flawed and without any consideration of secondary consequences or how this would unfold over that type of timespan that 'absurd' doesn't even come close.

Chaos, poverty and starvation will consume major portions if the globe effecting tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. It is already happening 2-3 months in. You clearly have a pretty loose grip on reality if you think this won't get worse

Believe what you want, again. Honestly I don't care what your deranged logic is telling you, but I do know that it isn't even logic.

Hiroshima did it. Countries rebuilt. Lets do that again, but on purpose. Good grief.

He is batshit crazy. My guess a college dropout living with relatives.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Isolated for how long? 5 years? There would be anarchy. 5 years LMAO!!!! You are medically insane. Economic damage is devastating not "bad". If old people are in nursing homes how many years do they have left to live? Link that "vast" majority support the lockdown and will that be the case if it lasts five years.

Start a new thread with a 5-year lockdown and see how many on this board agree with you. Living in isolation is not living, it is a pseudo prison sentence. You want to punish 99% to save 1%. Crazy. Why would you get "no" customers? I bet restaurants and bars would be jammed.

Most people on this board are Trumpers who would continue supporting Trump if he raped a teenage girl on live TV.

The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and can take the hit, in order to save lives. People are not going to go to movies, concerts, Church, bars, nightclubs, sporting events, if they feel it is not SAFE and will get them sick or cost them their lives.

The only way out of this pandemic is lockdown until new cases are low enough to be managed through contact tracing. Or a vaccine is finally developed. Until then, you can open your business if you want, but the consumer is not going to give you any business.

#1) Bullshit. People will go. You won't because you're a coward. Open it up and see what happens.
#2) Wealthiest but for FIVE YEARS of no work or sports or concerts or movies, you will have a revolt.
#3) Vaccine. LOL why don't we shut the country down every flu season? 30-50k die annually then. This was overblown.
#4) The consumer will. This does not impact young people the way it impacts older people.

If you're saying people won't go anyway then open it up and see what happens. Start a thread that you want a FIVE YEAR lockdown and see if even one person agrees. Do you have a job or are you a student (I suspect) who lives with their parents?

1. Well, Georgia is the test case. Lets see how many people are at restaurants, bars, movie theaters, concerts, churches, and sporting events over the next several weeks. We'll know soon enough how much business is being done in "reopened Georgia".

2. 37% of the labor force can do their jobs without leaving their house. Another 25% are engaged in essential services and are still on the job. Its only about 1/3 of the labor force that is not at work. The government can pay them to stay home just as they paid the 1/3 of the labor force to go overseas and kill German and Japs in World War II.

3. We don't shut the country because of seasonal flu, because we have a vaccine that can prevent it from killing people. The problem is that only 50% of the country gets their vaccine shots. If everyone did, you could reduce seasonal flu deaths by 90%. Seasonal flu is less deadly and less transmissible than coronavirus. Seasonal Flu and coronavirus are not comparable at all.

4. Anyone with an underlying health condition can be impacted by the disease. If they are not impacted by the disease, they can help spread the disease and allow to kill other people. The coronavirus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. In this case, that oxygen comes from un-isolated people.

Georgia is already following your experiment of opening up. We'll see how many concerts, sporting events, packed bars, clubs, and other places they have over the next month.

#1) Let's see. I bet people will flock to bars and restaurants and movies.

#2) 37%....oooo so 3.7 out of 10 people. That is fucking terrible. What do you do for work? I can do my job remotely but not nearly as well as when I am out and about.

#3) Vaccine only protects 45% of people. What about the other 55%? And still 30-50k die annually.

#4) Then those people may remain isolated. No one is forcing those at risk and or scared to go out.

You want to close the NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA and NCAA sports for 5 years!!! LOL

 

[U2Edge]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

If you think most Americans think we can, or should, do this for 3-5 years you're crazier than I thought.

The government threw a few bucks around to keep people afloat in the near term to minimize near term effect and they've minimized blowback as a result, and most people are not feeling the pain-yet. The government cannot do that for 3-5 years.

We'll see what "most americans" think in 6 months when the recession deepens, more people lose their jobs, even those that can work at home, when they're getting tossed out of their homes and realize that we havent stopped this anyhow.

Your analysis is so utterly flawed and without any consideration of secondary consequences or how this would unfold over that type of timespan that 'absurd' doesn't even come close.

Chaos, poverty and starvation will consume major portions if the globe effecting tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. It is already happening 2-3 months in. You clearly have a pretty loose grip on reality if you think this won't get worse

Believe what you want, again. Honestly I don't care what your deranged logic is telling you, but I do know that it isn't even logic.

Hiroshima did it. Countries rebuilt. Lets do that again, but on purpose. Good grief.

Damn right on purpose. A purpose that saves MILLIONS OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. About 1/3 of the workforce is not working. About the same number that were drafted during World War II and sent overseas to kill Germans and Japs. If the government can send 1/3 of the workforce overseas to kill Germans and Japs in the 1940s, in can pay 1/3 of the workforce to STAY HOME in the 2020s.

Fact, is, most people support what I believe doing and its what 99% of governments around the world are doing. Most people don't support what you believe doing and 99% of governments are not following what you think should be done.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

If you think most Americans think we can, or should, do this for 3-5 years you're crazier than I thought.

The government threw a few bucks around to keep people afloat in the near term to minimize near term effect and they've minimized blowback as a result, and most people are not feeling the pain-yet. The government cannot do that for 3-5 years.

We'll see what "most americans" think in 6 months when the recession deepens, more people lose their jobs, even those that can work at home, when they're getting tossed out of their homes and realize that we havent stopped this anyhow.

Your analysis is so utterly flawed and without any consideration of secondary consequences or how this would unfold over that type of timespan that 'absurd' doesn't even come close.

Chaos, poverty and starvation will consume major portions if the globe effecting tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. It is already happening 2-3 months in. You clearly have a pretty loose grip on reality if you think this won't get worse

Believe what you want, again. Honestly I don't care what your deranged logic is telling you, but I do know that it isn't even logic.

Hiroshima did it. Countries rebuilt. Lets do that again, but on purpose. Good grief.

Damn right on purpose. A purpose that saves MILLIONS OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. About 1/3 of the workforce is not working. About the same number that were drafted during World War II and sent overseas to kill Germans and Japs. If the government can send 1/3 of the workforce overseas to kill Germans and Japs in the 1940s, in can pay 1/3 of the workforce to STAY HOME in the 2020s.

Fact, is, most people support what I believe doing and its what 99% of governments around the world are doing. Most people don't support what you believe doing and 99% of governments are not following what you think should be done.

You would be killing millions if you forced isolation for FIVE YEARS!!! Again why do we not isolate during every flu season? NO ONE SUPPORTS A FIVE YEAR LOCKDOWN. Sans you. Since you're insane.