Pandemic 2020: Layoff Related Deaths Exceed COVID-19 Deaths By 41%

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr_Meinheimer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
they have done a much better job than de blasio because he has thousands and thousands of cases.
Click to expand...
But then De Blasio did a better job than Giuliani under whose watch two 757s attacked two skyscrapers. Your point taken though.
 
ProVobis said:
But then De Blasio did a better job than Giuliani under whose watch two 757s attacked two skyscrapers. Your point taken though.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Rudy should have known in advance and had police on the rooftops of the twin towers.
I find the whole “blame them For what they had no control over” to be unfair
 
Ridgerunner said:
I see where recently in a plant in which there are some 3,000 employees, 400 or so tested positive for the disease but not one of them was symptomatic.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the tests for a current infection, or to the unreliable antibody tests? I could easily believe 400 false positives in the antibody test.
 
ProVobis said:
40.png
JonNC:
Rudy should have known in advance and had police on the rooftops of the twin towers.
Click to expand...
I bet they’re better prepared now. Against 757s anyway.
Click to expand...
I bet the states will be better prepared for the next pandemic.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I still don’t see how it can be done other than through some kind of coercion.
Click to expand...
I do not understand why coercion would be needed. I would think it possible to find a population unselfish and patriotic enough to volunteer for testing. As well, there must be some business that want everyone tested in a work environment. That type of coercion I have no objection to. If I want to be tested to be safe for my co-workers, I have no problem my boss demanding they be tested, or hiring someone else less selfish.

We need the economy at 100% ASAP. We need it as safe as possible.
 
pnewton said:
As well, there must be some business that want everyone tested in a work environment.
Click to expand...
There are. I just mentioned a company that has over 100,000 employees, and they tested every one.
pnewton said:
I would think it possible to find a population unselfish and patriotic enough to volunteer for testing.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if it was brought to them. But anything like that costs a lot if large segments of the population are going to be tested. Some county health departments can afford it, some can’t. My county can and does have drive-through testing. But most people don’t go because most people are asymptomatic and there are almost no cases anyway. I don’t think it really has a lot to do with being selfish or unpatriotic. It has to do with the inconvenience, the lack of cases and symptoms in a lot of places, and the ability of some counties to set up whole population testing. In some of the rural counties around here, there are no cases or only a handful, and in most of the latter all cases recovered. So, if they tested everybody and nobody had the virus, then what? Test again in a month?

It’s like flu shots. If you bring the nurses and vaccine into the work place, most people will get them. If you expect them to do it on their own, most of them won’t. That’s why a lot, maybe most, employers have them done in-house.

In NYC maybe the whole population would line up for it because the hazard is greater. I don’t know.
 
Last edited:
There is one advantage, though it is one of these things you have to ask, “At what cost?” With multiple sets of rules, there might be a quicker evaluation of what works, and what failed.
 
Last edited:
That isn’t how it has proved to work everywhere. In fact lock down when in time has drastically flattened the curve and prevented plenty of deaths as well.
And the opposite has also proved quite dramatic in other places.
When all is said and done we’ll see. As for now there are different balanced alternatives to consider and that have been implemented . Not easy.
Suffering, well… it is a pandemic. Yes, there is…
 
Yes, Cathoholic. Commenting on yours.
Lockdown has had high approval depending on the place and has helped achieve the desired objective. Namely save plenty of lives flattening the curve and get ready for the unexpected tsunami.Not all of us had the same resources and circumstances. Some places didn’t have the time, poor Italy…
 
Last edited:
Do you understand that my post had to do with morbidity (suffering) associated with the lockdowns?
It is irrelevant what the “approval ratings” are.

(In addition to the deaths caused by the lockdowns.)

If the answer is yes, how do you think “That isn’t how it has proved to work everywhere”??

.
Lockdown has had high approval depending on the place and has helped achieve the desired objective.
Click to expand...
If it has “achieve the desired objective” then it is time to get rid of it.
 
Last edited:
Yes. This is a discussion I also have with friends. We don’t always agree.
No it isn’t indifferent what approval ratings are because they do reflect something positive coming from the people in lockdown. An attitude that adds and helps.
And as for the last paragraph we are in phase 4. Not getting rid of it cookie cut all at the same time. A little town in Alaska and New York need a different tailor made scheme. And at the same time there needs to be some national coordination for everything economic to flow.
But then one may always watch successful countries dealing with it and learn as we go.Because this isn’t over
 
Last edited:
graciew on asserting areas with no suffering from the lockdown. . . .
Yes. This is a discussion I also have with friends. We don’t always agree.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I can see why.

Where do you think there has been no suffering associated with lockdowns??

Where do you think have these people been free of morbidity?
 
Last edited:
I answered : yes, there is suffering.
And suffering comes with life…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top