Related Posts
Additional Posts in The Worklife Bowl
What's everyone cooking/baking during WFH?
Anyone else working because they're bored?
What's everyone upto today?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
If we are only detecting 15% of cases (or less), the death rate isn't as bad as we are currently estimating, and we will have established some decent herd immunity from the asymptomatic/low symptom cases. Even New York has sent some ventilators back due to having more capacity than expected.
In a lot of cases, high risk individuals (retirees) are not a part of the workforce; we are destroying people's livilihoods to maintain the lives of those who are no longer working and do not have as much of a need to be out and about anyways. It would be a lot easier to provide assistance to high risk individuals who are unable to work from home/don't live off of retirement than to shackle young, healthy people away from their jobs for the sake of those who do not need to be out and about.
Also, we are adults. We know what our personal risks appetite is and what precautions we are and are not interested in taking. We should be allowed to decide for ourselves whether we are willing to risk our lives to get on the subway or not. This nanny state stuff is stupid, and there is an aspect of Darwinism to this.
Wear a mask, gloves, and wash your hands regularly if you are afraid. Stay at home if you are high risk. Let everyone else do what they need to, and provide assistance for those who cannot. Do not destroy the lives of millions because you do not trust a few thousands to act like adults.
Rising Star
Anyone who points at Japan who did well without a lockdown look again, I think they’ve lost control of it now. Singapore is now in lockdown and South Korea had one of the highest testing in the early stages
Although it’s not the popular liberal POV, I agree. The problem is that there is no good solution given the lack of testing in the U.S. - and this is a critical reality to take into account. With that in mind, our choices are 1) start to open, do our best to reduce risks, and encourage high- risk people to continue to stay home. Enact further short-term shutdowns in response to hot spots. Or 2) continue shut down until a vaccine is widely available (12-18 months) which would destroy society as we know it. People complain about putting money first, but it’s not that simple. Letting capitalism go down means literally letting our entire way of life go down. Are people prepared for that?
I see a lot of alternate plans floated, but they all begin, “first, we have to have widespread testing and contact tracing.” Hello- there is no way that’s happening here. To pretend that even a third of the US will be tested any time in the next 9 months is a pipe dream given our current government. Given that, our choices are as outlined above.
Pro
I’d love to win PowerBall.
Pro
I’d love to win a powerball by means of a winning ticket flying to my house, slip through the door and land it nicely on my desk.
Anything else is too much work.
Same but when it comes at the cost of so many people getting sick and dying is it worth it?
Trillion dollar question, literally
Chief
Who doesn’t? .....
As someone with a heart condition, it doesn’t seem like we are at the proper time to “open back up” yet.
Conversation Starter
Stay safe! Know a lot of us support these measures to save lives.
Conversation Starter
It’s like we’re living the train and people on the track ethical dilemma in real time. Holler if you remember this question from undergrad.
We need an antibody test to show that a lot more of the country has already had it, survived it, and developed a nominal amount of resistance than we are currently aware of. There are so many asymptomatic cases that we could have already had herd immunity.
We can’t even get tests for the virus in meaningful quantities. You think this government is going to produce 10s of millions of antibody tests?
I am all for high risk individuals working from home if able to or receiving extensive government assistance if unable to do so, so they do not have to interact with the general public, but young healthy adults should have the right to make a decision about what risks they are and are not willing to take for themselves.
Please do explain how this “receiving extensive government assistance” thing would work in your imaginary America. Sounds like a “ socialist conspiracy to ruin ‘Mercia” to me.
Just be honest, your are fine with old people, and sick people, and black people, and poor people dying as long as you are building up our airline miles like the good old days.
At the end of the day, it comes down to a battle between economy and lives.
How long are we willing to sacrifice 99% of society to protect the vulnerable 1%?
3 months? 6 months?
This will lead to the collapse of society at the detriment of the 99%.
The best solution is to isolate the vulnerable 1% and allow the rest to return to business as usual with precautionary measures (basic hygiene, maintaining physical distancing, etc.)
Yes there will be lives lost with this method but it will allow us to reach herd immunity faster, therefore protecting the vulnerable at the end.
Rising Star
Agree that mental health may be overlooked here in order to protect against Covid
Nurses are getting laid off right now. NURSES. All "elective" procedures, which can include cancer treatments, are banned right now to open up beds and lower risk; hospitals get the majority of their income from those procedures. Even respitory nurses are having pay and hour cuts due to censuses dropping below 20%.
If NURSES don't have job security in the middle of a pandemic, the cost to the economy is a lot higher than the body count.
Your opinion. You can survive a lay-off but not a death. Nurses are also dying.
Pro
Nah, not me. I’m feeling this whole pandemic thing.
How united this nation has became
Chief
We all do. “Possible” is pretty far off.
Pro
Yes open please!
I’m actually okay with this.
Chief
I hear you sc1, I push the fat guy off the tracks to save the entire train
Conversation Starter
And the children, the healthy 30 year old mom, the people with cancer, etc. You can’t just push one on the track to ‘save’ the train.
And what die?
Wtf
Rising Star
Yep. Just need people to focus on ramping up testing and isolating cases and doing this in a smart measured way rather than “... but the economy!”
The economy isn’t going to bounce back if this disease is running rampant in the general public, people are going to be scared and we’ll essentially be condemning poor/less healthy people.
Rising Star
This! The economy isn’t just going to go back to pre-covid as if it never happened. We will still be dealing with it at open. This is why the outbreak needs to be dealt with first before we can get the engines revving again. It’s just reality.