Its very clear by now that the Covid virus hurts the weak much more than the healthy & strong. If you are elderly or have a pre-existing condition like obesity, asthma, heart disease, diabetes, this virus is much more likely to hit you hard or even kill you. So, should we just open everything up and just sacrifice the weak?
No, we are a Judeo-Christian society and only under the most extreme circumstances, like a literal warzone, should we ever consider such a strategy. We are better than this and need to choose human life over $$$$.
Should we stop using trap questions in our polls? Yes! If you don't want to get sick stay home and nevermind what everyone else is doing, it's none of your business. Wanting to control other peoples behavior doesn't make what they do your business.
For anyone who is in a high risk category like me it is incumbent upon them to play the game smarter than the young who must be set free.
No, we should do everything in our power to protect the weak, especially in nursing homes. The weak and vulnerable who are still living independently should continue to protect themselves. The young and healthy need to go back to work and more normal social lives, as it is the workers' taxes which pay for society's weak and frail. Everyone should keep social-distancing to not strain the hospitals. Wash your hands. It's not that hard.
It was a major victory for Roosevelt and the democrat party in 1935 and the first major social program in the USA. How then could it possibly be a problem? The purpose of the original Social Security Act was to provide income for retirees over 65 based on lifetime payroll tax contributions with the first benefits received by people who had not paid in, but naturally phasing in the paying benefits to those who had contributed over a lifetime. It makes more sense than all other social programs combined and is first in historical precedence and significance.
Areas that needed the lockdown should of locked down but they should of done so legally. This virus was not nearly bad enough to justify the measures we took.
Haha. Tax scam. Soc. Sec. was started in 1935 to pay retirees starting at age 65. Average life expectancy in 1935 was 61 years. The Socialist programs usually have a catch. They take away wages, give to the government, and then there's a loophole for the government never to give much of it back. Increased life expectancy is why the system is going broke.
OP is no different than the other side of the coin: asking 'Should we sacrifice the economy?' Both are ignorant questions because both the virus and a failing economy lead to death. The question is: where is the balance that best allows people to avoid poverty while allowing them to best avoid infection as well?
Walnut creek california doctors are seeing a massive rise in suicide since the lockdown began.. How many people are we willing to sacrifice to keep covid 19 from spreading. Other health care services NOT being diagnosed and treated because of the shut down . Mammograms Colonoscopies cancer screenings and on and on and on the shut down is killing people more than it's saving...
100% false. there is no evidence in sudden increase in suicides over the last 3 months. if there was, Fox News would be all over it
Do you have a source? I cannot find one showing that the number of suicide in the US has substantially increased although domestic issues have. In Japan suicide is down a whopping 20% [source]
The American Medical Association is all over it: Suicide rates have been rising in the US over the last 2 decades. The latest data available (201 show the highest age-adjusted suicide rate in the US since 1941.1 It is within this context that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) struck the US. Concerning disease models have led to historic and unprecedented public health actions to curb the spread of the virus. Remarkable social distancing interventions have been implemented to fundamentally reduce human contact. While these steps are expected to reduce the rate of new infections, the potential for adverse outcomes on suicide risk is high. Actions could be taken to mitigate potential unintended consequences on suicide prevention efforts, which also represent a national public health priority. (emphasis mine) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2764584
So where is your evidence??? Where is your evidence of more than 100,000 extra suicides in the last 3 months?? Hmmm???
if someone can find me actual evidence of close to 100,000 extra suicides over the last three months I will donate $100 to Trump's re-election campaign
OH WELL, the likely to kill themselves, were on their last nerve anyway. Isnt that the logic of the right wingers?
