Texas Governor Greg Abbott Ends Statewide Mask Mandate, Opens State 100%

OK, question #1: how do you know, "they," are an exempt industry? The article & clip (both by this exempt industry) failed to mention that. Whereas I can see News, i.e., the Press, being considered vital, & so exempt, I would not see the movie business the same way. Further, even if one did exempt the process of making films & tv shows, because of their importance to California's economy, why would that apply to craft services, which is the catering (food service) industry? Since the media sources you linked, sucked, you'll need to supply better sources for what you claim to know (don't worry, I won't just take your word for it).

Question #2: why would you assume that I knew the ins-&-outs of CALIFORNIA regulations. I know you don't live in America, but I still would have assumed that you realized that Connecticut is nowhere near Cali.

 

Moved to a thread which I made last year:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...eemed-essential.581730/page-4#post-1072510236

 

And I had said that if lockdowns would have saved even 10% of the total of the state we were discussing, which would have come to 3000+ lives, that would be plenty to justify keeping things closed, which was the general side that I was arguing for. You were arguing for the other side of the same question: where do you draw the line? Though I didn't draw mine up to the edge, I at least gave a rough reference point. The only number I can recall you venturing was a million (and I'm only hoping you were speaking about nationally, not w/in one state). If you keep reading my posts, I ask you if that would mean, then, that a mere third of that # 330,000, would be too few to justify, in your mind, the restrictions we've been discussing. That is, which I have, a couple of times enumerated, at least in large part, but which you merely refer to as lockdowns. This is why I also say, somewhere, that to come up with a more precise estimate, we would have to go more into specifics, so that we both had the same understanding of, "lockdowns." It almost seems you have, in your mind, something like a Taiwanese lockdown, which is nothing like the American reality. This is why it would be helpful to know WHERE you lived, & get an idea of what the experience there has been like. It would honestly be a damn sight more interesting than going around & around about your road-shutdown, supposed analogy for a business-shutdown which, whenever I try to equate the result of our road debate to the pandemic-business issue that we're supposed to be talking about, you point out some difference between the two that makes them unequatable.

The very real possibility that we have different things in mind by, "lock-down," is why I also explained, fulsomely, what the Covid restrictions have meant in one of the more restricted states, where I live. So maybe I should hold off answering until you get caught up.

And, no, btw, I wasn't joking when I said that as few as a thousand deaths, in a state like Florida, in a year, might be sufficient to warrant restrictions on businesses (for, as I'd pointed out, we'd never experienced anything close to a full shutdown of business, yet); so that means the number that I would arrive at, on the other side, that would be acceptable, must be LOWER THAN THAT NUMBER. So don't tell me I haven't answered your question. And I repeat, as requisite for me to go ANY further into this conversational morass, it's your turn to answer your own question, at least, as nearly as I have.

 

So then logically you think that large portions of your State's road system should be shut down if the road death toll became as high as the COVID death toll.

I don't have an answer. I already said that it was a difficult question to answer. Thankfully I don't need to make those decisions. I certainly can't agree with you on as low as 1000. That's utter madness.

 

I'm not a US citizen and I've never lived in the US.

 

The emboldened line in your top quote, is the answer to your emboldened question, in the bottom-quote. That is, it has seemed, all along, that you have been talking about death numbers that seemed, to me, nationwide, as the requirement to shut down the roads of one, given state. So have you, then, been saying that it would take, "millions of road death per year," just in Florida, in order to restrict access on Florida's roads? If not, that is why I offered both state & national death total numbers: it was unclear to me whether you wished to use a state or a national scenario (because of your mixing of different references in a single example, which you, 3 times, did).

 

TIP ON COURTESY:

Do not ask someone a hypothetical question for which you, yourself, do not have an answer. If you should be thoughtless enough to do this, however, only a real ass would compound that inconsiderate act by giving the other person grief about NOT having yet answered the question-- which you now, finally make clear you have no intention of answering (saying it was a tough question does not mean that it is unanswerable, or why would you ask it to me?)-- ESPECIALLY, when I already HAD answered the question, a couple of times!

Btw, I didn't need to make, "those decisions," either. In fact, I told you this was a waste of time. But I did answer you, out of courtesy.

I have also stated that, in lieu of your reciprocating, I would be done with this whole, stupid, road idea (because, unless its need, by society, is identical to the need for business, and the ability for partial restriction in business activity is applicable with partially restricted roads-- to which you objected-- there is no point to it). And I like to stick to my word.

 

No, this is illogical, unless the two serve identical purposes and are of identical value. The former is clearly not the case. It would be a dubious contention, in the case of the latter, for which you have offered no supporting argument. So, now, as strongly implied in my immediately-preceding post, I am DONE with your, "road trip."

 

Of course you are. You don't have the ability to stay 'on board!'

 

You're the one who wimped-out on your challenge, laughing-boy, not me.

 

1. We never talked EXCLUSIVELY about business restrictions/shutdowns. The lockdowns were much more than that.

2. When we DID speak about business, it was about TOTAL shutdowns! Not PARTIAL!

 

That is certainly all that is implied in your preferred term, "lockdowns." If you stretch it to include masks-- and they are only required, generally, in public buildings, most of which are businesses (with the few odd exceptions of beaches & the like--which, if you wanted to go to one in Connecticut or New York, this time of year, I can guarantee there would be no one there to hassle you about a mask)-- this makes no difference to the thing we were discussing. So your 1st point is irrelevant.

Untrue! Or only in YOUR mind.

 

Oh okay, so I guess people were free to visit friends and family. How did I get that so wrong!

So this whole time that I've been talking about a TOTAL road closure, you thought that I was equating that to PARTIAL lockdowns? NO WONDER you're frustrated!

 

I don't care. I'm vaccinated and most of the people who get sick and die will be Trumpublicans who either won't get vaccinated or won't take adequate precautions or both. Win-win HMO. I do feel bad for the people who catch it anyway but there are treatments now and there are people who get sick no matter what.

If Trumpublicans want to kill themselves to make Trump feel better who am I to curtail their freedom? My only problem was when there was no vaccine and all these younger Trumpublicans wanted to kill anybody who was over 65 or was fat because they just HAD to go bowling.

Now if there are surges I think they ought to declare martial law and call out the Army. Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the point of my nose or when you're spreading a deadly disease. I can't believe I actually have to say that.

 

Umm, maybe by not living here? Did you think there were laws or regulations against visiting people-- because there aren't, & there weren't. Certainly, this was discouraged by many officials (& health experts, & the MSM). But what suggestions, & urgings by politicians have to do with actual business, "lock-downs," is not readily apparent. Maybe you should have been talking about these things instead of trying to draw your ridiculous, unfounded road, "analogy."

How many times did I say to you:
A) That my answer would depend on what we meant by lockdown (which you never answered with the word, "total.")?
B) That the lockdowns, here, though I'm just outside of NYC (and my state coordinated its regulations to match those in NY State), were never near total?

And, if I were still talking about that other cul-de-sac subject of yours, I would remind you that we wasted good debating time, & forum space, on the partial-closure point.

 

That's correct, at least for a complete road closure. Like I said, a complete road closure would be unimaginable, perhaps even more unimaginable than the thought in 2019 of society being shutdown the following year in the way that it has been since COVID.

 

So all 300 million Americans have been totally free for the past year to gather in whatever size groups they wish? Now THAT would be mind blowing!

 

PERHAPS? Even in the most recalcitrant states, like Florida, deaths in the low tens of thousands-- over many months--have brought some restrictions. You are talking like 100k deaths per month! I guarantee you, as an American all my life (who actually has two uncles who live in Florida), that it would never get close to that point before any Governor would pull out ALL the stops, w/ regard to this epidemic's counter-measures. Hence, granting for the sake of argument that this is what would be required to close roads, this shows that bar to be far, far higher, not even close to the relative step-over bar of, "society being shut down," as you call it, & therefore completely incomparable.

 

Pull out all the stops on road closures?

 

First, your population number is a bit light, even for a ballpark estimate. Secondly, don't change the goalposts. If you have a private house, you could have all your friends over, every night, and your full, extended family over, every weekend.

IF there was anyplace where that didn't apply, and I kind of doubt that there was, it was in an individual city, like Manhattan-- which really doesn't have houses, anyway-- Brooklyn, Queens, maybe New Orleans, and a handful of potential others-- you tell me how many stories you can find about police breaking up parties or fining people in private homes-- and I would be surprised to find most of them to have been in force for anything other than for the peak of that place's case-surge, with hospital capacity nearly exhausted. So, basically, yeah, you could pack your place with people, if you wanted (consider your mind blown). Maybe many in Red States did. But most people in Blue States, if they invited a lot of people to a party, would be hard-pressed to get too many to show.

A friend of mine (who'd been hospitalized with Covid) tried throwing a big shin-dig in his not huge backyard on the Summer Solstice (late June) & only had a handful out of like 50 invitees show up (which did not include me). I did attend a family event at my sister's place, I think in September, because we would be seeing some family we don't get to see, often, for their 2-yr. old's b'day. We used both indoors & outdoors, though there was a choke-point or two. There was moderate social distancing, but it varied among the small crowd-- maybe 20 when I arrived (always fashionably late, though never by design) though probably at least 30, earlier. I spent most of the time outside, & wore a mask for at least a while. The only other person who wore one at all was my 83 yr.-old mother, who left early. A lot of the people there were younger, friends of my nephew. It was a little risky but, as far as I know, no one got sick from it (& no raids by the cops).

So, as I said before, your idea of what it's like here seems not to bear much resemblance to reality, as I've known it. Most of the restriction, I would attribute to personal choice. Who's been telling you differently? I would guess they are just obsessing over the things they can't do, & exaggerating how big a part of their lives those things actually were, before the pandemic.

 

Stuff like this in California:

 

Except for the first one, the rest just sound like suggestions-- do you not see that? And even that 1st one, how often do you think it was ever enforced? Put another way, the only times anyone capable of breaking up the party or issuing a ticket would ever be aware of people violating that regulation are times when, prior to Covid, those same gatherings would have been at risk from a visit by police for noise violations, disturbing the peace (possibly trespassing, from people parking-- & perhaps pissing-- on other peoples' property), and obstructing a public roadway violations. Again, in how many peoples' lives do these types of parties constitute such a frequent occurrence that it could be considered draconian to expect people to forego them, for a short while, for the public good?

 

How about the insane inconsistency with the approval of BLM protests? If they were REALLY concerned about COVID, why was it allowed?

 

This seems like a bait and switch, on your part. Not just apples & oranges, this time, but apples & chicken nuggets.

 

Looks like you're unable to justify the government's inconsistency. After all, it's totally impossible to justify it!