Would you give up your life to reactivate the economy? Question with a followup.

Your question has no merit. Folks, mostly elderly die every day from all manner of infirmities and illnesses. Patrick is making the point that we didn't crush the economy for those, even though vastly more folks die per annum that what the mortality of this event would indicate. And, he's making the point the instituting tyranny is a ruse that we, as Americans should see through.

The real question though is why you seem so willing to watch the world burn down around you. do you really have that much personal guilt?

 

I more than adequately proved my point. Whether you understand that is literally of no consequence.

 

And yet you read "suicide" and "unnecessary risk" somewhere in my question?

My question has nothing to do with doing this tomorrow or in a few weeks or in a couple of months... I'm asking exactly what Dan Patrick is proposing. It's not that difficult.

No. But you might want to reword your answer.

Your post doesn't address anything on the OP.

 

Okay, I give. I will volunteer to give up precious moments of my life in order to educate you. No, Governor Cuomo was not 'ruminating' as you so inappropriately called it. I know very well what ruminations are, they are philosophical thoughts. Basically, rumination means that you continuously think about the various aspects of situations that are upsetting.

Andrew Cuomo is taking the statistics of experts and taking advantage of the medical geniuses that are in some of the best hospitals in the country right there in New York. When he is given statistics about the coronavirus spread and the shear numbers will balloon, he knows exactly how many ventilators and ICU beds NY will need and they are sorely prepared for. These are facts. That is not ruminating. Find yourself another brand new 'fancy word' to use here, one that actually is pertinent to what you're attempting to convey.

 

I suppose the better question here is that if, as democrats want, we have socialized medicine, do folks over the age of 60 then have a "duty to die" because the socialist find it more beneficial to save younger patients? Ask Italy. Ask Spain. These are the models democrats are trying to emulate in this country.

 

The New Mafia ( ) capo was ruminating about letting old people die. That's what I wrote. You just defined ^ the manner in which he spoke confirming my proper use of the word.

Thanks, but you really are wasting your time.

^ Has NOTHING to do with what I wrote = straw man.


Sheesh...

 

Right wingers are simply formulating a FINAL SOLUTION. In Nazi Germany, they blamed the JEWS for wrecking the economy, and not allowing the DESERVING to prosper. Now, they blame the libs. And make no mistake, they will send us to the ovens, or force our labor, upon threat of deprivation, if we do not toe the line.

The bible talks about a man shall not buy nor sell save he take the mark. The forced labor is that mark.

Any that are vulnerable, and choose to stay home, will be disallowed from unemployment or sick leave. Any Governor that does not open up the work in his state, will likewise be threatened with deprivations.

 

You work to get wages for a week's work, and then have to spend several weeks wages on treatment for a disease. It doesn't make economical sense. Would you work on a broken leg, or keep off it for as much as possible? Economics is not about the short term, it's a long term game. These proposals are not keeping the economy going, it's rephrasing essential workers into expendable positions. Ironically enough this might be a problem of too low an unemployment rate. Everyone has jobs, and there's no one to replace them when they get sick.

 

Geez,.. stop reading from the NDP handbook. It isn't conservatives the nation has to fear, but it's folks, like you, who are working so hard to deflect attention from the policies you actually do support that guarantee the continuance of your BS plantation. The only final solution conservatives want is a nation that respects the rights and liberties of our people. It's democrats who can't abide by that. So why would you paint such an honest picture of your own reflection?

 

Trump HOPE of workers flouting the virus by EASTER, will turn into threats if you don't. MARK MY WORDS.

 

They think if we or rather the virus OFFs all the EATERS, as Ayn Rand puts it, they will have pie in the sky..


AND, it saves the Social Security system for them.

 

Yeah I don't want to see people suffer their just desserts for stupid policy decisions.

 

Neither did the Jews, and when they were locked in the showers to die, they piled up in heeps, hoping to live for just one more breath, using the others to climb upon. Far from the gov and Glen Beck giving their lives for the economy, they too are in actuality, climbing upon their fellow citizens, to get another breath.

 

Using the word 'RUMINATING' is completely inappropriate and incorrect. Have a great life Bob, bye.

 

That's really not the best way to think about this. Try a different metaphor. Maybe not a Holocaust one.

 

No idea what you mean by "slight". But the question on the poll is not a suicide pact. It's a murder pact.

Patrick presents it as "suicide". It's not!

You keep quoting numbers. Here is the source for mine. I'd appreciate if you quote your source.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/18...of-risk-confirms-young-adults-not-invincible/

It's definitely more than 5%. It's more than 10%. 10% is the baseline. At least 10% would die. But we don't know how much more. These numbers refer to people who were treated or, at least, diagnosed. If the pandemic were allowed to run wild, many people would die without treatment. For many reasons. Including lack of access, lack of resources, ignorance and others...

We probably will not have eradicated it by July, but we may be able to contain it. We're not going to do that if we do what Patrick suggests.

The probability of an 80 year old of dying of coronavirus in the absence of coronavirus would be... let me do the math... hmphphh 2 times... hmphh square rooot of.... hmphh hmmph...

Well, waddaya know! They're zero!

Your point?

This discussion is not about "other ailments". It's about coronavirus. The rest of your post is a strawman.

 

Of course you didn't. You claimed that we would not. And my question was, where do you draw that assumption from?

As for the rest of your post... "released criminals"... "gang rape"...? God! Too much TV!

Just answer the question....

Maybe the question should be "do you know what 'control the virus' means?". But I'll just assume that you do.

 

They don't realize that it will be.

 

I served in Vietnam. I went there with the understanding that I might not come back. However, I fully expected to come back. This is almost exactly the same thing. We do things which risk our life for the better good. Would I put my life on the line in these circumstances? Absolutely.

If I thought there would be no chance of survival? Who knows? I have lived a full life and don't expect to live that many more years anyway.

 

In reality, is is NEITHER. It is a slight increase in risk that does not include certainty for any individual. It is no more murder than it is murder for Ford to manufacture an automobile.

If you are so certain of it being a murder pact, please explain how this qualifies as a murder pact and yet Ford Motor Company producing automobiles does not?

Please cut back on nonsensical bombacity.

Hmmm....So you dont like me making it clear that I am providing a 10% estimate by saying it is "probably", but you want to be given credit for giving a link to a 10% death statistic for those over 80 WITH Coronavirus which at this point is already common knowledge, and then you follow that up with that statement "Sooner or later they will come in contact with somebody or something that carries the virus"

I am left to wonder, where is your link for THAT claim? Oh it doesnt exist? You are just guessing and PRETENDING like it is a fact. So I am wrong for clearly letting you know that I am making an educated guess, but you are clean as a whistle because you pretend like your claim is the gospel while knowing full well it is unprovable. It seems to me that I am the one being honest, and YOU are the one being deceitful

you failed to follow the logic. Not every person over 80 is going to contract the virus. Oh I forgot, you are bogusly PRETENDING like they would.

Eradicated? Where is your link for this claim?

The CDC disagrees with your all encompassing claim. I am left to ponder...whom should I trust. Your or the CDC?.....hmmm
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/09...ut-impact-could-be-blunted-cdc-official-says/

My point had not one thing to do with the Coronavirus. It was regarding the odds of an 80year old plus person dying spe ifically in the absence of Coronavirus.

The question that I have is do you honestly think that you can render my point as non existent simply by changing the subject? LOL.....thats silly.

My retort to your OP was that "It is not a matter of giving up one's life for the good of the economy. It is a matter of a very slight increase in the risk of losing your life for the good of the economy." We have been debating that point ever since.

In light of the above reality, other ailments are ABSOLUTELY relevant to the overall risk of an older person dying. While Coronavirus is certainly an aspect of our conversation it is not the only aspect.

You really need to stop deflecting, and actually address the substance of what others say.....at least if you want to maintain any shred of credibility
that is. Perhaps that train has long since left the station.

 

Already explained.

Look into Eastern Ukraine for en example of how society can literally descend into chaos.
If you think the US can never experience that - look into crime and looking after hurricane Katrina.
When criminals realize that cops won’t come, you will see how quickly seemingly civilized society descends into medieval mentality in a matter of days.

Already did.

Just drop this crap.
We both know what we are talking about.
We can’t control/eradicate flu and cold viruses - we will never control or eradicate this one as well. Absolute majority will eventually get it and those would would be killed by it today, will be killed by it tomorrow at best.

 

What nonsense! Other infirmities and illnesses are not your decision. What Patrick suggests is. If people just start going out, they will be deciding the death of many people. That is your decision. You decide if it's a good idea to let the virus run wild, thereby sealing the fate of thousands... we don't know if hundreds of thousands or even millions....

My question has plenty of merit. You are obviously evading it. You're not required to respond to it on this forum. But you may be required to answer it to yourself. And you damn well better be aware of what it is you are deciding and what the consequences are. Because Patrick certainly isn't.

 

Your question has no merit because you are phrasing it like death is an absolute result for a specific person. Death might be an absolute result for some of the people, but not for a specific person.

 

How many other lives are you willing to put on the line with you?

This very far from being "the same thing" as VietNam.

 

You keep saying "slight". I assume this post finally has some reference that explain what that means.

Your comparison is absurd. Automobiles kill people when they are misused. What you defend is killing people for money. There are others things that this would be more appropriately compared to.

Huh? I give credit to a study by a serious organization. I don't give credit to a "probably" that somebody pulls out of the wrong cavity of their body.

Stop evading and show your references to this "slight" nonsense.

You want me to give you a link that proves that 80 year old people "probably"" touch things that other people have touched before?

And you refuse to show a link of your main argument until I do?

Yeah... I'm "guessing and pretending" that it's a fact that, if the virus is allowed to run wild, most 80 year olds, given enough time will eventually come in contact with somebody or something that could transmit the virus to them.

Now.... with that "revelation" out of the way.... are you "guessing and pretending" that the increase in their chances to die are "slight"? Or that only 50% of them will be infected? Or of... anything whatsoever you have claimed?

No! And "educated guess" is based on being "educated" by something. In other words... a study... personal experience... an article by an expert... something. You know... like my "educated guess" that most (much more than 50%) of people over 80 will eventually get infected and, according to the study, at least 10% of them will die as well as my "educated guess" that they touch things... I can show you links of 80 year olds touching things or hugging people, if that's what you require to show any sort of evidence for any of your claims.

I say: "We probably will not have eradicated it by July,"
You respond: "The CDC disagrees..."

And your reference says on the title "Coronavirus spread could last into next year..."

Do I even have to ...

Ok.... You're wasting our time. If you are trying to make a point.... make your point. State it and show your references. You don't have to show references of trivial obvious statements. For example, the statement "old people who come in contact with infected objects or people can become infected" is central to your argument, you don't have to prove it. But if you were to claim "old people who come in contact with infected objects or people cannot become infected" then you do need to prove it. See the difference? In other words, demanding that I "prove" obvious things is not the same as you "proving" (showing evidence) of non-obvious things.

Once and for all, let's see you make a point and show some sort of verifiable reference to questionable statements like "the increase in mortality is slight" ... or anything like that