Life continues, no matter what. When you lock down people's businesses, prevent people from earning a livelihood, break supply chains, start evicting MILLIONS of people, put millions more into unpayable debt, the consequences are far more severe than a stressed hospital system and 300K deaths.

Hospitals can't save everyone. They can't even help everyone. They never could, and they were never supposed to. You do NOT impose martial law to try to make it possible for them to help everyone.



You can't read, can you? 12% to 40% of those hospitalized for Covid (depending on locale) are under the age of 65. That means 60-88% of those hospitalized were 65+, which makes up a mere 16.5% of the population. Since you can't math: That means the majority of working age people do not experience symptoms worthy of hospitalization. Hospitals TURN AWAY people not exhibiting severe symptoms. It's called "triage". Enough fucking excuses for why you should have a right to impose martial law on the entire working aged population of the planet.

2 separate problems

The answer to the financial problem isn’t completely compromising American lives and health. 1 out of 5 families experiencing a hospitalization is not a negligible number and medical related bankruptcy remains the single greatest threat to the middle class

The answer to the financial problem was always going to be federal assistance to the American public as opposed to the corporate welfare that is instead what occurred. No country will be recover without adequate federal aid to their citizens, something European countries accomplished significantly better than we did. The millions of evictions you are about to see, why is this an American problem given we are the richest country in the world in the setting of a GLOBAL problem

A multi level failure. To assume ok situation is fucked let’s open everything up and everything will be normal again after a tough month - not realistic. Jobs are not coming back miraculously. Global supply chains are already permanently impacted for the next year +. Federal governments around the world will have no choice but to bail out their populations until recovery can occur, which is within sight.

This post was edited by Bazi on Dec 21 2020 10:37am

So your solution is to continue lockdowns as though they've been successful in any meaningful way, print more money, and expect everything to turn out okay?

Sounds like one of us is out of touch with reality. BTW, the number of evictions that are looming come New Years Day is approximately 40 million (in the US alone). That's just renters though, that doesn't include impending foreclosures.

Your claim that, "By following the advice of medical professionals who don't know a fucking thing about economics, business, or supply chains, we've fucked things so incredibly badly that we may as well keep fucking them" seems pretty off to me. BTW, while evictions in places like Arizona or California should be fine, tell me about evictions in NY, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington, Montana... How well do homeless people (especially first time homeless) do during the coldest winter months? Here's an even better one for you: There are a total of approximately 800K beds available for the homeless, and nearly half of that is rehousing that's already occupied. There are some 930K staffed hospital beds. What happens when 40 million freezing, starving homeless start getting deathly ill, facing frostbite, malnutrition, overdoses, and any other number of nastiness, and being dropped in the laps of your overworked nurses?

This is the exact shit that we warned about prior to the first lockdown, it's the exact shit that's happened, and your answer is... Print money and keep locking down? You're fucking high, friend.

Your claim of not following medical professionals' advice in medical fields seems pretty off to me.

Martial law is not a medical field. Mass business lockdowns is not a medical field. Economies are not a medical field. Shall we legitimately examine what the experts have gotten wrong, or are we both clear on all that? Why was Taiwan stating all the way back in December of 2019 that Covid is airborne, but the CDC didn't release that fact until October?

I've mentioned it before and I'll mention it again: Covid has resulted in 1.7 million deaths worldwide. Thanks to broken supply lines that have resulted by following the boneheaded advice of "medical professionals" regarding public policy, it's currently estimated that between 100 million and 270 million will die globally by May 2021 from starvation as a direct result of broken supply chains. That can't be fixed. The food was plowed under. There's no relief to be sent. 40 million homeless Americans could easily result in anywhere from another 1 to 10 million dead Americans. Mass debt, mass business closure, mass eviction, mass starvation, and not one fucking helpful thing has been achieved by following the advice of "medical professionals". Why? Because it's a cold with nasty comorbidity impact. And doctors have NEVER managed to successfully fight or prevent a cold. They never had the first fucking clue, and had absolutely zero realistic conception of the ultimate consequences of what would happen if their advice was followed.

The largest warning was, "If you don't lock down, upwards of 20 million people could die globally!" Well, fucking congratulations genius, now you've guaranteed it.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Dec 21 2020 11:04am

Can you quote me once where I said locking down is a solution

Lot of assumptions, lot of delusion

Those are the words of those who favor lockdown. The basic argument you're making is what has been supporting lockdown efforts since April. First it was "flatten the curve" then "Until deaths reach zero" then "Until the vaccine is widely available" and now "until we can verify the vaccine prevents the spread". And why? Because if we don't do it this way, the medical system will buckle, and that'll be the end of the world.

How about we just be honest and say, "Lockdowns are nothing but a power grab, they never helped, and idiot doctors were duped into playing the fool, and thanks to their mindless support of a policy decision that was absurd on it's face, over 100 million people will die in the next 6 months, and not because of some trumped up cold, but thanks to starvation."

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Dec 21 2020 11:11am

Lockdowns objectively help the health situation when properly timed, as they are in Europe and were in NYC etc.

I have already stated they were mistimed for the vast majority of the country. I have also reiterated that lockdowns are not an option for the country right now due to the incompetency of Washington. Ergo to assume this is my stance is quite lazy

At minimum what needs to occur is recognition of what the actual problem is - ie not mortality rate, but rather hospital /staff saturation. When you can make 178/hr with a 2 year associates degree in nursing - that is a problem. You think hospitals would pay this if they had a choice lmao.

You have demonstrated a gross lack of understanding in what demographics are affected when hospital saturation occurs- stating it would only be 65+ that couldn’t protect themselves. Weren’t you the person that was arguing a week ago that hospital saturation isn’t even an issue? At that time I’m also fairly certain I went into what demographics are actually affected when it comes to hospital saturation, and a week later the same nonsense is being parroted. I’m not interested in having weekly circular conversations

what needs to occur are mitigation measures to what the American can afford, and to make things less politically charged.

This post was edited by Bazi on Dec 21 2020 11:27am

Yes, this is the case after massive lockdowns, mask mandates, and economy shattering travel restrictions.

A small fraction of people have been infected so far. It is totally uncontroversial to say that if nothing is done among the low risk population we would have reached 100% infection in the first month or two, and the amount of low risk people requiring hospitalization would have more than saturated the hospital system because of how massively they outnumber high risk people, and that says nothing of the increased risk to 65+ people even if they were taking all practical measures to isolate.

Basically, low risk people are 10% of the hospitalizations, but we've only seen a small fraction of them infected. Since the low risk people are many times the number of high risk people we would see many times more serious cases of low risk individuals than even current cases of high risk peoples.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 21 2020 11:29am