|
Post by Kingsley on Apr 11, 2020 21:10:28 GMT -5
While COVID is a highly contagious and infectious virus, mainstream media has taken this and turned it into the black plague. If you watch COVID NEWS NETWORK, one would think that half of NYC has COVID, is dying, and the bodies are being buried in mass graves. It just isn't that way. YES, there are over 6,000 deaths in NYC from COVID and 100,000 confirmed COVID cases. That's a lot! NYC is our Wuhan. But let's keep a little perspective here...NYC has over 20 MILLION residents. That means one half of one percent of NYC has gotten the virus. Not one percent. One half of one percent. And of that group, 6 percent of the one half of one percent have died. Pandemics are going to hit places like NYC especially hard: Several areas of NYC have populations of almost 70,000 people PER SQUARE MILE. That's only 400 square feet of space - public and private - per person. No other metro area in the US even comes close to this population density. Many metro areas in Texas have only 2000 people PER SQUARE MILE. Social distancing is a way of life. Most people don't take subways, trains or buses. There are very few 30 story apartment buildings in Texas. Most people live in one or two story apartment dwellings or single family residences. Texas ain't NYC, and neither is the rest of the country. We need to get back to some common sense here and quit listening to the CNN guys for a while. 1) Bodies are, in fact, being buried in mass graves in New York. I've even linked a CNN article, because I know you'd appreciate that. 2) Citing a 6% death rate is not the best way to downplay the severity of the virus. 6% is terrible. 3) Arguing that a small percentage of NYC residents have been infected is largely irrelevant given the current availability of testing. 4) Please pardon the "mainstream media" for covering the deaths of thousands of people. Maybe it's a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by volleydadtx on Apr 11, 2020 21:21:01 GMT -5
what's really funny on CNN are headlines like this:
"The US is reporting 20,000 coronavirus deaths, more than any other country" It's as if CNN believes all countries are the exact same size and demographic.
Well now gee now, we are the 3rd largest country on the planet, with the most mobile and international population on the planet. Wouldn't it make sense that we would have more deaths than Finland, Sweden, and all of those other tiny little countries? Exactly how many people is India testing for COVID?
And do we really need to keep citing "China" in all of this, as if we can believe a single word they say, or number that they report? Give me a break already.
|
|
|
Post by dman on Apr 11, 2020 21:39:33 GMT -5
While COVID is a highly contagious and infectious virus, mainstream media has taken this and turned it into the black plague. If you watch COVID NEWS NETWORK, one would think that half of NYC has COVID, is dying, and the bodies are being buried in mass graves. It just isn't that way. YES, there are over 6,000 deaths in NYC from COVID and 100,000 confirmed COVID cases. That's a lot! NYC is our Wuhan. But let's keep a little perspective here...NYC has over 20 MILLION residents. That means one half of one percent of NYC has gotten the virus. Not one percent. One half of one percent. And of that group, 6 percent of the one half of one percent have died. Pandemics are going to hit places like NYC especially hard: Several areas of NYC have populations of almost 70,000 people PER SQUARE MILE. That's only 400 square feet of space - public and private - per person. No other metro area in the US even comes close to this population density. Many metro areas in Texas have only 2000 people PER SQUARE MILE. Social distancing is a way of life. Most people don't take subways, trains or buses. There are very few 30 story apartment buildings in Texas. Most people live in one or two story apartment dwellings or single family residences. Texas ain't NYC, and neither is the rest of the country. We need to get back to some common sense here and quit listening to the CNN guys for a while. Nailed it!
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Apr 11, 2020 22:24:08 GMT -5
I really do NOT want this thread locked due to all the political tongue wagging because my ultimate dream is for this thread to live long enough for Poll #44. We're at #3 now, so, you know, we've got a long way to go. #44 would be pretty cool. #45 would be a complete mess, though
|
|
|
Post by winesalot on Apr 11, 2020 22:38:28 GMT -5
I really do NOT want this thread locked due to all the political tongue wagging because my ultimate dream is for this thread to live long enough for Poll #44. We're at #3 now, so, you know, we've got a long way to go. #44 would be pretty cool. #45 would be a complete mess, though I was hoping for #46...around November?
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Apr 11, 2020 22:43:43 GMT -5
A discussion on reopening the country is relevant to everything, including volleyball. On this upcoming Tuesday, we are promised that council members will be named/appointed to advise POTUS on reopening the country, followed by some yet unspecified schedule of meetings to discuss how and when to begin. I'd expect they'd eventually get around to discussing sports, although I'd expect that would be somewhere near the bottom of the priority list.
As it stands, most of the country is shelter-in-place with varying degrees of lockdown through April. Governors have flexibility to manage their states, although the Feds step in when Governors are failing or request help.
One would have hoped that prior to a nationwide lockdown, something never tried before, that there would have been a draft plan in place for how and when to reopen. Apparently, that is not the case. If such a draft existed, at this point it is probably not worth the paper it was printed on. This plane is being built while trying to fly it.
There is a continual attempt to paint staying closed as the rational, even virtuous, path. But the truth is that extended lockdowns will at some point reach diminishing returns, and collateral damage of lockdowns will begin to cost more lives than they save. A rather important detail that has not been adequately presented to the public, yet.
Will Governors be allowed to manage when and how their states reopen? At what point would the feds step in if some states open too slow, or too fast. Will the feds and states cooperate, or fight each other? Will individual freedoms and constitutional rights be respected?
NY and NJ account for ~half of the countrie's cases and deaths. Add to that Michigan, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Illinois, and you get to ~70% of the nations cases and deaths. Clearly, some parts of the country have more of a COVID-19 problem than others. Having a good idea why this is the case might be important to informing how to reopen the country. Given the disparity between the hotspots and the rest of country, a one size fits all solution regarding lockdowns and reopening doesn't on the face of it seem the answer.
The rural parts of the country where population density is low, where cases are few and fatality rates lower should likely open first. They appear ready to open now, as long as they have a rational testing plan in place, and a plan to reimpose if some appropriate threshold is reached.
But in these broad swaths of the country, enforcement of lockdowns was always going to be greeted skeptically. These folks were already socially isolated. Where population density is measured in single digits per square mile, where they already spend most of winter and large parts of the early spring huddled in homes because it's freezing cold outside, where the nearest town is far away, and typically a small town, social isolation and 'lockdown' isn't much of change. I can look at the GIS map of cases across the country and see many areas where this is the case.
My 87 year old mother lives in one them. She gets the media blast about the dangers everyday, and her State which has a large urban area hundreds of miles away was impacted and the whole State was shutdown. Her circle of friends of course are scared. But her part of the country didn't have a case until about a week ago, when some fool decided to vacation in California and brought it back. But even that case was a hundred miles away from her small town. Her town could begin opening up now, if only testing were readily available and a plan and resources in place to manage it.
|
|
|
Post by winesalot on Apr 11, 2020 22:45:59 GMT -5
While COVID is a highly contagious and infectious virus, mainstream media has taken this and turned it into the black plague. If you watch COVID NEWS NETWORK, one would think that half of NYC has COVID, is dying, and the bodies are being buried in mass graves. It just isn't that way. YES, there are over 6,000 deaths in NYC from COVID and 100,000 confirmed COVID cases. That's a lot! NYC is our Wuhan. But let's keep a little perspective here...NYC has over 20 MILLION residents. That means one half of one percent of NYC has gotten the virus. Not one percent. One half of one percent. And of that group, 6 percent of the one half of one percent have died. Pandemics are going to hit places like NYC especially hard: Several areas of NYC have populations of almost 70,000 people PER SQUARE MILE. That's only 400 square feet of space - public and private - per person. No other metro area in the US even comes close to this population density. Many metro areas in Texas have only 2000 people PER SQUARE MILE. Social distancing is a way of life. Most people don't take subways, trains or buses. There are very few 30 story apartment buildings in Texas. Most people live in one or two story apartment dwellings or single family residences. Texas ain't NYC, and neither is the rest of the country. We need to get back to some common sense here and quit listening to the CNN guys for a while. Nailed it! You both just argued for social distancing as the way to combat this. I honestly don't understand why you are arguing to get back to work sooner 🤷♀️
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Apr 11, 2020 22:53:05 GMT -5
A discussion on reopening the country is relevant to everything, including volleyball. On this upcoming Tuesday, we are promised that council members will be named/appointed to advise POTUS on reopening the country, followed by some yet unspecified schedule of meetings to discuss how and when to begin. I'd expect they'd eventually get around to discussing sports, although I'd expect that would be somewhere near the bottom of the priority list. As it stands, most of the country is shelter-in-place with varying degrees of lockdown through April. Governors have flexibility to manage their states, although the Feds step in when Governors are failing or request help. One would have hoped that prior to a nationwide lockdown, something never tried before, that there would have been a draft plan in place for how and when to reopen. Apparently, that is not the case. If such a draft existed, at this point it is probably not worth the paper it was printed on. This plane is being built while trying to fly it. There is a continual attempt to paint staying closed as the rational, even virtuous, path. But the truth is that extended lockdowns will at some point reach diminishing returns, and collateral damage of lockdowns will begin to cost more lives than they save. A rather important detail that has not been adequately presented to the public, yet. Will Governors be allowed to manage when and how their states reopen? At what point would the feds step in if some states open too slow, or too fast. Will the feds and states cooperate, or fight each other? Will individual freedoms and constitutional rights be respected? NY and NJ account for ~half of the countrie's cases and deaths. Add to that Michigan, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Illinois, and you get to ~70% of the nations cases and deaths. Clearly, some parts of the country have more of a COVID-19 problem than others. Having a good idea why this is the case might be important to informing how to reopen the country. Given the disparity between the hotspots and the rest of country, a one size fits all solution regarding lockdowns and reopening doesn't on the face of it seem the answer. The rural parts of the country where population density is low, where cases are few and fatality rates lower should likely open first. They appear ready to open now, as long as they have a rational testing plan in place, and a plan to reimpose if some appropriate threshold is reached. But in these broad swaths of the country, enforcement of lockdowns was always going to be greeted skeptically. These folks were already socially isolated. Where population density is measured in single digits per square mile, where they already spend most of winter and large parts of the early spring huddled in homes because it's freezing cold outside, where the nearest town is far away, and typically a small town, social isolation and 'lockdown' isn't much of change. I can look at the GIS map of cases across the country and see many areas where this is the case. My 87 year old mother lives in one them. She gets the media blast about the dangers everyday, and her State which has a large urban area hundreds of miles away was impacted and the whole State was shutdown. Her circle of friends of course are scared. But her part of the country didn't have a case until about a week ago, when some fool decided to vacation in California and brought it back. But even that case was a hundred miles away from her small town. Her town could begin opening up now, if only testing were readily available and a plan and resources in place to manage it. "I don't understand the concept of more complex plans taking more time", you say. Putting lockdowns in place isn't something you can easily do on a case-by-case basis when there's an imminent problem. Same reason a state of emergency will be called for a whole state even if the problem is just in one city. The plane is being built as its flown because despite repeated warnings in december and january, and despite numerous exercises demonstrating the need for a plan in the face of a pandemic over the last few years, there was never a plan put together. I told you this a few times over the last few days, but there are much more intelligent people than you or I on both the economic and medical sides of this who have deemed that we should stay closed. If you think you can make a better decision, I encourage you to run for public office and make a change.
|
|
Jim Dietz
Freshman
"Neighbor is not a geographic term, it is a moral concept." Joachim Prinz, rabbi
Posts: 86
|
Post by Jim Dietz on Apr 11, 2020 23:43:14 GMT -5
Each individual state will be in control of when it opens up/ends social distancing, just as states are free to enforce it. The federal government has no say in this--that's part of the 'rights reserved to the States' portion of the Constitution, for better or worse. Historically, FDR tried to mandate federal policy over the states during the Depression and failed in a 1935 Supreme Court ruling which said the federal government had no right at all to impose policies on states, even in cases where there were a clear emergency, and also that 'economic emergency' is never grounds for imposing policy on the states (the case had something to do with selling chicken, but I do not remember off the top of my head the case name) The chaos is not solvable with our system, for better and worse. Better because there's a limit to the power the central government can wield and worse for that same reason. A singular response is impossible--it wouldn't matter if it was Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, or George Washington (a Republican, a Democrat, and a no-party-at-all person...I just didn't give a Whig example). The only power the feds really have is turning money over to the states, handing gear to the states, and then letting the states manage it. The president's power here is 'the bully pulpit' to encourage a way forward in consistent fashion. It isn't a question of liking Trump--he has failed in this regard. There has not been a consistent policy from either the executive or legislative branches. A discussion on reopening the country is relevant to everything, including volleyball. On this upcoming Tuesday, we are promised that council members will be named/appointed to advise POTUS on reopening the country, followed by some yet unspecified schedule of meetings to discuss how and when to begin. I'd expect they'd eventually get around to discussing sports, although I'd expect that would be somewhere near the bottom of the priority list. As it stands, most of the country is shelter-in-place with varying degrees of lockdown through April. Governors have flexibility to manage their states, although the Feds step in when Governors are failing or request help. One would have hoped that prior to a nationwide lockdown, something never tried before, that there would have been a draft plan in place for how and when to reopen. Apparently, that is not the case. If such a draft existed, at this point it is probably not worth the paper it was printed on. This plane is being built while trying to fly it. There is a continual attempt to paint staying closed as the rational, even virtuous, path. But the truth is that extended lockdowns will at some point reach diminishing returns, and collateral damage of lockdowns will begin to cost more lives than they save. A rather important detail that has not been adequately presented to the public, yet. Will Governors be allowed to manage when and how their states reopen? At what point would the feds step in if some states open too slow, or too fast. Will the feds and states cooperate, or fight each other? Will individual freedoms and constitutional rights be respected? NY and NJ account for ~half of the countrie's cases and deaths. Add to that Michigan, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Illinois, and you get to ~70% of the nations cases and deaths. Clearly, some parts of the country have more of a COVID-19 problem than others. Having a good idea why this is the case might be important to informing how to reopen the country. Given the disparity between the hotspots and the rest of country, a one size fits all solution regarding lockdowns and reopening doesn't on the face of it seem the answer. The rural parts of the country where population density is low, where cases are few and fatality rates lower should likely open first. They appear ready to open now, as long as they have a rational testing plan in place, and a plan to reimpose if some appropriate threshold is reached. But in these broad swaths of the country, enforcement of lockdowns was always going to be greeted skeptically. These folks were already socially isolated. Where population density is measured in single digits per square mile, where they already spend most of winter and large parts of the early spring huddled in homes because it's freezing cold outside, where the nearest town is far away, and typically a small town, social isolation and 'lockdown' isn't much of change. I can look at the GIS map of cases across the country and see many areas where this is the case. My 87 year old mother lives in one them. She gets the media blast about the dangers everyday, and her State which has a large urban area hundreds of miles away was impacted and the whole State was shutdown. Her circle of friends of course are scared. But her part of the country didn't have a case until about a week ago, when some fool decided to vacation in California and brought it back. But even that case was a hundred miles away from her small town. Her town could begin opening up now, if only testing were readily available and a plan and resources in place to manage it.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 11, 2020 23:45:05 GMT -5
A discussion on reopening the country is relevant to everything, including volleyball. On this upcoming Tuesday, we are promised that council members will be named/appointed to advise POTUS on reopening the country, followed by some yet unspecified schedule of meetings to discuss how and when to begin. I'd expect they'd eventually get around to discussing sports, although I'd expect that would be somewhere near the bottom of the priority list. As it stands, most of the country is shelter-in-place with varying degrees of lockdown through April. Governors have flexibility to manage their states, although the Feds step in when Governors are failing or request help. One would have hoped that prior to a nationwide lockdown, something never tried before, that there would have been a draft plan in place for how and when to reopen. Apparently, that is not the case. If such a draft existed, at this point it is probably not worth the paper it was printed on. This plane is being built while trying to fly it. There is a continual attempt to paint staying closed as the rational, even virtuous, path. But the truth is that extended lockdowns will at some point reach diminishing returns, and collateral damage of lockdowns will begin to cost more lives than they save. A rather important detail that has not been adequately presented to the public, yet. Will Governors be allowed to manage when and how their states reopen? At what point would the feds step in if some states open too slow, or too fast. Will the feds and states cooperate, or fight each other? Will individual freedoms and constitutional rights be respected? NY and NJ account for ~half of the countrie's cases and deaths. Add to that Michigan, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Illinois, and you get to ~70% of the nations cases and deaths. Clearly, some parts of the country have more of a COVID-19 problem than others. Having a good idea why this is the case might be important to informing how to reopen the country. Given the disparity between the hotspots and the rest of country, a one size fits all solution regarding lockdowns and reopening doesn't on the face of it seem the answer. The rural parts of the country where population density is low, where cases are few and fatality rates lower should likely open first. They appear ready to open now, as long as they have a rational testing plan in place, and a plan to reimpose if some appropriate threshold is reached. But in these broad swaths of the country, enforcement of lockdowns was always going to be greeted skeptically. These folks were already socially isolated. Where population density is measured in single digits per square mile, where they already spend most of winter and large parts of the early spring huddled in homes because it's freezing cold outside, where the nearest town is far away, and typically a small town, social isolation and 'lockdown' isn't much of change. I can look at the GIS map of cases across the country and see many areas where this is the case. My 87 year old mother lives in one them. She gets the media blast about the dangers everyday, and her State which has a large urban area hundreds of miles away was impacted and the whole State was shutdown. Her circle of friends of course are scared. But her part of the country didn't have a case until about a week ago, when some fool decided to vacation in California and brought it back. But even that case was a hundred miles away from her small town. Her town could begin opening up now, if only testing were readily available and a plan and resources in place to manage it. I think you've misunderstood the shutdowns. The federal government has done almost nothing other than stop non-Americans from entering the country. (Well, Congress decided they aren't essential and went home) Every shutdown that has occurred has happened at the state level or lower. POUTS has given recommendations but nothing more. Similarly, the task force to re-open businesses will develop nothing more than recommendations. States are free to do what they want.
|
|
|
Post by noblesol on Apr 12, 2020 1:04:10 GMT -5
A discussion on reopening the country is relevant to everything, including volleyball. On this upcoming Tuesday, we are promised that council members will be named/appointed to advise POTUS on reopening the country, followed by some yet unspecified schedule of meetings to discuss how and when to begin. I'd expect they'd eventually get around to discussing sports, although I'd expect that would be somewhere near the bottom of the priority list. As it stands, most of the country is shelter-in-place with varying degrees of lockdown through April. Governors have flexibility to manage their states, although the Feds step in when Governors are failing or request help. One would have hoped that prior to a nationwide lockdown, something never tried before, that there would have been a draft plan in place for how and when to reopen. Apparently, that is not the case. If such a draft existed, at this point it is probably not worth the paper it was printed on. This plane is being built while trying to fly it. There is a continual attempt to paint staying closed as the rational, even virtuous, path. But the truth is that extended lockdowns will at some point reach diminishing returns, and collateral damage of lockdowns will begin to cost more lives than they save. A rather important detail that has not been adequately presented to the public, yet. Will Governors be allowed to manage when and how their states reopen? At what point would the feds step in if some states open too slow, or too fast. Will the feds and states cooperate, or fight each other? Will individual freedoms and constitutional rights be respected? NY and NJ account for ~half of the countrie's cases and deaths. Add to that Michigan, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Illinois, and you get to ~70% of the nations cases and deaths. Clearly, some parts of the country have more of a COVID-19 problem than others. Having a good idea why this is the case might be important to informing how to reopen the country. Given the disparity between the hotspots and the rest of country, a one size fits all solution regarding lockdowns and reopening doesn't on the face of it seem the answer. The rural parts of the country where population density is low, where cases are few and fatality rates lower should likely open first. They appear ready to open now, as long as they have a rational testing plan in place, and a plan to reimpose if some appropriate threshold is reached. But in these broad swaths of the country, enforcement of lockdowns was always going to be greeted skeptically. These folks were already socially isolated. Where population density is measured in single digits per square mile, where they already spend most of winter and large parts of the early spring huddled in homes because it's freezing cold outside, where the nearest town is far away, and typically a small town, social isolation and 'lockdown' isn't much of change. I can look at the GIS map of cases across the country and see many areas where this is the case. My 87 year old mother lives in one them. She gets the media blast about the dangers everyday, and her State which has a large urban area hundreds of miles away was impacted and the whole State was shutdown. Her circle of friends of course are scared. But her part of the country didn't have a case until about a week ago, when some fool decided to vacation in California and brought it back. But even that case was a hundred miles away from her small town. Her town could begin opening up now, if only testing were readily available and a plan and resources in place to manage it. "I don't understand the concept of more complex plans taking more time", you say. Putting lockdowns in place isn't something you can easily do on a case-by-case basis when there's an imminent problem. Same reason a state of emergency will be called for a whole state even if the problem is just in one city. The plane is being built as its flown because despite repeated warnings in december and january, and despite numerous exercises demonstrating the need for a plan in the face of a pandemic over the last few years, there was never a plan put together. I told you this a few times over the last few days, but there are much more intelligent people than you or I on both the economic and medical sides of this who have deemed that we should stay closed. If you think you can make a better decision, I encourage you to run for public office and make a change. Your 1st para quote is not something I said. You're confused.
Your 2nd para re Statewide emergencies raises a good point. States do go to the Feds and ask for an emergency declaration for the whole State. But the State typically differentiates between different parts of the state in how resources and response will be provided, and what emergency policies will be locally enforced. This is done either by a plan already in place, or as the unique situation may require. Because different parts of the state are impacted more, or less, or none at all. Typically this is done by government closest to the problem that is able to respond most efficiently within the region where the crisis is at hand, be it county, city, township, etc.
COVID-19 is obviously an emergency on a national level, but ultimately efficient response requires differentiated approaches across different regions. Passing through the 1st wave peak, when looked at regionally, has already occurred in many places. In some regions there really haven't been enough cases to define a peak. It just looks like background noise, with many more deaths from the typical causes. Clearly, these areas would be the first areas that would be ready to open, with a proper testing plan in place and local government resourced to implement that plan.
As for your encouragement that I run for public office, thank you!
|
|
|
Post by silverchloride on Apr 12, 2020 1:05:47 GMT -5
Not a political argument, but I have never believed that the best and brightest people are in office and therefore know better than we the people. Of course, following the Normal curve, some are. But most are no smarter than average. Thus, the people in charge, for the most part, are no more capable than you, or me. The idea has a name; Expert Fallacy. That is why it is important to have diversity of opinion. I remember reading that it was/is the Devils Advocate (I dont have an apostrophe key) job to be skeptical and look for errors in reasoning, or at least to question the reasoning of the majority. I hope that we still do that.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 12, 2020 2:55:15 GMT -5
Not a political argument, but I have never believed that the best and brightest people are in office and therefore know better than we the people. Of course, following the Normal curve, some are. But most are no smarter than average. Thus, the people in charge, for the most part, are no more capable than you, or me. The idea has a name; Expert Fallacy. That is why it is important to have diversity of opinion. I remember reading that it was/is the Devils Advocate (I dont have an apostrophe key) job to be skeptical and look for errors in reasoning, or at least to question the reasoning of the majority. I hope that we still do that. I'm sorry, but I genuinely don't follow what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that experts can still be wrong? If so, then yes, although less often than non-experts, at least in the area where they have expertise. Or are you saying that career government officials are the same as random people off the street? I can say I have worked with some high level career government people, and they have all been pretty smart and good at their jobs. I'm not talking elected officials or political appointees, but career administrators, scientists, etc. Of course there is variation in how smart and how good.
|
|
|
Post by haw2991 on Apr 12, 2020 4:41:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blastingsand on Apr 12, 2020 6:09:40 GMT -5
bit my tongue
|
|