We can debate philosophically the about the 30 year anti-government marketing campaign, or we can fix problems. Your call.

Like I said earlier, I'm comparing this to a moonshot. Which was very well defined in its objective and scope. This is no different.

Imagine the WPA, but for CDC Contact tracers. 100,000 of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_...Administration

 

The whole country was founded and codified on “anti-government.”

Everything I pointed out IS within the intended parameters of our government.

Who said, “there are no solutions, there are only compromises?” Was it Thomas Sowell? That quote just popped into my nugget.

Your premise is a false choice.

Anyway... airlines and stuff.

 

Getting back to COVID-19, the most recent NYC fatality data show 99.43% of fatalities had at least one underlying condition. Weeks ago this number was lower, but once obesity was found as the most significant correlate to death and included in the data scientific evidence became abundantly clear, although increasingly politically incorrect.

Perhaps this is why opinion is related to political belief? The data increasingly shows those that are at risk for COVID-19 are those that have not maintained their own health, those that do not take their health seriously and those that do not accept responsibility for their own health outcomes. It contradicts the foundations of current progressive thought and culture at it's core. We do have individual decisions to make, and nobody but ourselves is responsible. Those that are at risk have made bad decisions, and contrary to popular belief the corporation they work for and the government they are underneath can not keep them in a "safe space" when they disregard their own health choices.

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/down...04252020-1.pdf

 

If you're going to try to fat shame America back to work, good luck buddy.

 

Not at all. Just pointing out how easy it is to disregard abundantly clear evidence because reality doesn't fit agendas and ideologies. Looking at the data there is no debate about who is at risk, which makes the continued lockdown of those healthy and children all that more criminal.

 

I think it has more to do with empathy. How far does your circle extend? If you're willing to throw people you don't know and will never meet under the bus to save your own job, then you're probably going to be okay with relaxing the lockdown.

But if you're concerned about others outside of your immediate bubble, maybe the life cost would be more than you'd be willing to accept.

The fact of the matter is that your post is 100% conjecture.

 

You've used the "to save your own job," line in multiple posts. You realize the a global depression means more than just losing a job, correct?

Talk about shaming.

 

Empathy is a two way street. Society can only do so much to minimize the impact of preventable illness.

I’ll be the first to admit I’m not as healthy as I could be. If I followed evidence I should be a vegan (or close to it) and never drink again, but I accept those risks.

To me it seems very self-absorbed to knowingly live an unhealthy lifestyle and then demand society destroy itself to avoid the consequences of previous decisions.

I think there is a middle way that can be followed, locking up healthy people and children isn’t part of that.

 

Why would they just be worried about themselves? That's a fairly cynical thing to say. Any history textbook or google search would illuminate the deaths and shortened lifespans resulting from a depression. How can that be waived away?

If we were concerned about 50,000 deaths we could ban cigarettes, sugar, fast food and lower the speed limit -- that would save hundreds of thousands every year.

But we don't.

 

I agree. No one wants society to destroy itself and there needs to be an endgame. But where we differ is how to resolve the next 6-12 months.

I look at the plan that's laid out in front of us and think that it's not enough. And that opening up will be more damaging than continued lockdown and preparation. You see the existing lockdown and the damage that it's causing and want it to resolve, optimistic that things will improve going forward.

It's that 6 month vision is where we differ.