WutFace

You have any evidence for this claim? Or is this purely based on a hunch?

Have you ever seen the aftermath of a wildfire? It doesn't burn in a straight line, nor does it burn 100% of the trees and grass. It's splotchy. It burns in waves and changes directions with the winds.

And that's how this virus will spread without intervention. COVID-19 hotspots will travel in waves across the country, hitting and re-hitting the same towns over again. Skipping regions completely only to double back the next season. The idea that "everyone will eventually be infected" will take years. What you think is faster will be much slower, and much more deadly. There's not a single reputable expert on the planet that will advocate for the 'let it ride' zero intervention approach.

threeighteen

Have you ever fought a wildfire? you've probably never cut a firebreak in your life.... but if you're going to make that comparison, which is a pretty good one, it's important to note that fighting a wildfire is good job security, but a fool's mission. By fighting wildfires, we just make the next season's fires worse. Which is great for anyone in the business of fighting them, the better they do their job, the more job security they get for next year. But it's bad for the forests and the surrounding areas. Now for viruses... If we hit everyone with the same strain of the flu at the same time, the flu virus would die out. But instead we just vaccinate and let it come and go in continuous waves. Flatten the curve... even if it costs more lives in the long run, it's much more politically acceptable the short term. This is pure politics at this point. Not science.

Wildfires need to happen, herd immunity needs to happen. Fighting either just makes the next wave worse. Let's do a controlled burn with the virus. Lock up the at risk, do the controlled burn, wait for the fire to go out, let the at-risk back out. At this point, we have a pretty good idea of who's going to die from this and who's not. Let's use that information to our advantage instead of continuing down this road to nowhere.

cezzna

https://youtu.be/fBg17oBmFIQ

vikingfan

I love guys who posts crap like this. Like the constitution has no meaning.

But who is saying let it ride, let it burn out. What most constitutionalists are saying is that its not the governments right to mandate anything....there isn't a pandemic clause in the constitution.

And just because those of us that demand the freedoms the constitution guarantees from a tyrannical government doesn't mean we are gambling. We accept that humans can take recommendations from a government and implement them and determine their own level of risk. My acceptance of risk has no effect on you not accepting risk.

But I still stand by the fact that the actions of governments around the world will result in many more deaths in the long run than the virus. People don't believe this, but you would be amazed at the number of children that die around the world in poverty each year and if you don't think the 1st world nations falling into a depression will have an effect on these numbers then you are extremely naive.

Destroying billions to save millions is a losing proposition.

So I say this...if you want to hide under your bed because of the virus then you are free to do so. YOU can guarantee that you and your family never get the virus by never venturing outside your home. But demanding that everyone else does the same is violating their constitutional rights.

drywhitetoast

All know the facts as of today. Total US cases.

9 dead under age 19
45 dead under age 30
190 dead under age 40
413 dead under age 50

Interpret that as you will.

https://ourworldindata.org/mortality...ovid-19-by-age

and

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisiona...9bhg-hcku/data

Allegheny

Does the State, that is, either the Federal or various state governments have the power to enforce laws or edicts regarding social distancing, the closing or opening of businesses, or even vaccination? Yes ! These questions were decided over 100 years ago by the United States Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

U.S. Supreme Court

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
No. 70
Argued December 6, 1904
Decided February 20, 1905
197 U.S. 11
…We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as natural persons are concerned.

Tom Bradys Cat

Wutface, pretty ironic first post. You have categorised everyone that disagrees with you as a fool in the most extelreme sence. In doing so you have placing them at the most extreme end on the discourse spectrum. The irony in doing so clearly shows your extreme views and importantly how you are percieving the other side of the argument.

Inkoreausa

Give it up....So sick and tired of the liberal oh noooooooooo......”we are doooooomed!”. If you’re at risk then shelter in place. For others then carry on. Liberals go **** off.

Tom Bradys Cat

This whole argument should be reframed into two camps:

'Can I go outside please, you don't have to come with me" crowd. And the "no if im inside, you also need to stay inside" crowd.

And when it is put like that perhaps people may see it differently.

heck. If there was a zombie apocolypse and someone wanted to go out I wouldnt stop them.

It appears there are some on here who want to do the risk assessment for me. And since we have reached this point please give me your phone number so I can confer with you everytime I want to do something with any risk. Seems reasonable if we are heading that way.

rickair7777

"Reputable experts" don't have to answer for the economy. That's like the Captain running the ship aground because the cook recommended that he not turn the ship while they were washing the china.

What is the point of lockdown now? Everybody bought curve flattening, but that's done. Now what?

If everyone getting infected will take years without a lockdown, how long will it take with a lockdown, decades?

You're proposing indefinite lockdown...

Or are we waiting for the vaccine that all the pessimists say will never arrive?