This was how you started the thread:

This is setting up an entire generation for loss to save a generation who already had prosperity.

If you were making arguments on how to deal with this crisis for all of the country or humanity...fine.

But it comes across as “woe is me, and every other under-25-er.” (Quote: “This message is sponsored by the young folks (sub 25) who were really trying to make it and were months away from launching into the lives we were building.“). (Thread Title: “ A Word From The Young People.”)

Yeah, that sounds sanctimonious...and entitled. And DC8 called you on it.

Being dismissive with “Aw gee, face palm” or “thanks for the lecture” to logical counterpoints suggests an unwillingness to consider new data or views, and an unearned smugness.

The medical and political response has been late, underrated, overrated, ignorant, overconfident, excessive, and insufficient...largely because too much was unknown, and initial data was sometimes flawed. But when it appeared that ICUs would be overrun with severe cases, measures were taken to slow the spread down...not stop it.

Was it the right thing to do? I don’t know. I’d guess probably for the first month or two. Should it be relaxed now? Maybe. But the new peaks in cases seem to be coincidental with re-openings in some states...or large throngs of mobs.

I can think of five major economic upheavals in my lifetime...this one is the worst, in my view. Balancing a financial cost versus a human cost is a moral as well as numerical question when deciding how to proceed.

But who will it affect the most? Other than those who die, or are left with lifetime lung scarring, from a business perspective, I think the small business owner. The big retailers often fall into the “essential” services category, and banks...and government...will be supportive of loans, grants, and incentives. They can recover.

Tougher for the little guy, especially in a services-industry.

It’s not about age.

uhhh...Smallpox was eradicated in 1980.



Granted, two labs still have frozen samples, the State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology (also called the Vector Institute), located near Novosibirsk in Siberia and another at the CDC. But they are fairly secure and don’t just let anyone access them. Of course, the genome has been worked out...I suppose you could BUILD the virus de novo if you had the time, money, and expertise.

But the point is, we had AN EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE (if somewhat hazardous) vaccine in the Cowpox and later (after it mutated) Vaccinia virus. And it still took 180 years And decades and decades of international cooperation to get rid of smallpox. And it is The ONLY virus that has ever been eliminated through vaccination.

Well, the think of all the layover crew intermixing network opportunities that are now gone

And to the OP, if you wanna cry about how bad the “younger” people have it, there’s already a thread in the Hangar Talk section about it.

One thing I want to add to our dialogue...

In order to have the best possible outcome, we have to act as if a vaccine is possible. People need hope to aspire to, which will help with mitigation compliance. It's a virtuous circle that will save lives.

I've seen you mention repeatedly that you don't think a vaccine is on the horizon. That we should adapt and move on. I don't think you fully grasp how dire that future will look like. You're basically asking half of all consumers to sit out indefinitely. And I know the fatality rate is low, but people will still avoid COVID because even though it won't kill you, it could very well put you in the hospital. Not many are willing to endure that pain for no reward.

In your scenario: Half of America sidelined. Virus still running rampant. No hope because vaccines are presumed to fail. It'll be a post-apocalyptic hellscape by Christmas.

Or we do what we can to contain the spread. Hire 200,000 contact tracers. Masks, hygiene, and strategic lockdowns to quell outbreaks. And maybe we can survive long enough that when a vaccine is produced, there's a society ready to receive it.

That sounds fantastic and I’ll happily be one of the 200,000 as a volunteer. But is it possible? Will the Karen’s who say they won’t wear masks for the same reason they don’t wear underwear play along? Or won’t we just circle back to square one? Some follow, some don’t. We’re really in a pickle here.

That's a good read, thanks, but JFC the CDC needs to get it together. I will point out that antibody studies were relatively inaccurate until recently. Abbot Labs is apparently accurate, but earlier tests gave people false positives if they had other coronaviruses that cause the common cold. Still though, it appears the the virus was much more prevalent than previously believed. Hopefully the Abbot Labs tests can start giving more accurate trend data.

So what’s the point? Prohibition made sense. Prohibition was the logical thing to do. It was the scientific thing to do. It was unequivocally legal, voted in by a supermajority - a bipartisan supermajority - of Congress, and overwhelmingly ratified by a bipartisan supermajority of state legislatures. And it isn’t like you can’t live without booze - Followers of Islam do. Mormons pretty much do.

But in the end it didn’t matter, because the cost of enforcement - in money and moral authority - exceeded the cost of repealing Prohibition. So it was repealed, by overwhelming bipartisan majorities, oftentimes by the very same politicians who had enacted it to begin with.

People want what they want, not what is best for them.

I believe Excargodog was making your point on your behalf to WutFace.

I see your point, but you sort of glossed over the criminal landscape that was created by prohibition. I don’t believe mask enforcement would be quite the same as the days of Al Capone and his contemporaries.

This is more like seat belts and car seats.

Interestingly there is evidence that seat belt laws cause more accidents and have no effect or actually increase auto deaths. While seatbelts generally do decrease fatalities in those that wear them, the theory is that people who are mandated to wear seatbelts feel safer in their car and as result drive more recklessly than they would have otherwise. This results in more accidents and and an increase in fatalities by those not covered by the law (cyclists, pedestrians, back seat passengers, etc).

Edit: It is similar in theory to designs of Hans Monderman, who removed street signs and markings as a way to increase safety. They found people drove more cautiously in those situations and were forced to be more aware of what was going on around them.