RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:01 pm
Or, we're all sick and tired of the constantly changing Covid rules and advice, half of us are out of work, we're all a bunch of blowhards, and this just happens to be a rather divisive issue.
That's the biggest problem. Constantly changing. Nobody has a target, nobody has a plan, nobody can make a decision.
At least The Globe and Mail and The National Post and others were willing to press it and sell it Far better wiring and journalism out of those outfits than the click bait news generators.
Bang on on both counts. The current plan of, “shelter in place indefinitely”, is unsatisfactory to people who think long term. I realize that Trump’s plan is unpopular in some sectors and that it is resulting in some casualties, but it is popular in other sectors because it is away forward.
I may not always agree with the Globe and Mail, but at least the writing has been proof read and is coherent.
Your news sources are obviously lacking if you think Canada is doing nothing or not moving forward.
Things are opening up here in Canada because of the steps that were taken. The usa system is not working and will result in more economic loss than if they had a coherent strategy.
RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:01 pm
Or, we're all sick and tired of the constantly changing Covid rules and advice, half of us are out of work, we're all a bunch of blowhards, and this just happens to be a rather divisive issue.
That's the biggest problem. Constantly changing. Nobody has a target, nobody has a plan, nobody can make a decision.
At least The Globe and Mail and The National Post and others were willing to press it and sell it Far better wiring and journalism out of those outfits than the click bait news generators.
Bang on on both counts. The current plan of, “shelter in place indefinitely”, is unsatisfactory to people who think long term. I realize that Trump’s plan is unpopular in some sectors and that it is resulting in some casualties, but it is popular in other sectors because it is away forward.
I may not always agree with the Globe and Mail, but at least the writing has been proof read and is coherent.
Trump has a plan? Doing nothing is hardly a plan. At least "Shelter in place" has an end-goal. Had everyone sheltered for 2 weeks, this virus would have run it's course. It can't spread if people aren't exposing each other to it.
Doing nothing accomplishes just that. Wait and hope it goes away "like a miracle". Well, it hasn't. All he is concerned about now is reelection. This is not a way forward for 350 million Americans. Only one. The US is headed for another shutdown. How's that going to affect your economy that you're all so keen to save? We're all going to pay the price for this, so let's get it over sooner by wearing masks and physical distancing so it won't hurt so much. If you're not doing at least that, then you're a large part of the problem.
I haven't really been living my life any differently than normal for the last month and a bit. I keep my distance from people and wear a mask when it's mandatory that's about it.
Just go look at the real statistics of this virus and make a choice based on your odds of dying. As someone in their 30s, healthy with no underlying medical issues that's less than .07%... I have a higher chance of dying in a plane crash. I don't really care much about the odds of getting it.
We're all eventually going to get it, the hospitals are empty so IMO no better time than now. The lock down was never to stop everyone from getting sick it was too slow the outbreak.
As for the USA, I don't know what to think. They have a huge population so obviously they are going to have more infected. It also doesn't help that tests cost money and no one can afford to actually get treatment. Plus all the obesity and underlying health issues a lot of Americans have. It's honestly really no surprise to me.
flyguy73 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:39 am
At least "Shelter in place" has an end-goal. Had everyone sheltered for 2 weeks, this virus would have run it's course. It can't spread if people aren't exposing each other to it.
Do you actually believe that as something realistic. Every store closed for two weeks, every hospital-too bad about emergencies-too bad about biths, every old folks home with people dying of thirst. And it probably would have had to be three weeks and then longer as if the billions of people around the world from New York to Calcutta would never have touched or come close to each other during this time period.
It's absolutely unrealistic and unachievable, but he's not wrong. If the whole world just sheltered in place for 2 or 3 weeks and didn't leave their homes, the virus would die a very sudden death.
fur1ough wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:42 pm
I haven't really been living my life any differently than normal for the last month and a bit. I keep my distance from people and wear a mask when it's mandatory that's about it.
Just go look at the real statistics of this virus and make a choice based on your odds of dying. As someone in their 30s, healthy with no underlying medical issues that's less than .07%... I have a higher chance of dying in a plane crash. I don't really care much about the odds of getting it.
We're all eventually going to get it, the hospitals are empty so IMO no better time than now. The lock down was never to stop everyone from getting sick it was too slow the outbreak.
As for the USA, I don't know what to think. They have a huge population so obviously they are going to have more infected. It also doesn't help that tests cost money and no one can afford to actually get treatment. Plus all the obesity and underlying health issues a lot of Americans have. It's honestly really no surprise to me.
Wearing a mask and keeping your distance isn't only about keeping YOU safe, it's about not transmitting asymptomatic cases to others. Just because your likelihood of dying is low, you have a very high likelihood of passing it on to others, who might very well die. So just don't get it.
I work in a hospital. I see the amount of effort and money put into making the hospital a safe place to be. Please don't undo all this hard work by being a jackass and getting COVID-19 like those stupid Americans who host COVID parties. https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-hospit ... ovid-party
And yes, more people means more cases, but their per capita infection rate is 4x that of Canada. Right now they have 20x Canada's per capita infection rate right now. Total deaths are 2x our per capita deaths. And regardless what the orange menace says, you don't get more cases by doing more testing. You get more cases by letting it run rampant. Again, wear your mask, physical distance and don't hang around large groups of people. Three things Americans aren't doing right now.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by flyguy73 on Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
flyguy73 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:39 am
At least "Shelter in place" has an end-goal. Had everyone sheltered for 2 weeks, this virus would have run it's course. It can't spread if people aren't exposing each other to it.
Do you actually believe that as something realistic. Every store closed for two weeks, every hospital-too bad about emergencies-too bad about biths, every old folks home with people dying of thirst. And it probably would have had to be three weeks and then longer as if the billions of people around the world from New York to Calcutta would never have touched or come close to each other during this time period.
I don't think so.
Not realistic, but we try to come as close to the ideal as we can. In fact, we did what we could and we've managed to get things under control. They didn't do this in the US and they had 70,000 cases yesterday. Canada had 300. Seriously, is there not a message here that makes sense to you?
flyguy73 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:39 am
At least "Shelter in place" has an end-goal. Had everyone sheltered for 2 weeks, this virus would have run it's course. It can't spread if people aren't exposing each other to it.
Do you actually believe that as something realistic. Every store closed for two weeks, every hospital-too bad about emergencies-too bad about biths, every old folks home with people dying of thirst. And it probably would have had to be three weeks and then longer as if the billions of people around the world from New York to Calcutta would never have touched or come close to each other during this time period.
I don't think so.
Not realistic, but we try to come as close to the ideal as we can. In fact, we did what we could and we've managed to get things under control. They didn't do this in the US and they had 70,000 cases yesterday. Canada had 300. Seriously, is there not a message here that makes sense to you?
By the way, Calcutta hasn't existed since 2001.
What doesn't make sense is the statement that it would have been eliminated. It would not have been eliminated. It would have been less which is a big difference as no restrictions at all would be required if it had been completely eliminate which is definitely what your post appears to suggest.
Calcutta still exists. Just under a different official name. But I prefer the old name.
Do you actually believe that as something realistic. Every store closed for two weeks, every hospital-too bad about emergencies-too bad about biths, every old folks home with people dying of thirst. And it probably would have had to be three weeks and then longer as if the billions of people around the world from New York to Calcutta would never have touched or come close to each other during this time period.
I don't think so.
Not realistic, but we try to come as close to the ideal as we can. In fact, we did what we could and we've managed to get things under control. They didn't do this in the US and they had 70,000 cases yesterday. Canada had 300. Seriously, is there not a message here that makes sense to you?
By the way, Calcutta hasn't existed since 2001.
What doesn't make sense is the statement that it would have been eliminated. It would not have been eliminated. It would have been less which is a big difference as no restrictions at all would be required if it had been completely eliminate which is definitely what your post appears to suggest.
Calcutta still exists. Just under a different official name. But I prefer the old name.
I was very clear in my post and you know exactly what I’m saying. To reiterate, we did not achieve the ideal of perfect isolation. As a result, we have a staged recovery ahead of us. The US decided to forego the staged recovery and open everything. They had another 70,000 cases yesterday. Canada had less than 300. Again, what don’t you understand here?
Recognizing colonial names for cities that have since changed to their traditional, ethnic names only shows your bigotry. It’s not about what name you prefer.
Not realistic, but we try to come as close to the ideal as we can. In fact, we did what we could and we've managed to get things under control. They didn't do this in the US and they had 70,000 cases yesterday. Canada had 300. Seriously, is there not a message here that makes sense to you?
By the way, Calcutta hasn't existed since 2001.
What doesn't make sense is the statement that it would have been eliminated. It would not have been eliminated. It would have been less which is a big difference as no restrictions at all would be required if it had been completely eliminate which is definitely what your post appears to suggest.
Calcutta still exists. Just under a different official name. But I prefer the old name.
I was very clear in my post and you know exactly what I’m saying. To reiterate, we did not achieve the ideal of perfect isolation. As a result, we have a staged recovery ahead of us. The US decided to forego the staged recovery and open everything. They had another 70,000 cases yesterday. Canada had less than 300. Again, what don’t you understand here?
Recognizing colonial names for cities that have since changed to their traditional, ethnic names only shows your bigotry. It’s not about what name you prefer.
OMG....here comes Godwin's Law. He must be a Nazi. Cancel him, destroy his career, tear down the statues. Oh and minor note: destroy free speech at the same time(a minor but worthwhile side effect, no doubt).
Rockie wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:21 pm
Why would anyone waste a second of time weighing the merits of one name over another and deciding which one they prefer? Weird.
My guess, he did it just to piss you off. It's something of a sport.
