5 ms·

I sure do hate it when I slip and fall into poverty as if it were some silly accident of my own making and not entirely caused by the actions of state and local

I sure do hate it when I slip and fall into poverty as if it were some silly accident of my own making and not entirely caused by the actions of state and local governments.

NicoJuicy 6y ago
You are that saying herd immunity would be the only option?
- TheBlight 6y ago
  Herd immunity is the end-state (with or without a vaccine) not some policy option to pursue. It is what will eventually happen. The trick is getting to that end-state with the least amount of damage incurred. I would've advocated for something more closely resembling: https://gbdeclaration.org/focused-protection/ https://gbdeclaration.org/focused-protection/
  - thebruce87m 6y ago
    In my country (Scotland) the 45 - 64 age group has occupied the most hospital beds during the pandemic: https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/ https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker... Scroll to “Hospital Admissions by Age Group” and select total. So that would involve shielding everyone 45+ to protect hospital capacity in an unrestricted “shield the vulnerable” scenario.
- thebean11 6y ago
  It's not like that's the only solution that's been floated. Stimulus checks would have kept people out of poverty too.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > It's not like that's the only solution that's been floated. Stimulus checks would have kept people out of poverty too. You're right, but the implications of the GGP comment's phrasing imply they wouldn't have liked that solution. IMHO, in some quarters, the weeping and gnashing of teeth about the costs mandatory social distancing (up to and including stay at home orders) directly flows from the rejection of government relief as a solution to anything. If you take that off the table, you're left with a false choice between pandemic destruction and economic destruction.
    - TheBlight 6y ago
      That's not the only choice. Focusing protection on the vulnerable while allowing the rest of society to function could've spared us both from the worst of the pandemic's destruction and the economic destruction -- "economic" is a bit of a misnomer too. There is a greater cost to lockdowns than just economics. Mental and physical health also suffer. Those that can't get preventative care they need suffer. Depressed people and those with anxiety who turn to drugs, alcohol and suicide suffer.
      - ardy42 6y ago
        > That's not the only choice. Focusing protection on the vulnerable while allowing the rest of society to function could've spared us both from the worst of the pandemic's destruction and the economic destruction -- That's an unrealistic idea. You can't have unchecked community spread and "focus protection on the vulnerable," without literally imprisoning them in an isolation bubble for a year or more, which is far longer than the successful lockdowns have lasted. There are places in the world that have already opened up, virus free. The rule with this pandemic seems to be: the more half-ass you are at controlling it, the more pain and expense you get. > "economic" is a bit of a misnomer too. There is a greater cost to lockdowns than just economics. Mental and physical health also suffer. Those that can't get preventative care they need suffer. Depressed people and those with anxiety who turn to drugs, alcohol and suicide suffer. If you really cared so much about people's "mental and physical health," why are you advocating a policy that wouldn't lessen it, but rather concentrate the damage and increase the burden to on the vulnerable?
        thebean11 6y ago
        I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. The idea that you just throw away all precautions "except for the vulnerable" is complete nonsense as you pointed out. Every healthy person who has the virus is a danger for the vulnerable.
        ardy42 6y ago
        > I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I'm sure why. There's a lot of people who've committed themselves to false/wrong/wishful thinking ideas about COVID (the US, to its embarrassment, has a major political faction that's done this). Since those ideas are indefensible, people who point out the flaws are often downvoted.

I sure do hate it when I slip and fall into poverty as if it were some silly accident of my own making and not entirely caused by the actions of state and local governments.

NicoJuicy 6y ago

You are that saying herd immunity would be the only option?

TheBlight 6y ago
Herd immunity is the end-state (with or without a vaccine) not some policy option to pursue. It is what will eventually happen. The trick is getting to that end-state with the least amount of damage incurred. I would've advocated for something more closely resembling: https://gbdeclaration.org/focused-protection/ https://gbdeclaration.org/focused-protection/
- thebruce87m 6y ago
  In my country (Scotland) the 45 - 64 age group has occupied the most hospital beds during the pandemic: https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/ https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker... Scroll to “Hospital Admissions by Age Group” and select total. So that would involve shielding everyone 45+ to protect hospital capacity in an unrestricted “shield the vulnerable” scenario.
thebean11 6y ago
It's not like that's the only solution that's been floated. Stimulus checks would have kept people out of poverty too.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > It's not like that's the only solution that's been floated. Stimulus checks would have kept people out of poverty too. You're right, but the implications of the GGP comment's phrasing imply they wouldn't have liked that solution. IMHO, in some quarters, the weeping and gnashing of teeth about the costs mandatory social distancing (up to and including stay at home orders) directly flows from the rejection of government relief as a solution to anything. If you take that off the table, you're left with a false choice between pandemic destruction and economic destruction.
  - TheBlight 6y ago
    That's not the only choice. Focusing protection on the vulnerable while allowing the rest of society to function could've spared us both from the worst of the pandemic's destruction and the economic destruction -- "economic" is a bit of a misnomer too. There is a greater cost to lockdowns than just economics. Mental and physical health also suffer. Those that can't get preventative care they need suffer. Depressed people and those with anxiety who turn to drugs, alcohol and suicide suffer.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > That's not the only choice. Focusing protection on the vulnerable while allowing the rest of society to function could've spared us both from the worst of the pandemic's destruction and the economic destruction -- That's an unrealistic idea. You can't have unchecked community spread and "focus protection on the vulnerable," without literally imprisoning them in an isolation bubble for a year or more, which is far longer than the successful lockdowns have lasted. There are places in the world that have already opened up, virus free. The rule with this pandemic seems to be: the more half-ass you are at controlling it, the more pain and expense you get. > "economic" is a bit of a misnomer too. There is a greater cost to lockdowns than just economics. Mental and physical health also suffer. Those that can't get preventative care they need suffer. Depressed people and those with anxiety who turn to drugs, alcohol and suicide suffer. If you really cared so much about people's "mental and physical health," why are you advocating a policy that wouldn't lessen it, but rather concentrate the damage and increase the burden to on the vulnerable?
      - thebean11 6y ago
        I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. The idea that you just throw away all precautions "except for the vulnerable" is complete nonsense as you pointed out. Every healthy person who has the virus is a danger for the vulnerable.
        ardy42 6y ago
        > I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I'm sure why. There's a lot of people who've committed themselves to false/wrong/wishful thinking ideas about COVID (the US, to its embarrassment, has a major political faction that's done this). Since those ideas are indefensible, people who point out the flaws are often downvoted.