noncredo wrote:It's sunny and warm here right now, restaurants are open, people are at the lake; I'm going out to enjoy the day. I think you should stay isolated for as long as there is a virus or until you get tired of being in isolation.

Reopening the economy and extending the lockdown to beat virus transmission shouldn't be seen as a binary choice. Here (NSW, Australia), people understand that extending the lockdown to beat virus transmission is the key tool to safely reopening the economy, so they've collectively stuck to the task, and yesterday the pubs re-opened for limited trade, and next week all kids will be back at school full time, a position we find ourselves in thanks to having had our first day two days ago with no new cases statewide (compared to many reopening US states who are still experiencing more cases per million population at reopening than we did at our peak).

But no need to consider data on how the pandemic has been successfully managed overseas, right, because US data is tremendous data. The best data, a lot of people are saying. People have never seen numbers like these.

noncredo wrote:
It's sunny and warm here right now, restaurants are open, people are at the lake; I'm going out to enjoy the day.

anyone playing a fiddle ?

Sendraks wrote:

noncredo wrote:I think you should stay isolated for as long as there is a virus or until you get tired of being in isolation.

I'm not in the habit of accepting uninformed advice or acting on the condescension from those unable to form a cogent argument.

Me: I think isolation is bad.
You: No Isolation is good.
Me: Isolation isn't the best course.
You: I isolate because...
Me: Well then isolate, I'm going to enjoy the day.
You: I don't take advice from people who can't argue.

So did you stay inside isolated, or did you go out and enjoy the day as well.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

noncredo wrote:It's sunny and warm here right now, restaurants are open, people are at the lake; I'm going out to enjoy the day. I think you should stay isolated for as long as there is a virus or until you get tired of being in isolation.

Who cares about the risk to others, right? As long as you don't have to deal with the unbearable burden of staying at home as much as possible.

Not unbearable. I stay home sometimes. Not yesterday, and probably not today. I made a risk calculation and decided it was worth the reward of being out at the lake with friends. My friends made the same calculations and reached the same conclusion. I promise I didn't force anyone to come out last night. If you feel the risk to yourself or others is to great, then you are free to stay home as long as you want.

noncredo wrote:...
Me: I think isolation is bad.

No, you do not.

noncredo wrote:... I think you should stay isolated for as long as there is a virus or until you get tired of being in isolation.

newolder wrote:

noncredo wrote:...
Me: I think isolation is bad.

No, you do not.

noncredo wrote:... I think you should stay isolated for as long as there is a virus or until you get tired of being in isolation.

I thought I knew what I thought. I guess I should just ask you from now on. That'll save me a lot of time.

I think that would be a sterling idea given who is guiding you

noncredo wrote:

newolder wrote:

noncredo wrote:...
Me: I think isolation is bad.

No, you do not.

noncredo wrote:... I think you should stay isolated for as long as there is a virus or until you get tired of being in isolation.

I thought I knew what I thought. I guess I should just ask you from now on. That'll save me a lot of time.

Evidently, contradictions come thick and fast to those of incoherent thoughts and feelings. You can ask me anything but I do not guarantee a reply.

newolder wrote:

noncredo wrote:

newolder wrote:

noncredo wrote:...
Me: I think isolation is bad.

No, you do not.

noncredo wrote:... I think you should stay isolated for as long as there is a virus or until you get tired of being in isolation.

I thought I knew what I thought. I guess I should just ask you from now on. That'll save me a lot of time.

Evidently, contradictions come thick and fast to those of incoherent thoughts and feelings. You can ask me anything but I do not guarantee a reply.

What do I think about the lockdown? For or against? And why?

You have written that you think isolation is bad and also that others should be isolated for as long as there is a virus or they get tired of being in isolation. You appear to be against it some of the time and for it at other times. Why you think this way is beyond me.

noncredo wrote:What do I think about the lockdown? For or against? And why?

the harder the measures the sooner they can be lifted.
if absolutely everyone could stockpile supplies and stay home for three weeks, simultaneously, this would be over in three weeks.

newolder wrote:You have written that you think isolation is bad and also that others should be isolated for as long as there is a virus or they get tired of being in isolation. You appear to be against it some of the time and for it at other times. Why you think this way is beyond me.

Me: I’m glad he didn't institute a national lockdown...
...When do you think we should be allowed to resume our lives?

Sendraks: When the pandemic has reduced to the point where thousands of people are no longer dying.

Are you prepared to sacrifice your own life for the sake of the economy?
And if you are, why does that mean other people should be willing to do so?

Me: I’m willing to take some risks, yes…. If you decide this risk outweighs all the other risks, and this risk is not worth the reward of living your life, then I absolutely support your right to make that calculation for yourself. You are free to quarantine yourself for as long as you feel the need.

Sendraks: I isolate because...

Me: If you feel not isolating places undue risk on others then you should isolate for as long as you have these feelings. If I thought that I would as well.

... I think you should stay isolated for as long as there is a virus or until you get tired of being in isolation.

People should decide for themselves how much risk they are willing to tolerate and act accordingly. I thought I had made that clear, but maybe not. If you feel that being out and about is too great a risk to yourself or others, then you should isolate yourself. If not, then you should be free to go out.

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

noncredo wrote:What do I think about the lockdown? For or against? And why?

the harder the measures the sooner they can be lifted.
if absolutely everyone could stockpile supplies and stay home for three weeks, simultaneously, this would be over in three weeks.

Maybe, but I don't think you'll convince many people to do that, and it would probably cost more lives than it would save.

noncredo wrote:

newolder wrote:You have written that you think isolation is bad and also that others should be isolated for as long as there is a virus or they get tired of being in isolation. You appear to be against it some of the time and for it at other times. Why you think this way is beyond me.

Me: I’m glad he didn't institute a national lockdown...
...When do you think we should be allowed to resume our lives?

Sendraks: When the pandemic has reduced to the point where thousands of people are no longer dying.

Are you prepared to sacrifice your own life for the sake of the economy?
And if you are, why does that mean other people should be willing to do so?

Me: I’m willing to take some risks, yes…. If you decide this risk outweighs all the other risks, and this risk is not worth the reward of living your life, then I absolutely support your right to make that calculation for yourself. You are free to quarantine yourself for as long as you feel the need.

Sendraks: I isolate because...

Me: If you feel not isolating places undue risk on others then you should isolate for as long as you have these feelings. If I thought that I would as well.

... I think you should stay isolated for as long as there is a virus or until you get tired of being in isolation.

People should decide for themselves how much risk they are willing to tolerate and act accordingly. I thought I had made that clear, but maybe not. If you feel that being out and about is too great a risk to yourself or others, then you should isolate yourself. If not, then you should be free to go out.

That's just stupid. It's not up to you to decide howw much risk you're willing to put others in. What the fuck is this pathetic mentality in the US ? You guys are so in love with your "freedoms" that you totally forget about your duties. You can't have one without the other. If you get Aids, and you know it, and you keep fucking around, then you're a criminal. If many people around you have it, and you've been fucking around, but you haven't tested yourself yet, it's irresponsible to keep fucking around. The only thing you can do is test yourself, and make sure you fuck healthy people. Not for your protection, but for others'.
One basic rule that people like you seem to not be able to understand : your freedom to wave your arms ends at my nose.
Fuck this mentality.

noncredo* wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

noncredo wrote:What do I think about the lockdown? For or against? And why?

the harder the measures the sooner they can be lifted.
if absolutely everyone could stockpile supplies and stay home for three weeks, simultaneously, this would be over in three weeks.

Maybe, but I don't think you'll convince many people to do that, and it would probably cost more lives than it would save.

that would be more convincing from someone not arguing against a lockdown
looking at your posts I think you are just trying to push buttons with that „opinion“.

* my added bold

noncredo wrote:...
People should decide for themselves how much risk they are willing to tolerate and act accordingly. I thought I had made that clear, but maybe not. If you feel that being out and about is too great a risk to yourself or others, then you should isolate yourself. If not, then you should be free to go out.

The logical conclusion of the freedom espoused above is that anyone is free to do whatever they want if they feel you being out is too great a risk to themselves and others.

Since we've established that feelings are irrelevant in the decision making processes here because they often lead to contradictions (people's feelings change as surely as eggs is eggs), we assess the risk to others based on evidence and act accordingly.

Our numbers aren't changing much despite opening up, but it's early days yet. We went out for dinner last night, first time since December. It was weird being around that many other tailless monkeys.

EDIT I used to call then "ground apes", but after watching the utter stupidity they've displayed the last few months I figure they aren't quite that evolved, so "tailless monkeys" it will be. Or maybe "non-arboreal lemurs".

aban57 wrote:

noncredo wrote:

newolder wrote:You have written that you think isolation is bad and also that others should be isolated for as long as there is a virus or they get tired of being in isolation. You appear to be against it some of the time and for it at other times. Why you think this way is beyond me.

Me: I’m glad he didn't institute a national lockdown...
...When do you think we should be allowed to resume our lives?

Sendraks: When the pandemic has reduced to the point where thousands of people are no longer dying.

Are you prepared to sacrifice your own life for the sake of the economy?
And if you are, why does that mean other people should be willing to do so?

Me: I’m willing to take some risks, yes…. If you decide this risk outweighs all the other risks, and this risk is not worth the reward of living your life, then I absolutely support your right to make that calculation for yourself. You are free to quarantine yourself for as long as you feel the need.

Sendraks: I isolate because...

Me: If you feel not isolating places undue risk on others then you should isolate for as long as you have these feelings. If I thought that I would as well.

... I think you should stay isolated for as long as there is a virus or until you get tired of being in isolation.

People should decide for themselves how much risk they are willing to tolerate and act accordingly. I thought I had made that clear, but maybe not. If you feel that being out and about is too great a risk to yourself or others, then you should isolate yourself. If not, then you should be free to go out.

That's just stupid. It's not up to you to decide howw much risk you're willing to put others in. What the fuck is this pathetic mentality in the US ? You guys are so in love with your "freedoms" that you totally forget about your duties. You can't have one without the other. If you get Aids, and you know it, and you keep fucking around, then you're a criminal. If many people around you have it, and you've been fucking around, but you haven't tested yourself yet, it's irresponsible to keep fucking around. The only thing you can do is test yourself, and make sure you fuck healthy people. Not for your protection, but for others'.
One basic rule that people like you seem to not be able to understand : your freedom to wave your arms ends at my nose.
Fuck this mentality.

Can we agree that there has always been some amount of risk in public? If so then what has changed? We have always decided to accept the ambient risk in public when we go out. That ambient risk has always been made up in large part by the interactions we have with others. Most of us have always tried to minimize the risks we pose to others to the best of our abilities. Nothing has changed with any of that. I wear a mask when I go inside a store now because some think that minimizes the risk. I don't really know, but it seems reasonable. I keep my distance from strangers in public because that minimizes the risks. I keep my distance from elderly people because data points to them being especially at risk. I accept the ambient risk when I go out. If you go out, you have to accept that same level of risk. If you don't want to accept the risk, then stay home. It's not stupid, it's living in a society with other people.

I agree you can't have freedom without duties, or responsibilities. Well said.

People like me understand the arm swinging/nose rule just fine. I make a habit of keeping my arm swinging to a minimum when I'm in close quarters.

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

noncredo* wrote:

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

noncredo wrote:What do I think about the lockdown? For or against? And why?

the harder the measures the sooner they can be lifted.
if absolutely everyone could stockpile supplies and stay home for three weeks, simultaneously, this would be over in three weeks.

Maybe, but I don't think you'll convince many people to do that, and it would probably cost more lives than it would save.

that would be more convincing from someone not arguing against a lockdown
looking at your posts I think you are just trying to push buttons with that „opinion“.

* my added bold

Maybe some button pushing here and there, but it is my opinion that the lockdown is ineffective for the most part, and not the best option in the long run. I agree that were we to completely isolate for some amount of time (I don't know how long between contracting and becoming non contagious) it would more than likely end the pandemic. But thats not what we've done. (and by we I mean my state since all the states have handled it a little different. I haven't really kept track of what other countries are doing beyond a cursory glance.) We've said stay inside except to go to the grocery store, or liquor store or Best Buy apparently, or Wal Mart...and then we all congregate in these few places. Sometimes the lockdown felt arbitrary and pointless.

The thing about costing more lives is valid I think. Of course I don't know if it's true since no one did that, but it's not a completely unreasonable assumption. Heart disease is the number one killer here. I don't know how many heart attacks we have each month nationwide, but without medical intervention many, if not most of them wold be fatal. Depression and suicide have already increased. With total lockdown, I can't imagine the numbers would have improved. Typical household accidents, not sure how many would have been fatal, but with out medical intervention I assume more than with.

newolder wrote:

noncredo wrote:...
People should decide for themselves how much risk they are willing to tolerate and act accordingly. I thought I had made that clear, but maybe not. If you feel that being out and about is too great a risk to yourself or others, then you should isolate yourself. If not, then you should be free to go out.

The logical conclusion of the freedom espoused above is that anyone is free to do whatever they want if they feel you being out is too great a risk to themselves and others.

Since we've established that feelings are irrelevant in the decision making processes here because they often lead to contradictions (people's feelings change as surely as eggs is eggs), we assess the risk to others based on evidence and act accordingly.

Could you clarify that first sentence? I think I get it, but I'm not positive.

We haven't established that feelings are irrelevant in the decision making process. It may create contradictions, and not always lead to the most rational decision, but we all use feelings in our decision making process at times. I would even say often. Yes, we assess risks to others, and I would add to ourselves, and act accordingly.