Jump to content

USS Theodore Roosevelt


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Darren Roberts said:

 

That was my point. We need to find the middle ground of doing both. What we can't do is live in fear.

 

No. There doesn't have to be a middle ground. A middle ground posits that there are two opposite extremes. More of one means less of the other and vice versa. In this case it's - supposedly -  either minimizing unnecessary deaths or minimizing damage to the economy. A middle ground would mean there would have to be a trade-off. A little of this and a little of that. More unnecessary deaths,  less damage to the economy. Or fewer unnecessary deaths, but more damage to the economy.

It doesn't have to be like this. There are work-arounds that allow for minimizing both unnecessary deaths and unnecessary damage to the economy. There doesn't have to be a trade-off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People that are at risk really need to stay home and if they do go out....use an N95 mask.

 

What we really need is a rock solid cheap and easy to do anti-body test.  We need to know who has immunity and get them back to work.  Everyone else should be careful and use a mask. 

 

My province of British Columbia is doing quite well.  Canada, Australia and New Zealand are doing much better than the USA and there is a lesson to be learned there.  Acting early is the key to dealing with this.  Lock down early....reduce the numbers and then open things up.  Then lock down fast when the second wave hits.  Government needs to flow cash into the workers and businesses affected by this.

 

My wife quit her job in November due to health reasons.  One of my jobs being a bus driver for cruise ship tours has disappeared.  Thankfully my second job is hanging on, but things are getting tight, but thankfully my daughter finished university a year ago...or I would be seriously screwed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ChernayaAkula said:

 

No. There doesn't have to be a middle ground. A middle ground posits that there are two opposite extremes. More of one means less of the other and vice versa. In this case it's - supposedly -  either minimizing unnecessary deaths or minimizing damage to the economy. A middle ground would mean there would have to be a trade-off. A little of this and a little of that. More unnecessary deaths,  less damage to the economy. Or fewer unnecessary deaths, but more damage to the economy.

It doesn't have to be like this. There are work-arounds that allow for minimizing both unnecessary deaths and unnecessary damage to the economy. There doesn't have to be a trade-off.

 

I think we're talking semantics here. I think we both mean the same thing. Just for discussion's sake, how can you minimize both without having to possibly impact one or the other? As soon as you allow people to interact, you have now just made a concession that could cause loss of life. The only way to completely avoid loss of life is to have everyone shelter in place in their homes. As soon as someone is allowed to leave, a trade-off has been made. So technically speaking, some sort of compromise, trade-off, whatever you want to call it, is being made to minimize both unnecessary deaths and unnecessary damage to the economy. But again, I think we're probably on the same page.

Edited by Darren Roberts
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SBARC said:

Government needs to flow cash into the workers and businesses affected by this.

 

I agree with everything you posted. I highlighted this one line because it is the crux of the issue, as I see it, in America. For better or worse, America was built on the foundation of limited government. We are an anomaly among the other nations of the world. We are fiercely independent. For good or for bad, that's the way this country is. From an economic standpoint, there is nothing free. The money that government flows into workers and businesses has to come from somewhere. These are extraordinary times, but there will still be an economic impact both now and down the road. A quote from one of my favorite movies, Dr. Strange, is appropriate for this. " You still think there will be no consequences, Strange? No price to pay?... The bill comes due. Always! A reckoning. 

 

We MUST find a way to limit the spread of this virus while at the same time not letting economies tank. Looking at history shows what could possibly happen if there is a worldwide recession, or even depression. War doesn't often happen in good economic times. War usually occurs at bad economic times. While the loss of life due to this virus is a tragedy, it would pale in comparison to loss of life and suffering should a war break out. While this statement seems dramatic, it is simply to show that both the virus and the economy must be dealt with effectively if we are to make it out this successfully.

Edited by Darren Roberts
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone is out of work.  Businesses deemed essential are still open with minimal job losses.  Manufacturing in many industries has slowed as demand for their products has slowed but they are for the most part still operating and their employees still working. The many jobs lost are almost exclusively in businesses deemed non-essential.  However there is one segment of the non-essentials that has lost the most jobs, completely overshadowing all other job losses combined.

 

This link https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf shows that job losses (from February to March if I'm reading it right) are overwhelmingly in the food/drink service industry.   It truly sucks for them but it would seem to me that when restrictions are relaxed that industry will bounce back rapidly.  Sure it will take time to recoup losses but that will start as soon as people can dine out again.  And not all restaurants have been locked out, we've seen fast food drive-thru lanes remain open and some sit-down restaurants transition to offering take-out and delivery to keep a little bit of money coming in.

 

I for one look forward to dining out again. My culinary skills are almost non-existent and I would probably starve if it weren't for my freezer and my microwave.  When restrictions lift and we can all go out and have someone cook and serve us all the pizza and beer we want, please remember how those serving you have been affected.  By that I mean tip generously.  Most of the rest of us still have our jobs and still get a paycheck.  So, when the day comes, pay it forward.  I know I will.

 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SBARC said:

People that are at risk really need to stay home and if they do go out....use an N95 mask.

 


A lot of people are saying that, because it sounds good and in theory allows everyone else to go back to work, but it’s discriminatory and not very effective to force that in my mind.  I haven’t seen any indication that the so-called “at-risk” are any more likely to get the virus or spread it.  So as a measure for stopping the spread, this won’t do anything to protect others.  What I believe is true is that if someone “at-risk” gets it, they are much more likely to have serious, or fatal, consequences.  One can argue that this might use up medical resources, but aren’t these people entitled to medical care if they get sick, the same as everyone else?  Who are we saving the hospital beds for?  It’s not right to say one person has to have these restrictions because we need to keep our beds free for another.  People need to be responsible for their own actions.  If you’re “at-risk” or are worried about it, then by all means, stay home and/or wear protection when you go out.  The information is all out there for people to make their own decision.
 

If you’re actually sick, or have been exposed to someone with the virus, you need to do the right thing to keep it from spreading to others.  These are about the only restrictions that should be have some government enforcement IMHO, based on limiting the spread.
 

Regarding N95 masks, if the government forces people to wear them, then they should supply them.  It’s nearly impossible for the average person to find one, at least at a reasonably price.  The government forcing certain people to do something that they know is extremely difficult to actually do just so they can live a normal life like everyone else isn’t right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dave Williams said:

Regarding N95 masks, if the government forces people to wear them, then they should supply them.  It’s nearly impossible for the average person to find one, at least at a reasonably price.

 

This is a real problem. I can't find masks, at least ones that I would be reasonable sure would be delivered. I ordered some regular surgical masks on Amazon. Turns out they were in China. Now, according to tracking, they made it to the USA and were handed off to an intermediator shipping company who is supposed to get it to the "last  mile" and turn it over to the USPS. Well, it was turned over to this "shipping company" two weeks ago and nothing. It doesn't take two weeks to get from NY City to Milwaukee, WI. I also ordered some bandanas to use as masks push comes to shove. Tracking shows those as "tracking number transmitted awaiting package", i.e. they haven't been dropped off at the post office yet.

As far as N95 masks, any listed on Amazon are reserved for hospital and government purchase only.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SBARC said:

My province of British Columbia is doing quite well.  Canada, Australia and New Zealand are doing much better than the USA and there is a lesson to be learned there.  Acting early is the key to dealing with this.  Lock down early....reduce the numbers and then open things up.  Then lock down fast when the second wave hits.

 

This is important. Areas previously well controlled and starting to see flattening of the curve are seeing resurgences of the virus. SIngapore, China, Japan have all seen recent up swing in cases. Singapore, one of the most structured and closely monitored societies in the world somehow forgot about their migrant workers that are crowded into dormitories. Now they are seeing large outbreaks of Covid-19 in those populations. They are waking up to the realization that they need to provide better living conditions and health care to those people who are often 20 to a room in less than sanitary conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"At Risk" isn't your likelihood of catching or spreading the virus.  It's your likelihood of dying from the virus, and primarily based on age and underlying health conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, habu2 said:

"At Risk" isn't your likelihood of catching or spreading the virus.  It's your likelihood of dying from the virus, and primarily based on age and underlying health conditions.


And it should be a decision that each person should make on their own, based on their own circumstances.  The government shouldn’t mandate that you protect yourself from yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dave Williams said:


And it should be a decision that each person should make on their own, based on their own circumstances.  The government shouldn’t mandate that you protect yourself from yourself.

That's what things like seatbelt and helmet laws are intended to do - indeed, most traffic laws are intended at least partially to protect you from yourself. The same goes for laws restricting access to dangerous areas. If the individual does not have the obligation to follow such laws, does the government have any obligation to help that individual if he or she needs help after violating those laws? There's a lot of EMS and search and rescue that helps people who have knowingly done stupid things, and all of society pays for that help.

 

Cheers,

 

Scott

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Scott Taylor said:

That's what things like seatbelt and helmet laws are intended to do - indeed, most traffic laws are intended at least partially to protect you from yourself. The same goes for laws restricting access to dangerous areas. If the individual does not have the obligation to follow such laws, does the government have any obligation to help that individual if he or she needs help after violating those laws? There's a lot of EMS and search and rescue that helps people who have knowingly done stupid things, and all of society pays for that help.

 

Cheers,

 

Scott

 

I've often thought about motorcycle helmets specifically. My take is that if you don't wear a helmet, your insurance is null and void. That way, if you still choose to not wear a helmet, great. But don't expect your insurance to pay when you get in an accident. Seatbelts (for adults) are the same way. I was EMS/Fire for five years. After seeing what I've seen, I still find it unbelievable that people don't wear seatbelts/helmets. I guess you can't change stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. People want to take their lives in their own hands and risk themselves, that's fine and dandy. It's when that same person places OTHERS at risk of injury or death, is when there is some sort of oversight implemented. This is a tale as old as time and not just about safety. Now you start to reach into the social contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott Taylor said:

That's what things like seatbelt and helmet laws are intended to do - indeed, most traffic laws are intended at least partially to protect you from yourself. The same goes for laws restricting access to dangerous areas. If the individual does not have the obligation to follow such laws, does the government have any obligation to help that individual if he or she needs help after violating those laws? There's a lot of EMS and search and rescue that helps people who have knowingly done stupid things, and all of society pays for that help.

 

Cheers,

 

Scott


The difference in those laws is that, right or wrong, they apply equally to everyone who uses the motor vehicle.  There are no different standards for those that the government judges are bad drivers or good drivers.  In the “at risk” COVID discussion, the government is deciding that one person needs to be protected from themself, while this other person does not need to be protected from themself.

Edited by Dave Williams
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly we are a people who tend to lack Common Sense. Hence the laws, the guidelines, the recommendations. 
 

Over the weekend our county commissioner issued a legally enforceable requirement that everyone - everyone - wear a face mask or covering when in a public place or business.   A county judge immediately protested the ordinance - not because he thought it was a bad idea, but because he wasn’t consulted. Health and welfare be damned, this is petty politics. 
 

If you want to see just how ridiculous this situation is just do an internet search on John Wiley Price.  
 

Oh and face masks are not required while riding a motorcycle without a helmet or driving a motor vehicle without wearing a seatbelt. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darren Roberts said:

 

I've often thought about motorcycle helmets specifically. My take is that if you don't wear a helmet, your insurance is null and void. That way, if you still choose to not wear a helmet, great. But don't expect your insurance to pay when you get in an accident. Seatbelts (for adults) are the same way. I was EMS/Fire for five years. After seeing what I've seen, I still find it unbelievable that people don't wear seatbelts/helmets. I guess you can't change stupid.

 

Before she passed, my wife worked the neurological ICU in a local hospital. She saw the results of people not wearing helmets or using seatbelts.  Not fun having your brains splattered against a windshield or your spinal column severed after you've been thrown down the road at 60 miles an hour.  You may say that if that's the risk and they want to take it, so be it. I think those in beds paralyzed might disagree. Often it is society that ends up paying for their care. Years in nursing facilities. I taken care of some very young men that were paralyzed from the neck down. Their lives were not happy ones.

 

1 hour ago, habu2 said:

Sadly we are a people who tend to lack Common Sense. Hence the laws, the guidelines, the recommendations.

 

All too true. It is often our government's responsibility to protect us from ourselves. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dave Williams said:


And it should be a decision that each person should make on their own, based on their own circumstances.  The government shouldn’t mandate that you protect yourself from yourself.

Yup....this has to be voluntary.  Certain people think this virus is a hoax etc and I wish them all the best.

 

Certain people know they are at risk.  Underlying health conditions, age.....suppressed immune system (cancer patients etc).  My Step Mom in the UK is staying home and not having physical contact with anyone.  The situation in the UK is quite bad and she is 80.  She gets her groceries delivered etc.

 

I have 2 grown daughters and I told them I will see them in a year or so.  I don't want to risk giving them the virus and they don't want to risk giving me the virus...and my city is doing really well with very low numbers.  We locked down on Mar 16 and people are quite considerate about 6 feet of social distancing etc.  Plus people are for the most part staying close to home and not traveling to neighboring towns etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SBARC said:

Yup....this has to be voluntary.  Certain people think this virus is a hoax etc and I wish them all the best.

 

Certain people know they are at risk.  Underlying health conditions, age.....suppressed immune system (cancer patients etc).  My Step Mom in the UK is staying home and not having physical contact with anyone.  The situation in the UK is quite bad and she is 80.  She gets her groceries delivered etc.

 

I have 2 grown daughters and I told them I will see them in a year or so.  I don't want to risk giving them the virus and they don't want to risk giving me the virus...and my city is doing really well with very low numbers.  We locked down on Mar 16 and people are quite considerate about 6 feet of social distancing etc.  Plus people are for the most part staying close to home and not traveling to neighboring towns etc.

I think Canada and the UK will be generally smarter about this than the US.   There are a lot of Americans who don't trust anything, including science and many who won't use common sense because they think that wearing a mask is somehow infringing on their rights.  We also have prominent media that is doing everything they can to downplay the threat, with many Americans still thinking of this as no more than the normal flu.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nspreitler said:

I think Canada and the UK will be generally smarter about this than the US.   There are a lot of Americans who don't trust anything, including science and many who won't use common sense because they think that wearing a mask is somehow infringing on their rights.  We also have prominent media that is doing everything they can to downplay the threat, with many Americans still thinking of this as no more than the normal flu.  

 

My wife and I just talked about this on our walk last night. If we want to get businesses back up and running, then masks should be required. It used to be No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. You could add masks to that list. I know the devil is in the details. Should the government have to supply the masks to everyone? What is considered a mask? I do see an opportunity for someone who entrepreneurial. Designer masks might be the next big thing!

 

In regards to media, that's the beauty of America. We have the freedom to skew anything we want. You have some news outlets downplaying the threat while other news outlets are making it seem like it's worse than Ebola and that if you look at someone wrong, you'll get it and be dead. Sensationalism is the force that drives the news cycle. Oh for the days of Walter Cronkite!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Darren Roberts said:

I do see an opportunity for someone who entrepreneurial. Designer masks might be the next big thing!

 

My local corner store right down the street from me has masks for sale. There's two kinds of them that are taped to the plexiglass barrier at the counter for everyone to see. One looks like an N95 but I'm cautious the other looks to be nothing more than a designer styled surgical mask. Thick material from what I can tell though. It's either made in China or Korea. Never took a good look at it. 

 

Masks are easy to do if they're not the filtered kind, just get some fabric and sew away. Maybe if someone were to cobble together a set of "designer" PPE that would sell. Plastic face shield, mask, gloves, etc. Probably could get away with $30-40 for the whole kit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Darren Roberts said:

 

I've often thought about motorcycle helmets specifically. My take is that if you don't wear a helmet, your insurance is null and void. That way, if you still choose to not wear a helmet, great. But don't expect your insurance to pay when you get in an accident. Seatbelts (for adults) are the same way. I was EMS/Fire for five years. After seeing what I've seen, I still find it unbelievable that people don't wear seatbelts/helmets. I guess you can't change stupid.

I've always felt this way.   It's great to have personal freedom, including the freedom to not wear protective equipment when riding a motorcycle.  However, I don't see why insurance costs for injuries to helmet-less bikers should be borne by all the other insurance ratepayers.  Let people have the "freedom" to go without helmets but with that freedom comes responsibility.  If They are adult enough to make this choice, they should be adult enough to handle the financial consequences of medical costs caused by their choice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Whiskey said:

 

My local corner store right down the street from me has masks for sale. There's two kinds of them that are taped to the plexiglass barrier at the counter for everyone to see. One looks like an N95 but I'm cautious the other looks to be nothing more than a designer styled surgical mask. Thick material from what I can tell though. It's either made in China or Korea. Never took a good look at it. 

 

Masks are easy to do if they're not the filtered kind, just get some fabric and sew away. Maybe if someone were to cobble together a set of "designer" PPE that would sell. Plastic face shield, mask, gloves, etc. Probably could get away with $30-40 for the whole kit. 

If it's an N95, it will be prominently labled as such on the mask.  Their are also "KN95'"s out there.  Not sure what the difference is but they seem to be more readily available.   

 

I'm wearing an N95 for grocery runs, etc.  It's overkill for that purpose but I've had it for ages and I suppose there is no downside to having better protection. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, 11bee said:

If it's an N95, it will be prominently labled as such on the mask.  Their are also "KN95'"s out there.  Not sure what the difference is but they seem to be more readily available.   

 

I'm wearing an N95 for grocery runs, etc.  It's overkill for that purpose but I've had it for ages and I suppose there is no downside to having better protection. 

 

I have a respirator for airbrushing. I've thought about wearing that out just for grins!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Darren Roberts said:

 

I have a respirator for airbrushing. I've thought about wearing that out just for grins!

 

You'll get a much higher level of protection vrs any kind of mask, including N95's (assuming you are using a P100 particulate filter).   

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...