CDZ Is preventing one Corona death worth 1,000 people losing their jobs?

[WEATHER53]

It’s a fake question
We could impose all sorts of draconian measures upon ourselves and save countless lives but we don’t. That’s what freedom and liberty provides-until now

 

[harmonica]

Same dilemma posed in the form of a question.

Are you willing to die so that 1000 people MIGHT be able to keep their jobs?

no--it's not the same

 

[Chuz Life]

Same dilemma posed in the form of a question.

Are you willing to die so that 1000 people MIGHT be able to keep their jobs?

no--it's not the same

That depends. . . are you the one slated to die or are you one of the 1000 looking to go back to work?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I say no. One person dying is a singular event. One thousand people losing their jobs has lasting repercussions. What say you?

So far, we have had had 8,452 Deaths in this country and rising. So you question,Is that worth 8, 452,000+ missing work until they can get this somewhat under control? I say, Hell yes. What is wrong with you?

Do you drive? 40k die in auto accidents every year. Every life is precious but we aren't lowering the speed limit to 25MPH on every road. Life comes with risks.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Same dilemma posed in the form of a question.

Are you willing to die so that 1000 people MIGHT be able to keep their jobs?

Wrong question.

Are you willing to risk death so that 1000 people would keep their jobs. I would. Death is not certain.

 

[Chuz Life]

Same dilemma posed in the form of a question.

Are you willing to die so that 1000 people MIGHT be able to keep their jobs?

Wrong question.

Are you willing to risk death so that 1000 people would keep their jobs. I would. Death is not certain.

The question in the OP was "Is preventing one Corona death worth 1,000 people losing their jobs?"

In that question, DEATH is being presented as though it is fairly certain.

And, for what it is worth. . . Un-employment is no more no less certain than death is, in this exercise. The difference is, we can find other employment. However, the chances of that are a lot better if you are alive.

 

[White 6]

I say no. One person dying is a singular event. One thousand people losing their jobs has lasting repercussions. What say you?

So far, we have had had 8,452 Deaths in this country and rising. So you question,Is that worth 8, 452,000+ missing work until they can get this somewhat under control? I say, Hell yes. What is wrong with you?

Do you drive? 40k die in auto accidents every year. Every life is precious but we aren't lowering the speed limit to 25MPH on every road. Life comes with risks.

You know you are responding to something I posted on April 4th" Back then, 8,452 US deaths were not enough to sound serious to you? Today is April 14th. Now we are at 23,644 dead. 25 MPH is fine with me while we are almost tripling the number dead in the last 10 days. Do not listen to the Furor. Trump is a mad man. Look to the future, but do it with rationality. Do not listen to trump the science hater and would be ("I am in total control") DICTATOR.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Same dilemma posed in the form of a question.

Are you willing to die so that 1000 people MIGHT be able to keep their jobs?

Wrong question.

Are you willing to risk death so that 1000 people would keep their jobs. I would. Death is not certain.

The question in the OP was "Is preventing one Corona death worth 1,000 people losing their jobs?"

In that question, DEATH is being presented as though it is fairly certain.

And, for what it is worth. . . Un-employment is no more no less certain than death is, in this exercise. The difference is, we can find other employment. However, the chances of that are a lot better if you are alive.

If you're a Chef, tough to find employment. The OP believes death is certain but it is not.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I say no. One person dying is a singular event. One thousand people losing their jobs has lasting repercussions. What say you?

So far, we have had had 8,452 Deaths in this country and rising. So you question,Is that worth 8, 452,000+ missing work until they can get this somewhat under control? I say, Hell yes. What is wrong with you?

Do you drive? 40k die in auto accidents every year. Every life is precious but we aren't lowering the speed limit to 25MPH on every road. Life comes with risks.

You know you are responding to something I posted on April 4th" Back then, 8,452 US deaths were not enough to sound serious to you? Today is April 14th. Now we are at 23,644 dead. 25 MPH is fine with me while we are almost tripling the number dead in the last 10 days. Do not listen to the Furor. Trump is a mad man. Look to the future, but do it with rationality. Do not listen to trump the science hater and would be ("I am in total control") DICTATOR.

92% are those who are elderly or have underlying conditions. Why did you bring Trump into a philosophical discussion and do not tell me how to think. To me, you are illogical, with all due respect.

 

[Chuz Life]

Same dilemma posed in the form of a question.

Are you willing to die so that 1000 people MIGHT be able to keep their jobs?

Wrong question.

Are you willing to risk death so that 1000 people would keep their jobs. I would. Death is not certain.

The question in the OP was "Is preventing one Corona death worth 1,000 people losing their jobs?"

In that question, DEATH is being presented as though it is fairly certain.

And, for what it is worth. . . Un-employment is no more no less certain than death is, in this exercise. The difference is, we can find other employment. However, the chances of that are a lot better if you are alive.

If you're a Chef, tough to find employment. The OP believes death is certain but it is not.

Few things in life are certain and deserve to be treated as such.

Taxes and Death are two of them.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Same dilemma posed in the form of a question.

Are you willing to die so that 1000 people MIGHT be able to keep their jobs?

Wrong question.

Are you willing to risk death so that 1000 people would keep their jobs. I would. Death is not certain.

The question in the OP was "Is preventing one Corona death worth 1,000 people losing their jobs?"

In that question, DEATH is being presented as though it is fairly certain.

And, for what it is worth. . . Un-employment is no more no less certain than death is, in this exercise. The difference is, we can find other employment. However, the chances of that are a lot better if you are alive.

If you're a Chef, tough to find employment. The OP believes death is certain but it is not.

Few things in life are certain and deserve to be treated as such.

Taxes and Death are two of them.

Sure but the question is when not if. Cannot have the world shut down for 18 mos.

 

[Chuz Life]

Same dilemma posed in the form of a question.

Are you willing to die so that 1000 people MIGHT be able to keep their jobs?

Wrong question.

Are you willing to risk death so that 1000 people would keep their jobs. I would. Death is not certain.

The question in the OP was "Is preventing one Corona death worth 1,000 people losing their jobs?"

In that question, DEATH is being presented as though it is fairly certain.

And, for what it is worth. . . Un-employment is no more no less certain than death is, in this exercise. The difference is, we can find other employment. However, the chances of that are a lot better if you are alive.

If you're a Chef, tough to find employment. The OP believes death is certain but it is not.

Few things in life are certain and deserve to be treated as such.

Taxes and Death are two of them.

Sure but the question is when not if. Cannot have the world shut down for 18 mos.

This pandemic pales in comparison to our nation's past hardships. The world's hardships, for that matter. I think we both agree that there is a balancing that becomes necessary at some point. However, I do not agree in over simplifications, such as the OP.

 

[jwoodie]

The question in the OP was "Is preventing one Corona death worth 1,000 people losing their jobs?"

In that question, DEATH is being presented as though it is fairly certain.

Thanks, but my OP doesn't require your interpretation. "Preventing one Corona death" does not mean saving your life, just as "1,000 people losing their jobs" does not mean you losing your job. Rather, it is a statistical reference to relative risks and rewards. The correct analogy is reducing the speed limit to reduce automobile deaths.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Same dilemma posed in the form of a question.

Are you willing to die so that 1000 people MIGHT be able to keep their jobs?

Wrong question.

Are you willing to risk death so that 1000 people would keep their jobs. I would. Death is not certain.

The question in the OP was "Is preventing one Corona death worth 1,000 people losing their jobs?"

In that question, DEATH is being presented as though it is fairly certain.

And, for what it is worth. . . Un-employment is no more no less certain than death is, in this exercise. The difference is, we can find other employment. However, the chances of that are a lot better if you are alive.

If you're a Chef, tough to find employment. The OP believes death is certain but it is not.

Few things in life are certain and deserve to be treated as such.

Taxes and Death are two of them.

Sure but the question is when not if. Cannot have the world shut down for 18 mos.

This pandemic pales in comparison to our nation's past hardships. The world's hardships, for that matter. I think we both agree that there is a balancing that becomes necessary at some point. However, I do not agree in over simplifications, such as the OP.

Yes and yes. But we have to accept some death toll when we return to normalcy.

 

[Chuz Life]

Same dilemma posed in the form of a question.

Are you willing to die so that 1000 people MIGHT be able to keep their jobs?

Wrong question.

Are you willing to risk death so that 1000 people would keep their jobs. I would. Death is not certain.

The question in the OP was "Is preventing one Corona death worth 1,000 people losing their jobs?"

In that question, DEATH is being presented as though it is fairly certain.

And, for what it is worth. . . Un-employment is no more no less certain than death is, in this exercise. The difference is, we can find other employment. However, the chances of that are a lot better if you are alive.

If you're a Chef, tough to find employment. The OP believes death is certain but it is not.

Few things in life are certain and deserve to be treated as such.

Taxes and Death are two of them.

Sure but the question is when not if. Cannot have the world shut down for 18 mos.

This pandemic pales in comparison to our nation's past hardships. The world's hardships, for that matter. I think we both agree that there is a balancing that becomes necessary at some point. However, I do not agree in over simplifications, such as the OP.

Yes and yes. But we have to accept some death toll when we return to normalcy.

Death is, has been and always will be a part of "normalcy."

So to is un-employment and discomfort.

The government can give whatever green light they want to re-open the economy and STILL it will only open where it can and when it can. Jobs will still be lost and people will still be dying .

It defies simplification.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Same dilemma posed in the form of a question.

Are you willing to die so that 1000 people MIGHT be able to keep their jobs?

Wrong question.

Are you willing to risk death so that 1000 people would keep their jobs. I would. Death is not certain.

The question in the OP was "Is preventing one Corona death worth 1,000 people losing their jobs?"

In that question, DEATH is being presented as though it is fairly certain.

And, for what it is worth. . . Un-employment is no more no less certain than death is, in this exercise. The difference is, we can find other employment. However, the chances of that are a lot better if you are alive.

If you're a Chef, tough to find employment. The OP believes death is certain but it is not.

Few things in life are certain and deserve to be treated as such.

Taxes and Death are two of them.

Sure but the question is when not if. Cannot have the world shut down for 18 mos.

This pandemic pales in comparison to our nation's past hardships. The world's hardships, for that matter. I think we both agree that there is a balancing that becomes necessary at some point. However, I do not agree in over simplifications, such as the OP.

Yes and yes. But we have to accept some death toll when we return to normalcy.

Death is, has been and always will be a part of "normalcy."

So to is un-employment and discomfort.

The government can give whatever green light they want to re-open the economy and STILL it will only open where it can and when it can. Jobs will still be lost and people will still be dying .

It defies simplification.

How about isolation, no school for children, no professional or amateur sports, no going out to eat, no family gatherings? It is not just "discomfort". It is a jail sentence. Question is when is the sentence lifted.

 

[Chuz Life]

Same dilemma posed in the form of a question.

Are you willing to die so that 1000 people MIGHT be able to keep their jobs?

Wrong question.

Are you willing to risk death so that 1000 people would keep their jobs. I would. Death is not certain.

The question in the OP was "Is preventing one Corona death worth 1,000 people losing their jobs?"

In that question, DEATH is being presented as though it is fairly certain.

And, for what it is worth. . . Un-employment is no more no less certain than death is, in this exercise. The difference is, we can find other employment. However, the chances of that are a lot better if you are alive.

If you're a Chef, tough to find employment. The OP believes death is certain but it is not.

Few things in life are certain and deserve to be treated as such.

Taxes and Death are two of them.

Sure but the question is when not if. Cannot have the world shut down for 18 mos.

This pandemic pales in comparison to our nation's past hardships. The world's hardships, for that matter. I think we both agree that there is a balancing that becomes necessary at some point. However, I do not agree in over simplifications, such as the OP.

Yes and yes. But we have to accept some death toll when we return to normalcy.

Death is, has been and always will be a part of "normalcy."

So to is un-employment and discomfort.

The government can give whatever green light they want to re-open the economy and STILL it will only open where it can and when it can. Jobs will still be lost and people will still be dying .

It defies simplification.

How about isolation, no school for children, no professional or amateur sports, no going out to eat, no family gatherings? It is not just "discomfort". It is a jail sentence. Question is when is the sentence lifted.

I think it depends on several factors. Some of which are already coming to light, like effective treatments. Truth is, I am all for going the way of mass exposure and let's get it over with. Help those we can as best we can and let's get our "herd immunity" up sooner rather than later. . . That's all well and good, until you consider the CHANCE that a person might be able to catch this shit more than once.

I already have two relatives fighting for their lives with it. I don't want more exposed, just for economic reasons, for as long as they can survive economically, even temporarily un-employed.

The one thing that makes that point strongest, for me, is the limited abilities of so many hospitals. Especially, when doctors and nurses become infected and start dying too.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If it were not for the coronavirus would we have immortality? Most of the people who died were dying. They had serious and terminal diseases. They would not be hale and healthy. The second most number of dead of the virus had underlying disease. Doctors now say obesity and diabetes were secondary causes of death. Last night the news had proof that corona attacked the young. A 20something nursing student died. Her picture was of a pretty blonde that was morbidly obese.

We cannot have the sacrifice of the economy to save lives. The same way the sacrifice of throwing a virgin into a volcano would not appease the rain gods. If it saved just one crop....

 

[2aguy]

If it were not for the coronavirus would we have immortality? Most of the people who died were dying. They had serious and terminal diseases. They would not be hale and healthy. The second most number of dead of the virus had underlying disease. Doctors now say obesity and diabetes were secondary causes of death. Last night the news had proof that corona attacked the young. A 20something nursing student died. Her picture was of a pretty blonde that was morbidly obese.

We cannot have the sacrifice of the economy to save lives. The same way the sacrifice of throwing a virgin into a volcano would not appease the rain gods. If it saved just one crop....

And now.......how long did people think we could keep the economy broken.....to keep Trump from getting re-elected....before it started to effect the food supply....the one thing keeping a lid on real violence and terror?

This is what the democrats have been waiting for....that one thing that will tip us over the edge and into widespread violence just before the election...how many people will die if we get to the point of food riots at the local Walmart? And they are going to do everything in their power to break the food supply chain to make it happen....

Congressman Warns U.S. Could Be 'Weeks Away' From Food Shortages

pjmedia.com

 

[freyasman]

Olly Olly Oxen Free

Come out, come out, wherever you are. Tomorrow is what was known in the village as The Saturday of Hallelujah. Sunday is Easter. Passover night was between the eighth and the 9th. Even though we&#…

accordingtohoyt.com

From the link;
"The way to reopen the economy is to reopen it. The way to reopen the economy is to get in front of the cameras and explain, “Yeah, infections are going to continue, and there will be a surge after we open up. That’s because this was all designed to slow the rate of infections. Turns out we have way more medical capacity than we thought, and, sorry, we can’t save people from a virus. That’s not a legitimate function of government, unless it’s the type of virus that can be traced and contained. This one can’t. We’re taking measures not to do business with nations that will hide this type of outbreak in the future. In the meantime, it’s going to hurt, though not as much as the highly manipulated numbers seem to show. But we’re Americans and we’ve survived far worse. Hiding in your house for fear of a virus might be the most stupid thing we’ve ever done, dumber than sending American young men to die in WWI in a dispute that truly had nothing to do with us, but it’s time to end it. Go back to work tomorrow morning.”

That’s what the president should say, but he won’t. The political risk seems to him too high. Partly because the loud mass media has silenced everyone else.

And the governors are having so much fun implementing socialism that they won’t. EVER. They’re sure you’ll love it, if you just get to try it. They finally see their opening to put their boots on your neck forever. I mean, normally if they said you couldn’t buy seeds, you’d hit the road, and go find your local organic co-op and buy them, right? If they said you couldn’t buy paint of a certain color, a million backyard paint mixing operations would start. But ah, you need papers to travel, and hey, they convinced everyone you’ll die if you talk to a stranger or buy anything from them. So now they can control you, reduce the population with an “unavoidable” famine due to the virus, get Americans used to bread lines, tell you where you can travel (such a carbon reduction) and what work is essential and what isn’t. They can postpone your wedding (no more than ten people), make sure you have no babies (well, what are you going to feed them), deny you medical treatment, shame you when you complain. And you’ll take it.

They’re wrong of course. You’ll take it for a time, but not forever. But they don’t get that.

Here’s the thing, though, the way things are RIGHT NOW, you can rebel now or rebel later. You can rebel now, and go back to your life, or you can rebel later, when you’ll have to shoot anyone asking you for papers or keeping you from growing beans.

If you don’t assert your rights now, you’ll have to assert them in blood, when you’re starving and sick, cold and broken in winter, when the lights go out (we’ve already been having brownouts and blackouts) when your cars are not working, when getting factories back in a state to produce anything is almost impossible, when airplanes have been taken to “graveyards” in the desert forever, when your local hospital has shut its doors and has no money to reopen.

It’s time. It’s enough. If you let them they’ll pile on restrictions forever, and the “reopening plan” will cause more damage, because NO ONE CAN PLAN AN ECONOMY. Attempts to do it always end in poverty, misery and death."