Coronavirus II

[T.Lex]

Another intellectual exercise, for those of you wondering if the collective response is proportionate to the threat: how many dead would justify the current response?

That is, what's the bogey, the target number? If there were X dead people, then this response would make sense. Then what's that X number?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Another intellectual exercise, for those of you wondering if the collective response is proportionate to the threat: how many dead would justify the current response?

That is, what's the bogey, the target number? If there were X dead people, then this response would make sense. Then what's that X number?

That’s the conundrum, isn’t it? If I’m alive but there’s no jobs, my retirement is gone, I’ve given the government new, unconstitutional powers, I’ve lost my business, etc...how many lives is that worth? Especially when that is repeated many thousands or millions of times, across the country.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Another intellectual exercise, for those of you wondering if the collective response is proportionate to the threat: how many dead would justify the current response?

That is, what's the bogey, the target number? If there were X dead people, then this response would make sense. Then what's that X number?

For me, this is in the same region as gun control. Would a 100% ban and confiscation save lives? Probably. Would it be worth it? No.

Would complete government takeover/martial law/nobody can leave their house saves some lives? Probably. Would it be worth it? I say no.

 

[T.Lex]

That’s the conundrum, isn’t it? If I’m alive but there’s no jobs, my retirement is gone, I’ve given the government new, unconstitutional powers, I’ve lost my business, etc...how many lives is that worth? Especially when that is repeated many thousands or millions of times, across the country.

Yeah, at a policy level, this is ****ty final exam question for a Philosophy 101 class.

The other dynamic is that, without remedial measures, the actual hospitalization/death from the virus would be bigger, and that would remove people from the workforce. Part of the calculus would be if it would remove more or less than are unemployed, I guess.

 

[nonobaddog]

The threat is NOT the number dead right now.

 

[T.Lex]

For me, this is in the same region as gun control. Would a 100% ban and confiscation save lives? Probably. Would it be worth it? No.

Would complete government takeover/martial law/nobody can leave their house saves some lives? Probably. Would it be worth it? I say no.

Well, currently there is at least an effort to balance a response. Based on current variables (risk v. response), how many dead people would make the current response "worth it."

Put another way, if it could be shown that the current response saved X number of lives, what would you need that X to be?

 

[HoughMade]

But in an economy that is increasingly serviced based, you need people to serve.

 

[T.Lex]

The threat is NOT the number dead right now.

I'm curious what you mean by that. I mean, I'd fill in the blanks and say that the threat is the critical-care hospitalization of hundreds of thousands and the corresponding endangering of medical personnel.

But, I'm not sure if that's what YOU mean.

 

[Dead Duck]

Another intellectual exercise, for those of you wondering if the collective response is proportionate to the threat: how many dead would justify the current response?

That is, what's the bogey, the target number? If there were X dead people, then this response would make sense. Then what's that X number?

Exactly....
It reminds me of "Proper" self defense in California. (what they want to see anyway) Guy comes at you so you fight him with fists. He pulls out a knife so now you are allowed to pull out a knife. He pulls out a gun so now you are allowed to pull out a gun.

But if he comes at you with anything less than a gun and you shoot him, you go to jail because your actions were disproportionate.





I can't tell you the number of times I've been called chicken little just for being prepared. I will overkill all day long instead of failing because I didn't do enough.

 

[MCgrease08]

Pivoting back to the homemade ventilator conversation:

'Going full-on MacGyver': Doctor creates makeshift ventilators to battle COVID-19

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yeah, at a policy level, this is ****ty final exam question for a Philosophy 101 class.

The other dynamic is that, without remedial measures, the actual hospitalization/death from the virus would be bigger, and that would remove people from the workforce. Part of the calculus would be if it would remove more or less than are unemployed, I guess.

This is kind of like the argument I’ve heard about waging war. Yeah, a 20-something year, low grade war results in fewer deaths than a massive, all-in, decisive wr would. But which is better in the long run?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I’m very blessed to have the job that I have. I honestly can’t think of a scenario where I wouldn’t go to work. I’m an essential employee for a utility company. So yeah, barring nuclear disaster, I’m going to work. Heck even then I’d probably have to go in and support the linemen as they rebuild.

 

[nonobaddog]

I'm curious what you mean by that. I mean, I'd fill in the blanks and say that the threat is the critical-care hospitalization of hundreds of thousands and the corresponding endangering of medical personnel.

But, I'm not sure if that's what YOU mean.

Yes that is part of it. The number of deaths right now is not the number we need to focus on. It is too early and the numbers are misleading. The numbers that need ICU care are more important now.

For instance - if we look at the percent increase in death after the first death. Indiana has had an increase of 600% while Minnesota has had an increase of 0%. Those numbers do not mean anything.

A threat is something that can happen in the future. The number of deaths now is not a good indicator of the future.

 

[ditcherman]

For me, this is in the same region as gun control. Would a 100% ban and confiscation save lives? Probably. Would it be worth it? No.

Would complete government takeover/martial law/nobody can leave their house saves some lives? Probably. Would it be worth it? I say no.

It’s more far fetched to think what might happen is a complete govt takeover as you describe it, than to expect worse case scenarios if nothing is done. In other words, if nothing is done to contain the worse case scenarios will happen. Marshall law et al is purely speculative, and is only likely to happen if we don’t do anything to contain, and then the govt decided something must be done. Calling out the Guard to help deliver supplies is not Marshall Law. No one is on house arrest, that is ridiculous.

 

[T.Lex]

This is kind of like the argument I’ve heard about waging war. Yeah, a 20-something year, low grade war results in fewer deaths than a massive, all-in, decisive wr would. But which is better in the long run?

Riffing off of that, I'm planning on re-watching Blackhawk Down during this stay-in-and-chill period.

There's an analogy there, too. How much reaction by the US was necessary to achieve our goals? (Setting aside the obscure policy goals at the time.) Would tanks/more armament been better for that raid? In retrospect, yeah, probably. But on the front end, that wasn't clear.

For the COVID-19 reaction, we don't know yet if the armored humvees and little birds we've been using are enough. We probably won't really know until later. So far, they seem to be getting the job done as much as we need them to. Another week and we'll know more.

Or, maybe we did send in the extra firepower on this and wrecked hell on the inhabitants, but protected our people.

I dunno. Maybe that isn't a great analogy. But I am planning on watching the move again.

 

[Twangbanger]

Another intellectual exercise, for those of you wondering if the collective response is proportionate to the threat: how many dead would justify the current response?

That is, what's the bogey, the target number? If there were X dead people, then this response would make sense. Then what's that X number?

This is a good question for conversation. The one I'm more interested in: what's the "exit criterion?"

I'm concerned we're now involved in a "land war in Asia" that we cannot extricate from.

When you (meaning government officials) made the decision to go on lockdown, you did it out of concern for saving lives. You did it for the best reasons.

But when the decision comes to _reverse_ that original decision, you are then acting in an economic capacity. You're no longer making a decision that saves lives. You're taking an action that's going to _cost_ lives.

And I just don't see which politician wants to be the first to make that call. They're obviously going to wait for some higher "expert" to give the signal that it's ok. What criterion is that person going to use? Is it going to be a surgeon general? NIH director? CDC official? Given that every single one of these experts ultimately reports to Trump, and the decision to lift restrictions will necessarily allow some lives to be lost, you have a recipe for controversy. Regardless whether you think it would be "better if someone else were President," it still remains that someone has to take that first step.

And I don't see that exit criterion being defined in advance, by anyone. I see a recipe for permanent paralysis.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes that is part of it. The number of deaths right now is not the number we need to focus on. It is too early and the numbers are misleading. The numbers that need ICU care are more important now.

For instance - if we look at the percent increase in death after the first death. Indiana has had an increase of 600% while Minnesota has had an increase of 0%. Those numbers do not mean anything.

A threat is something that can happen in the future. The number of deaths now is not a good indicator of the future.

Well, I'll politely disagree with you on a limited basis.

We aren't getting (at least I haven't found) the numbers on hospitalizations/critical care. With that, we could better triangulate on overall infections and deaths, and do better modeling. In the absence of that, armed only with the 2 dimensional numbers they're giving us (infections and deaths), we kinda have to make due.

And again, it is worth mentioning that I have no illusion about the numbers being accurate. It is just the numbers that we are being provided.

 

[T.Lex]

This is a good question for conversation. The one I'm more interested in: what's the "exit criterion?"

I'm concerned we're now involved in a "land war in Asia" that we cannot extricate from.

When you (meaning government officials) made the decision to go on lockdown, you did it out of concern for saving lives. You did it for the best reasons.

But when the decision comes to _reverse_ that original decision, you are then acting in an economic capacity. You're no longer making a decision that saves lives. You're taking an action that's going to _cost_ lives.

And I just don't see which politician wants to be the first to make that call. They're obviously going to wait for some higher "expert" to give the signal that it's ok. What criterion is that person going to use? Is it going to be a surgeon general? NIH director? CDC official? Given that every single one of these experts ultimately reports to Trump, and the decision to lift restrictions will necessarily allow some lives to be lost, you have a recipe for controversy. Regardless whether you think it would be "better if someone else were President," it still remains that someone has to take that first step.

And I don't see that exit criterion being defined in advance, by anyone. I see a recipe for permanent paralysis.

That's a fair question.

I think the best answer is that it will continue until we, as a society, lose patience and just start violating it. Basically call the bluff.

That will happen at some point. Hopefully it happens after we have solid treatments and perhaps even a vaccine.

 

[Libertarian01]

For all of this shelter in place stuff, I've also heard about only being on the road for essential services or to/from "allowed" locations.

Being liberty and freedom minded and all, I wonder what the situation is if someone gets pulled over during one of these "lockdowns" and refuses to answer any questions without their attorney being present? Does Prouse v Deleware or Pinner v State in Indiana mean that they must have some reason to believe you are not essential or are not enroute to/from an allowed location, like pharmacy?

I know there are state and federal laws, but none supersede the Constitution.

Just curious how this would likely play out?

Regards,

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

For all of this shelter in place stuff, I've also heard about only being on the road for essential services or to/from "allowed" locations.

Being liberty and freedom minded and all, I wonder what the situation is if someone gets pulled over during one of these "lockdowns" and refuses to answer any questions without their attorney being present? Does Prouse v Deleware or Pinner v State in Indiana mean that they must have some reason to believe you are not essential or are not enroute to/from an allowed location, like pharmacy?

I know there are state and federal laws, but none supersede the Constitution.

Just curious how this would likely play out?

Regards,

Doug

Most likely it would play out by not being pulled over at all, unless for some other reason.

LE/NG would have other issues and be spread out pretty thin.

But, generally, an emergency is an emergency. If you aren't doing something "essential" (or at least have a decent cover story), then you probably shouldn't be going out.

Freedom does include the freedom to do something not-smart, though. Like going for a driving tour during a pandemic.