Are people who don't follow Covid restrictions immoral ?
The most commonly accepted model for future coronavirus deaths says there will be over 200,000 additional covid deaths between now and New Years. This prediction is based on many people not following coronavirus guidelines during the fall and the beginning of the winter.
200,000 ADDITIONAL deaths. According to the modelers, many of these deaths could be avoided if people were to wear masks when required and keep social distancing.
The governor of Nevada is blasting Donald Trump today for holding an inside rally last night in that state.
The governor was asked if he thinks Trump is out of touch with reality and he said "absolutely".
So far the model has been pretty accurate , so what do you think? Given future avoidable deaths, is flaunting the covid restrictions immoral ?
Tags
Who is online
40 visitors
The answer is yes, but apathy rules.
A rather twisted view of morality. What is immoral is the unnecessary lock downs, putting millions of people out of work, and all the fallout that has resulted from that. Joe Biden being elected wouldn't change people's behavior
People look to a leader for what to do. Our leader is holding a rally today with no masks, no social distancing in a state that doesn't allow it, so he is even being an example for lawlessness. That is not a president. That is an egotist.
Biden has already done better.
You don't want statewide closedowns then follow the CDC guidelines. It's really that simple.
The federal government should have guaranteed the survival of businesses from the beginning. Yes it would cost trillions of dollars but if it had been done and everyone followed the restrictions, we would be on the other side of it already. The federal government can sustain almost limitless debt, the states and the cities cannot.
The US has perverted the idea of "freedom".
We have limitless coin.
Are you serious? Only mindless sheep need a shepard.
Back in the old days, people didnt know how to keep plague from spreading. 50% of the population died in some European towns. Today thanks to modern medicine we do know how to keep it from spreading.
Are those who refuse to co-operate with halting the spread immoral ?
If people didnt look to a leader for what to do the concept of "leader" wouldnt exist.
I think you got a bad batch of mushrooms there.
Damn, John....I'm actually agreeing with BF here.
It's been a god awful Monday
about what? that we cant afford trillions of dollars? we already do afford it. the national debt right now is something like 26 trillion. Do you really think three trillion more would be the backbreaker?
You really think that’s true? I see minimal evidence of that. Some might operate that way, but I think a great many people do what they choose to do. They might consider advice or guidance, but they aren’t waiting for some leader to tell them. Americans, in particular, are very independent - even the progressives who seek government control of so many things. They make up their own minds, for better or worse.
I'm not as well versed in economics as you but it seems to me you can't just pull money out of thin air...I've tried and it doesn't work. Eventually Americans are going to have pay that credit card bill and it's gonna hurt
I'm not getting on that filthy, diseased train.
The amount needed to get the pandemic under control would be more relevant IF we had already cut all the crap out of our budget and were running on fumes. As it is, we spend millions on Trump going golfing and a wall, BILLIONS on weaponry that not ever the military wants and the list goes on and on. After a while, those millions add up to billions add up to trillions and we're talking about some real money.
Almost every person who has contracted Covid will have a lasting effect to their health. We will all be paying for that into perpetuity.
A 3 week period of financial pain versus how many more lives?
A perfect example of that is the Sturgus bike rally. Over 200,000 MORE Covid cases and over 12 BILLION in health care costs. All for a 10 day exhibition of utter stupidity. Those BILLIONS could have been saved, along with the life and health of all of those people, merely by changing behavior.
then why hasnt the "eventually" come some time in the first 26 trillion? This is actually a national emergency unlike some of the other things we spend money on.
"A perfect example of that is the Sturgus bike rally. Over 200,000 MORE Covid cases and over 12 BILLION in health care costs. All for a 10 day exhibition of utter stupidity. Those BILLIONS could have been saved, along with the life and health of all of those people, merely by changing behavior."
But, but, I've been told/trolled by certain posters that that is bogus Dulay.
Go figure.
"I'm not getting on that filthy, diseased train."
Same here!
That's a batshit crazy/crazy as a shithouse rat train.
And you are assuming that just throwing more money at the problem will magically make it go away?
So what's your excuse Greg?
For your reading pleasure.
"Homeslice" and. . . not yet a senior. . . The People's Fish?!
actually, we don't have "leaders.... we have "representatives.
we don't follow presidents, they follow our will or we vote them out.
if thousands on the left can riot and burn cities, business, and destroy countless lives?
we can surely go to a peaceful political rally
Yes but now the CDC is compromised. The HHS spokesperson, deranged Michael Caputo is telling the CDC what they can and cannot say about Covid-19. Who can people believe ?
I. Don't. Know.
I really don't have an argument
Rather than being immoral, in my opinion the answer to the question is that such people are just plain stupid. I've been witness to the fact that following the guidelines contains the virus, and by not doing so, as has been established in the USA, leads to a disaster.
Yes, but stupidity also applies
And let's face it, there are a lot of stupid people in this country.
Some right here that deny science, data, and facts.....
Here and in a large portion of the country I'd wager. People seem rather hostile towards science as of late, which is sad. After all, what's better than science? Especially for society and the world in general?
Not all restrictions, no. The easy, obvious ones like mask wearing and social distancing? Sure.
However, some restrictions are arbitrary and not really based on a strong foundation of medical science. Heck, some of them seem to blatantly ignore the guidance - like random closing of beaches (a place that is outside and where people tend to sit separate from other groups/families. Or the different treatment of very similar activities - for example, in some places, you can get your hair done, but not your nails.
What everyone seems to be overlooking is that the most wildly optimistic projectionss are that mandated lockdowns and universal mask wearing would reduce the number of infections by 1/3 and reduce fatalities by 1/2. If the country had completely shutdown we would still have 4 million infections and 100,000 fatalities. There aren't any projections that show lockdowns and masks would have stopped the spread of the virus or stopped fatalities. And disasters like hurricanes, severe weather, and wild fires throw a monkey wrench into those wildly optimistic projections.
According to the expert prognostications we still have another year of this. FDA approval of a vaccine is only the first step in distributing doses to the general public. Vaccinating everyone will be a logistics nightmare that will make vote-by-mail look like child's play. And we still have no idea how much we will have to pay for a vaccination. And if the vaccine doesn't provide long term immunity, the first people vaccinated will need to be vaccinated again before everyone has been vaccinated.
The government's economic support during the pandemic has squashed efforts to address climate change like a bug on a windshield. And government spending has been too piddly to keep the economy going. So far, the estimates are that direct expenditures by Congress and monetary support by the Fed amounts to $6 trillion. And we aren't even halfway through the pandemic with it's economic fallout. YaleEnvironment360 estimates that converting the electric grid to alternatives would cost $4.5 trillion. Bye bye alternative energy. For the foreseeable future the government will be spending money just so we survive.
Thank you, China.
A mask is a face condom. A condom may provide the wearer some protection but that isn't the main purpose for wearing a condom.
Someone that refuses to wear a condom is not a safe sex partner. Refusing to wear a mask kinda indicates what kind of sex partner an individual would be.
Who would it have hurt to not have the Sturgis motorcycle rally ? No one but the people that sell things there. What if an earthquake had hit that area and they had to cancel the event? Whats the difference?
The truth is many Americans dont care if 400,000 of their fellow Americans die. Its more important to them to go out and have a good time anytime they like.
Who would it have hurt to not have vandalized statues, painted streets, and created occupied protest zones?
Maybe not, but I've been a witness to it's working to an almost perfect result, and the minimal resurgances have been contained as well.
Would have been a lot smarter to emulate it than to thank it, but the O'Donnell Republican Covid Playbook for the reelection of Donald Trump didn't tell you that.
Actually, there are, and anyone with a modicum of curiosity could find them easily. They are from the same source that the Trump 'task force' has cited at many of their briefings.
Here's the quote from the link you provided (the part you missed has been highlighted):
Then WHY did you say:
You posted a quote that refutes your comment yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
You know that transmission is 'spread' right?
So while I know you insist that only STOPPING the spread is worthy of your recognition, those of us on Earth 1 realize that REDUCING the transmission is a WIN.
BTW, review the Daily Deaths chart that shows the difference between continued restrictions and easing restrictions. Instead of 1000+ a day, easing the restrictions send daily deaths by Dec.1 to 5000+. and to 12,000 by Jan.1.
Ya, let's go there...
Read @ 6 again.
Why? It's the same blather I read the first time.
I posted a link to projections that DO show restrictions and masks DO reduce the spread of the virus. You pretend that YOU know how to read the data. DO so. I invite members to review the Daily Death chart for themselves.
That's exactly what I said.
Masks reduce spread of the virus by 1/3 according to optimistic projections. There aren't any projections that claim masks will stop the spread of the virus; masks only reduce spread of the virus by 1/3.
No, your link doesn't say masks would stop the virus or fatalities, which is the quote you responded to. It says it would reduce the rate of transmission by about 30% or more, which is something Nerm already mentioned.
So while I know you insist that only STOPPING the spread is worthy of your recognition, those of us on Earth 1 realize that REDUCING the transmission is a WIN.
Rinse and repeat as needed for effect.
Incorrect. I never said anything like that.
Wrong again. I never said reducing transmission wasn't a worthy goal, and neither did Nerm.
Always easier for some to argue words they put in your mouth than the actual words you say.
Sometimes people are more interested in just beating other people up online and "winning" than they are in just having a conversation.
Except this:
Pffft.
I don't know what argument you think you just made, but I still didn't say the things you claimed I did. Why keep on with trying to insist that I either said something I didn't, or believe something I don't?