ADVERTISEMENT

%$#@ your amnesty

Okay, you’re equating loss of businesses to loss of lives. Prohibitive rules were largely in the first year, before a vaccine was available,. and studies have estimated that another 20 million would’ve died without the vaccine. I live with my 77 year old mother-in-law who has diabetes, COPD, and high BP. I was going to wear a mask and follow the rules to keep her alive. Once we were all vaccinated we eased up. .

Ultimately, I think this was a belief in the test of selflessness and if you were willing to help save a life besides your own. Was risking your business worth saving the lives of the vulnerable in your community?

I’m not equating anything. It became clear a month or two into lockdowns around the world that the disease wasn’t the Bubonic Plague and wasn’t killing at large. At that point the rational thing to do is figure out who is at risk and who isn’t and implement a realistic plan. That didn’t happen.
 
I’m not equating anything. It became clear a month or two into lockdowns around the world that the disease wasn’t the Bubonic Plague and wasn’t killing at large. At that point the rational thing to do is figure out who is at risk and who isn’t and implement a realistic plan. That didn’t happen.
For various (good) reasons, I paid a lot more attention to the Indiana response to Covid (and to a lesser extent, Ohio) than anything happening nationally. Although the shutdown was at first a reaction to the unknown (and also a bit of following the herd), very quickly, as they put together the processes to get and study the relevant data, Holcomb and Box made it very clear that the shutdown was going to be intimately tied to hospital overcrowding. The worry was that if the disease spread enough to overload our medical system, then deaths would be much, much worse. And although I think they kept this state shut a little longer than they needed to, they mostly held to that, as evidenced by declining to revert back to a strict shutdown during the second wave, which did see increased spread, but not to the extent that the healthcare system was ever in the sort of jeopardy it appeared to be in during the first wave.

YMMV in other states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
For various (good) reasons, I paid a lot more attention to the Indiana response to Covid (and to a lesser extent, Ohio) than anything happening nationally. Although the shutdown was at first a reaction to the unknown (and also a bit of following the herd), very quickly, as they put together the processes to get and study the relevant data, Holcomb and Box made it very clear that the shutdown was going to be intimately tied to hospital overcrowding. The worry was that if the disease spread enough to overload our medical system, then deaths would be much, much worse. And although I think they kept this state shut a little longer than they needed to, they mostly held to that, as evidenced by declining to revert back to a strict shutdown during the second wave, which did see increased spread, but not to the extent that the healthcare system was ever in the sort of jeopardy it appeared to be in during the first wave.

YMMV in other states.
People die. COVID caused extra deaths. We learned that the virus caused extra deaths but we thought it would be much worse than it ended up being. We learned this relatively early on, by late summer 2020. We also knew by then how disastrous some of the state responses were - like nursing home triage. But we learned that it wasn’t the Bubonic and we should’ve reopened to those not at risk. And we didn’t. And we didn’t because we let the worst (the weakest) of us control the narrative. Shame on us.
 
People die. COVID caused extra deaths. We learned that the virus caused extra deaths but we thought it would be much worse than it ended up being. We learned this relatively early on, by late summer 2020. We also knew by then how disastrous some of the state responses were - like nursing home triage. But we learned that it wasn’t the Bubonic and we should’ve reopened to those not at risk. And we didn’t. And we didn’t because we let the worst (the weakest) of us control the narrative. Shame on us.
Our singular institutional focus was “stopping the spread” and “smoothing the curve.” That dictated lockdowns. That was a Failure in several ways. Perversely, that increased the spread in some high density occupancy conditions not to mention causing other mental and physical maladies. Treatment consisted of “if you feel sick, stay home” and if you are too sick call 911. There was little to no information about the importance of various ways to help one’s immune system. There were many reported success from PCP’s of early care and early dispensing of you know what.
 
No one said that cloth masks were worthless because they knew they were worthless.

They said they were worthless simply because their politics told them to.

This entire semi-coherent embittered diatribe is 24 karat fiction based upon politics-based revisionist history.

But do prattle on.
Those of us that know science knew the cloth mask couldn't stop the virus because the virus was too small for the weave to stop. Too many people thought they were superior to us to listen and make good decisions.
 
At that point the rational thing to do is figure out who is at risk and who isn’t and implement a realistic plan. That didn’t happen.
Agree, but ...

Not sure modern medicine - designed to satisfy insurance companies and prevent/create evidence to defend lawsuits - can even DO that.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT