Beer Virus V

[nonobaddog]

Infringement sure, I can agree with that, but when you get a business license from the government, you are agreeing to their rules.

Why should you even need a 'business license' from the government in the first place?

 

[JCSR]

This should make everyone feel better... we're all gonna die!

Kentucky doctors warn of the 'false security' of a negative COVID-19 test


[FONT=&amp]LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- As COVID-19 cases rise and Thanksgiving approaches, the demand for testing is growing. But doctors warn that a negative test does not mean you do not have the virus.

https://www.wdrb.com/news/kentucky-...cle_5e07e6a0-2dfd-11eb-acf2-73d5bd2eaecd.html
[/FONT]

 

[BugI02]

Why should you even need a 'business license' from the government in the first place?

Because without that proviso, the professional societies that pay government to limit competition would no longer pay

 

[NKBJ]

Why should you even need a 'business license' from the government in the first place?

I don't know but it's as offensive to me as a marriage license.

 

[jamil]

With the mitigation in effect, yes.

You know that every demographic has suffered deaths, yes? And that was with mitigation in place.

We don't know what the death rate among the non-elderly would be with a lack of mitigation.

Oh, and lest it go without saying, sacrificing the elderly may be a heartlessly clinical logic, but it is not one that a majority in our society supports.

WHAT? C'mon man. You usually logic better than that. We do have plenty of data from which we could get a very good idea of what the death rates are with and without mitigation. And then you follow it up with an appeal to emotion? Dude.

 

[foszoe]

Why should you even need a 'business license' from the government in the first place?

Thats a different discussion.

 

[T.Lex]

WHAT? C'mon man. You usually logic better than that. We do have plenty of data from which we could get a very good idea of what the death rates are with and without mitigation. And then you follow it up with an appeal to emotion? Dude.

1) I didn't appeal to anything, just observed the clinical response to the death demographics and the nature of US society at this point.

B) It does appear that mitigation produces fewer deaths. The more extreme mitigation, the fewer deaths - at great economic cost. The less mitigation, the more deaths - including among the non-elderly.

Not sure what's illogical about either of those things.

 

[jamil]

We don't actually know that.

For all we know, unmitigated spread would have killed millions AND shut down the economy because people would've avoided going to work because... death.

But, contrary to some opinion here and in public, it is not a binary choice. Neither the US nor Indiana really went into a shutdown. There were harsher restrictions, yes, but lots of people were considered "essential."

Since then, most policy people believe we understand how to target restrictions to minimize the effect on the economy and maximize the mitigation of the disease. (I'm not completely convinced and the numbers reveal that may not be true.) So, I don't hear anyone in Indiana talking about a March-like level of restrictions on everything. Even this odd blue-orange-red thing isn't as onerous as what was in place in the Spring.

I hope we can set aside the hyperbole and focus on striking the right balance. This is not an all or nothing proposition and never really was.

Okay. The part we kinda know is the down side of the disease. The part we don't know is the downside of mitigations. So then if we don't know one side of it, we also don't know which is worse. And that last part is harder to determine because it's harder to measure the total effect of what mitigations cost what to society than it is to measure the effects of a deadly disease.

It sounds like you're arguing from just as much unknown as anyone. And I'd like you to show me how you're so sure that most policy people actually DO understand how to target restrictions to minimize effects on society by shutting down parts of it. Notice I didn't mention economy. Because the downside of shutting things down is way more than just the economy.

Speaking of policy makers, I kinda sense that they're using the same logic that you are for deciding what to do about this. If we're going to set aside the hyperbole, that's just fine with me. But you'll need to do it too.

 

[printcraft]

Infringement sure, I can agree with that, but when you get a business license from the government, you are agreeing to their rules.

Nobody willingly gets a license for activity from the government.

 

[T.Lex]

Speaking of policy makers, I kinda sense that they're using the same logic that you are for deciding what to do about this. If we're going to set aside the hyperbole, that's just fine with me. But you'll need to do it too.

Ok, but I'm not using hyperbole.

I guess the one qualification I can throw in there is that "most of the policy makers (that I pay attention to)." That is, I can show that policy makers are unwilling to shutter everything because we haven't shuttered everything. Certainly not in Indiana. Not even in Indianapolis.

Yes, there are a great deal of unknowns. That's life. Policy makers are constrained by many things, including there are things we don't know and can't know until it is too late. That's what prompted the extreme measures in March-July.

I'm on board with the notion that the economy is just one part (an important part, to be sure) of the secondary effects of the disease. The societal cost continues to be huge. But we can't really separate the disease from the mitigation on that. Even in the absence of state-sponsored mitigation, there would be plenty of people masking/staying home/depressed/anxious.

Unless one is of a mind that no mitigation has been effective. If that's true, and we could know that for sure, then removing all mitigation would make a great deal of sense, and all the anxiety would be tied to the Russian-roulette nature of this.

 

[nonobaddog]

Thats a different discussion.

Is it really? Somehow it seems like the same government overreach.

 

[jamil]

1) I didn't appeal to anything, just observed the clinical response to the death demographics and the nature of US society at this point.

B) It does appear that mitigation produces fewer deaths. The more extreme mitigation, the fewer deaths - at great economic cost. The less mitigation, the more deaths - including among the non-elderly.

Not sure what's illogical about either of those things.

Well, you asserted some facts not in evidence, and you invoked "but granny" clause.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, you asserted some facts not in evidence, and you invoked "but granny" clause.

Did not.

 

[foszoe]

Nobody willingly gets a license for activity from the government.

You have the choice not to and take the consequences. You weighed the options and made a choice. You willfully make the choice. Kinda like voting for President.

Being a criminal is an option.

 

[jamil]

Ok, count me in the group, too.

But what essential liberty is implicated in limiting restaurants to 50% capacity?

Uh. I guess you're not a restaurant owner, nor can you imagine yourself as a restaurant owner. Because I think if you're a restaurant owner, or could imagine yourself as one, you'd be able to enumerate some essential liberties implicated.

 

[jamil]

Did not.

Did too.

And if you don't stoppit, I'm telling Mom.

 

[printcraft]

You have the choice not to and take the consequences. You weighed the options and made a choice. You willfully make the choice. Kinda like voting for President.

Being a criminal is an option.

It's not a choice with a gun to your head, it's mob extortion.

 

[T.Lex]

Uh. I guess you're not a restaurant owner, nor can you imagine yourself as a restaurant owner. Because I think if you're a restaurant owner, or could imagine yourself as one, you'd be able to enumerate some essential liberties implicated.

Actually, I am very familiar with that business, at several levels. And feel a great deal of sympathy for people in that industry - even more during COVID.

That's a really hard business to succeed in during the best years.

Did too.

And if you don't stoppit, I'm telling Mom.

Did not ^ infinity +1.

 

[foszoe]

It's not a choice with a gun to your head, it's mob extortion.

So you define choice by whether or not you like the options?

I Google that for you.

https://www.google.com/search?q=cho...9i57.2079j0j4&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

[Ingomike]

In recent years the little people have been corralled towards service industry jobs as good jobs in manufacturing dried up. Now, too many who find themselves surviving relatively well,in my opinion, seem willing to sacrifice those jobs and those people on unproven or untried schemes that they arguably hope will maintain their own situation in status quo. I absolutely understand that, but can't countenance trying to put a pretty, altruistic face on the effort

Mitigation just seems adjacent to communism, in that failure of results is never accepted nor even considered, the blame is always placed on improper implementation

Demonstrate that you can save yourself before you claim you can save me

Ok, count me in the group, too.

But what essential liberty is implicated in limiting restaurants to 50% capacity?

Seems like the question is answered in red above...