What do you think the threshold for the actions we see from the government should be

I think a lot of the back and forth about the shutdown and reaction to the virus has to do with not quite understanding not only what this disease would do, and how much costs will be associated with the reaction, but that people have different beliefs on when government should take some sort of actions such as the ones we are seeing.

On the extremes, you probably have some people that would never accept any government infringements, and others that think we would be better off with the government micro managing the country in this way all of the time

Im willing to bet 99 percent of us, myself included, are not in either of these camps.

So the question becomes, what is the threshold we are thinking where we say the sort of reaction we are seeing from the government (btw I am talking USA but anyone from any country can feel free to chime in)?

Let me just throw out a number.

If you could see in a crystal ball, and found that this disease would have killed 50000 people in the USA if the government didnt take these actions, would you be fro these actions or think it was an overreaction?

I think you're a little obsessed with this. This is what, the third thread you've created for a discussion similar to this?

a reply to: Grambler

How about stay within the confines of the Constitution and Bill of Rights???

a reply to: HalWesten

Perhaps you are a little obsessed with me if you are so intent on keeping track.

I notice many people want to focus on me, why I am wrong, ect, and who knows all of those people could be right.

But not one person has answered this basic question.

What is your threshold, would 50000 people dying of this virus in total in the united states justify this sort of reaction to prevent that?

It's hard not to notice, I honestly couldn't care less if you want to create a thousand threads on this. Maybe you're not getting an answer because it's an irrelevant question to everyone else because no one wants anyone to die from this or any other disease.

originally posted by: HalWesten
I think you're a little obsessed with this. This is what, the third thread you've created for a discussion similar to this?

I think you're a little obsessed with Grambler; And with trying to censor anything that smacks of disagreement with your "chosen one"

and be advised if Grambler gets sick there are plenty of real Patriots waiting to take up where he left off. We will not allow the Bill or Rights and the Constitution to be used as Fauxservatives toilet paper.

originally posted by: HalWesten
...because no one wants anyone to die from this or any other disease.

Then why haven't we shut the country down over diabetes or heart disease?

originally posted by: HalWesten
It's hard not to notice, I honestly couldn't care less if you want to create a thousand threads on this. Maybe you're not getting an answer because it's an irrelevant question to everyone else because no one wants anyone to die from this or any other disease.

Ok so the action is justified because no one should die of disease.

Thank you for your answer. That put you in the extreme camp I thought no one would be in; these sorts of government actions are justified even to stop one death.

Ill discuss this perspective more later.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HalWesten
...because no one wants anyone to die from this or any other disease.

Then why haven't we shut the country down over diabetes or heart disease?

Shhhhh......

Lets see if more people share that perspective before discussing how insane it is.

a reply to: Grambler
Isn't that the crux of the debate at this point? Which will cause more devastation in the long run, CV or financial ruin? From my perspective, I think most of us have a hard time weighing the two because we have never seen the end result of either, except on TV, and it doesn't seem real because we aren't personally faced with it. Now that we actually have to think about it, many are finding it hard to wrap their mind around it.

I think your previous thread asked the right questions, but the answers and following actions will be very divisive at best, because most will choose fear over logic. In my personal opinion, an economic disaster may cost us more lives in the long term as well as a loss of rights we'll never recover from.

I'm not much for crystal balls. I just wasn't born that fabulous. That said, I draw the line at intervention when the distribution indicates hospitals will be overrun and doctors/nurses will be asked to provide lifesaving care to angry mobs of roving zombies.

I have no dog in this fight, but those are not communicable diseases. The point is taken though. The cold or flu would have been better examples.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Thats why I feel this question is probably the most important one.

There is no right answer, I just wanted to get a feel for where people stand, and it seems most people dont want to asnwer the question.

Ill answer as clearly as I can; no, I do not feel that 50000 people dying even comes close to justifying the government response here.

Perhaps many people disagree with me, which is fine. But why will they not just be open with their answer?

a reply to: Grambler

What if 50,000 deaths over X interval(s) of time won't overrun the system but 2.2 million deaths over the same interval(s) will?

originally posted by: WeDemBoyz
I have no dog in this fight, but those are not communicable diseases. The point is taken though. The cold or flu would have been better examples.

The poster said 'any other disease'.

As a giant big government shill I am using that opportunity to wreck the economy and your livelihood. Think of the children, especially the fat children!

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Ok then how many people need to be at risk for hospitalization to trigger that?

How about 700 thousand?

If 700 thousand people would need to be hospitalized because of this disaese, would that overhwlme the system and warrant this sort of government reaction?

a reply to: Grambler

I doubt it. Apparently we have about a million hospital beds in the US. That doesn't account for the fact that a lot of those aren't used for (or staffed for) critical care patients.

If each critical care patient (x) suffering from the disease-of-the-month who requires life-saving intervention stays in the hospital for (y) intervals before recovering or dying, how many can our hospital system serve? (That's "surge," though grossly simplified since not all beds are created equal).

If x is greater than y, triage of care occurs. If x is far greater than y, the healthcare system collapses.

Your questions are valid and good. I wish more people asked better questions but based on the best science we have right now (and if NY is any example) uncontrolled community spread will lead to more patients within that interval than the healthcare system can support.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HalWesten
...because no one wants anyone to die from this or any other disease.

Then why haven't we shut the country down over diabetes or heart disease?

Shhhhh......

Lets see if more people share that perspective before discussing how insane it is.

Just gotta "Devils advocate" that one: You cant "catch" heart disease or a car accident from your neighbor.

a reply to: Grambler

I don't need 50,000 to present my thoughts on the issue. I just need 1.

You present 50,000 as if it's an abstract. A statistic and nothing more. It's pretty easy to do that when externalizing an issue. It's a bit more difficult if you pull that panorama back and zoom in a bit.

So here's my counter question. Would you trade the life of one member of your family to avoid a short term financial difficulty? Spouse? Sibling? Parent? Child?

I ask because every single one of your theoretical 50,000 would fall into one or more of those categories for other people.

Because those two diseases are not communicable?

Being based in Europe, I can see the government's fear... Overwhelming the hospital systems and then a massive panic ensues because there is no flu shot for this strain.

I love seeing the pussies on here thinking uncle Sam wants to steal your rights. I look at it as government doing their number one job for a change... Protecting the populace.

If I am wrong... We can convene next year to have a look back....so I can point out all the pussies on here and laugh at their rediculous fears.

Go read about Spanish flu if you want to see the alternative.

www.aarp.org...

And please note the total population percent.