AMuzi writes:

On 5/28/2020 6:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 4:02:12 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2020 14:37:04 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/28/2020 11:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/28/2020 10:21 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/27/2020 9:38 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2020 4:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/27/2020 2:36 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/27/2020 1:43 PM, wrote:

Only someone in a financially secure position could
ignore
the pain and suffering of people whose source of income
has been cut off...

Only a person who has no friend or family infected or
seriously at risk could ignore the pain and suffering of
those with COVID.

... for no reasons whatsoever.

That's the view of a person with zero qualifications,
despite strong disagreement from qualified experts in
every
country worldwide.


It is not heartless to observe that there is no
correlation between punishment and mortality rates.

There are definitely fatal policy errors (and Mr Cuomo
made more than a few of them. He's not alone.) but
destroying lives, income, businesses, wealth, opportunity
and hope has not meant less death, just more suffering
among the living.

Again, "punishment" is a deliberately loaded word. Things
like social distancing orders and travel restrictions were
intended to protect, not punish.

And again, those measures have worked extremely well in many
places. Look how excellently Hawaii has done! Less than 20
deaths last I looked. Isn't it obvious that can only be due
to the 'stay-at-home' orders?

;-)

That is not at all obvious. New York?? Chicago??

IOW, you mean that despite attempts at protective
regulations, New York and Chicago had lots of cases.

And I mean that because of protective regulations, Hawaii,
Nevada, New Mexico, Maine, Kansas etc. did really well. They
did exceptionally well in their rural areas.

So perhaps we should look at less extreme outliers? Is there
a chance that the regulations did have significant benefit,
but that in super-dense cities other factors contributed to
super-spreading? Perhaps one factor was ignoring the
regulations?

And is there a chance that without those regulations, the
super-spreading would have been far, far worse?

That's what epidemiologists around the world seem to think.


In my county there has been widespread disregard for the
"Because I Said So" rules with almost no fatal events[1].

You could posit that we all enjoy super immune systems but
there's so far no correlation between punishment of the
citizenry and positive outcomes. Again, Japan advised her
citizens and then stopped short of destroying the society,
with good results. New York, especially NYC, tried to
micromanage life to the smallest detail with abysmal outcome.


You keep saying that but just it isn't really true. There is even a
wiki page listing the Japanese response on a practically day by day
basis.

But no, they didn't impose draconian regulations on their people they
simply told them what to do and the Japanese being Japanese did what
they were told to do. As opposed to the U.S. approach that "I'm going
to do just as I damned please no matter what you tell me to do".

There really are "different strokes for different folks".

[1]One death on 29 March in an elder care facility, none since.


"I woke up in a free country!" [as told to fascist Costco
employee]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xCJa-qltY

Say goodbye to the cheap paper towels. Its the price of liberty!

BTW, you didn't wake up in a free Costco. Try getting in without
your membership card.


-- Jay Beattie.



At the diner where I take my morning coffee there's the occasional
person with a mask but those are rare. I otherwise haven't seen them
except driving, where some people drive on the Interstate with a mask,
alone in their own car. Weird.

I don't think there is a public accomodation near me that does not now
require a mask to enter. Even in live free or die New Hampshire, at
least close to the Massachusetts border. At the office we're required
to wear one unless actually at our desks (most are working from home).