Garza, Bohannon and the Virus

InGoodCo said:
I agree and I don’t know why? The fact is, if these precautions taken do work, and it’s not as bad as projected, it’s probably because of the caution taken, but you’ll have the guys on the other side of this saying “see I told ya it was nothing”
Click to expand...
Well, at least I'll be consistent, unlike the World Health Organization.
 
InGoodCo said:
I agree and I don’t know why? The fact is, if these precautions taken do work, and it’s not as bad as projected, it’s probably because of the caution taken, but you’ll have the guys on the other side of this saying “see I told ya it was nothing”
Click to expand...
I almost want to predict that every new viral outbreak in the future is going to result in the same responses. Trump's now contemplating domestic travel bans, reportedly. That'll be awesome for the economy. I'm afraid the financial damages are going to far outweigh any health related damages from the virus.
 
tksirius said:
I almost want to predict that every new viral outbreak in the future is going to result in the same responses. Trump's now contemplating domestic travel bans, reportedly. That'll be awesome for the economy. I'm afraid the financial damages are going to far outweigh any health related damages from the virus.
Click to expand...
That could end up being the case, we don’t know yet. I just get the theory behind what they are trying to do and it’s weird to me that I can see your side of the argument, because I can, this is a huge financial pitfall our country might not ever fully recover from, but the ones on your side of the fence seem to have a hard time admitting maybe this might be smart. It could be some of both. That’s possible. I just think people should keep an open mind about shit. None of us know, so I’m gonna go ahead and follow what the people who get paid to know this kind of shit tell me. If that makes me a sheep then I’m ok with it, I am.
 
InGoodCo said:
That could end up being the case, we don’t know yet. I just get the theory behind what they are trying to do and it’s weird to me that I can see your side of the argument, because I can, this is a huge financial pitfall our country might not ever fully recover from, but the ones on your side of the fence seem to have a hard time admitting maybe this might be smart. It could be some of both. That’s possible. I just think people should keep an open mind about shit. None of us know, so I’m gonna go ahead and follow what the people who get paid to know this kind of shit tell me. If that makes me a sheep then I’m ok with it, I am.
Click to expand...

Sars was way less contagious with a way higher death rate. If we were dealing with that, all this makes perfect sense to me. But to me, this is far too contagious to contain and far too small of a death rate to try to contain, given the cost of trying to contain it.

One question I don't know the answer to is what percentage of people that get hospitalized actually have their life saved. Do the people who were going to die, die anyway? Or does the hospital actually save a decent percentage of the people who go in there? Do they give you an IV and hope for the best? Or do they do something to save your life? My guess is hospitals don't save a whole lot of lives. It's a complete guess tho.
 
InGoodCo said:
That could end up being the case, we don’t know yet. I just get the theory behind what they are trying to do and it’s weird to me that I can see your side of the argument, because I can, this is a huge financial pitfall our country might not ever fully recover from, but the ones on your side of the fence seem to have a hard time admitting maybe this might be smart. It could be some of both. That’s possible. I just think people should keep an open mind about shit. None of us know, so I’m gonna go ahead and follow what the people who get paid to know this kind of shit tell me. If that makes me a sheep then I’m ok with it, I am.
Click to expand...
1. Which will result in less damage to the economies of the world?
2. Which will be more effective at reducing deaths from the virus?
Putting a lockdown on the immunocompromised/elderly with plenty of support from the govt, food, supplies etc., or canceling everything for everyone.

I'll give you a hint, the answer is the same for both questions. The virus is going to spread either way.
 
Last edited:
tksirius said:
1. Which will result in less damage to the economies of the world?
2. Which will be more effective at reducing the spread of the virus?
Putting a lockdown on the immunocompromised/elderly with plenty of support from the govt, food, supplies etc., or canceling everything for everyone.

I'll give you a hint, the answer is the same for both questions. The virus is going to spread either way.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the speed will be different.
 
tksirius said:
Lol yet you still don't think people are overreacting. This shit is comical.
Click to expand...
Just stop. Hasn't the past taught you anything? This could be as bad as anything in our lifetime. I read something that said it could possibly be even worse than Y2K, and you know that so many people were killed from that. There were doubters then too, our entire population was pert' near wiped out.
 
There is a whole lot about this virus and its characteristics that we do not know, but the few things that we do know make this a gross over-reaction of historic proportions. I understand what the point of minimizing social contact is supposed to do, lessen the rate of spread, but the severe lack of coordination and cooperation among government leaders, financial leaders, media leaders and private enterprise has only resulted in chaos, fear and uncertainty. We are sending the message, loud and clear, to the rest of the world that we have no resolve and that an infectious disease other than something lethal (ebola, H1N5, plague, tuberculosis, malaria, etc.) can strike paralyzing fear in our people and shut down our economy and ultimately our way of life. That part is the dangerous part, because for all of the political regimes out there that hate the U.S., here is your blueprint on how to take us down.

As far as what should have been done, there should have been a collective non-biased, non-partisan collaboration with government, media, financial leaders and other people of influence with the common goal of instilling confidence in the people that all is under control. Educating the public on what the infection is and how to prevent it, and then past that educating the people on if you exhibit these symptoms then this is what you need to do. Besides the hospitals, use the network of urgent care facilities, doctor's offices, even surgery centers as points of contact for testing and managing symptoms. In the meantime work on developing medicines to combat the illness, either in the form of a vaccine or in treatment of symptoms, or both.

Instead, there is no plan B. No matter how many events that are cancelled or schools that are closed, people are going to get infected. And what they are going to do is panic, like they already are, and overun our hospitals because it is the only place they know to go because they havent been told any different. That is the result of a broken healthcare system. And for the elderly, many of whom are under the watching eye of social services, are not any safer because social services is ill-equipped to handle anything like this and even if they were, their disconnection from each other as each are run on their own accord, couldn't distribute help if they wanted to. The government, as volatile, biased, partisan and uncompromising as we have ever seen, cant help themselves by trying to find opportunity for advancement of themselves or their party instead of doing the right thing. The media, yes, the same ones that got a man elected that they claim to vilify because they cant help themselves from rubber-necking at every car accident and train wreck, has all sold their souls for ratings and found that reporting on everything that is bad in this life is far more lucrative than reporting on the good, and the result is that they are all tripping over each other to report on the next death, reported case, tragedy or any other bit of news, true or not, that incites fear in the people. We need strong leadership at every level, and sadly, we just don't have it.

I hope when all this is over, that we all learn from this and use it as motivation to come up with a plan to do it better the next time. But I unfortunately dont have a lot of confidence right now that we will.
 
The bad part is now that we set a presidence on shutting down the world when a virus hits, we will start doing it every time. That means the economy will take a huge hit once every few years. That just isn't going to work. It would be one thing if this was a once in a generation virus. Maybe the economy could absorb a blow like this every 20 years. But there is one just like this every few years.
 
dirtwrap said:
There is a whole lot about this virus and its characteristics that we do not know, but the few things that we do know make this a gross over-reaction of historic proportions. I understand what the point of minimizing social contact is supposed to do, lessen the rate of spread, but the severe lack of coordination and cooperation among government leaders, financial leaders, media leaders and private enterprise has only resulted in chaos, fear and uncertainty. We are sending the message, loud and clear, to the rest of the world that we have no resolve and that an infectious disease other than something lethal (ebola, H1N5, plague, tuberculosis, malaria, etc.) can strike paralyzing fear in our people and shut down our economy and ultimately our way of life. That part is the dangerous part, because for all of the political regimes out there that hate the U.S., here is your blueprint on how to take us down.

As far as what should have been done, there should have been a collective non-biased, non-partisan collaboration with government, media, financial leaders and other people of influence with the common goal of instilling confidence in the people that all is under control. Educating the public on what the infection is and how to prevent it, and then past that educating the people on if you exhibit these symptoms then this is what you need to do. Besides the hospitals, use the network of urgent care facilities, doctor's offices, even surgery centers as points of contact for testing and managing symptoms. In the meantime work on developing medicines to combat the illness, either in the form of a vaccine or in treatment of symptoms, or both.

Instead, there is no plan B. No matter how many events that are cancelled or schools that are closed, people are going to get infected. And what they are going to do is panic, like they already are, and overun our hospitals because it is the only place they know to go because they havent been told any different. That is the result of a broken healthcare system. And for the elderly, many of whom are under the watching eye of social services, are not any safer because social services is ill-equipped to handle anything like this and even if they were, their disconnection from each other as each are run on their own accord, couldn't distribute help if they wanted to. The government, as volatile, biased, partisan and uncompromising as we have ever seen, cant help themselves by trying to find opportunity for advancement of themselves or their party instead of doing the right thing. The media, yes, the same ones that got a man elected that they claim to vilify because they cant help themselves from rubber-necking at every car accident and train wreck, has all sold their souls for ratings and found that reporting on everything that is bad in this life is far more lucrative than reporting on the good, and the result is that they are all tripping over each other to report on the next death, reported case, tragedy or any other bit of news, true or not, that incites fear in the people. We need strong leadership at every level, and sadly, we just don't have it.

I hope when all this is over, that we all learn from this and use it as motivation to come up with a plan to do it better the next time. But I unfortunately dont have a lot of confidence right now that we will.
Click to expand...

<< Standing Ovation >>
 
tksirius said:
1. Which will result in less damage to the economies of the world?
2. Which will be more effective at reducing deaths from the virus?
Putting a lockdown on the immunocompromised/elderly with plenty of support from the govt, food, supplies etc., or canceling everything for everyone.

I'll give you a hint, the answer is the same for both questions. The virus is going to spread either way.
Click to expand...
It is, but you don’t have to purposely put big groups of people at risk, especially since we don’t have a cure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top