7TIMECHAMPS wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:09 pm
Wise Old Man wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:10 pm
goaliedad31 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:29 am
Hunter:
Nothing in my comments weighed in on whether the guidelines were right or wrong. The guidelines may, or may not, be necessary for public health and safety. My point was about our individual freedoms and the rule of law. And who should be making these decisions. We live in a representative Republic, not a monarchy. I am not willing to hand over my rights and freedoms for a virus. These viruses come every 4-6 years. The response should be within the law to protect not only our health but also our freedoms.
First and foremost, as someone who spent 20 plus years taking an oath to defend the Constitution, I'm all about maintaining individual freedoms. Still, I'm sorry but the way I was raised, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. As I stated in my last post -- as well as numerous others previously in this thread -- I haven't read anything in any scientific or research journals, nor heard/seen anything from a single person with legitimate expertise in the area of these types of diseases that hasn't stated this is FAR worse than any of the other viruses/diseases due the combination of its ability to spread easily, along with the severity of symptoms it presents. For instance, there were only 8,098 cases globally and only 8 in the U.S. Out of those total global cases, there were 714 deaths for a 15% fatality rate. So, 8 U.S. Sars cases compared to almost 2 million confirmed Covid cases. Do you still think that's a good comparison?
Do Ebola and Sars have much higher death rates? Absolutely. However, because they have more severe initial symptoms, it's easier to slow the spread. And, because they have higher percentage of death, that helps contain those viruses as well. Thus, to address your point that we've never reacted this way before, the fact is, we've never dealt with a previous viral threat that presented with these specific details regarding spread, symptoms, and outcomes. It's truly that much different than the others you mentioned.
As for your frustrations regarding our governor and the way you perceive his decisions around Covid and our state; you may disagree with WHAT he's decided to this point but, everything that has been done regarding his emergency declarations has been legal. The way he has handled this crisis has received far more praise than not, especially from a national perspective. You flat out stated you feel Walz has been "abusing" his powers. I would argue that his decision to use emergency declarations in this specific situation and under these specific circumstances is a far less egregious "abuse of power" than most of the executive orders issued by a certain elected official, or that same official's decision to attempt to blackmail one of our allies.
But, I digress...
I'm sorry but, considering what we were facing back in March and the extremely reduced timelines that decisions needed to be made in, are you really arguing we should've allowed the state legislature to attempt to make the required decisions/policy? Really...? Come on, the way this (or any other) split house legislature had operated over the last 20 years of intense politicization of literally every issue imaginable is a definitive testament to their inability to move with the speed that was required -- regarding anything! That's why our state constitution/charter allows these types of powers in these truly unique situations. You state that the youth sports guidelines should just "go away" on June 12th as they don't have "the power of law". First, nobody here at least looks upon them as law. They are just what you called them, guidelines. However, they come from the Minnesota Department of Health and, they are a product of the best current science on Covid and it's spread. Thus, the governor and the vast, vast majority of mayors, county boards, and other local policy making entities are going to base their Covid related decision-making on that advise. Especially considering they've developed that guidance and advice in partnership with the U of M and the Mayo Clinic, one of the top 5 hospitals in the world. Do you really think Walz and his administration are just pulling ideas about Covid out of a hat without any consultation from the best medical minds they have access to? Because that's how your criticism reads.
I'll close by saying this, no offense but, your individual freedoms end when your words or actions provably and significantly increase mine or my family's risk of unnecessary and preventable consequences -- in this case, severe disease or death. It's no o different than yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's the obvious potential risk of that action that makes it illegal. Not whether or not someone was actually injured or died. I'm sorry but, I find yours and others positions on this extremely disappointing, especially considering the likelihood that the "restrictions" of your or child's freedoms isn't likely going to last past March 1st of next year. Is losing a season of full game play in any sport extremely disappointing for the child?
Sure especially if they're truly passionate about it. However, and for the umpteenth time, I want you to provide me your number of preventable and unnecessary deaths that would be too many to complete re-open the economy. Please, tell me what that number is. because that is the essence of your argument. All I ask is that you and others own it and have the strength of your convictions to truly stand behind it.
What is your number? It isn't zero. You have to consider the other long term effects on education, the economy, mental health, physical health (people scared to go to the hospital), etc. And all of this worsens racial disparities that are causing a lot of issues right now. Your question isn't a fair question and is really a cop out from having a real conversation about balancing everything.
This was all in the name of not overwhelming hospitals. I haven't seen a single hospital overwhelmed yet. Hospitals are far more likely to be filing bankruptcy than overwhelmed by COVID (what is the long term effect of some of these rural hospital closings?). Most of the U of M models predicted we would peak between 500-1500 daily deaths and have about 25,000-50,000 for the year. Do you think that will end up being correct? For a reference if we did about 25 a day the rest of the year we would end up being in the neighborhood of 5,000. I understand that it is hard to make decisions with a new unprecedented virus but it goes both ways. You can't give the governor and experts a pass and then turn around and bash the administration for getting it all wrong.
In response to your closing argument I will ask this, what is the defining point at which we lose our rights for others safety? In the past infectious diseases have not been treated this way so I do not believe your legal advice is accurate. People risk other people's lives every day, as has been stated several times. In fact for some age groups I am risking your life more by getting in my vehicle than exposing you to COVID. I posted an article about it a few weeks back if you would like to read. This is not as clear cut of a legal situation as you make it out to be.
Finally, does anybody else find it sick that some people want a surge in deaths this fall just so they can be right? Sitting there cheering for it? Gross.
In response to your closing argument I will ask this, what is the defining point at which we lose our rights for others safety? In the past infectious diseases have not been treated this way so I do not believe your legal advice is accurate. People risk other people's lives every day, as has been stated several times. In fact for some age groups I am risking your life more by getting in my vehicle than exposing you to COVID. I posted an article about it a few weeks back if you would like to read. This is not as clear cut of a legal situation as you make it out to be.
Finally, does anybody else find it sick that some people want a surge in deaths this fall just so they can be right? Sitting there cheering for it? Gross.
[/quote]
7TIME, I'm sorry but, I believe I have been engaging in a legitimate conversation about the pros and cons of shelter-in-place vs opening up in a responsible way. Heck, just look at the average length of my posts.
As for my number, it actually IS in fact, ZERO. Unfortunately, as an individual I only have an infinitesimal ability to affect that outcome. Now, based on the simple fact that there are millions of others in our country that approach this debate the same way you do, is zero preventable deaths in our society due to Covid realistic? Obviously not. And, the reality is -- and this is the whole key to minimizing preventable and unnecessary deaths -- all I can do personally is behave in a responsible way -- don't go out unless I really need to, wear a mask when I am out in public, especially indoors, maintain social distance, and wash my hands often. Don't get me wrong, I don't walk in your shoes each day so, I'm honestly not accusing you of not doing the little things "right" when you're out and about. Since we're obviously going to open up, I can only hope that those that go out do so in a responsible way. So, I've now provided you my number. What is yours? What is GoalieDad's"? What is HockeyCrazy's"?
On a separate note, based on the currently available data, some of those potential side issues you mentioned that some people are predicting are probably being made worse by stay-at-home orders, actually haven't gotten significantly worse or worse at all -- child abuse being one. Some of them have, but most of those have not become significantly worse. As for the reasons why many of those rural hospitals you referenced are being forced to close; the vast majority were in very poor financial shape before Covid, usually due to significant cuts in federal funding in the last 3 years. But yes, the cutbacks in elective surgeries during Covid has also had an effect.
And yes, the lock downs were initiated to reduce the risk of overwhelming the health care system and allow them to build up PPE and ventilators. The experts are saying the reason we haven't been overwhelmed IS because those shelter-in-place orders worked. Also, no, I don't believe we'll likely reach the number of deaths in our state that the U of M models have predicted, BECAUSE Minnesota is being more conservative in our approach. I've provided this info much earlier in this discussion -- but, I'll emphasize it again. This insistence on criticizing/questioning the "lack of accuracy" of the models of Covid outcomes is disingenuous. I linked to an article over a month ago published in Science Magazine that explained in strong detail why the modeling of outcomes in pandemics is one of THE MOST DIFFICULT to model due to the number of variables and how often they change as the situation evolves. Remember, almost every model in mid-March was saying if we didn't shut things down to the degree we did, we would see between 1 and 1.5 million deaths before a vaccine was available. Still, if we stay at our current average of 900-1,000 deaths per day over the last month, we'll reach 200,000 by September. Which means there's a good chance we might hit 300,000 by the end of the calendar year. However, the overall numbers nation-wide are now trending up which means we could be well past 200,000 by September.
What is amazing to me is how often I end up repeating myself in these back and forths but, not A SINGLE STATE has opened in accordance with the CDC's own guidelines. You guys criticize Walz and yet, even he and his administration have opened things up more than the CDC's guidelines allow. As for your contention that it's unfair of me to "give the governor and his experts a pass and then turn around and bash the administration for getting it all wrong." I'm sure you won't be shocked to hear this BUT...it's an apples to oranges comparison. First, I'm not giving Walz and his administration a "pass". They've made mistakes -- some of them significant -- like their policy with LTHC facilities. However, I view Walz and our state administration in a far more positive light regarding their decisions and actions as they're trying to make the best decisions possible based on the best scientific/medical advice available in the area of this virus that they're getting from two of the most prestigious hospital systems in our country and even the world in the U of M and the Mayo clinic.
On the other hand, this administration's mistakes were due to their decision to absolutely ignore the best advice of their medical experts once those experts realized what was going to happen. We haven't had a Covid task force update in how long now? Why do you think that is? I know what my answer to that question is. What's yours? As for your response to my closing argument in my previous post; seriously 7TIME, I explained in detail why we are treating this virus/situation differently than previous viruses. It IS that much different than those others. In my last post, I provided the number of cases of SARS in the U.S. -- 8 cases. The number of deaths was ZERO. That's right, ZERO. You and others are going to seriously try and compare our response to SARS to that of Covid?? Because the details matter when comparing them and -- I'll repeat myself again on a specific point that you and others seem to refuse to even try to answer -- there isn't a single scientist, medical specialist, or researcher that has legitimate level of expertise in the area of this virus that believes we should be opening up to the degree even Minnesota has, especially if we can't get even 70% of the population to where a mask in public. If you think you can find one, please link to that person's comments.
Also, in response to your question about "what is the defining point at which we lose our rights for others safety?" Again, I'm pretty sure I answered that. The moment any individual's words or actions legitimately risks the physical safety of another person as determined by a jury or judge. It's why individuals that were caught coughing or spitting on produce early in this situation were arrested for that activity. As to your comment that you can risk someone else's life every time you get in your car; yes, that's obviously true. Especially if you're impaired in any way. However, your actions while driving that legitimately risk my safety (or anyone else in my car), doesn't risk anyone who WASN'T in the car at that moment. However, if by your actions you risk me being infected by Covid, that also exposes and risks the life of my wife, my kids, my 78 yr old father, his girlfriend, and then obviously anyone else that any of us come in contact with. Is it really that difficult see the fallacy in your analogy?
Heck, let's look at another significant cause of death your side tries to compare Covid to; smoking. Obviously, the person who smokes or vapes is, for the most part only risking their own health, especially considering all of the laws passed nation-wide the last 15 plus years that prohibit smoking in public buildings and private businesses. Weird, as a society we came to the understanding -- thru science I might add -- that we were allowing too many individuals to directly and significantly affect the health of those that shouldn't have to be exposed in such a dangerous way. The consequence being smoking bans being implemented by numerous states which significantly reduced deaths from second-hand smoke. And, if you'll recall, we had a significant debate about "personal freedoms" then as well. Yet, now the vast majority of people are more than happy those bans were instituted. The general point is, we banned smoking indoors because one person's actions were having a definitive, provably negative effect on not just their own lives, but anyone else's exposed to their smoke.
Finally, I want to address the last sentence of your response. IF, repeat IF that was directed at all at me, please show in detail where I have in ANY previous posts made ANY statements that would support a wish or desire to see more vs less deaths. Everything I've stated and argued for or against has been made to illustrate we aren't doing enough to prevent unnecessary or preventable deaths. Nor have I seen any other poster insinuate in any way they are actually desiring more deaths as we move forward. Quite frankly, I'm extremely disappointed in you and feel an apology is in order here.
