Now that we are through Thanksgiving........

[Heigh-Ho]

Um, please don't make assumptions about who I do and don't speak with.

You're right that person shouldn't have made that assumption but even I was taken aback by your comment "Everyone can tighten their belts a little and get by on their basic salary, provided by the government, for 6 weeks....not that the guy selling movie tickets or the girl waiting tables gets adoption aid, insurance, or bereavement leave anyway."

It's tone deaf, insensitive, assumes people can easily do that, comes off almost like you're looking down on people who have those positions and you don't really know if those people are getting those benefits anyways. I'm not sure what a basic salary even means to you but I'm positive the government couldn't have provided what people were getting.

I could be completely wrong here (sorry if I am!) but I got the impression the person was talking about more than just those people in those positions because a lot of people were impacted by the shutdowns not just those who work in movie theaters or waitress and this would really be the case for people, including you it seems, who are saying we needed a hard lockdown. A hard lockdown would have meant a lot more places would have been considered non-essential and in places all over you had things non-service related considered non-essential. It's more reaching than I think people realize but maybe it's easier to see just the waitress and assume that's all who has been impacted by this.

 

[JLTraveling]

You're right that person shouldn't have made that assumption but even I was taken aback by your comment "Everyone can tighten their belts a little and get by on their basic salary, provided by the government, for 6 weeks....not that the guy selling movie tickets or the girl waiting tables gets adoption aid, insurance, or bereavement leave anyway."

It's tone deaf, insensitive, assumes people can easily do that, comes off almost like you're looking down on people who have those positions and you don't really know if those people are getting those benefits anyways. I'm not sure what a basic salary even means to you but I'm positive the government couldn't have provided what people were getting.

I could be completely wrong here (sorry if I am!) but I got the impression the person was talking about more than just those people in those positions because a lot of people were impacted by the shutdowns not just those who work in movie theaters or waitress and this would really be the case for people, including you it seems, who are saying we needed a hard lockdown. A hard lockdown would have meant a lot more places would have been considered non-essential and in places all over you had things non-service related considered non-essential. It's more reaching than I think people realize but maybe it's easier to see just the waitress and assume that's all who has been impacted by this.

I'm sorry if that comment came off as tone deaf or insensitive. But the person I was responding to was claiming that my idea would never work unless the government paid all bonuses, PTO, adoption aid....just a laundry list of benefits that I would imagine most people wouldn't even need during a 6 week shutdown, and which again, the front line workers that were originally being discussed largely don't get. Yes, I'm sure some do. But out of dozens of front line jobs I've worked, with hundreds of coworkers, and dozens of current friends in those jobs, exactly ZERO have gotten those things. Those are much more likely to go to middle class workers and above. And yes, I'm sure some middle class people and above would have difficulty living without those things, even for 6 weeks. But wouldn't it be easier to live without bonuses/adoption aid/bereavement leave/etc. for 6 weeks than to live with zero income for months? Because the longer it takes to get the virus under control, the more businesses are laying people off or closing altogether. And somehow a lot of people have gotten the impression that it's our responsibility to keep living life as prepandemic normal to keep businesses from closing and people from being laid off, rather than our government's responsibility to keep everyone afloat while simultaneously protecting us from a public health crisis. And that's the argument I can't go along with. At all. Six weeks and we're done, versus another six or eight months of skyrocketing deaths and worsening economic pain? I'll take the six weeks, thanks.

 

[KrazeeK120]

So, my mother-in-law passed away last week (not COVID related). We had a funeral mass with 9 people in attendance - me, my husband, our 5 year old son, the priest, the organist, the singer, and 3 funeral home employees. (My husband’s father and all aunts and uncles are deceased and he has no siblings). It was an incredibly difficult decision to make, but we couldn’t guarantee that some maskless friend wouldn’t try to hug us, or that people wouldn’t congregate, etc. (We had the funeral live-streamed, so that helped people feel included).

We then spent the next day, thanksgiving, at home. Just the 3 of us.

These last couple of weeks have been the hardest time we’ve been through as a family. However, we are committed to doing our part to stop the spread of this virus so that other families don’t have to go through deaths without in-person support.

My family is local and if everyone were to commit to isolating for 2 weeks before, I’d consider going. We haven’t talked about it yet.

 

[disykat]

I see part of what JTTraveling is saying. Keeping afloat during a crisis is different than expecting to maintain your pre-covid norm. My family income has gone down considerably, but we are able to keep afloat. I don't have the NEED to have any of my lost income replaced because we can live on DH's salary and he is still working. Some people would have the NEED to have all of their income replaced, many others might have a partial NEED. I agree that it's not realistic for us all to expect to maintain "normalcy" when we are in a crisis.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

I'm sorry if that comment came off as tone deaf or insensitive.

You probably didn't mean it that way.

Yes, I'm sure some do. But out of dozens of front line jobs I've worked, with hundreds of coworkers, and dozens of current friends in those jobs, exactly ZERO have gotten those things.

We each work off of our own experience I guess best I can come up with on that.

But wouldn't it be easier to live without bonuses/adoption aid/bereavement leave/etc. for 6 weeks than to live with zero income for months?

I would agree that you're less likely to have some of those benefits that person was talking about say if you're a hair stylist but they aren't the only ones out of jobs either. And you shouldn't have to choose between the options either.

Six weeks and we're done, versus another six or eight months of skyrocketing deaths and worsening economic pain? I'll take the six weeks, thanks.

Okay but why the 6 weeks? We're months past this so it's a moot point but how can anyone say that 6 weeks and you're done. I haven't seen any evidence of any country comparable to the U.S. that was done and over with in 6 weeks. There have been a multitude of countries that enacted much stricter rules and restrictions in the U.S. some that have provided government assistance and none of them had 6 weeks and they are done. And believe it or not we're not the only country suffering from economic impacts. I guess I disagree with this idea that this virus would just not be around if we'd only done something for 6 weeks. I can't get behind that, science isn't behind that (and various countries back that up). I don't think we should be a free for all open with no precautions but I'm a bit surprised people are still in the mindset it would have taken a handful of weeks and we would have been fine (no disrespect meant here).

 

[Heigh-Ho]

I see part of what JTTraveling is saying. Keeping afloat is different than expecting to maintain your pre-covid norm. My family income has gone down considerably, but we are able to keep afloat. I don't have the NEED to have any of my lost income replaced. Some people would have the NEED to have all of their income replaced, many others might have a partial NEED. I agree that it's not realistic for us all to expect to maintain "normalcy" when we are in a crisis.

That's why I wondered what basic meant. You can't really say basic as a blanket statement but then have no information to offer up on what basic means.

 

[EveDallas]

You probably didn't mean it that way.

We each work off of our own experience I guess best I can come up with on that.

I would agree that you're less likely to have some of those benefits that person was talking about say if you're a hair stylist but they aren't the only ones out of jobs either. And you shouldn't have to choose between the options either.


Okay but why the 6 weeks? We're months past this so it's a moot point but how can anyone say that 6 weeks and you're done. I haven't seen any evidence of any country comparable to the U.S. that was done and over with in 6 weeks. There have been a multitude of countries that enacted much stricter rules and restrictions in the U.S. some that have provided government assistance and none of them had 6 weeks and they are done. And believe it or not we're not the only country suffering from economic impacts. I guess I disagree with this idea that this virus would just not be around if we'd only done something for 6 weeks. I can't get behind that, science isn't behind that (and various countries back that up). I don't think we should be a free for all open with no precautions but I'm a bit surprised people are still in the mindset it would have taken a handful of weeks and we would have been fine (no disrespect meant here).

I'm stuck on the 6 weeks too. It's like when people say if we had all stayed home for 2 weeks at the beginning, we'd be back to normal. But the virus is still going to be here.

 

[Colleen27]

I'm stuck on the 6 weeks too. It's like when people say if we had all stayed home for 2 weeks at the beginning, we'd be back to normal. But the virus is still going to be here.

Yeah, these timelines are just wishful thinking. At the most optimistic, assuming that 1) the CDC modelling that puts the actual number of infections so far in the US at somewhere near 100 million, 2) natural immunity after infection lasts at least a year and 3) the herd immunity threshold for covid-19 is 70% (which is about the midpoint of mainstream estimates), we'll need to continue containment measures long enough to get about 130 million people vaccinated. That's not something that is going to happen in 6 weeks. Probably not even in 6 months. A hard lockdown for a few weeks would "reset" to a lower starting point, but as we saw in March/April, the virus doesn't need a large number of seed cases to begin to spread rapidly.

 

[EveDallas]

Yeah, these timelines are just wishful thinking. At the most optimistic, assuming that 1) the CDC modelling that puts the actual number of infections so far in the US at somewhere near 100 million, 2) natural immunity after infection lasts at least a year and 3) the herd immunity threshold for covid-19 is 70% (which is about the midpoint of mainstream estimates), we'll need to continue containment measures long enough to get about 130 million people vaccinated. That's not something that is going to happen in 6 weeks. Probably not even in 6 months. A hard lockdown for a few weeks would "reset" to a lower starting point, but as we saw in March/April, the virus doesn't need a large number of seed cases to begin to spread rapidly.

Exactly. This thing isn't going to disappear in 2 weeks or 6 weeks or 6 months. That's the reality.

 

[JLTraveling]

You probably didn't mean it that way.

We each work off of our own experience I guess best I can come up with on that.

I would agree that you're less likely to have some of those benefits that person was talking about say if you're a hair stylist but they aren't the only ones out of jobs either. And you shouldn't have to choose between the options either.


Okay but why the 6 weeks? We're months past this so it's a moot point but how can anyone say that 6 weeks and you're done. I haven't seen any evidence of any country comparable to the U.S. that was done and over with in 6 weeks. There have been a multitude of countries that enacted much stricter rules and restrictions in the U.S. some that have provided government assistance and none of them had 6 weeks and they are done. And believe it or not we're not the only country suffering from economic impacts. I guess I disagree with this idea that this virus would just not be around if we'd only done something for 6 weeks. I can't get behind that, science isn't behind that (and various countries back that up). I don't think we should be a free for all open with no precautions but I'm a bit surprised people are still in the mindset it would have taken a handful of weeks and we would have been fine (no disrespect meant here).

I'm stuck on the 6 weeks too. It's like when people say if we had all stayed home for 2 weeks at the beginning, we'd be back to normal. But the virus is still going to be here.

Yeah, these timelines are just wishful thinking. At the most optimistic, assuming that 1) the CDC modelling that puts the actual number of infections so far in the US at somewhere near 100 million, 2) natural immunity after infection lasts at least a year and 3) the herd immunity threshold for covid-19 is 70% (which is about the midpoint of mainstream estimates), we'll need to continue containment measures long enough to get about 130 million people vaccinated. That's not something that is going to happen in 6 weeks. Probably not even in 6 months. A hard lockdown for a few weeks would "reset" to a lower starting point, but as we saw in March/April, the virus doesn't need a large number of seed cases to begin to spread rapidly.

Exactly. This thing isn't going to disappear in 2 weeks or 6 weeks or 6 months. That's the reality.

I give you South Korea. Australia. New Zealand. Singapore. Thailand. Taiwan. Is the virus 100% eradicated in those countries? No. But are they able to go about life more or less normally, save for masks and continued mass testing/tracing? Yes. Why? Because the virus transmits from person to person. If you don't give it a way to move from person to person, then it dies out. It's impossible to get to 100% eradication without a vaccine (and possibly not even then), because some people are dumb and will ignore the rules, and some people are legitimately essential workers and could be exposed. But with mass testing and contact tracing, you learn who those people are quickly and you isolate them quickly. Thus making it impossible for them to spread it. Brief, hard lockdowns work. In every country where the citizens are willing to comply. But as long as people are yelling about their rights and going to the movies and the gym, then you're right, it won't happen.

 

[Lsdolphin]

There appeared to be a lot of people traveling over this past weekend....it was reported that BWI airport was “packed”...so it doesn’t seem likely this virus will be under control anytime soon!

 

[Heigh-Ho]

I give you South Korea. Australia. New Zealand. Singapore. Thailand. Taiwan. Is the virus 100% eradicated in those countries? No. But are they able to go about life more or less normally, save for masks and continued mass testing/tracing? Yes. Why? Because the virus transmits from person to person. If you don't give it a way to move from person to person, then it dies out. It's impossible to get to 100% eradication without a vaccine (and possibly not even then), because some people are dumb and will ignore the rules, and some people are legitimately essential workers and could be exposed. But with mass testing and contact tracing, you learn who those people are quickly and you isolate them quickly. Thus making it impossible for them to spread it. Brief, hard lockdowns work. In every country where the citizens are willing to comply. But as long as people are yelling about their rights and going to the movies and the gym, then you're right, it won't happen.

I said comparable to the U.S.

Australia and New Zealand are on an extinction path-they aren't comparable. But for your information they haven't had 6 weeks and they are done. In fact the virus is still there, and it always comes back. And it's not because people are just dumb, it's because the virus is still there.

South Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Taiwan-not comparable.

People keep giving these examples as if that proves their point. I'm sorry I don't mean to sound harsh but they don't prove your point. You want a hard lock down because you think the virus will just go away we on the other hand know it will come back. This is all a moot point so I'm moving on but I appreciate the discussion

 

[AustinTink]

Half the people in this country aren't willing to comply. Too many are stuck in the never-ending cycle of "it won't help anyway", "it's just a bad flu" and "our economy can't withstand it". We're doomed to live with this thing for at least another year, maybe two.

 

[JLTraveling]

Half the people in this country aren't willing to comply. Too many are stuck in the never-ending cycle of "it won't help anyway", "it's just a bad flu" and "our economy can't withstand it". We're doomed to live with this thing for at least another year, maybe two.

Unfortunately this is very true. And our government is unwilling to force compliance. Really hoping it won't be another year or two, with vaccines imminently on the way. But then people have to be willing to take them, which is a whole separate issue

 

[GreatLakes]

There are currently over 90,000 people in hospitals in this country due to COVID-19. Businesses come and go but once you are dead it is forever. That isn't even taking into account everyone that lives with months or years of decreased health after recovering.

I care about saving lives more than I care about saving businesses. If shutting down non-essential businesses for months will save lives I am on board. We have so many selfish people in this country that just don't care about the bigger picture. They want their tattoos and drinks at the bar. They want to travel all over the country to visit families or go on vacations. They don't care that doing so is killing people.

We are staying home. We cancelled all our trips, both vacations and to visit families. It was just the three of us for Easter, the summer holidays, Thanksgiving, and will be the same for Christmas. We didn't attend or host any birthdays, graduations, first communions, etc. We delayed the funeral for my grandma and will likely hold it more than a year after burying her. We are willing, as anyone should be, to give up a year of these non-essential things so we are not spreading a pandemic around the city or country. We aren't even really in danger from this virus. We are statistically at a very low risk of anything other than mild symptoms but we are willing to do this so that we don't give it to someone that isn't.

We are a very selfish collection of individuals willing to put a buck ahead of a stranger's life. I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Colleen27]

We are a very selfish collection of individuals willing to put a buck ahead of a stranger's life. I shouldn't be surprised.

That's an easy thing to say when you're sure it won't be you out on the streets or missing meals for lack of "a buck". Not so much when you're one of the people represented by statistics like these:

 

[RamblingMad]

That's an easy thing to say when you're sure it won't be you out on the streets or missing meals for lack of "a buck". Not so much when you're one of the people represented by statistics like these:

View attachment 540999

This is what people want. They want small government, small safety nets, and to take personal responsibility. We can see how well this worked out. Of course, if the landlords evict, who will replace the lost tenant?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Does no one see the double standard being applied here? One side says you are selfish and only care about yourself but many of them can't see their own selfish attitude; they think they are being altruistic but their words speak a completely different way.

 

[Farro]

There are currently over 90,000 people in hospitals in this country. Businesses come and go but once you are dead it is forever. That isn't even taking into account everyone that lives with months or years of decreased health after recovering.

I care about saving lives more than I care about saving businesses. If shutting down non-essential businesses for months will save lives I am on board. We have so many selfish people in this country that just don't care about the bigger picture. They want their tattoos and drinks at the bar. They want to travel all over the country to visit families or go on vacations. They don't care that doing so is killing people.

We are staying home. We cancelled all our trips, both vacations and to visit families. It was just the three of us for Easter, the summer holidays, Thanksgiving, and will be the same for Christmas. We didn't attend or host any birthdays, graduations, first communions, etc. We delayed the funeral for my grandma and will likely hold it more than a year after burying her. We are willing, as anyone should be, to give up a year of these non-essential things so we are not spreading a pandemic around the city or country. We aren't even really in danger from this virus. We are statistically at a very low risk of anything other than mild symptoms but we are willing to do this so that we don't give it to someone that isn't.

We are a very selfish collection of individuals willing to put a buck ahead of a stranger's life. I shouldn't be surprised.

N/M

 

[SaintsManiac]

I don’t want anything to shut down. I just want people to wear a dang mask, wash their hands and keep their distance. That is all I need to feel that lives are being valued and respected.