U.S. to close..

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Singularity

... The reason that the #1 cure is the #1 cure is because it's the #1 cure ...

Indeed!

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Do you insure your boat against total loss? Oh heck, do you carry 3rd-party liability? If the answer is yes to either of these then, in your estimation, you are "very funny." The odds of a total loss of a cruising-level boat, or a significant 3rd party impact, is far lower than a 1% risk (based on USCG statistics).

We routinely guard against much less than a 1% risk in our societies. Everything from pollution standards to traffic organization. Yet no one seems to suggest this is "very funny."

What is "funny" is how ideological this discussion has become.

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t.

Fact of the matter is I would fight to protect your right to make that choice yourself

If you’re worried, buy insurance
If you’re not, don’t.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

...There are some shots I have, including ones many don’t, and some I pass on, the covid one, with over a 99% survival rate, I’ll be passing on that one.

So if you get sick and have trouble breathing, are you going to go to the hospital? And if you go to the hospital and it costs $483,294 so that you can breath well enough again, are you comfortable with society taking $483,294 from your personal wealth because you refused to take a shot that was offered to you for free? I mean they take your property kind of deal, no bankruptcy salvation, and they make you work it off for the cash you don't have.

Or when you read the Bill of Rights do you interpret that all the people who helped you breath again (from hospital construction workers to the parking lot attendant) ought to work for free to serve your whims, whatever they may be?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

Interesting take.

I keep reading the bill of rights and don’t see any fine print about a cough voiding any of the 10 rights

My rights trump your “safety”, I’ll say it again, my rights trump your “safety”

If you feel a fashion mask makes you safe, wear one, if you think two masks are needed, toss another one on, or buy a full contained bio hazard suit, or build a sealed bunker, you are free to make any of those choices.

It’s very funny, people are worried the danger from a virus with a 99% survival rate, but seem very secure in messing with strangers, even more secure in religious like faith in anything government or their media say.

You can find tons more evidence in trusting government and the media being dangerous to your health.
Lots of reports of people getting damaged by messing with strangers too.

Folks just need to race their own race and leave strangers alone, maybe also look into the aftermath of people who took big government as god.


Per shots, being pro vax is just as dumb as anti vax, it’s a medical procedure, weigh the cost/benefit for yourself, take ownership in your own life, use some common sense. There are some shots I have, including ones many don’t, and some I pass on, the covid one, with over a 99% survival rate, I’ll be passing on that one.

Y You clearly are missing the point

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by Singularity

So if you get sick and have trouble breathing, are you going to go to the hospital? And if you go to the hospital and it costs $483,294 so that you can breath well enough again, are you comfortable with society taking $483,294 from your personal wealth because you refused to take a shot that was offered to you for free? I mean they take your property kind of deal, no bankruptcy salvation, and they make you work it off for the cash you don't have.

Or when you read the Bill of Rights do you interpret that all the people who helped you breath again (from hospital construction workers to the parking lot attendant) ought to work for free to serve your whims, whatever they may be?

For one that’s no where near the cost of that.

For two, well some of it should be covered in the abusive taxes I ALREADY pay

Three, if I decide to not have insurance, I’m throwing myself to the charity of others, before all the gov programs churches and the like would help out the disenfranchised, but if I make the choice to not have insurance even though I have money, that’s the choice I made, let the chips fall where they will.

I haven’t worked a job since I was a kid that didn’t come with insurance, though I don’t remember ever using my insurance, come to think about it.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

Can you post some info on this?



Many of the states with the most draconian “rules” had the highest infection rates.



NY went as far as to round up the Jews (big gov loves to do that for some reason) and they still were one of the death epicenters.

The evidence from the initial lockdowns in European countries is that it clearly reduced the Ro and total cases fell.

In general therefore lockdowns ( however strict or otherwise ) were effective Greece is a classic case in point. It implemented a severe lockdown such that it could reopen for its tourist season that however let it with its current soaring numbers and hence it has implemented another strict lockdown

Lockdowns work , at a clear economic cost of course. The issue is that lockdowns are not sustainable societally for long periods , hence the issue we have of balancing an effective tool against the spread of Covid verses the societal and economic damage lockdowns cause.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t.

Fact of the matter is I would fight to protect your right to make that choice yourself

If you’re worried, buy insurance
If you’re not, don’t.

I understand your point.


What I would be interested in is your "take" on how those pesky marinas "force" you to get insurance or else you can't dock there.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

And preventing folks from getting together to worship or petition the gov?

Or requiring people to fill out a invasive questionnaire to disembark a plane or come into a state?

Banning sales of ammo because some pissant mayor decided it was a “emergency”

Could you point out, or rather link, where the government can force me to wear a muzzle/mask?
Or force me to close my biz?

Feels like our forefathers removed our last government for much less

I am sympathetic to the idea that we have not given enough thought to individual liberties. They are not a trivial casualty of this crisis.


But yes -- the state government (not the federal one) can force you to wear a mask, and can make other reasonable regulations which inhibit your liberty, for the sake of public health and safety.



You want a cite? I used to teach this 115-year old Supreme Court case to illustrate the point:



[I]"n every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" . . . "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."


Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)



Which held that the State of Massachusetts could force people to be vaccinated when there was a pressing need of public health.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Then please stop saying "don't worry about the unemployed, they can be helped, think only about saving COVID victims".

Of course, I haven't said exactly that. Like you, I'm just trying to ensure that the real costs are all being disclosed and considered, when weighing options for controlling COVID spread.

Your case against lockdowns has been made very well, have no fear of that. You seem reluctant to acknowledge ways in which the economic impacts of COVID on the poor (which is happening with or without lockdowns) could be lessened.

There are MANY ways that those economically harmed by pandemic measures can get back on their feet again, even if it takes a few years. There are about ZERO ways that those killed or whose health is harmed by COVID-19 (or some other illness that couldn't be properly treated because of healthcare being overwhelmed by COVID-19) will be made whole again.

A "New Deal" level of thinking and acting may be required in any event, because of the economic harm to date... future lockdowns or not. If that proves to be the case, it would be cheaper and less punishing to implement now, rather than when it becomes unavoidable.

[GordMay]

Wearing a face mask is better than wearing a ventilator,
Staying home is better than staying in an ICU.

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I am sympathetic to the idea that we have not given enough thought to individual liberties. They are not a trivial casualty of this crisis.


But yes -- the state government (not the federal one) can force you to wear a mask, and can make other reasonable regulations which inhibit your liberty, for the sake of public health and safety.



You want a cite? I used to teach this 115-year old Supreme Court case to illustrate the point:



[I]"n every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" . . . "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."


Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)



Which held that the State of Massachusetts could force people to be vaccinated when there was a pressing need of public health.

Would that hold water with a virus with over a 99% survival rate?

Some of these gov overreactions also get me into gee wonder why they don’t really teach nullification in government run schools, but that’s another topic

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

I understand your point.


What I would be interested in is your "take" on how those pesky marinas "force" you to get insurance or else you can't dock there.

Their business their rules.

As long as it’s a fully private business, that’s their choice, just as it’s my choice to not give them my business

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The evidence from the initial lockdowns in European countries is that it clearly reduced the Ro and total cases fell.

In general therefore lockdowns ( however strict or otherwise ) were effective Greece is a classic case in point. It implemented a severe lockdown such that it could reopen for its tourist season that however let it with its current soaring numbers and hence it has implemented another strict lockdown

Lockdowns work , at a clear economic cost of course. The issue is that lockdowns are not sustainable societally for long periods , hence the issue we have of balancing an effective tool against the spread of Covid verses the societal and economic damage lockdowns cause.

Comparing different EU countries has too many variables for me.

Comparing state to state US seems a little better, even there still not ideal.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

Comparing different EU countries has too many variables for me.



Comparing state to state US seems a little better, even there still not ideal.

But simply take Greece. For example

A quite severe lockdown in spring 2020 largely to prevent the admittedly frail hospital service from being overwhelmed, was quite successful , enough so to allow the tourist season to start.

That decision of course ultimately allowed numbers to flair in the autumn and as a result another lockdown is currently in place nationally

You can’t deny the lock down wasn’t effective in reducing the spread , was the balance right between economic damage and public safety. That’s much harder to judge.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t.

Fact of the matter is I would fight to protect your right to make that choice yourself

If you’re worried, buy insurance
If you’re not, don’t.

So you accept that it is reasonable and rational to mitigate against a 1% risk. So it's not so funny that society is doing so when faced with your apparent 1% mortality visa vis Covid-19.