All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (3 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[V Chip]

We should take note at the fact that New York City has been hit hard, while other parts of the nation have not.

That's bullshirt.

There are at least 3 counties in Georgia alone that have case rates that exceed NYC. My county exceeded NYC's rate until about 3-4 weeks ago. The idea this is just NYC's problem is dangerous fiction.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The "pneumonia deaths" are interesting. I have not been aware of that.
I have seen "excess deaths" used as a claim that covid-19 deaths are underreported. But the excess death increase could also be attributed to the reaction to covid-19 itself. As in - people neglecting to go to their doctor, neglecting elective surgery, bans on people entering certain clinics.
Its also true that the NYTimes analysis of excess deaths focused on select states that had atual excess deaths while many states had deaths below average - those states were ignored by the Times article.
Anecdotally - I know two heart doctors who have both told me, on separate occasions, similar things about the number of people coming to them with chest pains, signs of heart attacks, a-fib, arrhythmias, etc are way below average.

It just seems unclear whether deaths from Covid-19 are underreported (or overreported) to me.

So, it is certain that stay at home orders/social distancing guidelines have altered the death rate outside of direct Covid-19 deaths. Fewer people are driving which is certainly going to lower death rates, potentially fewer accidents as overall activity decreases. You've noted a couple of cases where death rates might be caused to rise.

There's going to be some pretty interesting papers and studies that are going to come out of this over the next couple of years.

I think given the lack of ubiquitous testing available, it seems highly likely that the number of Covid-19 deaths are under reported. There are probably some cases where a person gets coded as Covid-19 but might have actually been killed by some other cause, but my assumption is that medical examiners are going to use the same way of making that determination as they do everything else, so in relative terms, it's probably a wash (ie, some people get coded as flu deaths when they might have died from asthma or heart disease, or someone gets coded as heart disease when it might have been kidney failure, so when comparing numbers against other diseases for a relative severity, it seems like you're safe just accepting the medical examiner's determination)

You're going to see the number of deaths jump at some point in the future, when the CDC decides to use some of the same methodology they use when estimating flu deaths. They know that not everyone is getting tested for every disease, so they make an estimate based on their studies of the likely deaths - for the flu, it's about 6 times the number of tested flu deaths. It will be some other multiplier for Covid-19.

 

[SystemShock]

You might have missed my earlier post but the actual number of confirmed flu deaths for 2017-2018 is a little over 15,000. The rest are an assumed deaths based on CDC algorithm.

National Center for Health Statistics Mortality Surveillance System

gis.cdc.gov

So, 65,000 confirmed deaths in 5 weeks compared to 15,000 confirmed deaths over the course of the year. Not even a contest.

So moral of the story is, don't trust the CDC's numbers.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So moral of the story is, don't trust the CDC's numbers.

Lol, no, it's understand the CDC numbers. They aren't making them up, they are upfront with how they get their numbers and publish all the actual tests.

 

[SystemShock]

The estimated deaths by flu are, according to what I've read, drastically overstated.

The whole thing has become a shirt show and I'm not going to argue that the flu isn't deadly because it is. What i will say is that this is worse. It's faster, harder, meaner, more easily spread and far more likely to kill millions than the common flu.

Then we shouldn't trust the CDC's numbers.
We are probably going to have to wait a few years to get anything close to real data.

And just a reminder, I am not arguing for this virus not being serious, or suggesting we should ignore it.

 

[SystemShock]

Lol, no, it's understand the CDC numbers. They aren't making them up, they are upfront with how they get their numbers and publish all the actual tests.

Given the examples, I understand the margin of error is too large to trust the numbers.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Given the examples, I understand the margin of error is too large to trust the numbers.

Which margin of error? Their estimates or the actual confirmed numbers?

For Covid-19, the current numbers are not estimates, they are deaths confirmed by medical examiners.
For the flu, there are two sets of numbers, the number of deaths confirmed through testing and an estimate based on likely number of people who weren't tested.

 

[SystemShock]

Which margin of error? Their estimates or the actual confirmed numbers?

definitely not the estimates.

For the flu, there are two sets of numbers, the number of deaths confirmed through testing

Testing? Or what's reported on death certificates?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

definitely not the estimates.


Testing? Or what's reported on death certificates?

For the flu the confirmed mortality rates are based off of death certificate codes.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Sounds like a perfect time to open things back up
======================
The Trump administration projects about 3,000 daily deaths by early June.

As President Trump presses for states to reopen their economies, his administration is privately projecting a steady rise in the number of cases and deaths from coronavirus over the next several weeks, reaching about 3,000 daily deaths on June 1, according to an internal document obtained by The New York Times, nearly double from the current level of about 1,750.

The projections, based on modeling by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and pulled together in chart form by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, forecast about 200,000 new cases each day by the end of the month, up from about 25,000 cases now.

The numbers underscore a sobering reality: While the United States has been hunkered down for the past seven weeks, not much has changed. And the reopening to the economy will make matters worse...…...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...eath-toll-by-june/ar-BB13zfhE?ocid=spartanntp

 

[Lapaz]

I'm in favor of opening up with restrictions in areas that have reducing active cases, but that doesn't seem to be case in many of the places that are opening. Although New York has the most active cases, they have a better argument for opening up than most places, since their active cases are starting to drop. Most countries in the world are now experiencing reducing active cases, so starting to re-open is justified. We are not there yet. The executive branch should be discouraging this, but their messages are mixed, because Trump wants to re-open, while their scientists are warning against it. I fear that we're going to see a big jump in cases in a couple of weeks. We need the contact tracing infrastructure in place before opening, but there isn't any national plan for this. We could be training unemployed people, but we're starting to waste time on political vendettas like eliminating sanctuary cities. Talk about making a bad situation worse!

 

[samiam5211]

I'm in favor of opening up with restrictions in areas that have reducing active cases, but that doesn't seem to be case in many of the places that are opening. Although New York has the most active cases, they have a better argument for opening up than most places, since their active cases are starting to drop. Most countries in the world are now experiencing reducing active cases, so starting to re-open is justified. We are not there yet. The executive branch should be discouraging this, but their messages are mixed, because Trump wants to re-open, while their scientists are warning against it. I fear that we're going to see a big jump in cases in a couple of weeks. We need the contact tracing infrastructure in place before opening, but there isn't any national plan for this. We could be training unemployed people, but we're starting to waste time on political vendettas like eliminating sanctuary cities. Talk about making a bad situation worse!

The executive branch is putting out metrics which have not been met, while at the same time encouraging places to open up before they’ve met those metrics.

Classic getting run over by the bus set up. Trump is lucky these Republican governors are so dumb.

 

[dtc]

So moral of the story is, don't trust the CDC's numbers.

Trust, but verify or, at least, understand what the numbers mean.

 

[FullMonte]

The executive branch is putting out metrics which have not been met, while at the same time encouraging places to open up before they’ve met those metrics.

Classic getting run over by the bus set up. Trump is lucky these Republican governors are so dumb.

it's such a perfect situation for the administration.

If the areas open up and don't see a spike in new cases, the administration can claim they were right all along and we should have reopened sooner.

If the areas open up and see a spike in new cases, the administration can claim that the areas didn't meet the federal guidelines, so their decision is all on them.

 

[Beach Friends]

So, I think it is, and based on your general participation, I infer that you believe we are not. If that is accurate, could you share what has led you to that conclusion?

We still have a highly contagious disease that has a significantly higher mortality rate than the flu.




Well, I feel like we've had this discussion before. The answer that most public health professionals have given is we need to raise hospital capacity and testing capacity. So, it seems to me that you're energy would be more worthwhile focusing on getting results in those two areas.

I realize I am speaking in generalities, and what holds true generally for "the left" and "the right" does not apply to all in those categories and not to the same degree.

What I am thinking is that it's interesting how this issue, like all others, has become so polarized and it is down the usual lines. I know more left leaning people think the more right are hyper focused on personal liberty and the economy. While we on the right think the left is not really thinking about those things at all. Or perhaps, the left thinks that what the right complains about is trivial when looking at the big picture.

For example, I know people on the left might give a half hearted "I agree" when a blatant issue of government overreach is brought to the attention of this board. But, I also feel that the real sentiment is probably best captured by a rolling of the eyes.

I also think that the truth is that there is not a clear cut long term strategy that the scientific community can agree on as the best approach for handling the virus. Right now it seems we have adopted a stay home and pray approach, with the idea that when we decide to reemerge something good will have happened.

On it's face, wider availability testing sounds like something worth waiting on. But, how long will that we be? Do we know have an anticipated timeframe - and for what exactly? Once we have achieved whatever capability we are waiting on (and again, that's not clear), how exactly will that prevent fewer deaths, hospitalizations etc and are we only talking about over a short term? Will the end result be close to the same over time if we had fewer restriction like Sweedeen? I think the truth is that no one knows for certain.

Right now I feel like what we are doing is somewhat similar to going under water if bees were circling your head, holding your breath for as long as possible, only to find that when you reemerge the bees are still there.

We have learned some about the virus and I think we should adapt. We know that for a significant portion of our population, contracting the virus will mean very little in terms of their personal health. For others, generally in high risk categories, it can be and will be fatal.

We should focus our concerns on protecting the most vulnerable - and trying to eliminate the possibility that their less vulnerable contacts become carriers does not seem sustainable in light of the fact that this virus is going to persist in our nation for a long time.

Our nursing homes should be fortresses against the virus now. At the very least, we should stop the New York and California policies of encouraging or even mandating that nursing homes accept corona positive patients into their facilities. Those policies are insane.

There is also the issue of relatively healthy people testing positive for the virus and then returning to the home where they reside with a highly vulnerable person. Personally, if I was in that situation I would gladly voluntarily go to a location and quarantine until I was reasonably confident I was no longer shedding. That may be a tall order, but as much as we have spent on this virus I think it is reasonable to discuss as an option.

We know that the virus is spread primarily from touching your face with your hands. People are now wearing masks, which may be effective somewhat in protecting wearer, but probably has more potential in preventing the wearing from spreading the virus. But, how much are we really accomplishing if someone touches their face to put the mask on while they are in the car, but then does nothing to sanitize their hands before going into the store? Personally, the last thing I do before going into a store is to sanitize my own hands and I do the same when I return. But, it seems like it would be a good idea for stores to have hand sanitizing stations where customers leave and exit. Maybe it's due to a shortage of supply, but I have not seen that.

We have seen the most widespread infringements on liberty and the most drastic purposeful stoppage of our economy in our nation's history. We have done that against the backdrop of, "we really don't know if this is the best answer." I tend to think that there needs to be a showing that those restrictions are actually necessary and that they are narrowly tailored to meet that necessity.

There are a couple of reasons for that. First, people are growing weary of the restrictions. The more draconian and unreasonable the restrictions are the faster people will be to say, "to hell with it, these tyrants don't know what they are doing," and at that point they may be more likely to abandon all measures, even those they would have lived with if what was ordered had been reasonable in the first place.

Second, our "leaders" need to have their feet held to the fire so that they actually think about the restictions they are imposing. Whatever they do it is going to be more than we are sued to, so don't pour gas on the flames with clearly irrational restrictions.

I pointed out earlier instances where politicians were breaking the very rules they insist are necessary for the rest of us. That may seem petty, we all know politicians have gotten "perks" like getting out of speeding tickets forever. But, these are some drastic measure they are invoking. If I was in that position, I think having to do that would weigh heavily on me, It doesn't seem to bother some of these folks, and that is worrisome. They have taken to this a little too easily.

Then we have issue of private social media ready and willing to engage in censorship. Take the banning of those two doctors for example. Before their video was taken down, I listened to part of it, but even for me - the guy who doesn't want to math - I thought there were issues with the way they were extrapolating data. Nonetheless, I am concerned when these giant tech companies start censoring for "misinformation." I am also concerned when I see deputies knocking on people's doors demanding that posts be taken down for causing a "public disturbance." That's the exact terminology used by the CCP when they told doctors that discussion of the virus was not tolerated. It's also the same method the CCP used on its citizens when they demanded that the citizens not post anything to dispute the party line that there were no cases in a location.

W should aim for more in life than just longevity.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I realize I am speaking in generalities, and what holds true generally for "the left" and "the right" does not apply to all in those categories and not to the same degree.

What I am thinking is that it's interesting how this issue, like all others, has become so polarized and it is down the usual lines. I know more left leaning people think the more right are hyper focused on personal liberty and the economy. While we on the right think the left is not really thinking about those things at all. Or perhaps, the left thinks that what the right complains about is trivial when looking at the big picture.

For example, I know people on the left might give a half hearted "I agree" when a blatant issue of government overreach is brought to the attention of this board. But, I also feel that the real sentiment is probably best captured by a rolling of the eyes.

I also think that the truth is that there is not a clear cut long term strategy that the scientific community can agree on as the best approach for handling the virus. Right now it seems we have adopted a stay home and pray approach, with the idea that when we decide to reemerge something good will have happened.

On it's face, wider availability testing sounds like something worth waiting on. But, how long will that we be? Do we know have an anticipated timeframe - and for what exactly? Once we have achieved whatever capability we are waiting on (and again, that's not clear), how exactly will that prevent fewer deaths, hospitalizations etc and are we only talking about over a short term? Will the end result be close to the same over time if we had fewer restriction like Sweedeen? I think the truth is that no one knows for certain.

Right now I feel like what we are doing is somewhat similar to going under water if bees were circling your head, holding your breath for as long as possible, only to find that when you reemerge the bees are still there.

We have learned some about the virus and I think we should adapt. We know that for a significant portion of our population, contracting the virus will mean very little in terms of their personal health. For others, generally in high risk categories, it can be and will be fatal.

We should focus our concerns on protecting the most vulnerable - and trying to eliminate the possibility that their less vulnerable contacts become carriers does not seem sustainable in light of the fact that this virus is going to persist in our nation for a long time.

Our nursing homes should be fortresses against the virus now. At the very least, we should stop the New York and California policies of encouraging or even mandating that nursing homes accept corona positive patients into their facilities. Those policies are insane.

.......

So, thank you for a more in depth perspective on your thought process. There's a lot there, so I'll probably miss something in my response.

Like most things, there are concerns that you raise that I think are reasonable, and some that I think are over-reactions.

First, I also find it fascinating to watch how any issue gets divided into camps and those camps seem to be populated by the same people despite many issues being very different with no clear philosophical link. There seems to be a sort of a general herd mentality that seems to force people into agreeing with a certain position. My assumption is if people were left alone, and just given information without any sort of signaling about what their political allies believe on a particular set of facts, peoples conclusions would be widely different than what they are with the various feedback loops we currently have. Which is why I'm usually most interested in talking with people who have opinions that seem to break with their political alignment. I'm acutely aware that I rarely take stances outside of what I imagine people to expect of me, which probably means there are some cognitive biases leading me. Or I'm just always right ...

One of the big differences are I think is level of trust. I think "the left" has higher levels of trust in scientists, "experts" and government officials than "the right". I think a certain degree of skepticism is healthy, but what I'm seeing is a near reflexive dismissal of those figures by the right. Not, well, "we'll let them do their job and monitor their performance and ask them to periodically justify their reasoning", but "this Communism or fascism, and scientist can't tell us precisely how everything will work, therefore anyone's guess is just as good as theirs". Obviously a bit cartoonish, but that's the general sentiment that is coming across.

For example, we spend tons of time debating whether this was even worse than the flu. Despite, as far as i can tell, a consensus among epidemiologists, public health professionals and statisticians all saying that it is. We're still having this debate months later even after the harder numbers have come in, which show, that it is in fact much worse than the flu. We seem to be getting to a point that we can never do any sort of prevention b/c the only proof "the right" will except is after the fact analysis. This seems really dangerous and costly to me.

I also find it a bit weird how people get really worked up by what's going on in other states. Not that they can't have an opinion, but a really, really strong opinion over something that isn't their government. I would think that's a clear sign of manipulation by someone trying to unify a group for an election. The obvious example is Michigan. Whitmer is becoming a national figure and a possible VP candidate. It seems to me that the outrage against her so that conservatives in Georgia are getting really worked up about her actions that only apply to the people in Michigan is largely driven by political forces to drive voter turnout in November. I seriously doubt you know Whitmer on a personal level or, have followed her closely at all. Most people are being driven to an opinion about her through a prism of outrage designed to make you think she's a fascist or whatever other morally outrageous ism that will get you to believe that it's an affront to American Democracy if she holds national office. Note, this is not the same thing as a more reasonable take of "Gov. Whitmer is taking an extremely risk averse strategy that might not be backed up by science and could drastically harm the economy with little benefit". What's coming across is "That woman in Michigan is an idiot who has no respect for civil liberties". Not exactly a good framing for any sort of debate.

So, the immediate reflexive reaction from "the left" is that this is really about trying to make a potentially strong VP candidate look bad. Despite the fact that there's probably some room for discussion on the appropriate tact to take to maximize results.

Really, the bulk of our energy should be spent on how well the people we actually vote for are doing. That's our local representatives, governor, Congressmen and Senators, and President. If you find yourself more concerned about what's going on in Michigan or California than you are locally, then there's a chance you're being manipulated for a purpose (note, I'm not saying it's not appropriate to be troubled by things going on elsewhere, but if you're not following the local politics of that state closely, you probably don't know enough to have an informed opinion).

On it's face, wider availability testing sounds like something worth waiting on. But, how long will that we be? Do we know have an anticipated timeframe - and for what exactly? Once we have achieved whatever capability we are waiting on (and again, that's not clear), how exactly will that prevent fewer deaths, hospitalizations etc and are we only talking about over a short term? Will the end result be close to the same over time if we had fewer restriction like Sweedeen? I think the truth is that no one knows for certain.

This I think bears highlighting. Your question about how long this will be, and what are we waiting for is a good one. We should be demanding clear expectations from our leadership both locally and federally. The federal government released what I think are good guidelines on re-opening. Is your local leadership following them? Why or why not? Is the federal government supporting local leadership? Why or why not? Why don't we have adequate testing nearly 2 months later? I think there's plenty of areas for being upset with people. I think having adequate levels of PPE is a shared responsibility between your state and the federal government. If your state fell short, that was planning problem on their part. It seems to me that testing should be a CDC responsibility, at least as far as creating a test and helping to manage supply chains so they get to the most needed locations first.

As far as what approach is best, and citing Sweden, we can already see the results for ourselves, comparing their results to the other Nordic countries. Similar demographics and climates, different approaches and very different results.

The more interesting question is, is it worth it? What is the value of human life? Economically we all assign a value. So, what is it?

I'm going on too long, but I think phrases like "We should aim for more in life than longevity" are just slogans with no content. I say that b/c it's framing the opposing side as being against liberty and pretending that the only options are complete lockdown for ever (which no one is advocating), or just open it all up. It's not honest. Anytime you pretend to know the "real motives" behind what your opposition is proposing, you're probably not going to be able have an honest discussion with them, and if you can't do that, then what's the point?

*Edit - and just to show you how easy it is to fall down this trap, I did it to a degree earlier when I assigned a motive to criticism of Whitmer. That was unintentional but it helps highlight the point. If I say that you don't really care about civil liberties, you only care about winning in November, that pretty much shuts down discussion.

 

[wardorican]

I have a daughter who was in Europe when all of this started going down. If one of the kids on the trip had caught the virus, I would want to know.

I find your question about the purpose of the lawsuit to be odd. First, the lawsuit is not "old," it wouldn't surprise me if the defendants have not even answered yet.

What's the purpose? To defend the right to free speech obviously.

Actually, both are not true. Trump never said to inject disenfenctant. You know this but you prefer to pretend otherwise.

You can say what he did say was stupid and I would agree, but that doesn't mean he said whatever you would like for him to have said.

And that really isn't relevant to the fish cleaner case anyway.
[/QUOTE]
The lawsuit is new, but the issue is from a month or so ago. Just asking why you brought it up here? I'm not arguing the free speech aspect. It is an interesting case.

You're right that the women's case has more to do with the other drug Trump was praising before it was researched more.

However, he did say/imply injecting them.

Put it in context. Earlier (I forget who) was discussing the research on how fast disinfectants kill the virus in saliva. Here is the transcript.

Now we are on to Trump, after he talked about blasting folks with UV light..

Injecting... or squirting inside your lungs... either way. Stupid.

 

[Beach Friends]

So, thank you for a more in depth perspective on your thought process. There's a lot there, so I'll probably miss something in my response.

Like most things, there are concerns that you raise that I think are reasonable, and some that I think are over-reactions.

First, I also find it fascinating to watch how any issue gets divided into camps and those camps seem to be populated by the same people despite many issues being very different with no clear philosophical link. There seems to be a sort of a general herd mentality that seems to force people into agreeing with a certain position. My assumption is if people were left alone, and just given information without any sort of signaling about what their political allies believe on a particular set of facts, peoples conclusions would be widely different than what they are with the various feedback loops we currently have. Which is why I'm usually most interested in talking with people who have opinions that seem to break with their political alignment. I'm acutely aware that I rarely take stances outside of what I imagine people to expect of me, which probably means there are some cognitive biases leading me. Or I'm just always right ...

One of the big differences are I think is level of trust. I think "the left" has higher levels of trust in scientists, "experts" and government officials than "the right". I think a certain degree of skepticism is healthy, but what I'm seeing is a near reflexive dismissal of those figures by the right. Not, well, "we'll let them do their job and monitor their performance and ask them to periodically justify their reasoning", but "this Communism or fascism, and scientist can't tell us precisely how everything will work, therefore anyone's guess is just as good as theirs". Obviously a bit cartoonish, but that's the general sentiment that is coming across.

For example, we spend tons of time debating whether this was even worse than the flu. Despite, as far as i can tell, a consensus among epidemiologists, public health professionals and statisticians all saying that it is. We're still having this debate months later even after the harder numbers have come in, which show, that it is in fact much worse than the flu. We seem to be getting to a point that we can never do any sort of prevention b/c the only proof "the right" will except is after the fact analysis. This seems really dangerous and costly to me.

I also find it a bit weird how people get really worked up by what's going on in other states. Not that they can't have an opinion, but a really, really strong opinion over something that isn't their government. I would think that's a clear sign of manipulation by someone trying to unify a group for an election. The obvious example is Michigan. Whitmer is becoming a national figure and a possible VP candidate. It seems to me that the outrage against her so that conservatives in Georgia are getting really worked up about her actions that only apply to the people in Michigan is largely driven by political forces to drive voter turnout in November. I seriously doubt you know Whitmer on a personal level or, have followed her closely at all. Most people are being driven to an opinion about her through a prism of outrage designed to make you think she's a fascist or whatever other morally outrageous ism that will get you to believe that it's an affront to American Democracy if she holds national office. Note, this is not the same thing as a more reasonable take of "Gov. Whitmer is taking an extremely risk averse strategy that might not be backed up by science and could drastically harm the economy with little benefit". What's coming across is "That woman in Michigan is an idiot who has no respect for civil liberties". Not exactly a good framing for any sort of debate.

So, the immediate reflexive reaction from "the left" is that this is really about trying to make a potentially strong VP candidate look bad. Despite the fact that there's probably some room for discussion on the appropriate tact to take to maximize results.

Really, the bulk of our energy should be spent on how well the people we actually vote for are doing. That's our local representatives, governor, Congressmen and Senators, and President. If you find yourself more concerned about what's going on in Michigan or California than you are locally, then there's a chance you're being manipulated for a purpose (note, I'm not saying it's not appropriate to be troubled by things going on elsewhere, but if you're not following the local politics of that state closely, you probably don't know enough to have an informed opinion).



This I think bears highlighting. Your question about how long this will be, and what are we waiting for is a good one. We should be demanding clear expectations from our leadership both locally and federally. The federal government released what I think are good guidelines on re-opening. Is your local leadership following them? Why or why not? Is the federal government supporting local leadership? Why or why not? Why don't we have adequate testing nearly 2 months later? I think there's plenty of areas for being upset with people. I think having adequate levels of PPE is a shared responsibility between your state and the federal government. If your state fell short, that was planning problem on their part. It seems to me that testing should be a CDC responsibility, at least as far as creating a test and helping to manage supply chains so they get to the most needed locations first.

As far as what approach is best, and citing Sweden, we can already see the results for ourselves, comparing their results to the other Nordic countries. Similar demographics and climates, different approaches and very different results.

The more interesting question is, is it worth it? What is the value of human life? Economically we all assign a value. So, what is it?

I'm going on too long, but I think phrases like "We should aim for more in life than longevity" are just slogans with no content. I say that b/c it's framing the opposing side as being against liberty and pretending that the only options are complete lockdown for ever (which no one is advocating), or just open it all up. It's not honest. Anytime you pretend to know the "real motives" behind what your opposition is proposing, you're probably not going to be able have an honest discussion with them, and if you can't do that, then what's the point?

It's interesting to me you would be puzzled by someone being concerned about what is happening in states across this nation. I am not saying you intended that as a diversionary tactic, but I noticed you did not meet the substance of the complaints again what that government is doing either.

I think it is pretty straightforward, if politicians can get away with strong arm tactics those can spread across the nation. Having said that, it's bad enough that it is happening to citizens anywhere in the U.S. It is certainly worth discussing.

As far as people getting talking points from Facebook, I've seen that allegation tossed around for years -almost always in the direction of people on the other side.

Maybe it has more to do with personality. There is a lot of research that indicates that one can pretty accurately predict what side of the political spectrum someone is is on by looking at personality traits.

As far as having fewer restrictions as Sweeden does, my point, once again, is that we don't know how all of this will look over the long run.

And it's not just a matter of the economy vs lives. We know for a fact that a recession will also cost lives. I hate to think about what a global depression will do.

Meanwhile people are not receiving treatment for other illnesses and our medical community as a whole is suffering, not due to the virus itself but our response to it.