Coronavirus Politics: Right vs Left

[ukpumacat]

Agree Mick. We needed clear guidance and leadership as to what the goals were.

[bigsky]

Another day here in the Gallatin with no new cases. 146 cases, last one almost two weeks ago, one death, 145 recovered. So That is what is happening here. I also know almost every politically active person here in my town. And much of what motivates them.

Democrats are unwavering in their hatred of The President and will do anything to defeat him. Republicans are mixed but almost unanimously disliked the policies of the previous eight years as well as the tyranny of identity politics, the Title IX debacles, the declining morality of society. There is none to very little middle ground in these two points of view.

The virus is the biggest issue since, well, that I can remember. It is here at a time when we are least likely to ever agree.

[KeithKSR]

That is not how death rate is calculated by any Scientist or organization anywhere in the world. Yes, more people are infected than we have tested...we have talked all of that to death. I do not think the death rate in Alabama will turn out to be 3.8%

There isn't a person on Earth that thought the death rate was 6% and meant "per per person living". Its always referred to how many have the virus.

Death rates are generally calculated on a per million people basis for comparisons.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

[MickintheHam]

Agree Mick. We needed clear guidance and leadership as to what the goals were.

We have a fractured medical community, one that operates too much in the theoretical and not enough in reality. We also have a media, bereft of any analytical ability, reporting mindless numbers.

[bigsky]

Put it this way; a person living in Alabama has a 0.006% chance of dying from COVIT-19 complications. I suspect I understand these numbers quite well as I run a home Health company and have worked in Hospitals here in Birmingham for 43 years.

People need to be careful; people also need to be back at work.

Darryl

Perfect!

[dan_bgblue]

As specifically for the coronavirus, I suspect many (I hope not any on this site) have the attitudes they do because of who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. For me, I look at it as choice. I don't want the government limiting my choice. I have said from the get go, you want to wear a mask then do so. If you are afraid of getting it then stay indoors. I don't want somebody telling me what I can and can not do (its why I am PRO-CHOICE, that isn't pro-abortion, its pro-choice). Telling me to "wear a mask" or to close my business or stay home etc.... flies in the face of that. We now have a president who can close the nation on a whim, governors who can close the state on a whim, mayors who can close a city on a whim...and do so under the guise of science and safety. IMO the science is wrong on many aspects. Example--closing parks is STUPID. I said it from day one. Best preventative is fresh open air. The gov't response, close parks, prevent boating, etc.... Others hold the philosophy that the government is there for your best interests. Most who hold that philosophy tend to be democrats. If you want to sequester indoors then do so but don't require me to. I should note that I don't think the other side is awful. I just disagree with that approach.

Spot on commentary Doc.

[ukpumacat]

Put it this way; a person living in Alabama has a 0.006% chance of dying from COVIT-19 complications. I suspect I understand these numbers quite well as I run a home Health company and have worked in Hospitals here in Birmingham for 43 years.

People need to be careful; people also need to be back at work.

Darryl

I agree with the last line.

That number of course is with severe lockdown measures.

The most accurate way to calculate the actual % of chances someone has to dying from this:

4,800,000 living in Alabama
70% of people likely to be infected over time without social distancing measures (there are all kinds of studies about this...some say 60%, some say 80%. So I landed on 70% which is not a firm number of course.
0.5% death rate (again, we don't know yet. ACTUAL numbers show 3-6%. We know there are more cases than tested though. 0.5% is a number I have seen many times so going with it here. Of course, if the virus spread quickly, hospitals would become overrun and the death rate would go up. But we will land here for discussion.

4,800,000 in Alabama
3,360,000 likely to be infected
0.5% of those could die = 16,800 deaths

Based on this, people in Alabama have a .35% chance of dying from Coronavirus.

Of course, those numbers are a general consensus. If you are above 60 years old, your chances are FAR greater. And under 60, much less. Which leads to my next post. Ha

[CitizenBBN]

It hasn't helped that, as Doc and Bigsky and others have said, the approach is NOT some pursuit of pure science, and is arbitrary in many ways.

Golf courses are closed but Home Depot is wide open. Huh? Parks, boating, fishing, those things are socially distanced by their nature. Why close them? Sure some golfers won't be distanced, but no worse than the line for paint at Home Depot.

This was always a gross overreaction in the details. Not in needing to do something, but where I disagree with puma is that a 30 day complete shutdown doesn't really solve the problem, just prolongs the inevitable adjustment to some kind of temporary "new normal" while we learn to live with this for likely at least 12-18 months.

Since we can't shut down that long we might as well get on with figuring out those decisions and risks right now given that we havent' overwhelmed our hospitals.

Restricting our freedoms out of necessity most can live with for a while, but there are some legitimate questions about how much restriction is really sound science and necessary.

Even Puma, who advocated a 30 day shut down, is arguing that beaches are OK to be open. That's the arbitrary nature of these actions in a nutshell IMO.

Large gatherings OK I get it, but this restriction of our rights was WAY too easy for our leaders IMO, and that has people worried, and rightly so. It should have us ALL worried.

[ukpumacat]

Thanks everyone for the interesting dialogue on this. It was just something I found fascinating.

Having said all of that, my attitude towards the lockdowns has shifted (as many of you know). I still wish we had had a National 30 day lockdown. I feel that would have been the best scenario altogether.
At that point, I believe states and regions should deal with it and loosen regulations based on those specific areas. However, I do think they should have to abide by whatever National policies were in place (his phasing plan).

I do think if things spike to the point of overrunning hospitals, we need to immediately shut down again to let them catch up. However, I strongly disagree with lockdowns that prevent people from being outside, especially in places that can allow social distancing (golf, beach, parks, etc.).
I also tend to agree with Doc's POV about it being a personal choice. If someone wants to put themselves in danger and have their hair salon open, they should be able to (same with people willing to get their haircut).
There is always a line to personal liberty (speed limits) and I think at this point, that line should be crowd size. I think anything under 50, 25, whatever seems reasonable.

I posted about Sweden's model early on. I am a fan of it for this new phase we are in.

I think people need to get back to work and building their immunity systems again. And I think those over 65 or with pre-existing conditions (like Stu) should absolutely stay in lockdown (by their choice). But those who have a very low chance of dying should be able to make the choice of....living.
I read an article (may have posted it) when all of this started about the need to flatten the curve. It was called "The Hammer" (flattening the curve...not the article). We did that. It worked. Its transition time.

If it does spike in an area and hospitals begin being compromised, bring the hammer back out. But until then, its time to get things moving imo.

[ukpumacat]

It hasn't helped that, as Doc and Bigsky and others have said, the approach is NOT some pursuit of pure science, and is arbitrary in many ways.

Golf courses are closed but Home Depot is wide open. Huh? Parks, boating, fishing, those things are socially distanced by their nature. Why close them? Sure some golfers won't be distanced, but no worse than the line for paint at Home Depot.

This was always a gross overreaction in the details. Not in needing to do something, but where I disagree with puma is that a 30 day complete shutdown doesn't really solve the problem, just prolongs the inevitable adjustment to some kind of temporary "new normal" while we learn to live with this for likely at least 12-18 months.

Since we can't shut down that long we might as well get on with figuring out those decisions and risks right now given that we havent' overwhelmed our hospitals.

Restricting our freedoms out of necessity most can live with for a while, but there are some legitimate questions about how much restriction is really sound science and necessary.

Even Puma, who advocated a 30 day shut down, is arguing that beaches are OK to be open. That's the arbitrary nature of these actions in a nutshell IMO.

Large gatherings OK I get it, but this restriction of our rights was WAY too easy for our leaders IMO, and that has people worried, and rightly so. It should have us ALL worried.

Ha...just needed to wait a few minutes for my last post. I vouched for the 30 day lockdown early on (the hammer). I think in a country where people travel from state to state as much as they do its better to have everyone as close to the same timeline as possible. Not to mention the access to tv and social media showing people in one state eating out and another in total lockdown. You lose the crowd that way.
I believe a 30 day national lockdown would have shortened the lockdown for many states and people would have been more on board with it since it had a firm date to open back up slowly.
Neither here nor there now. We are past that stage imo.

[bigsky]

Two weeks without a case in Gallatin County, a county of about 115,000, airport, Gateway to Yellowstone, interstate 90, University town, youthful demographics, multiple heavy construction projects . 146 cases total, 145 recovered, one death. Why should we be shut down? Politics. Lets the Governor D run daily cost free vs the incumbent Senator, R (my former neighbor and good friend—currently in one of his tv ads). Bars and reataurants can now open at their discretion with sideboards, including 6’ rule. Gyms still ordered closed. Medical still not very open. 2 week quarantine was always nonsense but still required except for anyone with a job.

[MickintheHam]

Ha...just needed to wait a few minutes for my last post. I vouched for the 30 day lockdown early on (the hammer). I think in a country where people travel from state to state as much as they do its better to have everyone as close to the same timeline as possible. Not to mention the access to tv and social media showing people in one state eating out and another in total lockdown. You lose the crowd that way.
I believe a 30 day national lockdown would have shortened the lockdown for many states and people would have been more on board with it since it had a firm date to open back up slowly.
Neither here nor there now. We are past that stage imo.

I see no evidence to support it. Matter of fact there isn’t much evidence that a lockdown works, other than to give officials time to get distancing plans and treatment plans in place. The country would be in far better shape today had there not been a lockdown greater than 14 to 21 days.

[KeithKSR]

South Dakota didn’t mandate staying at home. News reports proclaimed an outbreak explosion. A month after those reports the death total is 29. Deaths per million is among the lowest in the nation.

[KeithKSR]

I see no evidence to support it. Matter of fact there isn’t much evidence that a lockdown works, other than to give officials time to get distancing plans and treatment plans in place. The country would be in far better shape today had there not been a lockdown greater than 14 to 21 days.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that fewer restrictions were better. Beshear excoriated the Tennessee governor for not locking that state down quickly. They initially had higher case rates than Kentucky, but not now. Their instances of death and cases are lower per million people and they have tested more people than Kentucky has.

Their is a lot of evidence that herd immunity is the best long term answer to the pandemic. There is a reason pandemics are a flash and not sustained flames.

[Doc]

I see no evidence to support it. Matter of fact there isn’t much evidence that a lockdown works, other than to give officials time to get distancing plans and treatment plans in place. The country would be in far better shape today had there not been a lockdown greater than 14 to 21 days.

Absolutely

[bigsky]

Regarding “science” one of the grant requirements is diversity. Technical knowledge and creativity and accomplishment are well and good, but ya better check a couple of boxes to get a science grant. This is how we fail.

[MickintheHam]

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that fewer restrictions were better. Beshear excoriated the Tennessee governor for not locking that state down quickly. They initially had higher case rates than Kentucky, but not now. Their instances of death and cases are lower per million people and they have tested more people than Kentucky has.

Their is a lot of evidence that herd immunity is the best long term answer to the pandemic. There is a reason pandemics are a flash and not sustained flames.

Beshear is in over his head on a lot of issues. Good point on the immunity. I must state even when the statistics are in support of my argument, they are largely flawed. There is no standard for the accuracy, reliability, and consistency of data. Politicians clamoring that they will follow the data before making a decision will likely find themselves following the road to ruin.

[KentuckyWildcat]

Follow your doctors advice but don't make me. I prefer to follow MY doctors advice. As I stated, initial recommendation were "no need for a mask"

Safety reports to me at work. Not sure how Safety reports to the Director of IT, but they do. Back in February we were on several calls with MD's, Epidemiologist, and health officials (Mostly state, but a few federal). This was before it was all political, they all told us to not wear masks.

[dan_bgblue]

Safety reports to me at work. Not sure how Safety reports to the Director of IT, but they do. Back in February we were on several calls with MD's, Epidemiologist, and health officials (Mostly state, but a few federal). This was before it was all political, they all told us to not wear masks.

And at the time this information was being shared with the nation on public TV, I was thinking what in the he!! is wrong with you people. Then they tell me it is OK to wear masks but remember that the mask will not protect you from inhaling aerosolized virus, but it will keep you from transmitting the virus to others if you are infected. If I can't blow the virus out, then I damn sure can't suck it in.

[DanISSELisdaman]

Honest answer?

For many, not all, they are both symptoms of the underlying psychology of the person. They are both symptoms of that, not causative but correlated.

Liberals, and this isn't to sound insulting, tend to value security over liberty. Conservatives, and this isn't meant to be insulting either, value liberty over security.

That fundamental balance is at the heart of the American Experiment, and it's a thread that runs through cultures and thus helps define what kinds of government people tolerate. Cultures with higher needs for security tend to tolerate more totalitarian regimes, and that's also why we see them rise to power in times of turmoil and crisis as more and more people put more value on security over liberty.

The irony of this of course is that 250 years ago we called everyone by the opposite name, so it's better to say that "classical liberals" who generally oppose government tend to value liberty over security, and classic conservatives who look to government for action and responsibility tend to favor security over liberty.

Now, there is also a contemporary component to it. I agree with you about people on here, but the leaders of our respective political groups absolutely would not want to see their opponent elected if it somehow solved this problem. That's cold but I think it's true.

As I linked, many left leaning leaders are calling this an "opportunity", when the correct word may be "tragedy". But it's an axiom of radical politics on both sides that you leverage a crisis to help move the pendulum from the middle to an extreme. As I said, the rise of groups like the Nazis are all predicated on some kind of social/economic/political crisis that helps to radicalize people to more extreme responses.

So I dont' think the average American is rooting for this to get worse so Trump loses, but it sure seems many in the media and many political leaders feel that way based on their tone and words, and likewise I'm sure many on the other side feel the same way about Biden et al.

But I do think there is an inherent bias in people to lean to either liberty or security that does influence their politics and also thus influences their reaction to this kind of crisis.

As for me personally I made my peace with Death a long time ago. He will come for everyone, there is no point in fearing him or living your life trying to stave him until the last possible moment. If you do you'll probably forget to actually live life in the time you do have, so live your life, don't be stupid, take basic care of yourself and the rest is simply not in your power to control.

So I'll wear my mask, wash my hands a heck of a lot, try to be smart, and hope for the best, but I will not fear this virus or any other thing on this earth.

And I will not give up my liberty in the long term in order to avoid it either, esp. when it seems to be an inevitable and inexorable act of nature which we can only hope to slow, not stop. Eventually we will either all get this or all get vaccinated for it b/c it seems very much that virulent. So the only thing to do is for us to get it slow enough we still have hospital beds and medical staff for those who need it.

Well said!

Liberals, and this isn't to sound insulting, tend to value security over liberty. Conservatives, and this isn't meant to be insulting either, value liberty over security.
I don't think there can be any argument about this statement. But, when you look at nations that give up their liberty, it's not long till they have no security either. When politicians get too much power, they tend to force citizens to yield to their idea of what's best for them and the country. I want and think I should have the liberty, to make my on mind up as to what is best for me, as long as I'm not interfering with someone else's right to do the same. Now I know someone will say, but if you get the virus and expose someone else to it you are interfering with their rights, but you can't hide forever from things like this and there's a point that keeping everything shut down is going to be worse than the disease and will probably cause more deaths and much more suffering than to carefully open things back up and getting our people back to work.