This is logical. In the implementation, however, as an elderly person, I would not be thrilled with staying home isolated while watching others have a great time at Disney World, going to movies, etc. Just a perspective to think about.cavscout96 said:
Or we could just let it run its course and take really well thought out and diliberately implemented steps to protect the most vulnerable folks since the likelyhood of a healthy person dying from this are practically non-existent.
B/CS number of cases update? 11-17-20 Staff Edit on OP
1,197,949 Views |
6626 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Nosmo
benchmark said:This is logical. In the implementation, however, as an elderly person, I would not be thrilled with staying home isolated while watching others have a great time at Disney World, going to movies, etc. Just a perspective to think about.cavscout96 said:
Or we could just let it run its course and take really well thought out and diliberately implemented steps to protect the most vulnerable folks since the likelyhood of a healthy person dying from this are practically non-existent.
No one is making anyone miss out. If you are in the most vulnerable population and want to go on living life, take precautions and accept the risk and then go do your thing. Just understand that the virus doesn't care about someone's feelings. It's not going to decide to not infect someone because they wanted to go to Disneyland.
What do you do during the flu season?
Quote:
No one is making anyone miss out.
People refusing to wear masks are in fact doing exactly this.
I totally get that. I'm not saying you HAVE to stay in. You are seasoned enough to make your own decisions. The simple fact of the matter is this disease appears to pose very little threat to folks under 50 and the only way to get through to the other side is to establish herd immunity (you may already know this, but widespread vaccination is simply a way to FORCE herd immunity).benchmark said:This is logical. In the implementation, however, as an elderly person, I would not be thrilled with staying home isolated while watching others have a great time at Disney World, going to movies, etc. Just a perspective to think about.cavscout96 said:
Or we could just let it run its course and take really well thought out and diliberately implemented steps to protect the most vulnerable folks since the likelyhood of a healthy person dying from this are practically non-existent.
So, low risk? Get on with life. If you get it, the odds are DRAMATICALLY in your favor
High risk? Recommend extreme caution, BUT, make your own decision. In your case, you've been around long enough to understand the potential outcomes.
The hard part is really for the high risk folks and what much of this thread has really been focusing on. YOU can't make an INFORMED decision because our (non) "leaders" refuse to give you any information of real value.
nope. not even close. YOU are choosing not to go do things where others are un-masked.FlyRod said:Quote:
No one is making anyone miss out.
People refusing to wear masks are in fact doing exactly this.
Quote:
nope. not even close. YOU are choosing not to go do things where others are un-masked.
You are right about that...as are many I know. Hope the local businesses manage without our money.
They have been so far. None have gone out of business b/c of their mask policy. They have gone out of business due to forced closures (ie-shelter-in-place order) and/or a huge reduction in customer base for an extended period of time..FlyRod said:Quote:
nope. not even close. YOU are choosing not to go do things where others are un-masked.
You are right about that...as are many I know. Hope the local businesses manage without our money.
It's always a choice. That isn't the point. The more people running around spreading it without worrying about they themselves getting sick (so they won't even wear a mask) increase my risk of catching it, giving me fewer options. Some choice...AggieBaseball06 said:benchmark said:This is logical. In the implementation, however, as an elderly person, I would not be thrilled with staying home isolated while watching others have a great time at Disney World, going to movies, etc. Just a perspective to think about.cavscout96 said:
Or we could just let it run its course and take really well thought out and diliberately implemented steps to protect the most vulnerable folks since the likelyhood of a healthy person dying from this are practically non-existent.
No one is making anyone miss out. If you are in the most vulnerable population and want to go on living life, take precautions and accept the risk and then go do your thing. Just understand that the virus doesn't care about someone's feelings. It's not going to decide to not infect someone because they wanted to go to Disneyland.
Are you serious? This is not the flu.saltydog13 said:
What do you do during the flu season?
Then it is YOUR CHOICE between "not being thrilled" and the risk to accept you might be die if you go to Disney World because you are jealous of others doing it.benchmark said:This is logical. In the implementation, however, as an elderly person, I would not be thrilled with staying home isolated while watching others have a great time at Disney World, going to movies, etc. Just a perspective to think about.cavscout96 said:
Or we could just let it run its course and take really well thought out and diliberately implemented steps to protect the most vulnerable folks since the likelyhood of a healthy person dying from this are practically non-existent.
So, your option is to reduce the OPTIONS for everyone else because you can't do everything everyone else is doing.benchmark said:It's always a choice. That isn't the point. The more people running around spreading it without worrying about they themselves getting sick (so they won't even wear a mask) increase my risk of catching it, giving me fewer options. Some choice...AggieBaseball06 said:benchmark said:This is logical. In the implementation, however, as an elderly person, I would not be thrilled with staying home isolated while watching others have a great time at Disney World, going to movies, etc. Just a perspective to think about.cavscout96 said:
Or we could just let it run its course and take really well thought out and diliberately implemented steps to protect the most vulnerable folks since the likelyhood of a healthy person dying from this are practically non-existent.
No one is making anyone miss out. If you are in the most vulnerable population and want to go on living life, take precautions and accept the risk and then go do your thing. Just understand that the virus doesn't care about someone's feelings. It's not going to decide to not infect someone because they wanted to go to Disneyland.
Seems like the argument you are making is "people are being selfish because they aren't thinking of me and that limits me".
The counterpoint is "You are being selfish because you want to limit everyone else because of your special circumstances"
Every frickin year we have the following from the flu in the U.S.:benchmark said:Are you serious? This is not the flu.saltydog13 said:
What do you do during the flu season?
According to the CDC, flu-related deaths between the years of 1986 and 2007 ranged from 3,000 to 49,000. Since 2010, the flu-related death rate has been between 12,000 and 61,000 annually, with the highest season being 2017/2018 and the lowest being 2011/2012. (https://www.verywellhealth.com/deaths-from-flu-2633829)
Every year we can count on this in the U.S. We don't know the future of covid - this year has been tough. But the first year of today's flu was 1918, and called the Spanish flu. About 675,000 died in the U.S. during the first year of that.
Where did I say it was the flu? I asked what you do during flu season since you're elderly or in an at risk category. My point was that the flu can be serious for those folks and is easily spread, but no one has ever worried about masks even during bad flu seasons.
So I perhaps misinterpreted the point of your question. I get a shot. That's about it. Perhaps I should think about doing more.saltydog13 said:
Where did I say it was the flu? I asked what you do during flu season since you're elderly or in an at risk category. My point was that the flu can be serious for those folks and is easily spread, but no one has ever worried about masks even during bad flu seasons.
I'm not sure of your point. Are you suggesting that we are no smarter today about the spread of viruses so we should just all die so that in 100 years people can look back at us and just shrug their shoulders and say "Can't be helped - these things happen." And this does not act like the flu in a lot of ways. I'm only high-risk because I'm in my 60's. Well managed, the flu would not be deadly to me. I can not say the same about COVID.agrab86 said:Every frickin year we have the following from the flu in the U.S.:benchmark said:Are you serious? This is not the flu.saltydog13 said:
What do you do during the flu season?
According to the CDC, flu-related deaths between the years of 1986 and 2007 ranged from 3,000 to 49,000. Since 2010, the flu-related death rate has been between 12,000 and 61,000 annually, with the highest season being 2017/2018 and the lowest being 2011/2012. (https://www.verywellhealth.com/deaths-from-flu-2633829)
Every year we can count on this in the U.S. We don't know the future of covid - this year has been tough. But the first year of today's flu was 1918, and called the Spanish flu. About 675,000 died in the U.S. during the first year of that.
I'm suggesting that the seasonal flu is still a very dastardly virus. The first year of it was way worse than the first year of covid, largely as a result of better treatments and more knowledge today. But still, 1,000s of Americans die from the seasonal flu every year over 100 years later. You may minimize the impacts of the flu vs covid, but tell that to one of the families of 12,000 to 61,000 flu victims every year.
The other point is covid, even with a vaccine, may be with us for decades. Do you really think that we should wear masks in public for decades?
The other point is covid, even with a vaccine, may be with us for decades. Do you really think that we should wear masks in public for decades?
I'm suggesting that the seasonal flu is still a very dastardly virus. The first year of it was way worse than the first year of covid, largely as a result of better treatments and more knowledge today. But still, 1,000s of Americans die from the seasonal flu every year over 100 years later. You may minimize the impacts of the flu vs covid, but tell that to one of the families of 12,000 to 61,000 flu victims every year.
The other point is covid, even with a vaccine, may be with us for decades. Do you really think that we should wear masks in public for decades?
The other point is covid, even with a vaccine, may be with us for decades. Do you really think that we should wear masks in public for decades?
I'm suggesting that the seasonal flu is still a very dastardly virus. The first year of it was way worse than the first year of covid, largely as a result of better treatments and more knowledge today. But still, 1,000s of Americans die from the seasonal flu every year over 100 years later. You may minimize the impacts of the flu vs covid, but tell that to one of the families of 12,000 to 61,000 flu victims every year.
The other point is covid, even with a vaccine, may be with us for decades. Do you really think that we should wear masks in public for decades?
The other point is covid, even with a vaccine, may be with us for decades. Do you really think that we should wear masks in public for decades?
double post
I'm not reducing anyone's option of going to a movie. I'm making the point that if we ALL take precautions, we can ALL enjoy a fuller life. My point from the beginning was when people blithely suggest everyone at greater risk should just stay home (be protected, however you want to phrase it) I wonder if they really think about what that means.91_Aggie said:So, your option is to reduce the OPTIONS for everyone else because you can't do everything everyone else is doing.benchmark said:It's always a choice. That isn't the point. The more people running around spreading it without worrying about they themselves getting sick (so they won't even wear a mask) increase my risk of catching it, giving me fewer options. Some choice...AggieBaseball06 said:benchmark said:This is logical. In the implementation, however, as an elderly person, I would not be thrilled with staying home isolated while watching others have a great time at Disney World, going to movies, etc. Just a perspective to think about.cavscout96 said:
Or we could just let it run its course and take really well thought out and diliberately implemented steps to protect the most vulnerable folks since the likelyhood of a healthy person dying from this are practically non-existent.
No one is making anyone miss out. If you are in the most vulnerable population and want to go on living life, take precautions and accept the risk and then go do your thing. Just understand that the virus doesn't care about someone's feelings. It's not going to decide to not infect someone because they wanted to go to Disneyland.
Seems like the argument you are making is "people are being selfish because they aren't thinking of me and that limits me".
The counterpoint is "You are being selfish because you want to limit everyone else because of your special circumstances"
Hopefully not! But is it such a great sacrifice to wear one until we know more? Until we have better treatments?agrab86 said:
The other point is covid, even with a vaccine, may be with us for decades. Do you really think that we should wear masks in public for decades?
Yes it is such a great sacrifice. Distancing works much better, and masks provide a false sense of security. But more than that, it deprives each of us our individual freedom to express ourselves as we see fit. You may not agree with these reasons, as is your right, and you may keep using shame to try and bring others into compliance with your point of view. It is also why, contrary to what Schwartzenegger (sp?) says, face coverings are indeed a political issue.benchmark said:Hopefully not! But is it such a great sacrifice to wear one until we know more? Until we have better treatments?agrab86 said:
The other point is covid, even with a vaccine, may be with us for decades. Do you really think that we should wear masks in public for decades?
Maybe that is our biggest difference - I don't see masks as a political issue. I'm not interested in shaming anyone. I think listening to other's point of view increases our knowledge and understanding. Doesn't mean you have to agree 100% with anyone. Distancing is a great way to approach dealing with this virus. I personally like to use all the tools available and debate the merits of each when we know more later. Have a good one... edited to add: I don't think I am minimizing the flu and its impact. Neither am I minimizing COVID and its impact. And yes, I had a healthy senior family member die with COVID so I am perhaps more interested in avoiding it altogether than taking my chances of surviving it!agrab86 said:Yes it is such a great sacrifice. Distancing works much better, and masks provide a false sense of security. But more than that, it deprives each of us our individual freedom to express ourselves as we see fit. You may not agree with these reasons, as is your right, and you may keep using shame to try and bring others into compliance with your point of view. It is also why, contrary to what Schwartzenegger (sp?) says, face coverings are indeed a political issue.benchmark said:Hopefully not! But is it such a great sacrifice to wear one until we know more? Until we have better treatments?agrab86 said:
The other point is covid, even with a vaccine, may be with us for decades. Do you really think that we should wear masks in public for decades?
Y'all really are going to be unhappy when TAMU shuts down again this fall because of "the individual freedom to express ourselves."
agrab86 said:Yes it is such a great sacrifice. Distancing works much better, and masks provide a false sense of security. But more than that, it deprives each of us our individual freedom to express ourselves as we see fit. You may not agree with these reasons, as is your right, and you may keep using shame to try and bring others into compliance with your point of view. It is also why, contrary to what Schwartzenegger (sp?) says, face coverings are indeed a political issue.benchmark said:Hopefully not! But is it such a great sacrifice to wear one until we know more? Until we have better treatments?agrab86 said:
The other point is covid, even with a vaccine, may be with us for decades. Do you really think that we should wear masks in public for decades?
Such a selfish reason. "I will not do something simple because it keeps me from being able express myself"
That is NOT a huge sacrifice. Thats an immature response. And then to move the goal posts in a later response to "Are we supposed to do this forever?" Sheesh man, you are not using good arguments to back your side on this debate. Just essentially deflecting with strawmen and irrelevant scenarios.
But your response earlier about being an anti-vax supporter should have told me to stop engaging since all simple reason will not be involved.
16 new cases
0 new deaths
0 new tests
31 in the hospital (+13 -9) (If I read the pretty graph correctly)
77802 +5
77803 +2
77807 +2
77808 +1
77840 +3
77845 +3
http://brazoshealth.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/6.22.20.pdf
Like a typical Monday, the numbers are low. If it follows the usual pattern, tomorrow will have a huge jump in tests and cases as they play catch up. Also, I'd bet the hospital numbers are for more than just the last 24 hours. Most likely is why yesterday showed no change and covers the last 48 hours at least.
0 new deaths
0 new tests
31 in the hospital (+13 -9) (If I read the pretty graph correctly)
77802 +5
77803 +2
77807 +2
77808 +1
77840 +3
77845 +3
http://brazoshealth.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/6.22.20.pdf
Like a typical Monday, the numbers are low. If it follows the usual pattern, tomorrow will have a huge jump in tests and cases as they play catch up. Also, I'd bet the hospital numbers are for more than just the last 24 hours. Most likely is why yesterday showed no change and covers the last 48 hours at least.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Back on topic:
16 new cases reported today
0 new tests
http://www.brazoshealth.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/6.22.20.pdf
16 new cases reported today
0 new tests
http://www.brazoshealth.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/6.22.20.pdf
Ahh, shame and ridicule used. Very nice. I don't think I've done that to anyone. But I do say distance and if you choose to wear a mask, then good for you.91_Aggie said:agrab86 said:Yes it is such a great sacrifice. Distancing works much better, and masks provide a false sense of security. But more than that, it deprives each of us our individual freedom to express ourselves as we see fit. You may not agree with these reasons, as is your right, and you may keep using shame to try and bring others into compliance with your point of view. It is also why, contrary to what Schwartzenegger (sp?) says, face coverings are indeed a political issue.benchmark said:Hopefully not! But is it such a great sacrifice to wear one until we know more? Until we have better treatments?agrab86 said:
The other point is covid, even with a vaccine, may be with us for decades. Do you really think that we should wear masks in public for decades?
Such a selfish reason. "I will not do something simple because it keeps me from being able express myself"
That is NOT a huge sacrifice. Thats an immature response. And then to move the goal posts in a later response to "Are we supposed to do this forever?" Sheesh man, you are not using good arguments to back your side on this debate. Just essentially deflecting with strawmen and irrelevant scenarios.
But your response earlier about being an anti-vax supporter should have told me to stop engaging since all simple reason will not be involved.
Sorry for your loss. Yours has been one of the more pleasant exchanges with me on this issue, at least to me.benchmark said:Maybe that is our biggest difference - I don't see masks as a political issue. I'm not interested in shaming anyone. I think listening to other's point of view increases our knowledge and understanding. Doesn't mean you have to agree 100% with anyone. Distancing is a great way to approach dealing with this virus. I personally like to use all the tools available and debate the merits of each when we know more later. Have a good one... edited to add: I don't think I am minimizing the flu and its impact. Neither am I minimizing COVID and its impact. And yes, I had a healthy senior family member die with COVID so I am perhaps more interested in avoiding it altogether than taking my chances of surviving it!agrab86 said:Yes it is such a great sacrifice. Distancing works much better, and masks provide a false sense of security. But more than that, it deprives each of us our individual freedom to express ourselves as we see fit. You may not agree with these reasons, as is your right, and you may keep using shame to try and bring others into compliance with your point of view. It is also why, contrary to what Schwartzenegger (sp?) says, face coverings are indeed a political issue.benchmark said:Hopefully not! But is it such a great sacrifice to wear one until we know more? Until we have better treatments?agrab86 said:
The other point is covid, even with a vaccine, may be with us for decades. Do you really think that we should wear masks in public for decades?
Yes, 9 discharges
On the mask issue, I do think it's best practice that we all wear one when feasible.
I'm fine with a business making the decision to require them. I'm not okay with the government requiring them.
I'm fine with a business making the decision to require them. I'm not okay with the government requiring them.
We're also up to 608 recovered.
FlyRod said:Quote:
nope. not even close. YOU are choosing not to go do things where others are un-masked.
You are right about that...as are many I know. Hope the local businesses manage without our money.
Me too.
A great sacrifice? **** off with that. Are you serious?agrab86 said:Yes it is such a great sacrifice. Distancing works much better, and masks provide a false sense of security. But more than that, it deprives each of us our individual freedom to express ourselves as we see fit. You may not agree with these reasons, as is your right, and you may keep using shame to try and bring others into compliance with your point of view. It is also why, contrary to what Schwartzenegger (sp?) says, face coverings are indeed a political issue.benchmark said:Hopefully not! But is it such a great sacrifice to wear one until we know more? Until we have better treatments?agrab86 said:
The other point is covid, even with a vaccine, may be with us for decades. Do you really think that we should wear masks in public for decades?