Bison06

Rules for thee, but not for me.

How about asking those teachers how they feel, are they comfortable coming back? Some will some won’t. Use the teachers that want to stay home as the virtual teachers for the time being and let everyone who is comfortable get back to it. When back, take extra precautions. masking, hand washing, no school assemblies, lunch in the classrooms instead of in mass gatherings in one space. Use the gyms, one nice days utilize outdoor spaces. Utilize empty commercial space in the communities. The list is endless of what could be done. It seems as though many are looking for problems when they should be thinking of solutions, there are so many ways to get the kids back to school.

Here we are back to the narrative, “if it’s saves one life”. Why did we decide that it’s ok to lock down normal life to protect such a small minority, when an infinitely more logical solution is to protect and isolate the vulnerable?

Hahaha

Maybe you haven’t seen some of the daycares, my kids’ day care is the size of about 3-4 full sized class rooms and has 250 kids.

You haven’t been paying attention if you still think that’s what they are trying to do. Flatten the curve is no longer the goal. Now it’s to, as was said, eradicate the disease before we can go back to our lives. Unprecedented to say the least.

How is elementary school different than the daycares that have been open since March? Where are the outbreaks among the families of the workers? The grandparents of the children who have been around other disease spreading monsters?

Classic reference!

So a mask is somehow a new invention that medical professional didn’t know was helpful? Not buying that. In other words, we know nothing about this virus, but we will draw conclusion that scare people.

I think that is a fair question for Walz. Why was masking and socially distancing not the plan from the get go? Lockdown and crippling the economy while ruining countless lives seemed like a better plan?

Exactly. Doesn’t take a math whiz to figure out that the death rate was hyper-inflated early because only elderly and ill people were being tested. As younger healthier people get infected the death rate will continue to drop to a level that is likely at or below the death rate of influenza.

Sure, this coronavirus is new, but since we’ve been dealing with this family of viruses for decades with little to no long term consequences, wouldn’t the prudent thing to do be to think this virus will be similar. It seems like more fear mongering from the media to position this unknown this way. I’ve jumped down stairs millions of times in my life, but I’ve never jumped off a wooden box into a pile of leaves that’s the same height as the stairs, so it’s new and technically unknown. Should I be fearful because it’s new or should I use my vast experience with something very similar to drive my actions?

A couple ways, if the person reporting on it has a specific way of viewing it. First way would be by reporting absolute numbers, which is what most papers are doing. 100 tests were done, we found one positive. Media reports we found one positive. 1000 tests were done we found 10 positives. Media reports we have 10x as many positive cases now than we did before. Percentage wise, it’s the same. If, as has been suggested, we are testing people multiple times and they come back positive multiple times and each time they are counted as positive. Then that’s obvious how that inflates the data. Hospitalizations and deaths are really the only stat I care to see and even deaths are under major scrutiny in my book as they’ve admitted to not distinguishing between people who died with or people who died because of covid.

Agreed. But if the data that being used for the projections is flawed, wouldn’t the decisions being made also be flawed? We are being asked to trust the science, when the science is corrupted, possibly to the point of being irrelevant. I realize they have to go off of something, but wrong is wrong.

They’ll keep moving the goalposts on safety until the schools are forced closed. It’s been obvious from the get go that Walz didn’t want to open the schools, regardless of what he says in his press conferences.

Even if it isn’t the sole reason, what percentage of inflation are you ok with making significant decisions off of? We are making massively impactful decisions off of this data and they have basically admitted the data is inflated. How is that ok?

You say decreases risk, fine, I agree. The question is by how much? If it’s a significant percentage than most people will take action. Good ideas with provable value tend to take hold organically. However, regardless of the percentage the totality of the picture needs to be assessed when you’re a mature and serious person. What is being given up to achieve this lowered risk? In the case of masks, my risk/benefit analysis point toward wearing one, but individuals have varied risk tolerances which is why I’m for individuals being able to keep that choice.

So given that, do you understand why people are frustrated with representatives and the media touting increased cases as a problem and a reason to keep restrictions in place?

Exactly and due to this https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546 there is no penalty at all to the manufacturer if people are hurt by it.

If you replaced mask with vaccine would you feel the same way?

The guy who ends his posts with “lol” is lecturing people on being petulant whiny bit**es. Classic.

I’m fine with the mask, as a choice. Will you be fine tomorrow when it’s something different or will we get to call you a snowflake?

My guess is if someone took the stance that masks are tyranny prior to yesterday, the above meme doesn’t describe them today. As for the rest of us who think it should be a choice, I find it quite concerning that you are celebrating the silencing of opinions and excited about the forced change in someone opinions because they aren’t welcome in public without compliance. I’ve said this previously, but it’s true now more than ever. You are only for this enforcement and alienation of a portion of our citizens because you happen to agree with this particular decision. What happens tomorrow when the mandate is something you don’t agree with?

Experts have the luxury of giving advice that views public health as the only factor in their equation. Easy position to be in when all you have to do is over shoot in terms of precaution. Politicians have a much more complicated equation to solve.

Lies have consequences. If their ultimate goal was to earn the nation’s trust when they roll out recommendations, beginning with a lie is the opposite of what should have been done.