When will Maryland re open?

[UglyBear]

The government is my first guess.

Nope, not "the government".
The laws are passed by the legislative branch, every member of which is supposed to be a representative of the people. So, we the people make the laws. Or at least give consent to be governed by those laws.
Otherwise this whole experiment was for naught, good 244 years ride, though.

 

[mitzi]

The laws are passed by the legislative branch, every member of which is supposed to be a representative of the people. So, we the people make the laws. Or at least give consent to be governed by those laws.

We voted the representatives in. So I still think of it as government. My point was, defying an Executive Order is breaking a law.

 

[Louise]

Nope, not "the government".
The laws are passed by the legislative branch, every member of which is supposed to be a representative of the people. So, we the people make the laws. Or at least give consent to be governed by those laws.
Otherwise this whole experiment was for naught, good 244 years ride, though.

 

[mitzi]

You do know that Nixon and the FBI thought Lennon was a communist, don't you?

 

[Louise]

You do know that Nixon and the FBI thought Lennon was a communist, don't you?

The FBI and Nixon?

What do you think of this song?

 

[mitzi]

The FBI and Nixon?

I'm not putting down the song at all. But it's not fitting to this discussion. Do some research, it's true and well known.

John Lennon - FBI Files

John Lennon FBI Files page, Freedom of Information Act documents and information

www.lennonfbifiles.com

FBI Files - Richard Nixon Feared John Lennon Could Sway the 1972 Election - The Vintage News

www.thevintagenews.com

What do you think of this song?

 

[Kyle]

 

[kom526]

I only hate the fact that once they established that as the goal -

They changed the goal. The premise is - flatten the curve - that we mitigate the problem until we are equipped to handle it.

Now - for some reason - that is not good enough. We are expected to sit in our homes and lose money and gobble what is left of our savings - because they haven't eradicated it completely. Well that is NOT flattening the curve - that is erasing the curve. And that is insane.

There are a couple of problems, you are correct, but now they are finding the number of infected is much greater than reported.
For example, in LA they are saying number of infected is 55 percent higher than earlier estimates. As more testing is done, they are finding a higher number of infections. The good news is that the death rate dramatically falls up, because those numbers aren't following the number infected.

Flattening the curve was supposed to be THE goal. I, and I'm sure many more were expecting that number to be predicated on hospitalizations, not infections. Now with more serology testing results showing much higher numbers of people with COVID antibodies present, we are NOW relying more molecular testing to test for infections to add to the curve and therefore increasing the amount of time we remain under the boot. In other words, the goalposts are getting moved.

Use molecular testing on the highest risk population, then quarantine THEM. Complete lockdown and if you have to put a guard outside their house, so be it. Why should an entire town, county, state or nation grind to a slow, excruciating economic halt because of a 17% infection rate of a virus with a 99% survivability rate? Chance are that the survival rate is even higher when you remove the "probable" COVID deaths and apply real FACTUAL numbers into the dataset.

 

[Goldenhawk]

Use molecular testing on the highest risk population, then quarantine THEM. Complete lockdown and if you have to put a guard outside their house, so be it.

That's a selfish viewpoint.

My parents are in their late 70s, thus at much higher risk. My dad has lymphoma, meaning his immune system is seriously compromised. So he's at probably the highest risk known.

But he's an active runner - at almost 80 years old, he is (or was, until lockdown) still running half marathons and participating in triathlons, trying to stay healthy. He's also very active in his church, leading a small group. Until a year ago he was actively teaching at his local college. And they have daughter and grandkids a half hour drive away.

Yeah, let's lock up my parents indefinitely, because they're at high risk. Never see family again. Never contribute to society again. Never pass along 150 combined years of accumulated wisdom to the younger generation.

That isn't how we should behave towards our elders. Sometimes protecting people means inconveniencing ourselves.

 

[kom526]

That's a selfish viewpoint.

My parents are in their late 70s, thus at much higher risk. My dad has lymphoma, meaning his immune system is seriously compromised. So he's at probably the highest risk known.

But he's an active runner - at almost 80 years old, he is (or was, until lockdown) still running half marathons and participating in triathlons, trying to stay healthy. He's also very active in his church, leading a small group. Until a year ago he was actively teaching at his local college. And they have daughter and grandkids a half hour drive away.

Yeah, let's lock up my parents indefinitely, because they're at high risk. Never see family again. Never contribute to society again. Never pass along 150 combined years of accumulated wisdom to the younger generation.

That isn't how we should behave towards our elders. Sometimes protecting people means inconveniencing ourselves.

Sorry you can't read for comprehension but I'll type it slower for you.
Use molecular testing on higher risk people. (The following should have been self explanatory) IF THEY TEST POSITIVE THEN QUARANTINE THEM.

I know it must be terrible being the only person with elderly, at risk parents that can't see their grandkids.

 

[SamSpade]

I know it must be terrible being the only person with elderly, at risk parents that can't see their grandkids.

No kidding. One set of grandparents just lives nearby in assisted living. Not only can't my kids see them, even my wife isn't allowed inside to bring them stuff - like toilet paper and hygiene products.

 

[Scat]

That's a selfish viewpoint.

My parents are in their late 70s, thus at much higher risk. My dad has lymphoma, meaning his immune system is seriously compromised. So he's at probably the highest risk known.

But he's an active runner - at almost 80 years old, he is (or was, until lockdown) still running half marathons and participating in triathlons, trying to stay healthy. He's also very active in his church, leading a small group. Until a year ago he was actively teaching at his local college. And they have daughter and grandkids a half hour drive away.

Yeah, let's lock up my parents indefinitely, because they're at high risk. Never see family again. Never contribute to society again. Never pass along 150 combined years of accumulated wisdom to the younger generation.

That isn't how we should behave towards our elders. Sometimes protecting people means inconveniencing ourselves.

Sounds more like you are the selfish one using your poor aging parents as your excuse.

 

[GURPS]

Yeah, let's lock up my parents indefinitely, because they're at high risk. Never see family again. Never contribute to society again. Never pass along 150 combined years of accumulated wisdom to the younger generation.

That's a bit Hyperbolic

 

[ginwoman]

No kidding. One set of grandparents just lives nearby in assisted living. Not only can't my kids see them, even my wife isn't allowed inside to bring them stuff - like toilet paper and hygiene products.

That is awful. I feel so bad for the people in nursing homes/AL who cannot see their families. I wonder if they are allowed to leave their rooms for the dining room or BINGO, etc. Poor dear people.

 

[SamSpade]

That is awful. I feel so bad for the people in nursing homes/AL who cannot see their families. I wonder if they are allowed to leave their rooms for the dining room or BINGO, etc. Poor dear people.

My in-laws - no. They have to eat in their rooms.

 

[SamSpade]

That's a bit Hyperbolic

They HAVE to do that. Their argument is stupid.

How about this? Fight at school yesterday. Suspend all the students for two weeks.

The intelligent thing to do is - deal with the PROBLEM, not with mitigating it.

"Testing" and dealing with those who pass or fail the test? That time has passed. It would have been useful in the earliest days of the virus had we know exactly when it arrived and where it was, etc. At this point, FAR too many people have or have had the virus to even bother with containment. I've mentioned this before - when you have a virus that has managed to spread to Greenland, the Falklands and Fiji - you have not contained it. You must treat it.

I'm beginning to see the wisdom of Sweden and gaining herd immunity.

 

[UglyBear]

I fully suspect that as we learn more and more about the Bat Soup Flu (super contagious, not very deadly to those outside of risk groups, has been circulating for at least two months before we thought it did, most likely you already had it) -- the whole shutdown response makes less and less sense.
But, politicians are acting either out of cowardice, or out of malice.
Cowardice: they are afraid that if they do ANYTHING to ease up, they will be blamed for every death attributed to COVID (real or not).
Malice: too many conspiracy theories, I will restrain myself on that one.

 

[Grumpy]

Cowardice: they are afraid that if they do ANYTHING to ease up, they will be blamed for every death attributed to COVID (real or not).

That is absolutely where we stand right now, IMO

 

[GregV814]

Back up about 12 paragraphs. Yes the FBI and Richard Nixon had disdain for John Lennon, although I liked his and George Harrison’s music, John was a drug addicted communist.

But long before him was The Weavers, circa 1950’s lookem up, listen to their messages.

 

[UglyBear]

That's a selfish viewpoint.
Yeah, let's lock up my parents indefinitely, because they're at high risk. Never see family again. Never contribute to society again. Never pass along 150 combined years of accumulated wisdom to the younger generation.
That isn't how we should behave towards our elders. Sometimes protecting people means inconveniencing ourselves.

Sir/Maam, in your post above you were extremely inconsistent and as already mentioned, hyperbolic.
You are calling for an indefinite lock up of everyone , while justifying it by protecting your parents.

Your parents sound like great people, and I hope that they are not infected by the COVID, or the seasonal flu, or a bunch of other diseases that are in the population already and present a significant risk to elderly people with compromised immune systems.

That's why it should be the people at risk only (and their caretakers) who should choose to inconvenience themselves and take measures to avoid public places and practice enhanced hygiene.
The worst measure that any government has the right to take is forcefully quarantining known carriers, not the entire population. That is the point made by the majority of other posters, and what we are complaining about.