Should we bring back lockdowns?

James Phillips92 said:There are specific metrics used to decide when to hold steady or start easing restrictions—but as for mandates? We’ll be waiting a long time for that. And honestly, even if everyone who said they’d get vaccinated in the polls actually followed through, we're still a massive way off from reaching true herd immunity—the kind that actually lets us scrap all these rules.

If death rates are trending down, it means we're already getting pretty close to that herd immunity threshold.

Broken Empire said:If this whole situation stays the same after Easter—you know, once the weather actually starts warming up—then we can say for sure that these measures have absolutely nothing to do with science or epidemiology.

We pretty much figured that out back in the spring of last year.

James Phillips92 said:If death rates are trending down, it means we're already getting pretty close to that herd immunity threshold.

It seems like geriatric care and palliative services have completely fallen behind.☕

Lawrence Reed3 said:We'll see by the end of the month... if the numbers keep dropping, it'll be obvious that the restrictions worked and we can move on without them—specifically those shutdown rules. Masks and other small things you can live with for a year or so... they don't really get in the way too much anyway.

Unfortunately, not everyone operates under the table; plenty of businesses actually follow the law. The place I usually go to will be closed through the end of the month, but if they lift the mandate, they'll just start operating off the books.

The mandates haven't achieved anything besides causing damage. Enough people have been infected to build up immunity, and there's less room for the virus to spread now. If it weren't for these measures, we would've been out of this situation already.

jademoose6 said:It seems like geriatric care and palliative services have completely fallen behind.☕

Yeah.

James Phillips92 said:The mandates haven't achieved anything besides causing damage. Enough people have been infected to build up immunity, and there's less room for the virus to spread now. If it weren't for these measures, we would've been out of this situation already.

Yeah, totally.

Has nobody else here caught wind of this new strain that’s causing countries to tighten up their borders and regulations—or do you all honestly think it’s just going to breeze right through here without us feeling the hit?

Water Park said:There's talk about lockdowns starting up again across Europe, so I want to know what you all think—should we be doing the same here in America, or not?

We absolutely need them! In my view, it’s the only legitimate way to protect the most vulnerable people. Everything was shut down before and it held up, even if it hit everyone incredibly hard. Personally, I think we can manage another month of this until things settle down and better weather arrives. Until then, I just hope they find ways to make this period easier on us and that we won't have to deal with medication shortages causing future quarantines.

redwalker802 said:We absolutely need them! In my view, it’s the only legitimate way to protect the most vulnerable people. Everything was shut down before and it held up, even if it hit everyone incredibly hard. Personally, I think we can manage another month of this until things settle down and better weather arrives. Until then, I just hope they find ways to make this period easier on us and that we won't have to deal with medication shortages causing future quarantines.

Huh?
A month from now is the dead of winter—what "better weather" are you expecting?
And besides, it isn't the only way to handle this, nor will everything just magically thaw out.
What kind of fairy tale are you living in?

Carol Barnes36 said:Has nobody else here caught wind of this new strain that’s causing countries to tighten up their borders and regulations—or do you all honestly think it’s just going to breeze right through here without us feeling the hit?

We definitely heard about this strain too—given how dangerous people claimed it was, we looked at the actual death tolls and realized the whole thing was a fabrication. Are we really supposed to trust the same people who lied to us in the first place?

James Phillips92 said:We definitely heard about this strain too—given how dangerous people claimed it was, we looked at the actual death tolls and realized the whole thing was a fabrication. Are we really supposed to trust the same people who lied to us in the first place?

Well, if you're a sociopath, I guess those numbers look pretty small to you.

Carol Barnes36 said:Well, if you're a sociopath, I guess those numbers look pretty small to you.

Biology follows its own rules—everyone who’s born eventually dies. The mortality rate in the US back in 2020 wasn't actually any higher than our usual average. In fact, we'll probably see more deaths from other causes in the coming years because of these mandates. So, who’s really the sociopath here? Is it the person pointing out how absurd these measures are, or the ones pushing them through?

Carol Barnes36 said:Well, if you're a sociopath, I guess those numbers look pretty small to you.

Now, that right there—that's hate speech.

Carol Barnes36 said:Has nobody else here caught wind of this new strain that’s causing countries to tighten up their borders and regulations—or do you all honestly think it’s just going to breeze right through here without us feeling the hit?

I mean, honestly, should we really be panicking just because everyone else is losing their minds? I don't think there's actually proof this new strain is any more dangerous than what we've already dealt with—and if anything, I feel like we're even in this mess because people started freaking out so much. If they hadn't made such a massive deal out of everything, I bet nobody would have even noticed the virus.

Carol Barnes36 said:Well, if you're a sociopath, I guess those numbers look pretty small to you.

The actual number of deaths is relatively low when you weigh it against the damage caused by measures that don't even yield significant results—clearly evidenced by how most countries end up with similar outcomes regardless of how strict their mandates were. Then there's the subsequent loss of life years due to that collateral damage. It isn't a choice between lives or the economy. It’s just lives versus lives...

wearypilot34 said:The actual number of deaths is relatively low when you weigh it against the damage caused by measures that don't even yield significant results—clearly evidenced by how most countries end up with similar outcomes regardless of how strict their mandates were. Then there's the subsequent loss of life years due to that collateral damage. It isn't a choice between lives or the economy. It’s just lives versus lives...

People are dying because they won't follow orders.
It's not quite that dramatic, but yeah, the mandates are pretty mindless, I'll give you that.

The other day, I found myself stuck in a massive line outside the Procter & Gamble store on Fifth Avenue, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with everyone else because there was absolutely zero social distancing.

Look, I’ve already had COVID, so the virus itself isn't what's keeping me up at night. My actual concern while waiting in that crowd was whether a stray brick or a piece of roofing tile might plummet from the building and hit me right then and there, since they’ve restricted the shop to just one customer at a time. Honestly, how does it even make sense for them to staff two cashiers when only a single shopper is allowed inside the building at once?
The regulation itself is pure nonsense (it would be faster if two people could be in there, and even faster if three could, especially since people spend ages browsing aisles or chatting with staff before deciding to buy something).
You see this exact same ridiculousness outside of Veronica, Igomat, or Spicery—sure, there are more customers, but the lines are even longer. And besides the threat of falling bricks from the buildings, we also have to deal with freezing snow while we wait out there.

Meanwhile, shopping malls are wide open, operating under these "strict" rules or limited occupancy caps. So, what happens? All those customers just congregate at a slow checkout counter (with no distance between them) or huddle together in a dense pack waiting to enter a specific store—even if they aren't even interested in the stuff being bought by the people currently inside.

What is the actual point of these measures? Other than driving people to simply give up on shopping altogether...

On the flip side, you have apartment association meetings being held (due to earthquake concerns), and in parts of Sisak-Moslavina County, we have massive crowds of people gathered together—people who desperately need help and volunteers coming in from all over.
The numbers aren't going up 🤷
Language schools are still banned from operating, and training sessions are still off the table?

Carol Barnes36 said:Well, if you're a sociopath, I guess those numbers look pretty small to you.

Do you have any data on the "excess" deaths compared to previous years?

And look, we're an older nation, so it’s totally normal for death rates to climb every year since our population is aging fast.

Plus, Americans generally don't take great care of their health—way too many smokers and people struggling with obesity out there...

Honestly, if COVID didn't have such killer marketing, we'd probably just think we were having a really bad flu and pneumonia season.

In my opinion, this is a matter for the Supreme Court. People are being stripped of their right to work without even a two-thirds vote from Congress—which is the only body actually authorized to amend the Constitution.
Instead, we have this quasi-governmental entity calling itself a task force dictating everything to us.

Chloe Robinson5 said:People are dying because they won't follow orders.
It's not quite that dramatic, but yeah, the mandates are pretty mindless, I'll give you that.

Naturally, economic fallout leaves its mark on life expectancy. It isn't the patrons of the breweries who suffer from their closure, but certainly the owners and the staff. And it isn't just breweries shutting down...

Unemployment leads to shorter lifespans:
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/sci.../2016/8290435/

The economic crisis will also result in lower incomes for most of the population. The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest spans a full 14 years, covering the entire spectrum.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2733322

Life Expectancy by Household Income
Higher household income was associated with higher life expectancy (Figure 1A). For the years 2011 to 2015, men with income in the bottom 1% had a life expectancy of 70.6 years (95% CI, 69.6-71.6), while men in the top 1% had a life expectancy of 84.4 years (95% CI, 83.4-85.4 years), a difference of 13.8 years (95% CI, 12.3-15.2) (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Women in the bottom 1% had a life expectancy of 78.0 years (95% CI, 77.1-78.9) and women in the top 1% had a life expectancy of 86.4 years (95% CI, 85.7-87.1), a difference of 8.4 years (95% CI, 7.2-9.6) (eTable 2 in the Supplement).

Of individuals with income in the lowest 1%, 50.6% (95% CI, 50.4%-50.8%) lived in single-person households (Figure 2), while only 9% (95% CI, 8.9%-9.1%) of individuals in the top 1% of income were single-person households. Of individuals in the bottom 1% of income, 18.2% (95% CI, 18.0%-18.4%) had a university education, and of individuals in the top 1% of income, 53.9% (95% CI, 53.6%-54.1%) had a university education. Life expectancy was higher for individuals with higher education in All levels of income (Figure 1B and C), and the shape of the curves showing life expectancy by income were similar when stratifying by level of education.