BuckyB93 wrote:If you haven't caught on by now, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of all this pandemic rules and stuff. You and others rail on folks not abiding by these made up mandates in their areas but then in your region it's OK not practice what you preach because it's not mandated there. You're a hypocrite.
I'm not asking for you to make additional rules above and beyond the mandates in your area. If you believe all the crap that you preach (social distancing, wear a mask...) and mock others for not following them while you in your region don't follow the same because it's not mandated. You're a hypocrite.
You, yourself, piss and moan about Federal government not handling things as you'd like. There should be more lock downs, more social distancing, more tracking... yet you don't practice self lock down, self social distancing or these other things in your world because your local officials haven't mandated them. These stricter rules... they aren't mandated in your area so you're OK with them - you make no effort to self employ these further restrictions but you think they should be implemented elsewhere and others should follow them. You're a hypocrite.
Gyms, pools, liquor stores, Walmarts, protests, huge publicly televised funerals, gatherings for political fund raising are OK. Churches, funerals, weddings, graduation parties (unless you are the nephews of the Lt Governor of MA) are fine-able offenses and death sentences. Does the virus pick and choose it's locations to hide? I don't think so. Hypocrisy.
Explain to me the logic spelled out in post #32 without using the excuse of "it's OK if I do it here because it's not mandated here."
You wear a mask up until you are enclosed in a facility with little air exchange and (your words) "impossible [to social distance] once there are more than 3 people in the pool to ensure that everyone stays 6' apart. So if someone were to end up sick there, it's likely at least one other person will be infected." So in essence you don't care about catching it, transmitting it or think it is much of a concern to you.
That's fine. I have no problem with that. Yet you mock others if they were to do the same. This is the hypocrisy and you... are... a... hypocrite.
Funny.
I've actually stated in another thread a number of weeks ago that I believed a regional approach to the lockdowns is smarter. Every state has unique challenges, different modes of transportation, different levels of interaction between people. I specifically stated that it would be smartest to approach the problem with a local governance, but that we would also need to restrict movement between locales. I was very specific about this, and I am being consistent with that statement.
We need a strong federal government response. But the actual lockdown rules should be local. That was, in my view, part of the failure of our pandemic response. We locked down oklahoma the same way we locked down NYC, at a time when NYC had an enormous pandemic, but there was barely anything happening in Oklahoma. So the red states got fatigued by the quarantine before they even had a risk to quarantine against. Now the pandemic has reached them, and they're completely unwilling to respond to it.
We should have federally supported testing across the entire nation. Cities like DC that have free, walk up testing are getting 63 new cases a day. In a city that has opened its restaurants. While places like MO, which don't do that are getting 1000+ new cases a day.
As for my gym.... you do see the difference between exposing yourself to 2 people, and rallying in a crowd of 200. Right? I would rather the gym close off every other lane so I'm 6' away from everyone at all times, but that's not available. As such, I am approximately 3' away from 2 people if the pool is crowded. 0 people if it isn't crowded. But there is a significant difference in viral transmission between 2 people breathing near each other, and a crowd of 200 or so all moving between each other. In the first case the virus can spread at worst from 1 to 3, in the second it can spread from 1 to many more (case in point, the Georgia school senior picture, where at least 15 people came away infected, from just a short class photo). You realize why large gatherings are an issue. Why they are different than liquor stores, walmarts etc. In a store your personal interaction is with very few people (unless you are the employee). Meaning an infected person entering will hopefully only have a small number of people they can infect. Large gatherings where social distancing will not be maintained (funerals, parties etc) you will get the infection to spread from 1 to many.
The problem isn't the 1 or 2 people getting infected. If you have a robust testing system, you identify them and isolate them. The problem is the events that are 1 to many infections. Those become much more difficult to control.
Of course, we as a nation are barely testing, so it's all irrelevant. We've reduced our testing in some of the highest infection rate states right now. So we literally have no idea how much it's spreading. At this point it really doesn't matter if you open up Texas completely. We've slowed testing the past two weeks, so there has been no attempt to track infected, whether you've infected 1 other person, or 200 other people. If you aren't tracking and isolating the 1 or 2, it doesn't matter if you let them infect a few hundred all at once, or over a couple weeks.
Edit - I'd also like to point out that the situation in our nation changes over time, and our actions should change based on the change in the situation.
I made a clear delineation in this thread:
http://www.cigarbid.com/...idelines-for-reopening- That at the point when we started having maskless protests at the capital to protest the lockdown, that it didn't matter any longer. Some activities require everyone pull together to accomplish them. Once sufficient people decide not to pull in the same direction, the entire thing breaks down, and there is no point in the rest of the group continuing.
