Lockdown proponents: do you realize that we'd have to continue this for another 5-6 years?

LegBreakWorkouts18 wrote:

I've found that lockdown proponents have been dooped into thinking that the longer we stay locked down the sooner we get out. It's doublethink and doesn't make ANY sense but people keep believing it. If cross country is cancelled because of these people I'm going to do things I won't mention on this message board.

Maybe you ought to look up how New Zealand is doing as of today. Their lockdown was was much tighter than almost every other country and it lasted just four weeks. They are down to just one confirmed new case and three possibles. All in isolation. Their deaths total is at 19 for the entire country since February.

No races until 2022? wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Why would anyone want a lockdown?

- Virtue signaling

/eot. It's the only true reason.

Look at all the angry posts in these forums.

Anti-lockdown angry posts say: "quit ruining my life." Not about virtue. Self-defense.

Pro-lockdown angry posts say: "how dare you! People are dying!" All about virtue.

Lockdowners: stay home if you want, leave the rest of us out of it. You have no right to use force.

2,600 clown

????????????

two incels above wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

^ expression of smug virtue that proves IIT right

No one takes you serious on here, you’re a figure of ridicule and rightly so.

2,600 ?????

BW is such a narcissist he'll never admit that his 2600 prediction hilariously wrong.

Normal wrote:

two incels above wrote:

No one takes you serious on here, you’re a figure of ridicule and rightly so.

2,600 ?????

BW is such a narcissist he'll never admit that his 2600 prediction hilariously wrong.

Everyone saw him botch it and humiliate himself, a joke figure now.

He stays home DEVASTATED.

Not Middle Ground wrote:

How is this a reasonable middle ground? We should permanently change our way of life out of fear of a virus that will have little or no health danger to 95-98% of the population?

Just pointing out that a 1 in 20 chance of having your health permanently impacted is anything but negligible.

No races until 2022? wrote:

Portland Hobby Jogger wrote:

Pay $10 and race for personal glory on a certified 5K loop for a time, a ribbon, and bragging rights.

So let's say that there are a thousand people who want to run that 5K. If one person starts every minute, people are going to be running from 7 AM until midnight. How is that going to work? If the interval between runners decreases much further, you're just going to end up with crowds like before (albeit smaller).

two incels above wrote:

You’ll do fookin nothing.

Maybe you and all the other lockdown proponents should do something. If you want me to stay home and not work, you should be paying my food, housing, health insurance, utilities, and all other non-entertainment costs until the lockdown is lifted. Are you up for that? If not, let me get back to work.

The state government makes the decisions. No other citizen can let you go back to work.

Did the math! wrote:

Since early April, we've been at a plateau of 30K-35K new cases/day. Most cases are asymptomatic or are only mildly symptomatic, so let's say that only a third of those infected actually get tested. That means there are around 100K new cases/day.

To get to herd immunity, we need at least 200 million people (around two thirds of the country) to have acquired the disease and built up resistance to it.

200,000,000 / 100,000 = 2,000 days = around 5.5 years

So everything has to stay this way until mid 2025. What government on Earth has the budget to bail out all of the affected individuals and businesses for 5 f***ing years?

Just lift the restrictions and let everyone build immunity now so that we can get over this thing by summer.

I don't think you understand how any of this works.

There are also people who were positive who no longer have the anti-bodies. We know nothing about this yet.

No one is claiming that the lockdown will last that long, Rojo.

So let's say that there are a thousand people who want to run that 5K. If one person starts every minute, people are going to be running from 7 AM until midnight. How is that going to work? If the interval between runners decreases much further, you're just going to end up with crowds like before (albeit smaller).

Local government and the event's liability insurance carrier will dictate how many people can race.

Races need permits, road closures, police traffic control, and the like. It is the local authorities that will cap entries and RDs will have to live by those rules to get their events approved. If your city says that gatherings must be limited to 1000 people or less, then that is the number you will have to work with. In a race of that size, then the RD can stagger fields as such for a 5K:

Runners only, no walkers permitted to enter - 1000 entrants

8:00AM - Wave 1: Sub 21 minute OPEN MEN (30)

8:10AM - Wave 2: Sub 25 minute OPEN WOMEN (30)

8:20AM - Wave 3: Sub 27 minute MASTERS MEN (45)

8:30AM - Wave 4: Sub 32 minute MASTERS WOMEN (45)

8:45AM - Wave 5: 21- 27 minute MEN (175)

9:00AM - Wave 6: 25- 32 minute WOMEN (175)

9:15AM - Wave 7: 28-40 minute MEN (250)

9:30AM - Wave 8: 33-45 minute WOMEN (250)

Those numbers will fit within the allowable crowd sizes that other nations have been mandating and having success with. The time spaces between waves will allow the air to clear after each group. Participants will be expected to wear masks if mandated per local guidelines. Like track meets, at final call, be stripped down and ready to race. Race officials will marshal the wave to the starting line and the gun gets fired pretty much immediately.

This is also predicated on the assumption that insurance carriers will write policies protecting the organizers from liability claims related to COVID-19. Larger events such as marathons may also require entrants to be current USATF (or corresponding foreign federation members) to further spread the liability shield. No insurance? Then your event isn't happening.

Even in the pre-COVID world, you could not simply hold a race on public thoroughfares without civic blessing, support, and legal protections. COVID now complicates that equation.

Reality calling bruh wrote:

Not Middle Ground wrote:

How is this a reasonable middle ground? We should permanently change our way of life out of fear of a virus that will have little or no health danger to 95-98% of the population?

Just pointing out that a 1 in 20 chance of having your health permanently impacted is anything but negligible.

What subreddit thread linked to a twitter account citing a "scientific" study published by a Russian bot did you find that fact from bruh?

This is why we are on lockdown. People read some fake news or see Chris Cuomo screaming about something on primetime and take it for gospel.

1) we don't yet know that people who have been infected have immunity

2) we have not identified any effective treatments or treatment protocol

3) while the old/sick/compromised make up the majority of deaths, it's not every one. Kids, young people, middle aged people have all died from this virus.

4) those old/sick/compromised don't deserve to die early because you "did the math!".

5) we are not in lockdown. Lockdown means you don't go out of your house. If we did that, we'd be done by summer.

The whole point of social distancing is the slow down the spread. This allows science and medicine to catch up. At some point we'll have better data. We will understand the virus better. We'll know if heard immunity is possible. We might have better treatments even if we don't have a cure - which will allow more people to survive.

Stop being so self centered. This is a once in several lifetimes effect.

I see you on this ^

But the format just tells me what I already knew - road racing as we've known it for decades is over. Remember when?

We know herd immunity works, look at the graphs and why every single one is goes down, whatever your policy.

There may be a question on how long it works for, but it's definitely working.

[quote]blatter wrote:

1) we don't yet know that people who have been infected have immunity Media fear mongering, there is no evidence that some immunity isn't created. There would have been cases of people getting the disease multiple times if this was the case. How long immunity lasts is unknown but it is absurd to think there is none.

2) we have not identified any effective treatments or treatment protocol Unlikely to be a breakthrough of significance until a vaccine is made. What we have is probably it for the near future.

3) while the old/sick/compromised make up the majority of deaths, it's not every one. Kids, young people, middle aged people have all died from this virus. The numbers don't support this is a severe threat to the young and middle aged. The damage from the shutdown to this group far exceeds the health risk.

4) those old/sick/compromised don't deserve to die early because you "did the math!". We can't protect everyone from everything. There is a point where the damage done by the measures do more good then bad to society.

5) we are not in lockdown. Lockdown means you don't go out of your house. If we did that, we'd be done by summer.

The whole point of social distancing is the slow down the spread. This allows science and medicine to catch up. At some point we'll have better data. We will understand the virus better. We'll know if heard immunity is possible. We might have better treatments even if we don't have a cure - which will allow more people to survive.

Stop being so self centered. This is a once in several lifetimes effect. Wait you mean we should not be self-centered to protect the most selfish generation from this threat. The generation that has built up the national debt, created a divided political system that left us with a dunce in chief, allowed social security to become unsustainable to protect their retirement checks, and most significantly destroyed the environment for generations to come. Now you want us to not be selfish and sacrifice for that generation. My generation and generations after will be left to solve the problems the greatest generation and baby boomers left the world with.

And this is not a once in a lifetime event. It's this today, a few years from now it will be something else. Maybe that generation should accept their mortality and finally sacrifice something for the good of future generations.[/quote]

The end point was to be when the hospitals were not overloaded. Only in NYC was that close to being the case. For those under 50, it's simply virtue signalling to lock them out of their ordinary life style. Let them be the judge of their own risks. The whole emphasis should be on protecting those older than 50, and that most assuredly does not mean ensuring and economic catastrophe.

Yaz ya wrote:

Maybe you ought to look up how New Zealand is doing as of today. Their lockdown was was much tighter than almost every other country and it lasted just four weeks. They are down to just one confirmed new case and three possibles. All in isolation. Their deaths total is at 19 for the entire country since February.

New Zealand is two small islands in the southern hemisphere where it doesn't spread as easily. Much easier to do contact tracing on a small island than it is a large country as you have smaller communities and you can control and restrict travel much easier. Hawaii and Alaska pretty much have this controlled as well and they are more comparable to New Zealand than a place like New York State. New cases in AK yesterday = 4, total = 345, new deaths = 0, total = 9. New cases in HI yesterday = 1, total = 607, new deaths = 2, total = 16. New cases in NZ yesterday = 3, total = 1,472, new deaths = 0, total = 19. The problem all of these locations face is all of their economies are heavily dependent upon tourism (New Zealand = 18% of GDP, Hawaii = 21% of economy (plus it serves as an international travel hub and fluctuating military personnel) and Alaska = 1/8 of all jobs are tied to tourism, half of the others are tied to oil and they depend on a lot of seasonal employees in their fishing fleets. Eventually these economies are going to have to reopen their borders out of necessity:

All this over a virus that could potentially kill 0.2% of their population.

Reality calling bruh wrote:

Not Middle Ground wrote:

How is this a reasonable middle ground? We should permanently change our way of life out of fear of a virus that will have little or no health danger to 95-98% of the population?

Just pointing out that a 1 in 20 chance of having your health permanently impacted is anything but negligible.

As someone who has suffered from mild GAD/OCD his entire life, I find the collective obsession of fear of COVID-19 mortality/damage and associated compulsive behaviors of hiding at home while demanding that society subscribe to your same fears hilarious. Dude, for millennia people have died from plague, war, famine, etc. The last 50-80 years has been a pleasant respite, but we were never immune to nature's hardships despite what you believed from you fairy foo foo teachers and government officials. Nothing is stopping you from hiding in your home like a coward, but the rest of us aren't so narcissistic as to think the world should literally stop because our own individual outcomes are paramount. If you die, newsflash, the world will move on just as it ought to.