for or against?
for or against?
4
Against, even though my state and city (NY) have experienced many deaths
Don't you want to define that, first?
No way.
Yet it will happen.'
All part of the plan.
Destroy all independent businesses and economic activity.
All to be brought under control of the Oligarchs.
Tens of millions of evictions due to lockdowns as well.
Small landlords forced to sell properties to the vultures for pennies on the dollar.
Gallupizindahouse wrote:
for or against?
Strongly against
Strongly against. Our country, not to mention the ncaa, would be screwed.
Against
For it. Lockdown plus government compensation will save hundreds of thousands of lives and keep the health care system from collapsing. Six weeks and then a gradual reopening. Then a nationwide vaccination campaign followed by back to normal in the fall of 2021.
I would be against this course of action.
I am for lockdowns
Star wrote:
Don't you want to define that, first?
Exactly. Please describe what you think a lockdown looks like.
From what I can tell some people think lockdowns mean they have to wear a mask at the grocery store. Others think not being able to go to bars all night. Then there are some that think that means you can never leave your house.
Makes it pretty irrelevant to ask a yes/no question when the term means something different to each respondent.
Who is talking about a national lockdown? Silly question.
We need mask mandates. We need group size limits in areas with high infection rates.
We need alternate ways of business and schooling in areas with high dangerous infection rates.
What did you mean by national lockdown?
That would be like asking, "who is in favor of no mandated safety measures? You had a skewed question designed.
Against. It's been 9 months. If you haven't figured out how this is spread by now, you have been living under a rock. People have had nine months to exercise and eliminate many of the primary risk factors for dying from this. If people are too dense to wear a mask, socially distance or exercise on a regular basis, then perhaps it should be no great surprise when they succumb to the virus. Keep the economy open for everyone else. This is not much of a problem for the vast majority of the population, reinfection is rare and immunity is believed to last years if not longer. The Democratic leaders don't even believe in their own restrictions, so why should we be expected to follow them. Lockdowns now would be largely ineffective, as most of the spread is not occurring at work, school and businesses. It is occurring in small group gatherings at peoples homes and in prisons, which would be largely unaffected by lockdowns. We cannot continue to print money without severely damaging the future of all Americans, which will result in decreased services for future generations, decreased life expectancy for future generations, and a more unstable world.
Against, but the virus will dictate if this is feasible. If everyone took preventing the spread seriously no hard lockdown is going to be required.
Dromano19 wrote:
Against
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/who-official-urges-world-leaders-to-stop-using-lockdowns-as-primary-virus-control-method/ar-BB19TBUo
I second this one. I am all in for mask mandates and against any kind of lockdowns that could stop people from providing for their families.
If the global governments want to see in excess of one million suicides due to depression. According toe WHO, in excess of 800k commit suicide annually from depression. In October 37% of young adults gave serious consideration to suicide.
All this for a virus which impact .5% of .5% of the population.
Against. Everyone should be. Why punish rural states that aren't having any problems because the big cities can't control it? It's ridiculous.
I'm pro-lockdown in this situation. At least one month. And we need a tracing system to track the movements of any Pos-Covs.