Poll: are you for or against a national lock down?

Against all coronavirus restrictions. People should be free to live their lives.

jamin wrote:

Against all coronavirus restrictions. People should be free to live their lives.

Does that principle only apply to coronavirus? Should people always be free to live their lives as they want without regard to how their actions impact others?

Biden is against a national lockdown, so it's not happening.

[quote]Precious Roy wrote:

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.

Right.

Shut down the economy to save it.

The spring lockdown shattered the economy.

But this time -- it will save us.

Makes sense

johnny99 wrote:

Biden is against a national lockdown, so it's not happening.

Biden has no opinion and will not be calling the shots.

Lockdown is coming.

Was decided many months ago

Since the big loser failure Trump failed on testing and everything else, nobody has any right to complain about a lockdown. It's an inevitable result when masks become a political statement and lies are shared everyday. If we had competent leadership, 90% of the damage could have been avoided.

Das Unkle wrote:

johnny99 wrote:

Biden is against a national lockdown, so it's not happening.

Biden has no opinion and will not be calling the shots.

Lockdown is coming.

Was decided many months ago

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

Joe Biden also thinks he just ran for Senate against a guy named George.

I'm strongly against. First, we're all grownups and we ought to be allowed to make our own decisions and assess our own risks. Get your laws off my body! If you want to lock yourself down, lock yourself down. If you're fine with the risks of going to a bar, go to a bar. Grandma can decide for herself if she wants you to come over to visit after you got back from the bar or not.

Second, I don't think there's any evidence that half-assed lockdowns do a damn thing. If you're not welding everybody's door shut, somebody has to go out and go to work or get supplies from time to time, and then they go on to spread it to their entire house, condo, apartment, etc. Living under such a repressive regime sounds worse than death to me, and certainly far worse than the 0.0001% chance of death or whatever we're at.

Christaller wrote:

jamin wrote:

Against all coronavirus restrictions. People should be free to live their lives.

Does that principle only apply to coronavirus? Should people always be free to live their lives as they want without regard to how their actions impact others?

People with Herpes or AIDS are legally allowed to go have sex and infect others with the virus. It's understood that in a free society if you have sex you are accepting risks of getting a virus. No one is forcing you to take any risk; you can abstain, make your partners get STD tests, use condoms, etc.

Likewise, no one is forcing anyone to leave their house when there's a new virus.

This is the simplest thing ever.

Want to live life as normal (eat at restaurants, relax in saunus, work out at gym, listen to live orchestras, shmooze at Christmas parties, etc.)? Then do so.

Want to quarantine at home for an indefinite amount of time? Then do so.

I want lockdowns because I want to own the cons. I want to see those conservative tears and I will laugh at those idiots as they protest through the streets.

Just try it Dementia Joe.

Totally against! to Destroy the economy, then eventually the country comes back...to what?

When China launches a land invasion are you against a national draft? I am against national lockdown - the US has proven it cannot do a lockdown. Waste of time. I am all for: 1) Massive $$$ for rapid widespread testing 2) return the $600/wk UI to incentivize people not rushing back to work 3) Massive federal program to distribute vaccines.

+1776

Actually bro... many states have criminalized not telling your partners if you know you are positive for an STD.

Liberty Triumphs wrote:

jamin wrote:

People with Herpes or AIDS are legally allowed to go have sex and infect others with the virus. It's understood that in a free society if you have sex you are accepting risks of getting a virus. No one is forcing you to take any risk; you can abstain, make your partners get STD tests, use condoms, etc.

Likewise, no one is forcing anyone to leave their house when there's a new virus.

This is the simplest thing ever.

Want to live life as normal (eat at restaurants, relax in saunus, work out at gym, listen to live orchestras, shmooze at Christmas parties, etc.)? Then do so.

Want to quarantine at home for an indefinite amount of time? Then do so.

+1776

Yeah, if I have tuberculosis, measles and other ailments and I want to go to the gym, sit in a sauna, eat at a buffet I should be able to.

Precious Roy wrote:

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.

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/09/900675086/a-national-lockdown-could-be-the-economys-best-hope-says-minneapolis-fed-preside

You are seriously on the level of a stone age witch doctor, Medeival monk, Nazi bureaucrat, or any example of the lowest of the low throughout history.

there are ppl d wrote:

Yikes - medieval monks were the shepherds and transcribers of knowledge for many centuries.

If your wannabe snarky analogies fail...

Precious Roy wrote:

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.

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/09/900675086/a-national-lockdown-could-be-the-economys-best-hope-says-minneapolis-fed-preside

You are seriously on the level of a stone age witch doctor, Medeival monk, Nazi bureaucrat, or any example of the lowest of the low throughout history.

Um Vroom. . . Have you ever been to the Urban Wastelands of North or South Dakota?

South Dakota and San Francisco have almost exactly the same population. But South Dakota has had more than four times as many cases and more than 4 times as many deaths.

If you look at recent Statistics its much worse. South Dakota has been averaging 1000 new cases a day for a couple weeks. San Francisco is seeing a big spike but the daily rate is still under 100. South Dakota has almost 600 people hospitalized (and they are running out of ICU beds) and San Francisco.............has 30.

There is one difference, mask usage in San Francisco is about 90% and its in the 40's in South Dakota.

Herd immunity? That's gonna be costly as they are only at a 7-8% infection rate and would need to get into the 60's or 70's and they are already out of ICU beds (the state's stats include available pediatric ICU beds in the stats and incubators aren't going to help very many COVID cases)

But yeah not as big a problem in rural areas.