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

Cog wrote:

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)

There was a study way back in August that showed that North Carolina was already close to a 20% antibody rate, but I haven't seen any more of such studies since. If that study was correct and an accurate cross section (neither are guarantees, granted), we may be getting close by now. We spent a lot of time doing hardly any tests, but the hospitalization rates would indicate that infections were likely pretty consistent up until the current spike.

Number of confirmed cases is a mostly worthless statistic because it's so heavily influenced by different testing policy and contact tracing, both of which have changed dramatically over time and still vary greatly from location to location. If one area does excellent contact tracing, their case numbers will undoubtedly look worse than a place that does none. Death numbers have some similar issues, but also have their own set of flaws. IMO hospitalization rates are the best way to tell what is really going on.

This dumb analogy fails upon even the lightest application of intellectual rigor. There are many things that are a "part of nature" that you wouldn't allow others to inflict on you.

there are ppl d wrote:

Christaller wrote:

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?

Yes. You should be able to do absolutely anything as long as you don't initiate force physical against or defraud others. Viruses are part of nature, exposure to which is an inherent risk of life on Earth. They are not analogous to man-made weapons. Those who cannot tolerate the risk of contacting a virus should commit suicide, not use the government to wreck the lives of others.

Against. Wear masks in public places, use good hygene, distance when you can, and let it run it's course.

This thread is useless without people including their net worth and remote work abilities with their vote (srs)

jamin wrote:

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

If everyone thought like Jamin during WWII we would have lost.

Civil war if a “national lockdown” is enacted.

Star wrote:

Don't you want to define that, first?

Agreed.

America is stupid, we need a new country founded on guaranteed individual freedom. The purpose of government is to protect individuals from tyrants who want to rule over them, not protect the population from viruses.

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

Are you freaking kidding? Where do you think this "government compensation" will come from? That would be those of us hard working tax payers. There is no good reason for tax payers to fund people to sit home on there butts not working. Nope, no way. I don't work to pay people who are afraid of a virus with over 99% survival rate to hide in their homes and not work. A 6 week US wide lock down would completely destroy the US economy. I can't even believe anyone would suggest this or think this is a good idea.

The virus isn't going to magically disappear after 6 weeks. It will still be here and would just spread again once the lock downs would end. Just like the flu and other viruses never disappear.

DC Wonk wrote:

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.

Name one place where mask mandates have made a significant difference in the spread in the US? COVID has been spreading in places with and without mask mandates.

I suppose you also think it's perfectly fine for your government to tell you when and if you can leave your house, who and how many people you can have in your house, and if you are allowed to celebrate holidays?

there are ppl d wrote:

America is stupid, we need a new country founded on guaranteed individual freedom. The purpose of government is to protect individuals from tyrants who want to rule over them, not protect the population from viruses.

Another purpose of government is to protect its citizens from external threats. That's why we have a military. COVID-19 is an external threat.

idk what you mean exactly by "lockdown" but think response should be something like:

mask mandate. end of story. fine for not wearing a mask

severely limit # of people inside based on square footage. non essential businesses (entertainment/shopping) have even stricter number of people inside them compared to something essential like a grocery store or pharmacy

resteraunts move to online/over the phone ordering only and take out. no sit down options unless outside and distanced

schools are the big problem imo. kids are just germ machines and bring that to families but its also hard to keep kids home and have to watch them all the time. I dont think there is an easy solution as there are problems with bringing them all back, bringing some back, and bringing none back

Christaller wrote:

Another purpose of government is to protect its citizens from external threats. That's why we have a military. COVID-19 is an external threat.

The enlightened view of of government, the one that allows human beings to live successfully, is that its is to protect individuals from aggression initiated by other people, not threats posed by nature. If people accept that government is supposed to protect us from every threat of nature, there is no limit to the number of rationalizations for dangerous authorization control. Humans survive by using their minds to cope with nature. Lockdowns are evil, repressive, and harmful to everyone, not protective. Authoritarians stroke their c()cks over lockdowns while good people rot.

Against

Against.

Yet some who are against may have evil intent because if you don't think that some warped family members aren't secretly hoping that their "loved one" stationed in a nursing home sadly perishes from COVID leaving them with the inheritance instead of seeing it waste away on long term care you are delusional.

No serious epidemiologists advocate for lockdowns. There are many less invasive public health interventions that we can put in place before a lockdown is necessary or helpful.

Unfortunately Trump is a useless egotistical moron who refuses to accept any of the dozens of plans on his desk so we have no national plan to implement any of these less invasive interventions.

Against, but it would be up to the governors of each state to agree to a National lockdown. Not every governor will agree, so it’s a moot point anyway.

Christaller wrote:

Another purpose of government is to protect its citizens from external threats. That's why we have a military. COVID-19 is an external threat.

I agree with the first part and this is why I no longer consider myself a hardcore libertarian, however I think we're perfectly capable as individuals of protecting ourselves from illness without direction from a government which has demonstrated that it doesn't really know what it's doing anyway.

Against.

It's too late. Even if we do, the virus will eventually come back anyway and we'll have to keep shutting down the country. Businesses will not survive, and people will suffer a fate worse than getting ill.

Instead, impose a national mandate for mask wearing and social distancing. Lead by example in the WH and promote it with a national ad campaign.