[tennelson55]

Originally Posted by MFaulkCollector

Are you unable to accept that; a pandemic is a real thing that causes damage no matter what and has been illustrated as such through history?

It's an honest question. Through history we have seen pandemics, natural disasters, things similar to this in scale that have wiped out endless people. Just because resources are better now doesn't mean it can be prevented. Susceptible people are just that, they are at risk for invasive infections

Once this started to spread it could not be contained, avoided, or anything of the such. It's a once in a lifetime thing that is/was/will take the lives of many.

Wouldn't the real answer here be trying to act swiftly while taking both sides into account? You cannot save everyone and you can't save everyone's job. Some people live right on the edge and don't manage their finances within reason. A few weeks out of work may destroy them; as if life. Some very susceptible people were going to get this no matter what and were going to pass away; also, as is life.

It's not acceptable to let this drag on for 6-8 months causing responsible people to get into financial crisis; nor is it acceptable to do nothing and have the most deaths humanly possible

any outcome will have a push/pull relationship between the economy and risk to citizens. if absolute peak projections were 2-3 million deaths....... that is anywhere from 0.7-0.8 of the US population....... it's not acceptable but a pandemic will do damage, period..... and from a statistical analysis that is an extremely tiny portion of the population (with a huge majority of those people in their 80s or 90s with huge health risks regardless). The time frame of social distancing and halting or reducing jobs for between 50-75 million people or more (im guessing) has to be withing reason.

That decision needs to be reasonable enough such that it reduces the number of deaths significantly and reduces the number of families going through turmoil and businesses having to close their doors for good.

people were going to die, economic fallout was going to happen......... but for you to emphasize one side of this so much illustrates the lack of tangible thinking in the country. as someone else said, we need empathy for both sides; you show zero empathy for people who lose their businesses, people who will be unable to find jobs after the stimulus is over, people who develop mental health issues and harm themselves or others due to the overall strain, the enormous debt further created by such an enormous stimulus, i could go on and on.

I'm just going to point out the obvious here...

We are lead by officials. These politicians are normally older in age and they make our decisions. Long story short being old and vulnerable in a position of power/status gains you a say in society. Right now it's fear they are worrying about. How old is the average age of a senator? A house rep? How about the POTS? They're all old and probably at risk for getting this. Would they die or would they take that chance to die?

The dynamic above isn't the only issue, but it's something I've pondered on. Should they act that way? Personally round up the vulnerable OR tell them to stay home and give them the cure in 1.5 years down the line when a vaccine is developed.

If this is going to be a search and destroy (identifying all cases and probable people infected) there needs to be widespread testing and isolation (what we are doing now). That has to go on for months and then we will resurface. NYC will be on lock down for a longer period of time and state lines should shut down because without it more movement throughout the states/other countries.