Corona Virus Effect On Theatres In The USA

[Marcel Birgelen]

Also, I personally refuse to accept a society that simply writes off their elderly, Logan's Run style. Should they die for our holy economy? Whether you believe in something like a god or not, you can feel it in your bones, it's just utterly wrong.

I think that the amount of people that died from this virus is now reaching proportions, that most of us know someone personally who was either severely impacted or who even died from it. I know of three cases myself and although two of them checked the "Risk Group" box, they may have had two decades or more to live otherwise...

If we wouldn't all be so utterly selfish, the economy would be something we could easily fix. What we're doing right now, is not just blowing up the economy, it's making sure "the little man" will have to pay for the debts until the sun burns its last hydrogen atom or the next zombie apocalypse... whatever comes first.

[Lyle Romer]

I don't think any lawmakers have been issuing these lock downs as a means of making political hay against an opposing party. Closing businesses and costing millions of people their jobs isn't going to be beneficial to any politician. There will be blow-back in both the short and long term.

I didn't mean to suggest a politician acting for political reasons. I was referring to media people with an agenda. Some of the politicians may be acting on a bit of a power trip, especially with certain of the nonsensical restrictions (like when Michigan banned powered watercraft but not sailboats or rowboats).

This virus is already killing a lot of Americans all while much of the nation is shut down. It would pretty much take a breakdown of our society for other types of deaths to far outnumber COVID-19 deaths.

With my comment I was referring to worldwide deaths. In the US (and other wealthy nations) it would take a collapse of the government for many people to starve to death. Not so in "developing countries" which are affected by the western economy.

Re-opening everything carries its own risks. Consider "essential businesses" that have stayed operational during the crisis. Major portions of our food industry are at considerable risk of collapsing because of outbreaks at places like meat processing plants. These kinds of businesses can end up being forced to close if too many employees get infected or sick. It's not going to make any difference even if the President orders them to stay open. How do they operate with no staff? Orders to re-open are going to affect America's population in a very uneven way. Those who are most well-off will probably keep working from home. Most low wage people can't do their jobs from home.

The meat processing plants are a somewhat unique case where the workers are working for 8-12 hours a day in very close proximity to each other. It seems that the experts either didn't know about the working conditions or didn't anticipate it being an issue. They are now making changes to the operations with social distancing or physical dividers between workers. I certainly don't suggest that everything open up like it was 2019 and the virus didn't exist. Reasoned preventative measures need to be taken to minimize the spread. The spread can not be completely stopped unless everybody wore bio hazard suits. Even the N95 mask and other PPE that front line health care professionals wear are not 100% effective.

There's also economic cost to a lot of people being hospitalized or dying of COVID-19. Anyone covered up in medical bills isn't going to be doing much consumer spending. A large rash of COVID-19 deaths will do things like put a bunch of homes onto the real estate market. That's not desirable in an economy already heading downward.

COVID-19 patients, even without insurance, don't have to pay out of pocket for treatment. This is part of the reason why there are so many "probable" cases reported. If an uninsured patient is hospitalized, it is in the hospital's interest to have them classified as a COVID-19 patient because they will get paid.

There is a lot of non-elderly people dying of COVID-19 as well. Many millions of non-elderly Americans have their own "comorbidities" that lower their odds of surviving COVID-19. Obesity is very common along with adult onset diabetes. Heart disease is another risk factor. Medical experts are troubled by the number of people under age 50 suffering strokes or other circulatory system blockages.

While the numbers are big in raw terms, the percentages are what are important for making policy decisions. In New York, 84.4% of deaths are aged 60+, in Florida 82% are aged 65+. In NY, 21% of deaths are in long term care facilities, in Florida with a much lower level outbreak it is 31.5%. Nationwide based on the CDC data, 80% are aged 65+. That means that under 12,000 people under age 65 have been killed by COVID-19 thus far. While there are some outliers, all of which are reported and focused on by the media, the vast majority of these have serious comorbidities. If they were spread evenly across all states (which they aren't with the majority in the NY metro area), that would be 240 people per state. Even in low population states that isn't very many people.

Certain work occupations, like health care workers and police, are seeing much higher mortality rate levels. Epidemiologists have been saying its likely a higher amount of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 leads to worse outcomes, be it multiple exposures from different people or a high amount of virus getting into the respiratory system from a single exposure.

We won't know for a few weeks but hopefully the increased testing and availability of PPE has mitigated the front line worker exposure issue.

Also the COVID-19 mortality rate also varies greatly depending on a hospital's ability to provide care for patients. If the hospital gets overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients then a lot more people end up dying. If too many health care workers get infected that also translates to more COVID-19 deaths. If too many types of businesses re-open too fast the COVID-19 case levels will shoot back up into unmanageable territory.

Outside of a few dense metropolitan area hot spots, most notably the NYC metro area, no hospitals have been close to overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients. The reopening will be done with social distancing and sanitary measures in place to minimize the spread. Under those conditions, I don't think the spread will be that much greater than just having "essential" businesses open. In fact, if the "Phase 1" reopening had been the initial measures I don't think the current situation would be much different.

The only way to completely stop the spread would be a nationwide quarantine for probably two months (to account for incubation and recovery periods) where nobody can leave their home and people isolate from each other within the home. Obviously, a quarantine like that can't be done. Once you have any "essential" business open, even if it were just grocery stores, completely stopping spread becomes impossible.

[Dave Macaulay]

Michigan never banned motor boating. When you repeat this made up nonsense, nonsense created and spread by rabid political opponents of Michigan's governor, by ignoramuses with no respect for facts... I stop reading your nonsensical babbling. Put your foil hat on and crawl back under your rock.

[Lyle Romer]

Michigan never banned motor boating. When you repeat this made up nonsense, nonsense created and spread by rabid political opponents of Michigan's governor, by ignoramuses with no respect for facts... I stop reading your nonsensical babbling. Put your foil hat on and crawl back under your rock.

How is it made up nonsense when I just found this ON THE MICHIGAN GOVERNMENT FAQ PAGE FOR THE ORDER?

Q: Does boating constitute “outdoor activity” under the new executive order?

A: Physical outdoor activity like kayaking, canoeing, and sailing is permitted under the order, but using a motorboat, a jet ski, or other similar watercraft is not.

https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus...5278--,00.html

I'm the one that is posting "nonsensical babbling?"

[Ed Gordon]

That means that under 12,000 people under age 65 have been killed by COVID-19 thus far. While there are some outliers, all of which are reported and focused on by the media, the vast majority of these have serious comorbidities. If they were spread evenly across all states (which they aren't with the majority in the NY metro area), that would be 240 people per state. Even in low population states that isn't very many people.

This statement reminds me of the death of Star Trek's Spock when he says, “The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few”. Is this what we are asking of those more likely to die from Covid-19?

Consider the dilemma presented in the movie Eye in the Sky:

Feeling a little conflicted? I certainly am. What is going on here?

The trolley problem: would you kill one person to save many others?

A decades-old thought experiment reveals our inconsistent moral intuitions. What would you do?

In the 2015 British thriller Eye in the Sky, a military team locates a terrorist cell preparing an attack expected to kill hundreds. They command a drone that can drop a bomb on the terrorists, preventing their attack. As the team readies the bomb, their cameras spy a little girl selling bread within the blast radius. Should they go through with their mission – killing the girl in order to prevent the deaths of many others?

This modern-day moral dilemma has its roots in a classic philosophical thought experiment known as the trolley problem. Introduced in 1967 by Philippa Foot, the trolley problem illuminates the landscape of moral intuitions – the peculiar and sometimes surprising patterns of how we divide right from wrong.

Try it at home

Consider one version of the trolley problem:

A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workers who will all be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. Adam is standing next to a large switch that can divert the trolley onto a different track. The only way to save the lives of the five workers is to divert the trolley onto another track that only has one worker on it. If Adam diverts the trolley onto the other track, this one worker will die, but the other five workers will be saved.

The moral matrix that influences the way people vote

Should Adam flip the switch, killing the one worker but saving the other five? Write down your answer.

Now consider a slightly different version:

A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workers who will all be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. Adam is on a footbridge over the tracks, in between the approaching trolley and the five workers. Next to him on this footbridge is a stranger who happens to be very large. The only way to save the lives of the five workers is to push this stranger off the footbridge and onto the tracks below where his large body will stop the trolley. The stranger will die if Adam does this, but the five workers will be saved.

Should Adam push the stranger off the footbridge, killing him but saving the five workers?

Did you give the same answer to the first and second versions – or different ones?

What’s going on?

The trolley problem highlights a fundamental tension between two schools of moral thought. The utilitarian perspective dictates that most appropriate action is the one that achieves the greatest good for the greatest number. Meanwhile, the deontological perspective asserts that certain actions – like killing an innocent person – are just wrong, even if they have good consequences. In both versions of the trolley problem above, utilitarians say you should sacrifice one to save five, while deontologists say you should not.

Psychological research shows that in the first version of the problem, most people agree with utilitarians, deeming it morally acceptable to flip the switch, killing one to save five. But in the second version of the problem, people lean deontological and believe it’s not acceptable to push a stranger to his death – again killing one to save five. What can explain this discrepancy?

Did a memory experiment really show evidence for psychic abilities?

Scientists think that our moral intuitions evolved to make us good social partners. Because we learn from a very young age that violence towards others is typically punished, our moral intuitions tell us it’s wrong to take actions that physically harm others. So in versions of the trolley problem that involve physical contact, like the footbridge case above, harming one to save many is generally less acceptable than in versions that do not involve such contact, like the switch case.

Another crucial difference between the switch case and the footbridge case is that the latter involves using a person as a means to an end. Treating others as individuals with their own rights, wishes and needs, rather than simply objects to be used at will, is a key aspect of being a good social partner. And there is evidence that people strongly distrust those who use others as a means to an end. Our moral intuitions seem to accord with this principle.

Critics of the trolley problem say it is too unrealistic to reveal anything important about real-life morality. But the rise of drones and self-driving cars makes the dilemma perhaps more relevant than ever before. For example, should a self-driving car protect the life of its passengers, even at the expense of a greater number of pedestrians? Here too, our intuitions are inconsistent: we want other people’s cars to maximize the number of lives saved – but think our own car should protect us at all costs. As our technologies become increasingly capable of making moral decisions, understanding our own moral intuitions becomes all the more crucial.

Credits: Molly Crockett, The Guardian
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ve-many-others

I believe we must do everything we can to stop this pandemic and save as many lives as we can, regardless of the financial impact.

[Dave Macaulay]

"I'm the one that is posting "nonsensical babbling?" "
Well.. yes.

That is just a FAQ containing information that is only opinions written by unknown persons, it is not the executive order and not legally binding in any way. Only the actual text of the order is enforceable. The opinions in this FAQ are legally equivalent to the opinion of a "Sovereign Citizen" regarding driver's license laws.

The executive order 2020-42 (COVID-19) DOES NOT IN ANY WAY prohibit boating - motorized or otherwise.
There is no mention of motorboats in the text of this executive order. It has only one reference to boats, in a paragraph specifically allowing their use.

This section of 2020-42 reads:

7. Exceptions.

1. Individuals may leave their home or place of residence, and travel as necessary:
   1. To engage in outdoor physical activity, consistent with remaining at least six feet from people from outside the individual’s household. Outdoor physical activity includes walking, hiking, running, cycling, kayaking, canoeing, or other similar physical activity, as well as any comparable activity for those with limited mobility.

After the "no motorboating allowed" misinterpretation of 2020-42 started to circulate in the moronverse, order 2020-59 was issued with that paragraph revised to clarify the fact that boating is not restricted (beyond physical distancing requirements):

7. Exceptions.

1. Individuals may leave their home or place of residence, and travel as necessary:
   1. To engage in outdoor recreational activity, consistent with remaining at least six feet from people from outside the individual’s household. Outdoor recreational activity includes walking, hiking, running, cycling, boating, golfing, or other similar activity, as well as any comparable activity for those with limited mobility.

Again: motor boating is not prohibited. It never was. It's unfortunate that the FAQ contained mistaken opinions, but mistakes happen even in normal times and these are not normal times. I suppose that this misinterpretation of 2020-42 comes from its specific mention of kayaking and canoeing as examples of allowed activity: such use of examples does not prohibit activities not used as examples.

TL;DR: Motor boating is not now, and never was, prohibited by any executive order related to COVID-19 in Michigan.

[Lyle Romer]

"I'm the one that is posting "nonsensical babbling?" "
Well.. yes.

That is just a FAQ containing information that is only opinions written by unknown persons, it is not the executive order and not legally binding in any way. Only the actual text of the order is enforceable. The opinions in this FAQ are legally equivalent to the opinion of a "Sovereign Citizen" regarding driver's license laws.

The executive order 2020-42 (COVID-19) DOES NOT IN ANY WAY prohibit boating - motorized or otherwise.
There is no mention of motorboats in the text of this executive order. It has only one reference to boats, in a paragraph specifically allowing their use.

This section of 2020-42 reads:

7. Exceptions.

1. Individuals may leave their home or place of residence, and travel as necessary:
   1. To engage in outdoor physical activity, consistent with remaining at least six feet from people from outside the individual’s household. Outdoor physical activity includes walking, hiking, running, cycling, kayaking, canoeing, or other similar physical activity, as well as any comparable activity for those with limited mobility.

After the "no motorboating allowed" misinterpretation of 2020-42 started to circulate in the moronverse, order 2020-59 was issued with that paragraph revised to clarify the fact that boating is not restricted (beyond physical distancing requirements):

7. Exceptions.

1. Individuals may leave their home or place of residence, and travel as necessary:
   1. To engage in outdoor recreational activity, consistent with remaining at least six feet from people from outside the individual’s household. Outdoor recreational activity includes walking, hiking, running, cycling, boating, golfing, or other similar activity, as well as any comparable activity for those with limited mobility.

Again: motor boating is not prohibited. It never was. It's unfortunate that the FAQ contained mistaken opinions, but mistakes happen even in normal times and these are not normal times. I suppose that this misinterpretation of 2020-42 comes from its specific mention of kayaking and canoeing as examples of allowed activity: such use of examples does not prohibit activities not used as examples.

TL;DR: Motor boating is not now, and never was, prohibited by any executive order related to COVID-19 in Michigan.

The way the original order was written and the FAQ that accompanied it, it was prohibited. I shouldn't be accused of "nonsensical babbling" (for a small example in a large post) because I didn't spend time following every update to an order in a state that I don't live anywhere near. In the original order it was prohibited because it wasn't in the exceptions of things that were allowed.

I guess I should have used people not being able to travel between their primary and secondary residence as an example to make my point. That is CLEARLY prohibited in the order:

Between two residences in this state, through April 10, 2020. After that date, travel between two residences is not permitted.

That wasn't a myth perpetrated by loony tune political opponents of the governor.

[Dave Macaulay]

"In the original order it was prohibited because it wasn't in the exceptions of things that were allowed"

No.

I assume you mean examples, "exceptions of things that were allowed" means things that are prohibited. The listed examples are just examples, not a list of specific exemptions. Following your mistaken belief that they are, only kayaking and canoeing are allowed? What about motorized canoes... definitely motorboats? Rowboats? Sailboats? Pedalboats?

As I said originally, I stopped reading your lengthy diatribe after seeing you repeat that neocon nonsense about Ms. Whitmer's executive order. Possibly some of your points made sense.

That's enough. Although I have plenty of time for distractions now that I have no work as cinemas are all closed here, I don't have any more time for this.

[Lyle Romer]

"In the original order it was prohibited because it wasn't in the exceptions of things that were allowed"

No.

I assume you mean examples, "exceptions of things that were allowed" means things that are prohibited. The listed examples are just examples, not a list of specific exemptions. Following your mistaken belief that they are, only kayaking and canoeing are allowed? What about motorized canoes... definitely motorboats? Rowboats? Sailboats? Pedalboats?

As I said originally, I stopped reading your lengthy diatribe after seeing you repeat that neocon nonsense about Ms. Whitmer's executive order. Possibly some of your points made sense.

That's enough. Although I have plenty of time for distractions now that I have no work as cinemas are all closed here, I don't have any more time for this.

#1 you don't understand how to read legal documents. If an order says everything is prohibited except what is listed in the exceptions, then anything not mentioned in the exceptions is prohibited. The exceptions specify "or other similar physical activity" which using a motorized watercraft certainly doesn't qualify as.

#2 chill out. "Neocon nonsene?" WTF are you talking about? My point wasn't a political argument of any kind. My response to Bobby was about the motivations of politicians to make the situation seem as bad as possible so they can go on a power trip. I can find examples of Republican governors abusing their power as well. That was just a particular order that stood out as an example in my head.

I don't really care if you read this since you don't have time to in your busy schedule. I'm replying so that other people reading the thread can see that you are the one babbling nonsense to try and make some kind of unknown political statement.

[Dave Macaulay]

Sadly I have notifications turned on. Maybe not much longer. I really can't ignore this tidbit of your bullsh!t.

#1 I can understand most legal documents without too much trouble, you clearly need more practice. The original EO 2020-42 exemption clarification sentence is "Outdoor physical activity includes walking, hiking, running, cycling, kayaking, canoeing, or other similar physical activity, as well as any comparable activity for those with limited mobility". Note the use of "includes" and "similar". This means the list is NOT exhaustive and exclusive, any number of similar activities not listed are included. Also, you have obviously never used a personal watercraft ("jet-ski") - unless ridden in a straight line on glass-smooth water, that's a lot more physical than the average canoe or kayak trip. And "similarities" is undefined and thus unenforceable, but any kind of boat has a strong similarity to any other type of boat - and motors are nowhere mentioned in the EO with regard to watercraft. But, regardless, in these executive orders: MOTORBOATING WAS NEVER A PROHIBITED ACTIVITY. PERIOD. Perhaps you could admit that truth. Or go on thinking a FAQ is a law.

#2 Plenty chill here. If you quote a trope widely used by loonies, don't be surprised when you're assumed to be one.

Politicians can be venal. A certain twitter user is unmistakably trying to use the pandemic to inflate his political chances, and is not alone in that.
This crisis is unprecedented in modern times. The 1916 "Spanish Flu" came before viruses were understood. SARS is recent but a different beast, it was way more fatal but also way less communicable.
Much like killing thousands of your citizens is a poor way for a country to distribute a military biological weapon (and just to be clear, the SARS-CoV-2 virus is absolutely NOT a state developed biological weapon), suspending personal freedoms and shutting down an economy seems like a bad way to advance a governor's political career.
In my opinion Governor Whitmer and those leaders in other states and countries who have done what she's done in Michigan are courageous. Those not restricting freedoms, allowing community spread to continue unabated, are the cowards.
Maybe that clears up any unknowns in my "political" statements.

I apologize for the shouting.
I hope a moderator just deletes this whole thread. Soon. Political discussion is, after all, prohibited.

[Lyle Romer]

Sadly I have notifications turned on. Maybe not much longer. I really can't ignore this tidbit of your bullsh!t.

#1 I can understand most legal documents without too much trouble, you clearly need more practice. The original EO 2020-42 exemption clarification sentence is "Outdoor physical activity includes walking, hiking, running, cycling, kayaking, canoeing, or other similar physical activity, as well as any comparable activity for those with limited mobility". Note the use of "includes" and "similar". This means the list is NOT exhaustive and exclusive, any number of similar activities not listed are included. Also, you have obviously never used a personal watercraft ("jet-ski") - unless ridden in a straight line on glass-smooth water, that's a lot more physical than the average canoe or kayak trip. And "similarities" is undefined and thus unenforceable, but any kind of boat has a strong similarity to any other type of boat - and motors are nowhere mentioned in the EO with regard to watercraft. But, regardless, in these executive orders: MOTORBOATING WAS NEVER A PROHIBITED ACTIVITY. PERIOD. Perhaps you could admit that truth. Or go on thinking a FAQ is a law.

#2 Plenty chill here. If you quote a trope widely used by loonies, don't be surprised when you're assumed to be one.

Politicians can be venal. A certain twitter user is unmistakably trying to use the pandemic to inflate his political chances, and is not alone in that.
This crisis is unprecedented in modern times. The 1916 "Spanish Flu" came before viruses were understood. SARS is recent but a different beast, it was way more fatal but also way less communicable.
Much like killing thousands of your citizens is a poor way for a country to distribute a military biological weapon (and just to be clear, the SARS-CoV-2 virus is absolutely NOT a state developed biological weapon), suspending personal freedoms and shutting down an economy seems like a bad way to advance a governor's political career.
In my opinion Governor Whitmer and those leaders in other states and countries who have done what she's done in Michigan are courageous. Those not restricting freedoms, allowing community spread to continue unabated, are the cowards.
Maybe that clears up any unknowns in my "political" statements.

I apologize for the shouting.
I hope a moderator just deletes this whole thread. Soon. Political discussion is, after all, prohibited.

You're the one that turned a discussion that wasn't political into a political discussion by getting triggered by 10 words in parentheses that weren't intended to make a political argument. Your profile says you are from Canada so I'm not sure why you are so sensitive about the perception of a Michigan executive order. I'll leave it there as I never intended any political discussion and was having a non-political and calm discussion with Bobby. If I could still edit the post I'd change the example to the travel between residence restriction so there wouldn't be anything to argue about.

[Marcel Birgelen]

In trying to get some of the heat out of the discussion, maybe something a bit off-topic...

This statement reminds me of the death of Star Trek's Spock when he says, “The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few”. Is this what we are asking of those more likely to die from Covid-19?

It's a pretty deep question with no definitive answers. I think if the outcome would be unavoidable, then the choice would be simpler to make. Yet, I still have problems with humans deciding who lives and who dies, although those choices, are, in some cases, unavoidable.

A while ago there was an interesting discussion if you extrapolate this problem to "Artificial Intelligence" or "computers" making those decisions. Take for example the self-driving car.

Imagine yourself getting into a situation where the computer driving has the following choices:
- Do nothing and e.g. five people will be run over at high-speed. They will most certainly all die.
- Steer hard right into the wall. The driver will most certainly die, but the five people will get to live.

What choice do you take?

[Leo Enticknap]

I believe we must do everything we can to stop this pandemic and save as many lives as we can, regardless of the financial impact.

That belief is problematic, IMHO, because it assumes that:

- Saving as many lives as we can (or, put another way, preventing as many preventable deaths as we can) will be achieved by doing everything we can to stop the WuFlu pandemic, regardless of its financial impact.

- The financial impact does not cause preventable deaths.

Evidence to support the first is rapidly unraveling. The most draconian business closure/house arrest orders were justified primarily by citing an "expert" study by a British academic, Neil Ferguson. He predicted that two million would be dead from the coronavirus by now. The reality is under 200,000, and it it far from proven that the coronavirus was the primary cause of deaths in even most of those. There is growing anecdotal evidence that it is being recorded as the cause of death of people who had other terminal conditions at the time. Ferguson's research has been shown to be spectacularly, dangerously (if used to make public policy decisions) wrong, from "mad cow disease" in the 1990s (he predicted hundreds of thousands of deaths: the reality was a couple of hundred), to this latest pandemic.

Political leaders around the world are basing their decisions (or at least, justifying them) on a boy who cries wolf, whose predictions have been shown, over two decades, to be no more reliable than those of an astrologer.

People are still dying of heart attacks, cancer, road accidents, homicides, and all the other things that can finish us off before our expiration date, but which are not considered valid reasons to shut down the entire economy. Probably more are dying of the non-coronavirus medical reasons, because screening for cancer and all sorts of other preventative medical tests and procedures have been suddenly and completely stopped. If the political response to coronavirus we have seen saves 10 people from dying of coronavirus, but causes 20 to die of cancer (because it wasn't diagnosed in time), is that OK?

As for the second, we have already seen an uptick in domestic abuse, suicide, and medical emergencies (principally heart attacks and strokes) caused by the loss of income. And those are just the acute effects. I dread to think of the long-term ones caused by people transitioning to a less healthy diet, less exercise, etc. etc., as the result of the house arrest/business closure orders.

[Lyle Romer]

Also, I personally refuse to accept a society that simply writes off their elderly, Logan's Run style. Should they die for our holy economy?

If we wouldn't all be so utterly selfish, the economy would be something we could easily fix. .

Marcel, nobody (well maybe there are some psychopaths) suggests writing off the elderly to save the economy. On the contrary, since the virus causes a disproportionate mortality rate in the elderly and they are clearly the most vulnerable to it, it is possible to protect the elderly in a targeted way while allowing the less vulnerable to return the economy to some semblance of normal.

The economy is not something that we can easily fix. Spending trillions of dollars that don't exist reaches a point where it will cause economic calamity. It is impossible to keep the world shut down for much longer without having long term issues that reduce quality of life everywhere and cause countless deaths in developing nations.

[Leo Enticknap]

Furthermore, the current policies (in many US states, at any rate) are writing off the elderly. 89% of the WuFlu deaths in Riverside County to date were care home residents. I understand that it's well over 50% in both NYC and LA. Care homes have proven to be the perfect incubators for this disease, and their inhabitants most likely to be killed by it: the average age of a COVID fatality in the country was 79, the last I heard. But yet governors in both NY and CA have insisted that the care homes stay open, and the infected residents stay in them.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media continues to run sensationalized exception-to-the-rule stories about 28-year old soccer coach with no underlying conditions (translation: no previously diagnosed underlying conditions) suddenly dropping dead from this thing, while ignoring the mounting evidence that a small proportion of the population is disproportionately at risk of serious symptoms and/or fatality, and that focusing our efforts on protecting them while letting the rest of us get back to work would start to fix both the medical and economic crises.