the morality of opening up ...

[oxmixmudd]

Reading comprehension fail. I never said we should have taken no action, dumbass, but destroying our economy and completely disrupting normal life across the board was not necessary. Every model and projection has been proven wildly wrong with estimates far, far higher than we saw in reality (yes, including those models that took current mitigation efforts into account). That much is as plain as the nose on your face, and I don't know why people like you are so loathe to admit it -- if it would help, you could blame Trump for doing too much.

People are still dying MM. There are in the us almost 750,000 active cases, only 100,000 have recovered, and in that almost 50,000 are dead. We will likely see at least another 40,000 dead from those 750,000 still active cases, punching the total, with mitigation, to at or near 100,000.

[Ronson]

. . . the immorality of allowing the minority, poor, elderly and vulnerable die to allow the majority to prosper.

How do you arrive at that?

[Mountain Man]

Sorry MM, but the simple fact is we had to do what we have done. The only way to stop the spread was to keep people apart from on another. We were on a major crash course with millions dead. And so we had to shut down. And we still are not ready to open back up. And The president was clear about that tonight, and it is good that he understands that and that he was clear with Kemp that he did not support him opening up as much as he is.

You're using the logic of:

We had to do something.
This extreme solution is something.
Therefore, we must implement this extreme solution.

Yes, we had to do something, but it didn't necessarily have to be this something. A less extreme course of action would have been sufficient.

People are still dying MM. There are in the us almost 750,000 active cases, only 100,000 have recovered, and in that almost 50,000 are dead. We will likely see at least another 40,000 dead from those 750,000 still active cases, punching the total, with mitigation, to at or near 100,000.

People are going to get sick and die no matter what we do. We've been battling the common flu for decades, and it still kills tens of thousands of people in the US every year. That doesn't justify extreme solutions that ruin the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

[shunyadragon]

How do you arrive at that?

These are the groups by far most effected by the COVID 19 pandemic. By far the majority of the fatalities and sever cases are from these groups.

[Ronson]

These are the groups by far most effected by the COVID 19 pandemic. By far the majority of the fatalities and sever cases are from these groups.

They are also the groups suffering the most due to the shutdown.

But I still don't understand how it "allows them to die" and that somehow the majority prospers. Everyone has the same contagion risk and the same access to emergency healthcare. We're all in the same boat. The elderly (who don't work anyway) are the only group that requires special attention.

[Chaotic Void]

Why not do both? Open up the country, in steps, while protecting the most vulnerable? I, being one of those, am for the country getting back to some semblance of normalcy. At the same time, I will petition my company to allow me to continue to work at home, and take all of the precautions I am currently taking, wearing a mask if I go out, picking up my groceries or having them delivered, then washing them all down before bringing them into the house, and so on.

If we open up the country just like it was before, we will have a second wave, worse than the first. But if we don't open some things back up, our economy will collapse. And suicides are already on the rise.

(Emphasis Mine)
This has always been one of my concerns. It's not exactly obscure knowledge that poverty and financial instability- both of which happen in the (artificial) economic crashes we're starting to see- tend to drive up suicide rates.

... Thankfully, starting next month my Province is going to slowly open things back up- while still keeping safety measures in check- now that the curve has been flattened here. It might be too late, though, as a lot of small businesses where I live are considering staying closed because they lost too much during the shutdown of Non-Essential Services.

[simplicio]

This is Tweb. Real Christians need not apply.

I double dog dare you to try out that line at some point. I suspect the response from Christians here would be swift and unequivocal in condemnation.

And here I thought that such conclusions were a result of an atheistic worldview (so the argument goes).

[JonathanL]

This is Tweb. Real Christians need not apply.

[simplicio]

Do you believe that the view of a natural selection, weeding out the weak and let the rest move on, is consistent with a Christian ethic?

[JonathanL]

Do you believe that the view of a natural selection, weeding out the weak and let the rest move on, is consistent with a Christian ethic?

[simplicio]

Christians point out all sorts of things about Christianity, and I suppose that he has picked up some of those ideas, as well as bringing in his own views.

Many Christians on Tweb identify who is and who is not a Christian, or identify which principles , attitudes, and dispositions are associated with NOT being a Christian. I may be guilty of yanking Starlight's chain pretty hard in post 22 (I assume that he'll get over it, he has a long life ahead of him), but my point was that view is commonly condemned when taken up by an atheist.

[Roy]

It's plainly obvious now that a nationwide shutdown was an overaction and a big mistake. Many of us suspected as much from the beginning. We should "open up" as much of the country as we possibly can, taking precautions to protect the most vulnerable (and we know precisely who they are) while allowing the rest of us to get back to work. Frankly, this is how we should have handled it from day one.

warning.jpg

[Roy]

I have multiple risk factors -- HBP, high BMI, take ACE inhibitor, near age 60, maybe one or two others -- and I favor shutting down the shutdown and letting things take their course. Weed out the weak and let the rest move on.

That attitude leads to abandoning imperfect babies to die.

[Sparko]

I double dog dare you to try out that line at some point. I suspect the response from Christians here would be swift and unequivocal in condemnation.

And here I thought that such conclusions were a result of an atheistic worldview (so the argument goes).

Stop your trolling, simplicio.

[Sparko]

Christians point out all sorts of things about Christianity, and I suppose that he has picked up some of those ideas, as well as bringing in his own views.

Many Christians on Tweb identify who is and who is not a Christian, or identify which principles , attitudes, and dispositions are associated with NOT being a Christian. I may be guilty of yanking Starlight's chain pretty hard in post 22 (I assume that he'll get over it, he has a long life ahead of him), but my point was that view is commonly condemned when taken up by an atheist.

Starlight is welcome to his own opinion. We just don't like it when some troll pretends to be a Christian while condemning Christians and acting like an atheist. ahem.