Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
TripItUp

Has the cure become worse than the disease?

Has the cure become worse than the disease?  

245 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Just now, killface said:

I can't understand for the life of me why this garners a laughter emoticon.   What you say is a 100% true and what the CDC said is that it doesn't spread easily but still does spread.  And as we learn more about this virus they may revise that again...

Seems a pattern.  Lots of laughing going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sam Quentin said:

I have seen studies that put the herd immunity anywhere from 20% to 43%
 

many studies have put the IFR at .3% or under.  For those under 65 it is very small.

Most of these studies suggesting a death rate anywhere close to the flu - much less equal to or less than are bogus. Within the next week, we are going to cross 100K deaths. For COVID19 to be close to the flu 30% of the entire US would need to have been infected to get a .1% death rate - with no more deaths coming. We'd be right in the middle of your herd immunity numbers... but the number of cases in most places is *rising* not falling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Max Power said:

CDC now says coronavirus 'does not spread easily' via contaminated surfaces

 

:confused: I thought they told us this weeks ago, no?  Did they reverse course at some point and come back to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TripItUp said:

If you were standing in a bread line or without work for the next 6 months with no savings would you feel differently?

Careful...not sure where the pullyourselfupbythebootstraps guys have gone lately, but they are likely to be back soon.....

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GoBirds said:

:goodposting:x1000

Amazing how quickly many forget about those living paycheck to paycheck with limited to no savings. 

Good to know you support social safety nets such as welfare and unemployment.

People are worth bailing out IMO. Corporations not so much.

  • Like 5
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Skoo said:

Good to know you support social safety nets such as welfare and unemployment.

People are worth bailing out IMO. Corporations not so much.

Exactly this is a failure of government not the reaction to the epidemic.  I hope they realize that bigger and badder ones are coming.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Skoo said:

Good to know you support social safety nets such as welfare and unemployment.

People are worth bailing out IMO. Corporations not so much.

Good to know you still childishly attempt to spin my posts, I do fully support everyone's right to go out and support their families as many want to do during these times while taking the precautions necessary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Skoo said:

Good to know you support social safety nets such as welfare and unemployment.

People are worth bailing out IMO. Corporations not so much.

This is massively short sighted.  But alas, there are many that think like this  LOL

Sad

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Good to know you still childishly attempt to spin my posts, I do fully support everyone's right to go out and support their families as many want to do during these times while taking the precautions necessary. 

In his defense he didn't have to spin this one at all.  You walked right into it

  • Like 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Navin Johnson said:

In his defense he didn't have to spin this one at all.  You walked right into it

Oooo sick burn! So predictable in here. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

This is massively short sighted.  But alas, there are many that think like this  LOL

Sad

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Oooo sick burn! So predictable in here. :lmao:

Almost as predictable as the lack of self awareness.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coronavirus-deaths-in-u-s

more everyday coming out showing those under 65 really are at very very little risk, those over who are already ill/sickly and immune compromised are at risk like a bad flu season 

covid-19 does spread way faster, I'm not sure its so much more deadly than bad flu season that we needed to shut down the economy, charge 7-10 trillion to national debt and put 5-7 million people out of jobs .... I guess that's debatable but more and more what is clear is that the knee jerk reaction from the Govt was way, way out of line

 

 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, killface said:

I can't understand for the life of me why this garners a laughter emoticon.   What you say is a 100% true and what the CDC said is that it doesn't spread easily but still does spread.  And as we learn more about this virus they may revise that again...

It's like we're learning about a new virus and we don't know what exactly to do, and as a result, what we know changes. But I agree, I don't see why it's apparently funny.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/health/us-coronavirus-thursday/index.html

 

more articles/evidence everyday (this one from CNN) that covid-19 isn't what we were told it was

Not sure what your point is here...did you read the article?  If so, what do you think it's saying?

By the way....CNN has a terrible skin/flow to their pages...YIKES!!  How do you guys get around on those monstrosities? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/africa/south-africa-baby-death-coronavirus-intl/index.html

A two-day-old baby has died of Covid-19 in South Africa

 

right there - 2 day old dies of covid-19 ... that's the article headline words BUT ... what does the article say ? " The baby was born preterm with lung difficulties and had to put on a ventilator" ,,,,,,,,, the baby might have died anyway, or another condition might have been the cause. The TRUE cause of death isn't really known ... but its being attributed to covid-19

 

my point here is that its misreporting with the goal of spreading fear and to support the covid19 hysteria IMO

 

14 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Not sure what your point is here...did you read the article?  If so, what do you think it's saying?

By the way....CNN has a terrible skin/flow to their pages...YIKES!!  How do you guys get around on those monstrosities? 

 

maybe we should have quarantined anyone over 65 years old - force them to stay inside their homes or face prison time ..... allow everyone else to go on with their daily lives because covid-19 really doesn't impact anyone under 65 - the stat's show that to be fact

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

maybe we should have quarantined anyone over 65 years old - force them to stay inside their homes or face prison time ..... allow everyone else to go on with their daily lives because covid-19 really doesn't impact anyone under 65 - the stat's show that to be fact

So no one under 65 has died from COVID-19?  No one under 65 has suffered long-term organ damage from COVID-19?  Stop being silly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:
22 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Not sure what your point is here...did you read the article?  If so, what do you think it's saying?

By the way....CNN has a terrible skin/flow to their pages...YIKES!!  How do you guys get around on those monstrosities? 

 

maybe we should have quarantined anyone over 65 years old - force them to stay inside their homes or face prison time ..... allow everyone else to go on with their daily lives because covid-19 really doesn't impact anyone under 65 - the stat's show that to be fact

And you got all that from the CNN article you linked that mentioned none of this and was talking  about how dumb it is to mix antibody testing with COVID testing diagnosis and also talks about how we could have cut the number of deaths in  half by taking action just a week sooner?  I was curious why someone so fixated on how bad CNN is at reporting would use them as a source for anything, so I went against my better judgement and clicked the link and read.  I think I am seeing clearer now what the actual problem is between CNN and their haters.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:
34 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

maybe we should have quarantined anyone over 65 years old - force them to stay inside their homes or face prison time ..... allow everyone else to go on with their daily lives because covid-19 really doesn't impact anyone under 65 - the stat's show that to be fact

So no one under 65 has died from COVID-19?  No one under 65 has suffered long-term organ damage from COVID-19?  Stop being silly.

RC, I'm not sure you're familiar with SC.  If you were, the more shocking thing is him suggesting discrimination based on age as it pertains to this whole thing.  He's gone on and on and on in a multitude of threads around here for a couple years now talking about how all people should be treated equal.  It comes up in the rape/sexism threads.  It comes up in the gun threads.  It comes up in the race threads.  Everywhere.  To be honest, I'm not sure what to do with his comment at this point...runs completely contradictory to everything he professes to be about.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Navin Johnson said:

Almost as predictable as the lack of self awareness.

:potkettle:

Man, you are on a roll!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Commish said:
40 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:
43 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

maybe we should have quarantined anyone over 65 years old - force them to stay inside their homes or face prison time ..... allow everyone else to go on with their daily lives because covid-19 really doesn't impact anyone under 65 - the stat's show that to be fact

So no one under 65 has died from COVID-19?  No one under 65 has suffered long-term organ damage from COVID-19?  Stop being silly.

RC, I'm not sure you're familiar with SC.  If you were, the more shocking thing is him suggesting discrimination based on age as it pertains to this whole thing.  He's gone on and on and on in a multitude of threads around here for a couple years now talking about how all people should be treated equal.  It comes up in the rape/sexism threads.  It comes up in the gun threads.  It comes up in the race threads.  Everywhere.  To be honest, I'm not sure what to do with his comment at this point...runs completely contradictory to everything he professes to be about.

There's a percentage of people here that will suggest anything that distracts from the Trump administration's woeful preparedness for testing and tracing - something many countries have been doing for months (including the beloved Sweden) and attribute to their success in containing the virus and safely reopening their economies. Not once have I seen one of them address this failure of the administration. Its acceptable or even preferred that we throw up our collective hands and just abandon this successful approach. Sadly, the most important thing is to get the unemployment numbers down so Trump has something to point to in coming election season. Health and safety have taken a backseat. Lose your unemployment benefits? Too bad. Losing your PPP? Too bad.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/health/us-coronavirus-thursday/index.html

more articles/evidence everyday (this one from CNN) that covid-19 isn't what we were told it was

So states in a rush to open up potentially exaggerated the number of infections and their testing capabilities?   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

my point here is that its misreporting with the goal of spreading fear and to support the covid19 hysteria IMO

Your example from CNN might misrepresent numbers, but it does so in favor of reopening.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

covid-19 does spread way faster, I'm not sure its so much more deadly than bad flu season that we needed to shut down the economy, charge 7-10 trillion to national debt and put 5-7 million people out of jobs .... I guess that's debatable but more and more what is clear is that the knee jerk reaction from the Govt was way, way out of line

The economy was shutting down all by itself!  That is to the degree that it did shut down.   

Why is this lost on you?  Do you think that if the government continued to ignore it that the economy would still be humming along?   Do you think if the media ignored it like the administration tried to do that no one would notice the overflowing hospitals?   The people disappearing?

 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Your example from CNN might misrepresent numbers, but it does so in favor of reopening.  

that was the point - the numbers are misrepresented intentionally  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

The economy was shutting down all by itself!  That is to the degree that it did shut down.   

Why is this lost on you?  Do you think that if the government continued to ignore it that the economy would still be humming along?   Do you think if the media ignored it like the administration tried to do that no one would notice the overflowing hospitals?   The people disappearing?

 

where are the overflowing hospitals ? nationwide you see that ?  no

we don't know WHAT the impacts would have been, we only know what is HAS been 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:
3 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Your example from CNN might misrepresent numbers, but it does so in favor of reopening.  

that was the point - the numbers are misrepresented intentionally  

So you're saying CNN is reporting numbers falsely to get people back to "normal" after than they should?  :confused: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

where are the overflowing hospitals ? nationwide you see that ?  no

we don't know WHAT the impacts would have been, we only know what is HAS been 

Which one of us is saying "what is clear is that the knee jerk reaction from the Govt was way, way out of line"?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Which one of us is saying "what is clear is that the knee jerk reaction from the Govt was way, way out of line"?

 

Dude, please. disengage

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

where are the overflowing hospitals ? nationwide you see that ?  no

we don't know WHAT the impacts would have been, we only know what is HAS been 

After dodging a bullet, we can have a good idea of what the impact would have been if we hadn't dodged it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

So states in a rush to open up potentially exaggerated the number of infections and their testing capabilities?   

 

The other thing with the manipulations is that this was probably just the beginning:

Step 1: Overreport cases and tests performed to appear more prepared to open up.

Step 2: If active cases start to spike, stop adding the antibody positive tests. Because the previous numbers were inflated, the spike is hidden at least temporarily.

Step 3: Downplay any spike long enough for someone to screw up worse than you and hope no one notices. Then shrug your shoulders and say that there’s nothing we can do now and certainly can’t shut down again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

Dear Mr. President:

Thousands of physicians in all specialties and from all States would like to express our gratitude for your leadership. We write to you today to express our alarm over the exponentially growing negative health consequences of the national shutdown.

In medical terms, the shutdown was a mass casualty incident.

During a mass casualty incident, victims are immediately triaged to black, red, yellow, or green. The first group, triage level black, includes those who require too many resources to save during a mass crisis. The red group has severe injuries that are survivable with treatment, the yellow group has serious injuries that are not immediately life threatening, and the green group has minor injuries.

The red group receives highest priority. The next priority is to ensure that the other two groups do not deteriorate a level. Decades of research have shown that by strictly following this algorithm, we save the maximum number of lives.

Millions of Americans are already at triage level red. These include 150,000 Americans per month who would have had a new cancer detected through routine screening that hasn't happened, millions who have missed routine dental care to fix problems strongly linked to heart disease/death, and preventable cases of stroke, heart attack, and child abuse. Suicide hotline phone calls have increased 600%.

Tens of millions are at triage level yellow. Liquor sales have increased 300-600%, cigarettes sales have increased, rent has gone unpaid, family relationships have become frayed, and millions of well-child check-ups have been missed.

Hundreds of millions are at triage level green. These are people who currently are solvent, but at risk should economic conditions worsen. Poverty and financial uncertainty is closely linked to poor health.

A continued shutdown means hundreds of millions of Americans will downgrade a level. The following are real examples from our practices.

Patient E.S. is a mother with two children whose office job was reduced to part-time and whose husband was furloughed. The father is drinking more, the mother is depressed and not managing her diabetes well, and the children are barely doing any schoolwork.

Patient A.F. has chronic but previously stable health conditions. Her elective hip replacement was delayed, which caused her to become nearly sedentary, resulting in a pulmonary embolism in April.

Patient R.T. is an elderly nursing home patient, who had a small stroke in early March but was expected to make a nearly complete recovery. Since the shutdown, he has had no physical or speech therapy, and no visitors. He has lost weight, and is deteriorating rather than making progress.

Patient S.O. is a college freshman who cannot return to normal life, school, and friendships. He risks depression, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, trauma, and future financial uncertainty.

We are alarmed at what appears to be the lack of consideration for the future health of our patients. The downstream health effects of deteriorating a level are being massively under-estimated and under-reported. This is an order of magnitude error.

It is impossible to overstate the short, medium, and long-term harm

to people's health with a continued shutdown. Losing a job is one of life's most stressful events, and the effect on a person's health is not lessened because it also has happened to 30 million other people. Keeping schools and universities closed is incalculably detrimental for children, teenagers, and young adults for decades to come.

The millions of casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain sight, but they will be called alcoholism, homelessness, suicide, heart attack, stroke, or kidney failure. In youths it will be called financial instability, unemployment, despair, drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, poverty, and abuse.

Because the harm is diffuse, there are those who hold that it does not exist. We, the undersigned, know otherwise.

Please let us know if we may be of assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to get ugly....up thread mentioned a friend of mine just outside of Atlanta that has a sandwich shop.  He's been part of a local restaurant group for the better part of 20 years.  It has 50-60 different owners as part of the group.  Approximately half of them are considering closing their doors.  People are deciding to stay home and straw polling by the owners of their customers who are coming in for pickup/delivery still gives a few different reasons for staying home, but the most popular, by far, is distrust in what they're being told by state and federal officials.  The second one is the realization of how expensive it is for them to eat out (i.e. change in eating habits they've known they need to change but haven't).  

I stated up thread that I believed we were entering the "confidence" phase of this whole fiasco and it seems to be true, at least where he's at.  It will be interesting to see how long the "you should have the choice to do what you want...open back up!!!!!" crew continues with that notion before they start demeaning people as "scared" or "living in fear" for deciding to stay home with all the uncertainty and unclear/muddled messages from our leaders.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Commish said:

It's going to get ugly....up thread mentioned a friend of mine just outside of Atlanta that has a sandwich shop.  He's been part of a local restaurant group for the better part of 20 years.  It has 50-60 different owners as part of the group.  Approximately half of them are considering closing their doors.  People are deciding to stay home and straw polling by the owners of their customers who are coming in for pickup/delivery still gives a few different reasons for staying home, but the most popular, by far, is distrust in what they're being told by state and federal officials.  The second one is the realization of how expensive it is for them to eat out (i.e. change in eating habits they've known they need to change but haven't).  

I stated up thread that I believed we were entering the "confidence" phase of this whole fiasco and it seems to be true, at least where he's at.  It will be interesting to see how long the "you should have the choice to do what you want...open back up!!!!!" crew continues with that notion before they start demeaning people as "scared" or "living in fear" for deciding to stay home with all the uncertainty and unclear/muddled messages from our leaders.

You can already see this sentiment on these forums.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rich Conway said:
9 minutes ago, The Commish said:

It's going to get ugly....up thread mentioned a friend of mine just outside of Atlanta that has a sandwich shop.  He's been part of a local restaurant group for the better part of 20 years.  It has 50-60 different owners as part of the group.  Approximately half of them are considering closing their doors.  People are deciding to stay home and straw polling by the owners of their customers who are coming in for pickup/delivery still gives a few different reasons for staying home, but the most popular, by far, is distrust in what they're being told by state and federal officials.  The second one is the realization of how expensive it is for them to eat out (i.e. change in eating habits they've known they need to change but haven't).  

I stated up thread that I believed we were entering the "confidence" phase of this whole fiasco and it seems to be true, at least where he's at.  It will be interesting to see how long the "you should have the choice to do what you want...open back up!!!!!" crew continues with that notion before they start demeaning people as "scared" or "living in fear" for deciding to stay home with all the uncertainty and unclear/muddled messages from our leaders.

You can already see this sentiment on these forums.

I honestly haven't paid much attention as of late....wouldn't surprise me.  I HAVE noticed the bootstrap guys aren't as vocal as normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife and I used to dine out twice a week, or more, on occasion. Even when things reopen we've decided to continue as we are currently doing. Stocking up on groceries every week or so. With the occasional fancier to-go order when we're sick of cooking. Eating out a restaurant is not happening for either of us until we feel comfortable. It sucks because we are big fans of trying new restaurants all the time, but it's not worth it with a newborn and a FIL with lung cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, The Commish said:

I honestly haven't paid much attention as of late....wouldn't surprise me.  I HAVE noticed the bootstrap guys aren't as vocal as normal.

There have already been posts saying people who don't return to their pre-lock down economic behaviors are choosing not to because of media fear mongering. Over time they'll blame anything except the reality of the pandemic. 

Edited by Politician Spock
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

You can already see this sentiment on these forums.

 

2 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

There have already been posts of saying people who don't return to their pre-lock down economic behaviors are choosing not to because of media fear mongering. Over time they'll blame anything except the reality of the pandemic. 

 

That's only in response to the dramaticized "reality" of the pandemic. It works both ways.  In real life no one is making you leave your house.  In real life there are people being kept and forced out of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tonydead said:

 

 

That's only in response to the dramaticized "reality" of the pandemic. It works both ways.  In real life no one is making you leave your house.  In real life there are people being kept and forced out of work.

It does work both ways, but you can't have it both ways.

No one making you leave you house is also why no one is shopping at your business. So if you are trumpeting the mantra "no one is making you leave your house" then don't ##### when "no one is shopping at your business". 

  • Like 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

It does work both ways, but you can't have it both ways.

No one making you leave you house is also why no one is shopping at your business. So if you are trumpeting the mantra "no one is making you leave your house" then don't ##### when "no one is shopping at your business". 

That's fair, but allow people to make the decision to open their business and allow people to make the decision to patronize or not.  The businesses who can change their business model in response to changes in habits have always been the ones that ultimately succeed.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

That's fair, but allow people to make the decision to open their business and allow people to make the decision to patronize or not.  The businesses who can change their business model in response to changes in habits have always been the ones that ultimately succeed.

This is all I am saying.  Can;t we just let the business owners and Americans make their own decisions?  If a restaurant fails because they refused to open, or they refused to make changes to enhance customer safety, then I can't feel as bad.  If they are forced to close, with no recourse, I can feel bad for them for not even being given a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

It does work both ways, but you can't have it both ways.

No one making you leave you house is also why no one is shopping at your business. So if you are trumpeting the mantra "no one is making you leave your house" then don't ##### when "no one is shopping at your business". 

I'm ##### because businesses currently aren't allowed to open because of this type of hysteria.  

It's not me I'm worried about.  My business is essential (even though it's not really) and our executives have announced that our balance sheet is strong and largely unaffected by the pandemic.  I'm more worried about those businesses you say people aren't going to shop at.  When they do open I'm going to purposely shop, eat and drink a lot more to do my part to make up for all the BS they've been put through.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

This is all I am saying.  Can;t we just let the business owners and Americans make their own decisions?  If a restaurant fails because they refused to open, or they refused to make changes to enhance customer safety, then I can't feel as bad.  If they are forced to close, with no recourse, I can feel bad for them for not even being given a chance.

The problem is that because of people tending to touch stuff wherever they go, a sick person can infect a lot of people, more so if distancing standards are relaxed. Businesses that relax restrictions further are asking for trouble if an asymptomatic carrier walks in and spreads the virus, because if someone actually started contact tracing, and traced it back to that business, who is going to want to shop/eat there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

This is all I am saying.  Can;t we just let the business owners and Americans make their own decisions?  If a restaurant fails because they refused to open, or they refused to make changes to enhance customer safety, then I can't feel as bad.  If they are forced to close, with no recourse, I can feel bad for them for not even being given a chance.

From: https://www.epiqglobal.com/en-us/thinking/class-action-mass-tort/faq/government-regulation-business-faq

Quote

The Purpose of Government Regulation of Business

The U.S. government has set many business regulations in place to protect employees' rights, protect the environment and hold corporations accountable for the amount of power they have in a very business-driven society.

Restaurants are one of the most highly regulated types of businesses, having to be frequently inspected by the local health department to ensure they are complying with the regulation that exist to keep the public safe from food born illness. Ending these regulation would have serious negative effects on the public health as people would end up being served spoiled food that was prepared for them by the business owner to help his bottom line instead of being thrown away like regulations require. 

So no, we can't just let business owners make their own decisions, especially when it comes to public health. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

You can already see this sentiment on these forums.

I post awhile back in one of these threads a talking point will be the encomy sucks because all the liberals are staying at home and not spending their money.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Kal El said:

 who is going to want to shop/eat there?

99% of the population that the virus doesn't pose a risk to?

I would eat anywhere tonight...I'm 45 and healthy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

That's fair, but allow people to make the decision to open their business and allow people to make the decision to patronize or not.  The businesses who can change their business model in response to changes in habits have always been the ones that ultimately succeed.

If business owners don't feel safe opening their businesses, should they continue to be eligible for the various small business support programs?

How about employees?  If they don't feel safe returning to work, should they still be eligible for unemployment or other government assistance?

Edited by Rich Conway
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TripItUp said:

99% of the population that the virus doesn't pose a risk to?

I would eat anywhere tonight...I'm 45 and healthy.

 

99%, huh?  I thought the elderly were "at risk"?  Pretty sure the elderly comprise a much larger portion of the population than 1%.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.