Ignore the “stay at home” order?
With all the people refusing to honor the “stay at home” orders, I’ll bet if their unemployment benefits were tied to it, we’d see a hellova lot more compliance! If caught out and about for a non authorized purpose, the benefit goes back to the original - the state max and they’d lose the additional weeks. Remember - regardless of whether you agree with the “stay at home” orders, the additional time and money was to make up for them not being able to go out and earn money!
0
-
It looks like governor Gretchen is running out of ways to stay in the spotlight. Still has her eyes on being Bidens running mate and has to look proactive in the democrat voters eyes. Bobdrobs said:Didja see that Michigan Governor banned the sale of garden seeds, paint, and construction materials.
0 -
Some of you are spouting "freedom" but what you're advocating is anarchy. Real freedom comes with responsibility, including the responsibility to not endanger lives with your reckless behavior. What's next from you, a demand to let you drive drunk? 6 -
In Florida that would be a empty threat they are so far behind in unemployment payments. I'm hoping my savings hold out until the park reopens because I'm not expecting much any from the stateWearyTraveler said:With all the people refusing to honor the “stay at home” orders, I’ll bet if their unemployment benefits were tied to it, we’d see a hellova lot more compliance! If caught out and about for a non authorized purpose, the benefit goes back to the original - the state max and they’d lose the additional weeks. Remember - regardless of whether you agree with the “stay at home” orders, the additional time and money was to make up for them not being able to go out and earn money!
0 -
"So it looks like the mitigation measures are working. In which case we should probably stop doing them. Really??"
(Posted by firstharmonic to another thread going currently.)
My thoughts exactly.
It's not about doing what you are "forced" to do. (I have yet to see that either.) It is about the "Common sense," thing you alluded to Bob. I personally do not feel the need for a "Nanny State," in order to do so. I was surprised you threw that in my direction.
3 -
Actually I was including you in the common sense catagory. Your comments about being in the high risk category and the precautions you are taking seemed more than prudent to me. I also fit into a couple of the high risk criteria and am taking some of the same precautions you are. I think both of us would do this without the government telling us to. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.😊 BobKenK/84Bravo said:"So it looks like the mitigation measures are working. In which case we should probably stop doing them. Really??"
(Posted by firstharmonic to another thread going currently.)
My thoughts exactly.
It's not about doing what you are "forced" to do. (I have yet to see that either.) It is about the "Common sense," thing you alluded to Bob. I personally do not feel the need for a "Nanny State," in order to do so. I was surprised you threw that in my direction.
3 -
I apologize for misreading your intent and comment Sir. We are Good.
I always appreciate reading your posts, and positions.
-Ken-
3 -
Anarchy vs. tyranny? No Rocky, there is a middle ground that must be aggressively pursued to preserve not only our economy, but the human spirit. Real freedom comes with responsibility, but is also comes with risk. We cannot say that we need to wait until there is no risk of new infection anymore than we can re-open the mosh pits at a Metallic concert today.Rocky Raab said:Some of you are spouting "freedom" but what you're advocating is anarchy. Real freedom comes with responsibility, including the responsibility to not endanger lives with your reckless behavior. What's next from you, a demand to let you drive drunk?
Grocery stores are as crowded as ever, but shopping malls are closed. This doesn't make any sense.
Hardware stores are closed or limited to curbside service but liquor stores and cannabis shops are open as usual. This also does not make any sense.
People are free to do anything they want to do so long as it is something that some governor has approved.
I can go to 10 grocery stores a day in search of toilet paper, but I cannot spend 4 hours on a golf course. This is just stupid.
Responsible actions by responsible individuals is our only hope long term. Relying upon government to dictate to us what we can or cannot do cultivates a submissiveness that is antithetical to spirit of our founding. A few weeks can be excused to better understand this thing, but as our knowledge of it increases, we need to aggressively question the dictates through the lens of liberty and challenge the justification. If justification can be proven, the responsible thing is to act accordingly. If it cannot be proven the responsible thing is to back to normal while taking those precautions that are most appropriate.
The fact is that this virus is being overblown as a danger to the general population. It is a danger to compromised people, and a few outliers that did not have previous conditions of which they were aware.
The fact is, however, that a significant majority of our population remains at little risk due to this thing, and we are causing tremendous hardship on that population through the actions of government.
As of 8 April (I cannot find any more recent data) approximately 760 people in the US under the of 50 were reported to have died from the virus. Data from July of 2018 shows that approximately 211 million Americans were under the age of 50.
From this, for roughly 65% of our population, the risk of death from Covid-19 is approximately 1 in 277,000, or .00036%.
We do not know how many of this .00036% were previously comprised due to a pre-existing health condition, but there can be little doubt that it was the vast majority of them.
The numbers increase as we age, and we will not have final tallies for weeks, but we are looking at an illness were a very small fraction of our population are truly at risk of severe injury or death. To counter this, we have embarked upon an unheard of throttling of our economy and a here-to-fore unheard of restriction regimen on the day to day actions of the citizenry.
We are going to come out of this with these folks claiming that by virtue of the control exercised by government, we cut the number of deaths from 2 million Americans to 50,000.
It is not anarchist to suggest that we need to question the statements being made today and question them again when we come out the other side to accurately assess what affect they actually had.6 -
Don, this is a disease where people can be infected and highly contagious, but show no symptoms. Those people endanger the nearly half of us who are at higher risk. That fact alone means that the only prudent act is to keep people isolated from each other as much as possible. Grocery stores versus malls is facetious because we need food but not Victoria's Secret underwear. Yes, some of the restrictions are screwy (I can golf but not fish, for example) but these restrictions were drawn up in haste and some mistakes were made, understandably. There isn't anything among them that any of us can't give up for a while.
We need to end this as quickly as possible, but allowing crowds too soon is not the way. A second, more protracted wave would be far worse for the economy by far.
0 -
I TOTALLY agree Rocky.
I have a couple preexisting medical issues that would make this a non sequitur for me. Obviously, some of your views may differ.
Feel free to go out and mingle amongst the populace, as you desire. Your choice. I've made mine.
Feel free to make yours.
3 -
Dammit Don, I wish I had the ability to write what you wrote. You are 100% spot on, well done Sir. 6 -
Nearly half at higher risk? I would guess less than 15%, but it is not my intention to quibble over numbers. For what it is worth, my immune system is significantly compromised, and am definitely higher risk, if not high risk.
This virus will be with us for a long time, and there will be a second wave regardless of what we do unless we decide that a complete lockdown is to be in place until a vaccine is developed and/or we develop a herd immunity to its worst effects.
A vaccine looks likely, but it may be 12 months, 18 months, or, frankly an effective one may never be found.
Right now, hospitals are geared up for treatment, and more equipment is being produced every day as the pressure upon hospitals is beginning to ease a little, at least as reported by ABC news.
As of right now, the US has performed over 3 million tests, and there have been 600,000 documented cases. Not sure how many of these are re-tests, but in general of those who there has been cause to test, approximately 20% have come back positive.
It seems fairly obvious to me that millions of Americans have been infected with the virus given the numbers of people who report no symptoms or minimal symptoms.
So what triggers the opening of Victoria's Secret?
Do we wait for a vaccine that may never come?
Do we wait until a county or city has a set infection rate that may or may not be achieved?
We do not yet know if infection and recovery bestows immunity, much less the potential for the immune to be carriers.
Social distancing can be done to a large degree with a re-opened economy in most of this country. It will be a greater challenge in areas where people are dependent upon mass-transit, crowded elevators, and office settings with a lot of people. Restaurants and bars can re-open with a few less tables. Shopping Malls can reopen with limitations upon total numbers of people, as can every mom and pop store in the country. This could be done today in most over the country with minimal risk.
Those of us who are higher risk need to careful and responsible, but our frailty should not be used as an excuse to deny Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to the vast majority of Americans who do not share that frailty.6 -
Hmmm... If anyone goes back and reads the original post, they’d note that this thread has gone off on tangents. My original had nothing to do with the constitutionality of the stay at home orders, nothing to do with the “who” should get restricted or the vulnerability.
My original post proposed holding back the additional (not the base payments) money that’s being sent to people that are supposedly home bound because they are unemployed. Basically, they’re paying people to stay home and if people don’t stay home, then they shouldn’t get the additional payments.0 -
Appears here in Florida they're not holding up to their side of the bargain. Neighbor across the street has been home since mid March because the state told him to stay home and has yet to see any of that stay home money.
0 -
The additional benefits are because governments are dictating that businesses close, so through no fault of the business or the employee, that employee is forced to seek unemployment benefits. The Federal payments are designed to make up for the discrepancy between the workers' wages and the base unemployment benefit. If folks are going out and working, they are not receiving either. If they are going out to take a walk, play golf, go fishing, etc., there is nothing that does, or IMO, should tie into the benefits from either the feds or their state.WearyTraveler said:Hmmm... If anyone goes back and reads the original post, they’d note that this thread has gone off on tangents. My original had nothing to do with the constitutionality of the stay at home orders, nothing to do with the “who” should get restricted or the vulnerability.
My original post proposed holding back the additional (not the base payments) money that’s being sent to people that are supposedly home bound because they are unemployed. Basically, they’re paying people to stay home and if people don’t stay home, then they shouldn’t get the additional payments.
I fail to understand how doing anything other than working should compromise a benefit that is only required because some governor decided you can't go to work today.
Interesting that you quote Orwell in your signature line whilst apparently advocating for Orwellian control.3 -
I'll make one last comment directly to your thread title, WT. For my own part - and I speak for no one else - I am willing to follow orders. I spent a large part of my life, and all the formative years, in uniform doing just that. The orders didn't always make sense, I sometimes disagreed with them, but I always followed them to the best of my ability. That still holds. If I'm ordered to stay home (and in Utah I have not been) I will. I will not defy rules, I will not quibble, and I will not rationalize why they shouldn't apply to me. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
45 comments