When is it time to panic

Streetwiseguy said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Bob, 

I hope you're getting help. Let me know if there is anything I can do from afar. 

 

Imagine if our country had taken this seriously in February. We could have ripped the bandaid off and been done with it by April. 

Not true.  If it had been taken seriously in February, it would have just delayed the rise.  The same number of people are going to get this disease, whether they get it all today, or spread it out over the next couple of years.

There will be a lower death toll if it gets spread out, so hospitals can handle the load.

This disease is not going away anytime soon.

Spreading it out more would also allow us to find more effective treatments (whether that be a vaccine or more medicines like remdesivir). That can potential save a lot of lives.

bobzilla said:

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

What we've gotten are gov't using this to reach for more power and control.

This. My argument/issue/gripe is not fit for this forum. Gonna buy a shirt that says "Defund the politicians" Berkeley them all. If anyone is curious or wants to participate in a group buy in of shirts just pm me

bobzilla said:

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

The good news is I can still drive my car/truck/whatever. For now. Until they close gas stations for public safety or something. So tomorrow I'm headed to a city I truly despise to drop off a Miata to a friend who's feeding me the only good thing to ever come out of that city. Deep Dish. There are good nuggets here and there but they are getting fewer and farther between them. 

 

Man, you have a sad, sad life if you don't like Car Racing (in the US), The Blues Brothers, Bill Murray, Walt Disney,The Playboy Mansion (ok, that one is a strech), and most importantly, The Wienermobile.

In reply to barefootskater :

I know about a dozen people who would be right there with you

In reply to bobzilla :

well written, Bob. I think we might even be related...

Bob you need a hug

Bob, what is your opinion on Drunk Driving and the governments involvement with that? 

I am NOT trying to instigate. I just see it as a very similar analogy - you can make the choice to drive drunk, but it is something that very well may impact me in a very negative way. 

In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :

The answer definitely isn't to tell everyone to just stop driving. 

barefootskater said:

In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :

The answer definitely isn't to tell everyone to just stop driving. 

That was not the question. Are you sure you aren't a politician?

barefootskater said:

In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :

The answer definitely isn't to tell everyone to just stop driving. 

No, I agree with that - the comp would be to tell everyone to wear a mask. 

The funny thing is, most of those politicians are sitting in their mansions with their hot wives reviewing the bank statements from their numbered offshore bank accounts and they really don't care that a few guys posting on a message board are burning up a lot of negative energy hating them. They really aren't worried about any of us. Why do you let them take up space rent free in your head? 

Don't you all have car projects to work on? 

Snowdoggie said:

The funny thing is, most of those politicians are sitting in their mansions with their hot wives reviewing the bank statements from their numbered offshore bank accounts and they really don't care that a few guys posting on a message board are burning up a lot of negative energy hating them. They really aren't worried about any of us. Why do you let them take up space rent free in your head? 

Don't you all have car projects to work on? 

This. I don't really understand the need to make the same post dozens and dozens of time in this thread as if we don't know where basically everyone stands on the issue.

I will attempt to answer for Bob... to maybe avoid a slightly harsh reply:

Bob, what is your opinion on Drunk Driving and the governments involvement with that? 

Certainly a good thing in most cases.  What I have a problem with is being arrested for drunk driving while sitting in my parked car, not intending to drive anywhere, trying to sleep it off (which does happen).

I think one of Bob's primary points is using blanked laws (rules) that don't allow reasonable exceptions and are on their face, in some situation, just ridiculous (similar to how silly zero tolerance laws are in many situations).

In reply to z31maniac :

Pretty sure  The analogy is flawed though. An illness isn't a chosen behavior. Drinking is. Driving is.  We are free to choose to drink, and also to accept the responsibility of impaired judgement. We are free to drive and accept the risk that the choices others present a constant and very real risk. I know the argument is unpopular, but if we eliminated the privilege of driving, we would save millions of lives *edit* over enough time*edit*. Instead, we are free to choose. Driving isn't freedom The choice is the freedom. 

Snowdoggie said:

The funny thing is, most of those politicians are sitting in their mansions with their hot wives reviewing the bank statements from their numbered offshore bank accounts and they really don't care that a few guys posting on a message board are burning up a lot of negative energy hating them. They really aren't worried about any of us. Why do you let them take up space rent free in your head? 

Don't you all have car projects to work on? 

Sure!! Just no money to work on them because of the shutdowns! 

barefootskater said:

In reply to z31maniac :

Pretty sure  The analogy is flawed though. An illness isn't a chosen behavior. Drinking is. Driving is.  We are free to choose to drink, and also to accept the responsibility of impaired judgement. We are free to drive and accept the risk that the choices others present a constant and very real risk. I know the argument is unpopular, but if we eliminated the privilege of driving, we would save millions of lives. Instead, we are free to choose. Driving isn't freedom The choice is the freedom. 

We wouldn't save millions of lives though. Less than 50k deaths a year. By the same argument, being in a building not socially distanced without a mask is a choice that one can make, that can directly impact me and my family right now. We don't know that it will, but we know that it can. I don't know that a drunk driver will hit me, but I know that they can. I don't know that a masked person can transmit the disease to me, but I know that they can, it is just a much less chance - similar to a sober driver hitting me.

barefootskater said:

In reply to z31maniac :

Pretty sure  The analogy is flawed though. An illness isn't a chosen behavior. Drinking is. Driving is.  We are free to choose to drink, and also to accept the responsibility of impaired judgement. We are free to drive and accept the risk that the choices others present a constant and very real risk. I know the argument is unpopular, but if we eliminated the privilege of driving, we would save millions of lives. Instead, we are free to choose. Driving isn't freedom The choice is the freedom. 

No, an illness isn't. But the choice to use something that may prevent the.......

Oh nevermind. This thread is reaching Facebook/Twitter levels of the government wants to control me! Lizard people run the earth!

In reply to z31maniac :

Part of why I'm not on Facebook. I do not mean to come across as hostile or conspiracy happy or anything else. 
 

To be clear, I am not anti mask. I wear one in the store, in church, and anywhere I'm asked to or feel it appropriate. And I would hope others choose to do the same at least until we know more. The rest of my sentiments are political though so I'll check out of this thread for a while. 

The law does not require masks in most of the US. Drunk driving is prohibited by law pretty much everywhere in the US. 
 

There's a difference. 
 

The problem is we have no national mask mandate, nor agreement in states or regions. That leave individuals trying to decide what is best with minimal or varying information.  Once individuals have made the best choices they are able to, they feel they have the right to criticize other individuals who have made different choices. 
 

Why don't we have uniformity in regulations?  Well, I don't know. But I suspect it's because the data available to the highest level leaders is NOT clear. They are guessing. 
 

It's really not hard to get people to agree when there is uniformity in regulations. Even people who love to drink and get drunk can all agree that driving drunk is a bad idea. 

Paul, 

I'll disagree that the information on the benefits of wearing masks is minimal or varying at this point. It is pretty cut and dry: They help pretty significantly - to prevent the spread, and are also helpful-but-less-so to protect the wearer. When both parties are wearing it, the chance of transmission drops to nearly 0. 

Is that really still controversial?

In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :

I didn't say anything like that. 

...and I never have. 

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :

I didn't say anything like that. 

Ok - I apologize, I interpreted it that way.

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

Why don't we have uniformity in regulations?  Well, I don't know. But I suspect it's because the data available to the highest level leaders is NOT clear. They are guessing.

I feel like I have a pretty good guess as to why we don't have uniformity to regulations and it isn't because of the data.

In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :

I said  the regulations are inconsistent, and individuals are left having to interpret them. 
 

It's unreasonable for individuals to get upset with other individuals who are abiding by the laws and regulations.  It gets people pissed off. 
 

Consistent regulations lead to uniform actions and behaviors by individuals.