Anyone worried if Corona virus keeps spreading the gyms will shut down?

BigGame84

BigGame84

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Gun sales are at all-time highs. People are helpless, unemployed, and desperate.

Nothing to see here....
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Gun sales are at all-time highs. People are helpless, unemployed, and desperate.

Nothing to see here....
Let’s just hope that people are buying them to protect their lives and not to try to take things from others in desperation.
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I’ve read a lot that shotguns and pistol-caliber carbines are solid options for home defense, as they can both limit over-penetration. Shotguns are solid options because of their ability to stop a threat quickly, and their affordability and reliability, while PCCs are solid due to their low recoil, ease of use (for people who a pump-action shotgun may be difficult), sufficient magazine capacity (where legally allowed), and better accuracy than a handgun, as well as better velocity too, due to a longer barrel.

People knock Hi-Point, but their 9mm carbine is actually quite reliable and accurate IME, and from some reliable and in-depth reviews I’ve read. Disassembly is a PITA, to the point I don’t think it’s even recommended to do on your own besides barrel cleaning lol (and I think it has a lifetime warranty?), so maybe not the best for long-term use if you think it’ll be a SHTF scenario, but a solid cheap option for what has been normal life. The Ruger PC carbine 9mm is a bit more expensive, but still under $500, can use Ruger mags or Glock mags with an adapter, and breaks apart into two pieces to make storage/traveling (legally, of course) with it much easier. Having a handgun and a carbine that share mags is a really nice thing to have too.
Yeah. So I know very little about guns but have read things here and there. I am in MA and the shotgun is nice for home defense in this state because if someone breaks into your house and you end up shooting them, you have to be able to prove that you alerted them to the fact you were armed before you shot, and also that you were in fear of your life. The racking of a shotgun is unmistakable and pretty much clears you of the "alert" requirement.

But I also figure if I want to carry in public, a pistol obviously can be used for public carry and home defense. And all the shotguns that were left were pretty long.
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Hack Saw. Cut that thing down to a decent length. 18" is legal.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Yeah. So I know very little about guns but have read things here and there. I am in MA and the shotgun is nice for home defense in this state because if someone breaks into your house and you end up shooting them, you have to be able to prove that you alerted them to the fact you were armed before you shot, and also that you were in fear of your life. The racking of a shotgun is unmistakable and pretty much clears you of the "alert" requirement.

But I also figure if I want to carry in public, a pistol obviously can be used for public carry and home defense. And all the shotguns that were left were pretty long.
A shotgun is a solid choice for sure. Affordable, reliable, powerful, etc. Concealed/public carry is almost always going to be a handgun, so if you plan on getting a concealed carry permit, or even if open carry is allowed (I'm not a fan of open carry; I feel like it draws a lot of unnecessary attention and can worry people for no good reason. If you open carry in your business, that's a different story though), then a handgun is a solid option, as it can fill two roles (home defense and concealed carry), but a shotgun is a very solid option if your primary/only concern is home defense. But I do see the utility in PCCs, especially for people who a pump-action shotgun may be a bit difficult to manage, or the recoil may be a bit rough (reduced recoil shells make this much more manageable, but a 9mm PCC has next to no recoil).
 
HIT4ME

HIT4ME

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
A shotgun is a solid choice for sure. Affordable, reliable, powerful, etc. Concealed/public carry is almost always going to be a handgun, so if you plan on getting a concealed carry permit, or even if open carry is allowed (I'm not a fan of open carry; I feel like it draws a lot of unnecessary attention and can worry people for no good reason. If you open carry in your business, that's a different story though), then a handgun is a solid option, as it can fill two roles (home defense and concealed carry), but a shotgun is a very solid option if your primary/only concern is home defense. But I do see the utility in PCCs, especially for people who a pump-action shotgun may be a bit difficult to manage, or the recoil may be a bit rough (reduced recoil shells make this much more manageable, but a 9mm PCC has next to no recoil).
Yeah, I have a concealed carry permit. MA is concealed carry only. We even have a list of "approved guns" and gun manufacturers have to meet certain criteria and send the specific gun in for testing before it can be sold in MA. Many manufacturers either just don't sell models in MA or they have to modify the gun they sell everywhere else and have an MA compliant version. You can't even have more than a 10 round clip unless you can prove the clip was made before 1996.
 

JoePaul39

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
We the citizens of the USA willingly gave up their rights and freedom to the government officials who were offering “protection” to it’s citizens for the fear the media and health “experts” created in with media hype and false projection models of casualties that are constantly having to be revised. One day I bet the government will also persuade the people to willingly surrender their guns and 2nd amendment rights as well without the government having to file a single shot under the “guise” of government protection of it’s citizens from “gun violence”. They already took away a church’s first amendment Right of free exercise of religion and not inhibiting the exercise thereof in Florida by arresting a pastor for having service at his mega church. NOT defending the pastor for making such a poor decision, nor his parishioners for choosing to go to service and put people at risk, but this should be THEIR free choice, not mandated closed via government edict.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Cool, so the rest of us have to live with THEIR free choice, which puts us theoretically at risk. Their free choice is socially irresponsible, and should not be indulged.

What concerns me, is the possibility these same congregators take the same blase attitude when going grocery shopping. Ugh.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
We the citizens of the USA willingly gave up their rights and freedom to the government officials who were offering “protection” to it’s citizens for the fear the media and health “experts” created in with media hype and false projection models of casualties that are constantly having to be revised. One day I bet the government will also persuade the people to willingly surrender their guns and 2nd amendment rights as well without the government having to file a single shot under the “guise” of government protection of it’s citizens from “gun violence”. They already took away a church’s first amendment Right of free exercise of religion and not inhibiting the exercise thereof in Florida by arresting a pastor for having service at his mega church. NOT defending the pastor for making such a poor decision, nor his parishioners for choosing to go to service and put people at risk, but this should be THEIR free choice, not mandated closed via government edict.
Lol, nice try. There was no law specifically targeting places of worship; he violated orders limiting ALL gatherings/assemblies to no more than 50 people or whatever the limit was during this pandemic. So any law that limits the number of people that can gather in a single room/building/etc violate the first amendment? So all fire/building codes that establish building occupancy limits also violate the first amendment. Got it...

Now, if the laws specially targeted religion, or places of worship, you’d have an argument. Or if they closed churches period, but the issue was this douche Christian-in-name-only greedy POS refused to have any limits on the number of people in his services and how close to each other they were. There were hundreds of people basically rubbing shoulders with eachother. IIRC the local police wanted to work out a way for him to have smaller services, and he basically told them to f**k off and he’d keep having regular huge services.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
We the citizens of the USA willingly gave up their rights and freedom to the government officials who were offering “protection” to it’s citizens for the fear the media and health “experts” created in with media hype and false projection models of casualties that are constantly having to be revised. One day I bet the government will also persuade the people to willingly surrender their guns and 2nd amendment rights as well without the government having to file a single shot under the “guise” of government protection of it’s citizens from “gun violence”. They already took away a church’s first amendment Right of free exercise of religion and not inhibiting the exercise thereof in Florida by arresting a pastor for having service at his mega church. NOT defending the pastor for making such a poor decision, nor his parishioners for choosing to go to service and put people at risk, but this should be THEIR free choice, not mandated closed via government edict.
Lol, nice try. There was no law specifically targeting places of worship; he violated orders limiting ALL gatherings/assemblies to no more than 50 people or whatever the limit was during this pandemic. So any law that limits the number of people that can gather in a single room/building/etc violate the first amendment? So all fire/building codes that establish building occupancy limits also violate the first amendment. Got it...

Now, if the laws specially targeted religion, or places of worship, you’d have an argument. Or if they closed churches period, but the issue was this douche Christian-in-name-only greedy POS refused to have any limits on the number of people in his services and how close to each other they were. There were hundreds of people basically rubbing shoulders with eachother. IIRC the local police wanted to work out a way for him to have smaller services, and he basically told them to f**k off and he’d keep having regular huge services.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
"Howard-Browne kept his church open during the 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic and on March 15 told his congregants to continue shaking hands because they were “revivalists, not pansies”. He also claimed in his sermon that the pandemic was a “phantom plague” engineered by the Rockefeller Foundation to shut down churches and force people to receive a vaccine that would cause mass deaths, all as part of a population control scheme.[46][47][48] Several weeks prior, Howard-Browne claimed in a video that he would cure Florida of coronavirus."

If this is the type of brain-washing drivel that Pastor is directing at his followers, he's the most unlikely poster-boy for First Amendment absolutists you could imagine.
 

JoePaul39

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Firstly, the pastor was stupid for having services and I don’t support his decision, but that is not the issue, the issue is how does a law that prohibits gatherings of 100 people (or whatever the amount was) not UNCONSTITUTIONAL to as it would prohibit the free exercise of religion for any church from gathering that has over 100 members since they wouldn’t be able to actually choose to have “church” to begin with, after all a church service by definition according to the Bible is a “ASSEMBLING”, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is...” (Hebrews 10:25).

Also, isn’t it also interesting some states have deemed gun shops “non essential businesses”, how does that not inhibit the constitutional right to “bear arms” if the means to acquire the arms (the stores) are forced to close?

Both laws are unconstitutional and would be shot down by the Supreme Court.
 
Ricky10

Ricky10

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I have a question for you @Ricky10 (or anybody else if you know). I’ve heard that surgical masks don’t prevent it’s used from being infected by COVID19. However I see many COVID19 unit health givers using these masks rather than N95/FFP2 ones. What’s your thought on that? Do you think the surgical masks protect their users adequately? To some extend?
I am not the person you asked, and not in the medical field, but here are my thoughts - they would be wearing N95 masks if they had them. But they don't so they are using the best they have and even a rag would be better than nothing.

My ultimate opinion is a mask of any sort has a few functions - not so much protecting you from inhaling particles if it is not N95 - but it does help prevent YOU, if you become infected, from dispersing particles. Obviously if I am a contact point with a sick patient I don't want to become a contact point for all other medical staff and patients.

Also, it will still protect the user from putting their hands near their nose and mouth, which should reduce infection to a degree. Is it great? No...but even a 20% reduction could be critical if that is the best you can do.

N95 is far better...if you have them.
Yes, I agree with most of this, as that is a good answer. So much of this has been wishy/washy which makes things all that more difficult for us in healthcare and the general population. Droplet vs airborne has been another gray area. It’s mostly droplet, but has the potential to become “airborne“ given its extended life on a variety of surfaces that people then move around and/or from air currents. This is the best answer I can give, as nobody really seems to know. There are studies, but each one seems to always yield a different result, or is done under different conditions. It’s definitely more contagious than the flu, so I think an airborne element is certainly there to some degree. My hospital calls it droplet but treats it as airborne-sometimes.

We “mostly“ wear surgical masks to prevent infecting others, and we now must wear those at all times we are at work period- except to eat and drink of course. These virtually have no seal, so droplets still have a very good chance of entering your airways. They do however serve a purpose in containing an infected persons cough- making transmission less likely.

Due to the N95 shortage, nurses and RTs have been asked to go into rooms of pending COVID rule outs, wearing just a surgical mask and face shield- but the patient must wear a surgical mask the entire time. Keep in mind, this is now taking place more frequently in non-negative pressure rooms behind closed doors. I have personally refused to comply with this, and thankfully, so have many others.

Once they come back positive, it’s negative pressure, N95, face shield etc...

The thing about N95 masks that you don’t realize until you use them is that they get very uncomfortable rather quickly. The seal is quite tight, so it really irritates the skin at certain pressure points, and adjusting them becomes unevitable. This means touching the exterior of your infected (or potentially) mask with your hands and more dangerously exposing your nose and mouth to the virus than normal. I do this as infrequently as possible, and I make sure to put on a second pair of gloves- thoroughly wash my hands and go behind closed doors within my “dirty” negative pressure unit. I simply have no choice, and today it literally felt like it was cutting into the bridge of my nose. I was shocked to discover it wasn’t bleeding.

Even wearing the surgical mask outside of COVID units gets old fairly quick, and we constantly end up taking those on and off for various reasons- again, putting our hands up where they shouldn’t be. For the general public, I challenge anyone to wear an N95 (please don’t) and go about their day. As far as surgical masks, the consensus now is that it would reduce transmission, but don’t touch it without washing your hands first!

Damn, I didn’t mean for that to be so long :)
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Firstly, the pastor was stupid for having services and I don’t support his decision, but that is not the issue, the issue is how does a law that prohibits gatherings of 100 people (or whatever the amount was) not UNCONSTITUTIONAL to as it would prohibit the free exercise of religion for any church from gathering that has over 100 members since they wouldn’t be able to actually choose to have “church” to begin with, after all a church service by definition according to the Bible is a “ASSEMBLING”, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is...” (Hebrews 10:25).

Also, isn’t it also interesting some states have deemed gun shops “non essential businesses”, how does that not inhibit the constitutional right to “bear arms” if the means to acquire the arms (the stores) are forced to close?

Both laws are unconstitutional and would be shot down by the Supreme Court.
So if I build a tiny little Church building and try to cram 500 people into it, and the fire/building code tells me I can only have 50 people in the building/room, are they violating my right to assemble as I see fit to worship?
70AAA537-A339-4683-93D7-F6983C17E06F-40969-000022B7A7FEC47A.JPG
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Firstly, the pastor was stupid for having services and I don’t support his decision, but that is not the issue, the issue is how does a law that prohibits gatherings of 100 people (or whatever the amount was) not UNCONSTITUTIONAL to as it would prohibit the free exercise of religion for any church from gathering that has over 100 members since they wouldn’t be able to actually choose to have “church” to begin with, after all a church service by definition according to the Bible is a “ASSEMBLING”, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is...” (Hebrews 10:25).

Also, isn’t it also interesting some states have deemed gun shops “non essential businesses”, how does that not inhibit the constitutional right to “bear arms” if the means to acquire the arms (the stores) are forced to close?

Both laws are unconstitutional and would be shot down by the Supreme Court.
So if I build a tiny little Church building and try to cram 500 people into it, and the fire/building code tells me I can only have 50 people in the building/room, are they violating my right to assemble as I see fit to worship?View attachment 192744
 
puccah8808

puccah8808

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I feel like at this rate, gyms are never going to re-open again lol I was hoping for May 1st but now I'm thinking July 1st might be the best case scenario. I just think, especially here in the Northeast, you can't expect people to stay caged up for that long with the nicer weather right around the corner.
Is your gym still charging you? I saw it go through last month and I’m sure it’ll go through again this month. Damn, 24 Hour Fitness.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Is your gym still charging you? I saw it go through last month and I’m sure it’ll go through again this month. Damn, 24 Hour Fitness.
I got this in an email from 24 yesterday:
Based on current public health projections, it appears our clubs may need to be closed for an extended period of time. As such, we will suspend all membership billings, including billings for any additional services and fees, effective April 16, if we are unable to reopen clubs by that time in your area. For the membership billings that were charged from March 17 through April 15, members will receive additional days of access equal to the number of days paid for while the clubs were closed in your area. That extension will apply at the end of the membership. If you have a pre-paid membership, your end date will be extended to cover the amount of time the clubs are closed in your area.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Firstly, the pastor was stupid for having services and I don’t support his decision
You kind of DO support his decision and actions, when you justify them by claiming the First Amendment sees him free to commit them, no? Or how do you reconcile the two (1, you dont support him...2, the 1st Amend apparently does support him)?
 

JoePaul39

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Answer my question from my post. How does a law that prohibits gatherings of 100 people (or whatever the amount was) not UNCONSTITUTIONAL to as it would prohibit the free exercise of religion for any church from gathering that has over 100 members since they wouldn’t be able to actually choose to have “church” to begin with, after all a church service by definition according to the Bible is a “ASSEMBLING”, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner some” (Hebrews 10:25).

Also, answer me this as well are the laws that deem the gun shops “nonessential businesses” that therefore force them to close constitutional? In a free society those at highest risk, the elderly and those with preexisting conditions should be told to quarantine and it should be up to the rest of the members in society to CHOOSE if they want to quarantine. The economy should not be mandated by government edict to shut down, businesses closed many of which will never open again, millions of people be unemployed, and everyone forced to stay at home! Total government overreach in so many areas at a cost to many millions.
 

jrock645

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Answer my question from my post. How does a law that prohibits gatherings of 100 people (or whatever the amount was) not UNCONSTITUTIONAL to as it would prohibit the free exercise of religion for any church from gathering that has over 100 members since they wouldn’t be able to actually choose to have “church” to begin with, after all a church service by definition according to the Bible is a “ASSEMBLING”, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner some” (Hebrews 10:25).

Also, answer me this as well are the laws that deem the gun shops “nonessential businesses” that therefore force them to close constitutional? In a free society those at highest risk, the elderly and those with preexisting conditions should be told to quarantine and it should be up to the rest of the members in society to CHOOSE if they want to quarantine. The economy should not be mandated by government edict to shut down, businesses closed many of which will never open again, millions of people be unemployed, and everyone forced to stay at home! Total government overreach in so many areas at a cost to many millions.
Ok, I understand that you’re arguing on principle here. I get the argument. However... you mention the cost of telling people to stay home. You realize there’s a cost- in deaths- by doing nothing in this situation, right? It’s easy to criticize what’s being done, but do you have an actual suggestion for a better idea?
 
Last edited:
puccah8808

puccah8808

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I got this in an email from 24 yesterday:
Thanks for sharing. I think I unsubscribed so I didn’t get it. It’s stupid about adding to the end of the membership. They should have just frozen everyone’s account.
 

JoePaul39

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Pastor was stupid, reckless, and put his parishioners at risk is not the same as supporting his freedom of choice to do so. If someone believes abortion is morally wrong, but believes a woman should have a right to do so are they then supporting whatever she chooses? Illogical. Supporting that a choice should be present for someone to make a decision is in no way an affirmative support of a decision either way.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Answer my question from my post. How does a law that prohibits gatherings of 100 people (or whatever the amount was) not UNCONSTITUTIONAL to as it would prohibit the free exercise of religion for any church from gathering that has over 100 members since they wouldn’t be able to actually choose to have “church” to begin with, after all a church service by definition according to the Bible is a “ASSEMBLING”, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner some” (Hebrews 10:25).

Also, answer me this as well are the laws that deem the gun shops “nonessential businesses” that therefore force them to close constitutional? In a free society those at highest risk, the elderly and those with preexisting conditions should be told to quarantine and it should be up to the rest of the members in society to CHOOSE if they want to quarantine. The economy should not be mandated by government edict to shut down, businesses closed many of which will never open again, millions of people be unemployed, and everyone forced to stay at home! Total government overreach in so many areas at a cost to many millions.
It doesn’t prohibit the practice of religion or gatherings; it limits the size of a single gathering, and isn’t specifically targeted towards places of worship.

People with a half-baked understanding of law just put CONSTITUTION in all-caps and think it means whatever they want it to mean. They can still have as many services as they want, so long as they don’t exceed X number of people in each one. Just like a normal Church service can’t exceed the legal building occupancy, even if they want to, and think it’s the only way to worship according to their faith. If I have a Church with an allowed maximum occupancy of 100, and suddenly I have 500 members, I have to start a second (and third, fourth, and fifth) service to accommodate them; I can’t just spit in the face of the laws (that aren’t exclusive towards or targeting Churches) and cram all 500 people into the one room that only allows 100 and say “CONSTITUTION! I have a right to assemble as I see fit! FIRST AMENDMENT!” It’s laughable man...
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Thanks for sharing. I think I unsubscribed so I didn’t get it. It’s stupid about adding to the end of the membership. They should have just frozen everyone’s account.
Yeah, that’d make way too much sense, so of course they didn’t do it haha.
 

JoePaul39

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Ok, I unext stand that you’re arguing on principle here. I get the argument. However... you mention the cost of telling people to stay home. You realize there’s a cost- in deaths- by doing nothing in this situation, right? It’s easy to criticize what’s being done, but do you have an actual suggestion for a better idea?
Yes, my suggestion instead is advise those at high risk such as those that elderly or with preexisting conditions to quarantine and not force the vast majority at low risk to do so closing the economy down, leaving millions unemployed with record high unemployment, knocking companies out of business, destroying one of the best economies on record, taking away people’s rights and freedoms etc with no concrete answer on when the “shutdown” will end.
 

jrock645

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Yes, my suggestion instead is advise those at high risk such as those that elderly or with preexisting conditions to quarantine and not force the rest at low risk to do so closing the economy down, leaving millions unemployed with record high unemployment, knocking companies out of business, destroying one of the best economies on record, taking away people’s rights and freedoms etc with no concrete answer on when the “shutdown” will end.
yeah, but that won’t actually stop the disease from spreading. Your theory doesn’t work at all. It’s not just old people getting this. Your idea literally just doesn’t solve the problem. I don’t understand what you don’t get about this.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Pastor was stupid, reckless, and put his parishioners at risk is not the same as supporting his freedom of choice to do so. If someone believes abortion is morally wrong, but believes a woman should have a right to do so are they then supporting whatever she chooses? Illogical. Supporting that a choice should be present for someone to make a decision is in no way an affirmative support of a decision either way.
Yes, thats fair, I guess like jrock I was fishing for a practical solution from you as to how you would effectively stop this crap from occuring again.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
yeah, but that won’t actually stop the disease from spreading. Your theory doesn’t work at all. It’s not just old people getting this. Your idea literally just doesn’t solve the problem. I don’t understand what you don’t get about this.
Isn’t obesity a risk-factor for this? So most of America would have to stay inside anyway.
 

jrock645

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Isn’t obesity a risk-factor for this? So most of America would have to stay inside anyway.
well, I think my whole point is there isn’t a real cut and dry criteria of “just isolate x,y,z people, and let everyone else work.” We literally have nowhere near that kind of information to accurately define that. So trying to suggest any type of solution like that relies on a lot of ifs and buts. As they say, if ifs and buts we’re candies and nuts we’d all have a nice Christmas.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
yeah, but that won’t actually stop the disease from spreading. Your theory doesn’t work at all. It’s not just old people getting this. Your idea literally just doesn’t solve the problem. I don’t understand what you don’t get about this.
If the computer modelling (and real world results) are anything to go by, the very things he is trying to prevent (record unemployment etc) will potentially occur if we were to adopt his idea anyway.
 

jrock645

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
If the computer modelling (and real world results) are anything to go by, the very things he is trying to prevent (record unemployment etc) will potentially occur if we were to adopt his idea anyway.
yep. The truth is, our best bet was to straight lock everything down from The get go. If we’d done that, this could’ve been over in maybe two weeks, no more than 4. It’s gonna take a lot longer and cost a lot more- both in dollars and in lives- at this point. The longer we keep screwing around and being stubborn about it, the higher the price will get.

Forget about the economy. What we knew is gone. It’s gonna be a different world after this, like it or not. Fuss and complain all you want, but we’re experiencing a paradigm shift.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
^100% agree man. I initially thought the idea of closing borders, for example, was overreaction, but the benefit of hindsight I now agree with you completely.
 

JoePaul39

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Yes, thats fair, I guess like jrock I was fishing for a practical solution from you as to how you would effectively stop this crap from occuring again.
When would you stop the shutdown, at what point? No more deaths, if not at a rate of how many per day?Also, there we’re over 40, 000 people that died in 2018 in car accidents in the USA so by your logic why not make it illegal to drive? After all you support a shut down of the entire economy over a disease that has killed 5,648 people so far so why let people drive because people die from that so we need to stop it completely, right ? Also, by what “model” are you basing your decision on, the one that says Corona would kill 1.2 to 1.5 million Americans o the one they revised that predicts only 100,000 to 200,000 will die? Also, is any weight put on the lives of those that will not die, but have their life’s destroyed by this? If so, how much weight do you put on that for your decision? Should we do a cost/benefit analysis or is that unwarranted and we should just continue with a shut down indefinitely even if people start committing suicide because they can’t afford to feed or house their families like in the Great Depression?
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
When would you stop the shutdown, at what point? No more deaths, if not at a rate of how many per day?Also, there we’re over 40, 000 people that died in 2018 in car accidents in the USA so by your logic why not make it illegal to drive? After all you support a shut down of the entire economy over a disease that has killed 5,648 people so far so why let people drive because people die from that so we need to stop it completely, right ? Also, by what “model” are you basing your decision on, the one that says Corona would kill 1.2 to 1.5 million Americans o the one they revised that predicts only 100,000 to 200,000 will die? Also, is any weight put on the lives of those that will not die, but have their life’s destroyed by this? If so, how much weight do you put on that for your decision? Should we do a cost/benefit analysis or is that unwarranted and we should just continue with a shut down indefinitely even if people start committing suicide because they can’t afford to feed or house their families like in the Great Depression?
You absolute dolt... we can’t make driving illegal. Even doing so for a week would lead to innumerable deaths. No doctors driving to hospitals? Genius!

It is irrefutably a “necessary evil” with no possible alternative. And no end. Driving, that is.

This virus will EVENTUALLY fade out, treatments will eventually be more figured out and available, vaccines will be made, etc. Then of course we return to normal. Car accidents are not the same thing, at all. It’s not like we’re a few months out from eradicating car accidents, or making them so much less deadly and we just need to try to wait it out until we’re prepared. It’s apples to oranges man. No, that’s not showing how entirely unalike the two things you’re comparing are; it’s apples and battleships.
 
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
When would you stop the shutdown, at what point? No more deaths, if not at a rate of how many per day?Also, there we’re over 40, 000 people that died in 2018 in car accidents in the USA so by your logic why not make it illegal to drive? After all you support a shut down of the entire economy over a disease that has killed 5,648 people so far so why let people drive because people die from that so we need to stop it completely, right ? Also, by what “model” are you basing your decision on, the one that says Corona would kill 1.2 to 1.5 million Americans o the one they revised that predicts only 100,000 to 200,000 will die? Also, is any weight put on the lives of those that will not die, but have their life’s destroyed by this? If so, how much weight do you put on that for your decision? Should we do a cost/benefit analysis or is that unwarranted and we should just continue with a shut down indefinitely even if people start committing suicide because they can’t afford to feed or house their families like in the Great Depression?
I cant answer all your questions satisfactorily, there are going to be people unhappy with any approach to this and there will innevitably be more casualties.

What I AM sure of, is that we cannot let health systems become overloaded to the point of oversaturation and inability-to-care. That scenario will see us all fukt. Especially if we allow community transfer to continue. If keeping our health care system fully capable is one of our highest ambitions or goals, then we should be prepared to live with certain restrictions for the time being.
 
Ricky10

Ricky10

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Isn’t obesity a risk-factor for this? So most of America would have to stay inside anyway.
Well, I now have 5 positive COVID pt’s, and the 2 things they all have in common is obesity (by medical standards- they aren’t huge) and diabetes. 4 of them are vented as of today, one of which is my first female who I think was around 50 years old. My non-vented patient just arrived at change of shift, and was a 78 year old man.

The female arrived to my unit this morning with no significant medical history aside from being moderately overweight with type 2 diabetes. She was on 2 LPM (close to nothing) of oxygen at the beginning of my shift and stated she only felt short of breath when she coughed. 8 hrs later, she was on High Flow Oxygen set at 100%. We subsequently intubated her for hypoxic respiratory failure. I would have never predicted such a rapid decline, yet this is supposed to be very common.

My other dude that is approximately 60 years old and on ventilator support that I shared about the other day is doing quite well. Very stable and his inflammatory markers are downtrending. He has also not required an abundance of diuretics, which should spare him from renal failure.

I was actually very busy today and didn’t have any spare time to spend talking to my patients- aside from basic things. He was actually the patient I spent the least time with, as he was the most stable :). I hope I am working on the day that we disconnect him from the vent alive. That would be very satisfying for me!
 
Last edited:
Nac

Nac

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
Problem with basing decisions on corona virus models is they all contradict each other so you might as well be basing your decision on nothing or whatever model you like or fits your agenda. See https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/why-are-different-coronavirus-models-predicting-a-wide-range-of-outcomes-in-ohio/ar-BB121lhG
"One thing all the data have in common is a reliance on continuing social distancing practices to limit the chance of spreading the virus, Acton said"

Ideally, our actions and measures would be exactly appropriate and not involve either over- or under- reaction. However, as far as Im concerned, if we are going to err one way or the other, it would be preferrable to regret overreaction than regret underreaction. And I think we can say that quite confidently given that we are currently suffering due to underreaction.
 

CroLifter

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
  • Best Answer
I dont see this going away in less than 6 months. There are some projections that stated that pandemics like this come in waves and may take up to 2-3 years to pass, because at that point most of the population will have some type of immunity to it.

By placing these strict measures we are preventing healthcare system overload but we are also prolonging the duration of the epidemic.

So it is a balance thing. I come from country with about 1000 cases, and we have about 40-50 new cases every day. But still, strict measures are in place, which personally do not bother ME as i am basically a hermit.

But this will have huuuge impact on our way of living, i dont see us returning to the state we have been in before this crisis anytime soon, the paranoia is here to stay.

My advice is to make sure you have access to a clean source of fresh water, preferrably local (where i live, most of the countryside gets water from local wells), have food supplies for at least 3 months and means to defend yourself, because even though most people will bug in there will be those who will try to loot their way through the world.
Crime is already going up.
 

JoePaul39

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
You absolute dolt... we can’t make driving illegal. Even doing so for a week would lead to innumerable deaths. No doctors driving to hospitals? Genius!

It is irrefutably a “necessary evil” with no possible alternative. And no end. Driving, that is.

This virus will EVENTUALLY fade out, treatments will eventually be more figured out and available, vaccines will be made, etc. Then of course we return to normal. Car accidents are not the same thing, at all. It’s not like we’re a few months out from eradicating car accidents, or making them so much less deadly and we just need to try to wait it out until we’re prepared. It’s apples to oranges man. No, that’s not showing how entirely unalike the two things you’re comparing are; it’s apples and battleships.
I actually agree with your point that this pandemic isn’t exactly analogous to car accidents in that eventually they will figure out a cure in the form of vaccines, however it is similar to car accidents in a way as new pandemics and viruses will keep reoccurring so do we keep shutting off the economy every time? For example Swine Flu, “It is estimated that in the 2009 flu pandemic11–21% of the then global population (of about 6.8 billion), or around 700 million to 1.4 billion people, contracted the illness—more in absolute terms than the Spanish flu pandemic. Actual fatalities ranged between 12,000 to 18,000. However, 9 members of the CDC estimated 150,000–575,000 possible fatalities worldwide.” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine_influenza )

9 members of the CDC estimated 150,000 to 575,000 possible fatalities from Swine Flu, but we didn’t stop everything back then.
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I actually agree with your point that this pandemic isn’t exactly analogous to car accidents in that eventually they will figure out a cure in the form of vaccines, however it is similar to car accidents in a way as new pandemics and viruses will keep reoccurring so do we keep shutting off the economy every time? For example Swine Flu, “It is estimated that in the 2009 flu pandemic11–21% of the then global population (of about 6.8 billion), or around 700 million to 1.4 billion people, contracted the illness—more in absolute terms than the Spanish flu pandemic. Actual fatalities ranged between 12,000 to 18,000. However, 9 members of the CDC estimated 150,000–575,000 possible fatalities worldwide.” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine_influenza )

9 members of the CDC estimated 150,000 to 575,000 possible fatalities from Swine Flu, but we didn’t stop everything back then.
This.
The mortality rate in H1N1 (Swine Flu) was .02%
The mortality rate in SARS2 or Covid-19 is far more. 2.5% in the US.

Video Comparison of (Spanish Flu v. Swin Flu v. Covid-19)


 
Last edited:

JoePaul39

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
This.
The mortality rate in H1N1 (Swine Flu) was .02%
The mortality rate in SARS2 or Covid-19 is far more. 2.5% in the US.

Video Comparison of (Spanish Flu v. Swin Flu v. Covid-19)


The mortality rate of the swine flu is depending on what source you ask as I cited 9 members of the CDC estimated 150,000 to 575,000 possible fatalities from Swine Flu, but most put it at 12,000 to 18, 000.

The mortality rate of Corona will be coming down drastically in the US as more and more people are tested. The initial mortality rates were artificially inflated as actual testing was very low and limited.. Finally, many may have Corona and never have symptoms and therefore never be tested, thus this would bring down the mortality rate of Corona even further if we tested everyone. The truth is nobody actually knows with certainty an actual mortality rate of Corona. We do know however initial mortality rates for Corona have been being revised downward as testing has expanded.
 
muscleupcrohn

muscleupcrohn

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
The mortality rate of the swine flu is depending on what source you ask as I cited 9 members of the CDC estimated 150,000 to 575,000 possible fatalities from Swine Flu, but most put it at 12,000 to 18, 000.

The mortality rate of Corona will be coming down drastically in the US as more and more people are tested. The initial mortality rates were artificially inflated as actual testing was very low and limited.. Finally, many may have Corona and never have symptoms and therefore never be tested, thus this would bring down the mortality rate of Corona even further if we tested everyone. The truth is nobody actually knows with certainty an actual mortality rate of Corona. We do know however initial mortality rates for Corona have been being revised downward as testing has expanded.
And we know if we allow it to run rampant and uncontrolled, it will overwhelm hospitals, we won’t have sufficient capacity, and mortality rates will skyrocket. That’s the whole point of flattening the curve. Making it so we don’t have as many cases at one time, and that we buy more time to get the proper equipment, and better knowledge of how to treat the virus.
 
BamBam54

BamBam54

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
The problem with people trying to compare Coronavirus to things like car accidents and swine flu is that they suck at math. And reading comprehension. And cognitive thought.

For any other disease or danger you name, the fatalities are a fixed number. But THIS new pandemic jumped animal species, has no human defense, and is ripping through the entire population of the earth unstoppable at the moment. Spreading like wildfire with a fatality rate that could be 1-3% (*worse if it spikes and completely overwhelms hospital systems). With fatalities doubling about every 4-5 days. And then doubling again. And again.

Car deaths weren't 40,000 on monday, and then 80,000 more by Friday!! And then 160,000 more the next week. And the swine flu didn't kill 1-3% of its victim's (*almost 10% in Italy now??). Try that swine full math again with the latest numbers....

Jeeeez these dopey radical-right bible thumping arguments. No wonder Dr. Fauci is getting deaths threats.... sheeesh!
 
justhere4comm

justhere4comm

Banned
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
You cited Wikipedia which is never to be used as a source.

They, the CDC has the mortality rate at 2.12% for the USA currently.

192755


Get more sources, I have 3. You can pick and choose any by searching.
They all support the numbers I put up. Worldwide, Covid-19 is at a higher mortality rate. 3.4%

Our numbers in the USA are climbing, even with more testing.
Also, the CDC has been reducing the numbers attributed to Covid-19. I wonder why?

You were comparing it to the Swine Flu, and there is no comparison.
Are you saying the numbers will adjust downward to even close to .02%?
Any drop would be a good sign, and I would welcome it. I wish it were not so high.

Edit:
I would have gone to compare it to the Spanish Flu, because there is nothing like Covid-19 otherwise.
My wife told me about a 104 year old man that survived The Spanish Flu and got Covid-19. He survived it too.
It is possible. We should be testing that man to see if he could be the solution.
 

JoePaul39

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • Best Answer
  • RockStar
Well I admit I was wrong about something- I didn’t think it was possible for left wing folks to agree with President Trump on anything, but I I guess you guys applaud him for wanting everything closed. 😂 😂 😂
 

Similar threads


Top