Airplane ownership CV19

[bonal]

Thank you PT I'm really bad at attaching links last time I did that the thought police pulled the video.

This whole thing sucks on so many levels kiss your freedom goodbye everyone our constitutional rights have effectively been destroyed by the... Ahh never mind I am so heart broken over what has happened and it's never going to get any better not ever.  We have opened a Pandora's box and the government won't ever let us close it again. They have assumed absolute power which we all know corrupts absolutely.  Mandatory testing mandatory vaccine tech companies actively tracing your every step your papers please, anyone ever hear those words before. We are so f....d

[carusoam]

just tallying the score...
 

Make that a three four fronted battle...

3) Battling the loss of freedoms... that’s a pretty serious one...

4) Battling the costs of money printing and other large scale economic activity... something to do with the repo market... Just when you thought finance was going to get easier.... somebody throws this one in...

I thought 2008 was scary enough... where everything you saved was in a bank that was not solvent... was forced to change ownership... and the value of the dollar look like it might fail....

Anything else need to be added?

There Are going to be more scary times in your life... the longer you live... the more you will see... anyone remember the flash crash anymore?

PP summary, I’m not intimately familiar with the ins and outs of the Constitution or finance...

Best regards,

-a-

[N9201A]

This is a very valid discussion for society to have, and its been missing in public at least.  How about we look at the long term, say 25 years, and ask what is best for society.  Should we do nothing and let the virus burn through, or shut down society as we know it. 
Imagine if nothing was done and 5% of the population was lost in one year, consisting of mostly of . those with pre-existing conditions and the elderly. What would things look like in two or three years.    Sounds horrible, but understand we loose something like 1.2% of the population every year due to old age.  
Contrast this with the current scheme of shutting down businesses and forced social distancing.   This will certainly impact this years death rate.   But the economic impact will also have a long term increase on the death rate, as well as the quality of life.  It also impacts a much wider portion of the population.  Look at Argentina a few years back and the impact of their economic failure or Venezuela today.
I'm reasonably convinced either decision will have no appreciable impact in 25 years, but I also believe the riskier choice is shutting down the economy, as the impact to society is longer term. 

Everyone always talks about the people “we will lose anyway”...they never seem to include themselves, their spouses, their parents, their loved ones, in that group.

We are ALL going to die, none of us gets out of this alive. That hardly equates to a rationalization of any one person’s easily avoidable death...except for some people.

Like TX Lt Gov Dan Patrick, who said he’d die for the younger generation...yet with us he remains, with no apparent progress on his vow. Why don’t those who claim a willingness to sacrifice others show us the way, lead by their courageous example? Even if their business is closed, go to a hot spot and help give those in the front line a break, even if it is only moving bodies or fashioning masks out of nylons and t-shirts. Acts, not words.

[chrisk]

1 hour ago, N9201A said:

Everyone always talks about the people “we will lose anyway”...they never seem to include themselves, their spouses, their parents, their loved ones, in that group.

We are ALL going to die, none of us gets out of this alive. That hardly equates to a rationalization of any one person’s easily avoidable death...except for some people.

Like TX Lt Gov Dan Patrick, who said he’d die for the younger generation...yet with us he remains, with no apparent progress on his vow. Why don’t those who claim a willingness to sacrifice others show us the way, lead by their courageous example? Even if their business is closed, go to a hot spot and help give those in the front line a break, even if it is only moving bodies or fashioning masks out of nylons and t-shirts. Acts, not words.

The analogy I use is a big heard on the African planes.  I feel like one of the antelope.  A lion is going to take one.  I hope I don't stumble, or I'm not in the wrong place.  But I also know for certain that the heard will go on.

More related to Aviation, I get in a small plane and fly it.   There is some chance the engine may fail and I may crash and die.  Statistically more chance than flying on a commercial aircraft, yet I do it.   Its the same argument.   The issues are larger than a simple counting of lives.   We avoid death with reasonable caution, but take the risk for a variety of reasons.

[Stephen]

I offer the following for entertainment value; it may be of interest to some.

 As a non-academic, I am going to offer some possibly useful theoretical context from academia that has helpful when I need to understand and engage particularly tough problems. Although it seems to have fallen out of vogue in more recent organizational management theory, I remain a big fan of the problem solving approach of "systems thinking" / "systems theory" (hereinafter "ST" for brevity),  as a general approach to high-stakes,  complex and/or dynamic problems. I think I have always been somewhat pre-disposed to think in this manner, but was exposed to ST as a formal doctrine and its organizational change leadership applications in b-school. Essentially ST is a discipline that recognize/engages the reality that complex and dynamic real-world problems exist as intricate and interconnected ecosystems that are multivariate and are laced with numerous relational/influential process loops that must be (at least) fundamentally understood and engaged to have any hope of creating a net-constructive solution. I.E passengers are not equipped to go into the 747 cockpit and start throwing switches & levers if they don't like the ride.  Regarding ST and high-stakes human issues (like COVID) If we don't deal with the complication of the system dynamics it is very easy, while trying to save lives, to end up killing more people. The following link (https://thesystemsthinker.com/systems-thinking-what-why-when-where-and-how/ ) says it much more succinctly: "Systems thinking expands the range of choices available for solving a problem by broadening our thinking and helping us articulate problems in new and different ways." For those interested,, Peter Senge has a few nice works on it; I like at least the first 1/2 of his 5th Discipline book and his annotation style to capture and explain complex system dynamics as a story. ST has a tendency to generate much higher quality solutions that tend to do better in avoiding the aftermath of an excessively "hold my beer"/knee-jerk/fire-ready-aim oriented approach. Low  resolution responses to high resolution problems, as we know, are often net counterproductive due to unintended consequences...those unintended consequences being due to unidentified/unattended system dynamics. ST also helps illustrate why there can never be  perfect solution to complex problems, but seeks to accept a solution that minimize bad outcomes and maximize good outcomes.  I think we humans naturally use what academics have formalized as ST when we consider big challenges, and it should  certainly be in play when considering our personal/national positions on the future handling of the COVID situation. Speaking of un-intended consequences, I read this last night:

“While dealing with a COVID-19 pandemic, we are also on the brink of a hunger pandemic,” David Beasley told the council. “There is also a real danger that more people could potentially die from the economic impact of COVID-19 than from the virus itself.” “There are no famines yet,” Beasley said. “But I must warn you that if we don’t prepare and act now — to secure access, avoid funding shortfalls and disruptions to trade — we could be facing multiple famines of biblical proportions within a short few months.” The WFP had already estimated that 135 million people would face crisis levels of hunger or worse in 2020. But with COVID-19, an additional 130 million people could be pushed to the brink of starvation by the end of the year. 

If the successful outcome metric is saving lives - currently there are 228K global deaths (the metric) attributed to the virus per Google this AM -,  consider even if this person is 85% overstating the case in his report to the UN (he is asking for money - $2B), we would have to have a massive increase in COVID deaths (metric) by the end of the year to approach break even with what may be largely policy based economic slowdown induced deaths (metric). I only offer the forgoing to suggest that the stakes of these type of challenges really require that we reflect and deeply interrogate assumptions on what outcomes are desirable/reasonable/possible/sustainable etc... and how much treatment we are giving all sides of the issue, Viral, Economic, Political, human rights/freedoms/responsibilities/limitations/supply chain inertia & fragility etc..

It actually may be that we are on the right track with measured social exposure management at the cost of economic impact to save lives.It may also be that those same measures may net big negative results in terms of saving lives because we didn't really look hard at how the who ecosystem is wired together.  I will say that I haven't seen a lot in the way of the justifications for, scope and duration of social distancing policy giving consideration or serious credence to medium/long-term  human costs of implementing that policy. The stakes are high, perhaps that side should be very seriously looked at. We may find that the current global economy is simultaneously more fragile and critical  to a massive number of lives and livelihoods than we have even imagined. We may also find that we humans are being a bit precocious in imaging we have enough information, intelligence and influence to jump in and prescribe sweeping actions to global-level events.

 

[Shadrach]

On 4/30/2020 at 5:14 AM, N9201A said:

Everyone always talks about the people “we will lose anyway”...they never seem to include themselves, their spouses, their parents, their loved ones, in that group.

We are ALL going to die, none of us gets out of this alive. That hardly equates to a rationalization of any one person’s easily avoidable death...except for some people.

Like TX Lt Gov Dan Patrick, who said he’d die for the younger generation...yet with us he remains, with no apparent progress on his vow. Why don’t those who claim a willingness to sacrifice others show us the way, lead by their courageous example? Even if their business is closed, go to a hot spot and help give those in the front line a break, even if it is only moving bodies or fashioning masks out of nylons and t-shirts. Acts, not words.

I don't think this is true at all.  Your post appears to be a set up to castigate a politician that you hold in low esteem. Fair enough, but there are plenty of places where folks can go to tear apart political red meat with the other members of their pack.  I don't think this is the place for that.  

I think everyone is concerned about lives lost both those close to them and the nation as a whole.  However, it is not possible to simultaneously personalize outcomes and have rational policy discussions.  Death indeed happens to everyone.  There is a cost in lives to policy decisions made in either direction.  Policy makers must make choices based on numbers, not their grandparents susceptibility to this particular disease.  Constituents should examine the policy of their elected officials policies with a critical eye.  The "if it saves just one life from from this deadly disease " trope is political tool to appeal to emotion, not a rational policy stance.  Citizens can take personal measures to enhance their own safety.  The yin to the shelter in place yang is not that you must now congregate in large crowds.  Indeed you have the option to remain inside as long as you wish. If you have a career that allows you to hole up and plenty of money in the bank, consider yourself fortunate.  There are people in low population density areas that have not been deemed essential and who's savings will be eradicated while debt continues to grow.  Many of those areas have not seen anything close to the levels of infection nor death rates as the hot spots in this country and abroad. One policy does not fit all places.  Maine has had 52 deaths since diagnosis #1 approximately six weeks ago.  There are currently just under 1100 confirmed cases total with over 600 recovered. Currently there are 32 individuals hospitalized statewide with the virus.  As of today, that is 1.03 Covid19 patients for every hospital in Maine (data here).  The governor just extended the stay at home order for another month.  The purpose of this shutdown was never about preventing the spread of the disease (here to stay and unavoidable), it was about slowing the spread to prevent it form overwhelming medical facilities and protecting vulnerable groups.   Maine's hospital system has not been stressed by this virus, current hospitalized cases are a about the size of a rounding error a when it comes to capacity.  This does not mean that some Maine resident's parent or grandparent may not die from the the disease. They likely will and it will be tragic, but it does not justify the order.  If there is a justification for this order, I'm open to it.  Yes, infections and deaths will increase when the order is lifted, but that will be the case whenever the order is lifted. So what is the goal? 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Shadrach

[PT20J]

40 minutes ago, Stephen said:

I offer the following for entertainment value; it may be of interest to some.

 As a non-academic, I am going to offer some possibly useful theoretical context from academia that has helpful when I need to understand and engage particularly tough problems. Although it seems to have fallen out of vogue in more recent organizational management theory, I remain a big fan of the problem solving approach of "systems thinking" / "systems theory" (hereinafter "ST" for brevity),  as a general approach to high-stakes,  complex and/or dynamic problems. I think I have always been somewhat pre-disposed to think in this manner, but was exposed to ST as a formal doctrine and its organizational change leadership applications in b-school. Essentially ST is a discipline that recognize/engages the reality that complex and dynamic real-world problems exist as intricate and interconnected ecosystems that are multivariate and are laced with numerous relational/influential process loops that must be (at least) fundamentally understood and engaged to have any hope of creating a net-constructive solution. I.E passengers are not equipped to go into the 747 cockpit and start throwing switches & levers if they don't like the ride.  Regarding ST and high-stakes human issues (like COVID) If we don't deal with the complication of the system dynamics it is very easy, while trying to save lives, to end up killing more people. The following link (https://thesystemsthinker.com/systems-thinking-what-why-when-where-and-how/ ) says it much more succinctly: "Systems thinking expands the range of choices available for solving a problem by broadening our thinking and helping us articulate problems in new and different ways." For those interested also, Peter Senge has a few nice works on it for those interested; I like at least the first 1/2 of his 5th Discipline book and his annotation style to capture and explain complex system dynamics as a story. ST has a tendency to generate much higher quality solutions that tend to do better in avoiding the aftermath of an excessively "hold my beer"/knee-jerk/fire-ready-aim oriented approach. Low  resolution responses to high resolution problems, as we know, are often net counterproductive due to unintended consequences...those unintended consequences being due to unidentified/unattended system dynamics. ST also helps illustrate why there can never be  perfect solution to complex problems, but seeks to accept a solution that minimize bad outcomes and maximize good outcomes.  I think we humans naturally use what academics have formalized as ST when we consider big challenges, and it should  certainly be in play when considering our personal and antiunion position on the future handling of the COVID situation. Speaking of un-intended consequences, I read this last night:

“While dealing with a COVID-19 pandemic, we are also on the brink of a hunger pandemic,” David Beasley told the council. “There is also a real danger that more people could potentially die from the economic impact of COVID-19 than from the virus itself.” “There are no famines yet,” Beasley said. “But I must warn you that if we don’t prepare and act now — to secure access, avoid funding shortfalls and disruptions to trade — we could be facing multiple famines of biblical proportions within a short few months.” The WFP had already estimated that 135 million people would face crisis levels of hunger or worse in 2020. But with COVID-19, an additional 130 million people could be pushed to the brink of starvation by the end of the year. 

If the successful outcome metric is saving lives - currently there are 228K global deaths (the metric) attributed to the virus per Google this AM -,  consider even if this person is 85% overstating the case in his report to the UN (he is asking for money - $2B), we would have to have a massive increase in COVID deaths (metric) by the end of the year to approach break even with what may be largely policy based economic slowdown induced deaths (metric). I only offer the forgoing to suggest that the stakes of these type of challenges really require that we reflect and deeply interrogate assumptions on what outcomes are desirable/reasonable/possible/sustainable etc... and how much treatment we are giving all sides of the issue, Viral, Economic, Political, human rights/freedoms/responsibilities/limitations/supply chain inertia & fragility etc..

It actually may be that we are on the right track with measured social exposure management at the cost of economic impact to save lives.It may also be that those same measures may net big negative results in terms of saving lives because we didn't really look hard at how the who ecosystem is wired together.  I will say that I haven't seen a lot in the way of the justifications for, scope and duration of social distancing policy giving consideration or serious credence to medium/long-term  human costs of implementing that policy. The stakes are high, perhaps that side should be very seriously looked at. We may find that the current global economy is simultaneously more fragile and critical  to a massive number of lives and livelihoods than we have even imagined. We may also find that we humans are being a bit precocious in imaging we have enough information, intelligence and influence to jump in and prescribe sweeping actions to global-level events. Just a few thoughts and questions. 

-- 

Stephen

 

It's been a while since I read The 5th Discipline. If you liked that, there is another book you might find interesting: The Logic of Failure by Dietrich Dorner that delves into the kind of systematic errors we make attempting to manage complex systems. Cause-effect time delays and unforeseen, unintended consequences due to complexity mess us up.

Skip

[MooneyMitch]

Our California Governor has ordered all beaches closed..... this is going to be a very interesting weekend!! 

[Hank]

13 hours ago, PT20J said:

I'm saying that this is a serious threat to life and the economy. In my opinion, we need to look at it like a war: understand the enemy, devise a strategy to defeat it, and carry it out. Just as we have military experts to wage wars, we have health experts that know how to deal with this. We should listen to them.

Any suggestion that we have to trade off containment for economic recovery is, I believe, a false choice. What will really kill the economy is if we let this get out of hand again and have to shut down a second time.

Before we worry about killing the economy a second time, we have to stop killing it the first time . . . . . . . . . .

[bonal]

58 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

Our California Governor has ordered all beaches closed..... this is going to be a very interesting weekend!! 

And has made a BILLION dollar deal with a Chinese electric bus manufacturing company to produce PPE as if there aren't companies in CA that could do this. After all it's only the sixth largest economy in the world.

[N9201A]

I don't think this is true at all.  Your post appears to be a set up to castigate a politician that you hold in low esteem. Fair enough, but there are plenty of places where folks can go to tear apart political red meat with the other members of their pack.  I don't think this is the place for that.  
I think everyone is concerned about lives lost both to those close to them and the nation as a whole.  However, it is not possible to simultaneously personalize outcomes and have rational policy discussions.  Death indeed happens to everyone.  There is a cost in lives to policy decisions made in either direction.  Policy makers must make choices based on numbers, not their grandparents susceptibility to this particular disease.  Constituents should examine the policy of their elected officials policies with a critical eye.  The "if it saves just one life from from this deadly disease " trope is political tool to appeal to emotion, not a rational policy stance.  Citizens can take personal measures to enhance their own safety.  The yin to the shelter in place yang is not that you must now congregate in large crowds.  Indeed you have the option to remain inside as long as you wish. If you have a career that allows you to hole up, and plenty of money in the bank, consider yourself fortunate.  There are people in low population density areas that have not been deemed essential and who's savings will be eradicated while debt continues to grow.  Many of those areas have not seen anything close to the levels of infection nor death rates as the hot spots in this country and abroad. One policy does not fit all places.  Maine has had 52 deaths since diagnosis #1 approximately six weeks ago.  There are currently just under 1100 confirmed cases total with over 600 recovered. Currently there are 32 individuals hospitalized statewide with the virus.  As of today, that is 1.03 Covid19 patients for every hospital in Maine (data here).  The governor just extended the stay at home order for another month.  The purpose of this shutdown was never about preventing the spread of the disease (here to stay and unavoidable), it was about slowing the spread to prevent it form overwhelming medical facilities and protecting vulnerable groups.   Maine's hospital system has not been stressed by this virus, current hospitalized cases are a about the size of a rounding error a when it comes to capacity.  This does not mean that some Maine resident's parent or grandparent may not die from the the disease. They likely will and it will be tragic, but it does not justify the order.  If there is a justification for this order, I'm open to it.  Yes, infections and deaths will increase when the order is lifted, but that will be the case whenever the order is lifted. So what is the goal? 
 

Forget idiot Patrick, focus on my point: Still waiting for first “people will die anyway” advocate to place himself (for some reason it’s always dudes, why?) first.

[N9201A]

It's been a while since I read The 5th Discipline. If you liked that, there is another book you might find interesting: The Logic of Failure by Dietrich Dorner that delves into the kind of systematic errors we make attempting to manage complex systems. Cause-effect time delays and unforeseen, unintended consequences due to complexity mess us up.
Skip

There is a lot to be said for examining what we think we know, and how we actually allocate resources in our system. Too few of us really look at the causes and effects of the myriad allocations of humongous amounts of money to various elements of our complex society. A clue is the fact that highly-paid lobbyists outnumber lawmakers in DC (last I saw was like 2:1 or something). Not a one of those lobbyists is being paid by any of us Joe Citizens...

[N9201A]

I don't think this is true at all.  Your post appears to be a set up to castigate a politician that you hold in low esteem. Fair enough, but there are plenty of places where folks can go to tear apart political red meat with the other members of their pack.  I don't think this is the place for that.  

So what is the goal? 
 

I agree that this is not the place for political red meat, as you put it. That said, I’ve determined I’m not willing to sit idly by any more and permit disinformation, cowardice and mean-spiritedness to go unchallenged. So anyone making a “red meat” comment here is fair game for a reply.

I do not put your reply to my comment in that category, as you raise an important issue that is nonpartisan: How do we make choices that affect us all? And even more important, what is the goal?

If our leadership focused on asking and answering these questions with a focus on executing their sworn duties (instead of getting re-elected, lining their own pockets or their own self-interest), we would all be much better off.

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, N9201A said:

 

I agree that this is not the place for political red meat, as you put it. That said, I’ve determined I’m not willing to sit idly by any more and permit disinformation, cowardice and mean-spiritedness to go unchallenged. So anyone making a “red meat” comment here is fair game for a reply.

I do not put your reply to my comment in that category, as you raise an important issue that is nonpartisan: How do we make choices that affect us all? And even more important, what is the goal?

If our leadership focused on asking and answering these questions with a focus on executing their sworn duties (instead of getting re-elected, lining their own pockets or their own self-interest), we would all be much better off.

 

These are state level decisions based on federal guidelines. The feds did not mandate anyone lockdown. If they had, New York would’ve been close seven days earlier. I get it, you hate the guy in the oval office. That has nothing to do with why the state of Maine is still closed. Maine is just one of many examples. Again I ask. If the goal of lockdown was to prevent the hospital system from becoming overwhelmed and low density population regions show no signs of being anywhere near a fraction of capacity much less overwhelmed, what is the reason for the lockdown?

And “Trump is a lousy, steaming, pile of GD#&$~#***<“ is not an argument. At least not much of one.

As for people putting themselves in harms way...Anyone who’s willing to go back to work is doing that to some degree. 

I’ve not looked through the whole thread so it’d be helpful if you’d quote the rotten sons a bitches spreading that “disinformation, cowardice and mean-spiritedness” that you’re not going to allow to go unchallenged. 

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Shadrach
Lousy iPhone dictation

[David_H]

37 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

It has nothing to do with why the state of Maine is still closed. Maine is just one of many examples. Again I ask. If the goal lockdown was to prevent the hospital system from becoming overwhelmed And low density population areas show no signs I’ve been anywhere near a fraction of capacity much less overwhelmed, what is the reason for the lockdown?

The answer to this question would put most other questions on this issue to rest. This question has been asked over and over... in many different ways. Why is this fundamental question not the focus of conversation?

Edited April 30, 2020 by David_H
Adendum: Why is this fundamental question not the focus of conversation?

[Shadrach]

37 minutes ago, David_H said:

The answer to this question would put most other questions on this issue to rest. This question has been asked over and over... in many different ways. Why is this fundamental question not the focus of conversation?

I really need to proofread iPhone talk to text posts.  I’m glad you were able to decipher what I was trying to say!

[David_H]

17 hours ago, PT20J said:

No. I never said that. 

I'm saying that this is a serious threat to life and the economy. In my opinion, we need to look at it like a war: understand the enemy, devise a strategy to defeat it, and carry it out. Just as we have military experts to wage wars, we have health experts that know how to deal with this. We should listen to them.

Any suggestion that we have to trade off containment for economic recovery is, I believe, a false choice. What will really kill the economy is if we let this get out of hand again and have to shut down a second time. 

Skip

I had to take a few moments to think about this one. Thanks for the conversation and giving me an opportunity to let the topic marinate. You raised some valid points.

Let's say this should be viewed as a war as you propose. By definition, war requires a conflict between two or more entities (states, nations, opposing factions, etc...). That raises the question, who (or what) is the enemy or opposing faction? Perhaps more important, what would constitute victory? A conflict without a defined objective doesn't seem as if it can be considered war. 

There is a hierarchy to all matters. CV-19 has a cause. A war objective would be to address the cause... not address the resulting symptoms. However, war is such a strong word that can sometimes be unknowingly tossed around without fully considering its implications.

If one were to frame CV-19 as the enemy in which a war is to be waged, some scenarios (in no particular order) that could be used support that context are shown below.

1. The virus was developed and deployed by China. Should we consider war with China for the resulting disease?
2. The virus was developed and accidentally released by China. Again, should we be consider war with China for the resulting disease or exercise forgiveness? Then what?
3. The virus was deployed (intentionally or accidentally) by the US government. Should the government be overthrown?
4. The virus was developed and accidentally released by some other faction. Should an investigation be launched?
5. The virus was a development of nature. Should we then declare war against mother nature? That's one war I don't think anyone can win... so why consider it.

Note: I'm not advocating that any of the scenarios shown above are complete, correct, or would be beneficial to anyone.

Thanks again to everyone for engaging in a positive discussion. While politics are certainly fueling policy decisions, most everyone here has graciously left their political bias at the door.

[PT20J]

I didn’t say it was a war; I said we should look at it like a war (actually that analogy came from the president, not me). All analogies break down if carried on to absurdity. 

[DXB]

48 minutes ago, David_H said:

There is a hierarchy to all matters. CV-19 has a cause. A war objective would be to address the cause... not address the resulting symptoms. However, war is such a strong word that can sometimes be unknowingly tossed around without fully considering its implications.

If one were to frame CV-19 as the enemy in which a war is to be waged, some scenarios (in no particular order) that could be used support that context are shown below.

1. The virus was developed and deployed by China. Should we consider war with China for the resulting disease?
2. The virus was developed and accidentally released by China. Again, should we be consider war with China for the resulting disease or exercise forgiveness? Then what?
3. The virus was deployed (intentionally or accidentally) by the US government. Should the government be overthrown?
4. The virus was developed and accidentally released by some other faction. Should an investigation be launched?
5. The virus was a development of nature. Should we then declare war against mother nature? That's one war I don't think anyone can win... so why consider it.

Note: I'm not advocating that any of the scenarios shown above are complete, correct, or would be beneficial to anyone.

Thanks again to everyone for engaging in a positive discussion. While politics are certainly fueling policy decisions, most everyone here has graciously left their political bias at the door.

Not trying to put words in your mouth as someone advocating the above scenarios. However the science suggesting how this virus came into existence as a natural recombination event between bat and pangolin coronavirus lineages is compellingly strong. And the barriers to successful, intentional creation of SARS-CoV2 as biological warfare agent by the Chinese or anyone else are spectacularly high. Our best virologists couldn't do it if they wanted to, and the Chinese remain eons behind us in this area.  It may have come from a wet market or perhaps a lab in Wuhan but it was certainly not intentional.  This line of discussion is not productive.  

[David_H]

19 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I didn’t say it was a war; I said we should look at it like a war (actually that analogy came from the president, not me). All analogies break down if carried on to absurdity. 

What does "like a war" mean?

You may choose not to answer and that's fine. However, this is an honest question.

[DXB]

1 minute ago, David_H said:

What does "like a war" mean?

You may choose not to answer and that's fine. However, this is an honest question.

Not to put words in Skip's mouth either, but for instance, huge industries completely shifting their manufacturing focus (e.g. GM and Ford presently making ventilators), all kinds of other companies now making PPE.  The industry for routine health care screeching to a halt, many being redeployed to COVID19-related activities.  The metaphor is really a pretty good one. 

[David_H]

21 minutes ago, DXB said:

Not trying to put words in your mouth as someone advocating the above scenarios.

To be fair, I did state the following. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear though.

1 hour ago, David_H said:

Note: I'm not advocating that any of the scenarios shown above are complete, correct, or would be beneficial to anyone.

War is such a strong, well-defined, and specific word. There is only one context for it and the results are never favorable for anyone involved. It's a very rigid word that has taken many lives in the past and I personally have a great deal of respect for the implications that the word war brings. It's my opinion that some words cannot be bent or modified to put a narrative into context.

However, this is just one persons view. Perhaps I'm wrong.

[BorealOne]

I think a better question at the moment is "what does winning look like?". To quote the great philosopher Kenny Rogers, "there'll be time enough for countin', when the dealin's done"

Given that we are dealing with a viral pandemic, I think the only responsible answer to that question is when R (the effective infection rate) is less than 1, and likely to stay that way. Anything else means that the virus is winning, spreading faster than it can be contained, or likely to do so.

So what are the 'winning conditions'? R < 1 happens when there is sufficient herd immunity so that it can't spread easily (either through a vaccine or through exposure/recovery/immunity).   

Until we get there, testing, tracing and social distancing are going to be necessary. And that's where policies will differ. Folks who want to take a deep dive into the theory, evidence and tech that might help end the lockdowns, open the economy and avoid a lot of people getting sick or dead on the way to R < 1 might want to read my favourite explainer Tomas Pueyo's latest piece. 30m read, but super informative re: how we humans might use our brains to win against a stupid virus.

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-how-to-do-testing-and-contact-tracing-bde85b64072e

 

[N201MKTurbo]

I'm mad as hell and want to do something drastic, just don't know what that would be. I'm sick and tired of having my rights taken away for nothing. Our Governor is a wuss. He will never get my vote again... EVER! I will actively campaign against him. If I cant defeat him in the primary, I might even vote for a democrat! 

[BorealOne]