Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Part IX- Now Featuring More Lockdowns

[usernamezrhardtodo]

Eventually it will occur to the decision makers if we locked down everything but true essentials this virus may have been contained, through contact tracing. It is and always was lockdown everything or do nothing, middle of the road leaves us with no winners.

Agreed....and that means no Costco or Walmart either...they keep pointing to other countries that had success but only do 1/2 of the measures...its comical actually.

 

[usernamezrhardtodo]

the vaccine does not stop the spread
We going to do this forever?

The vaccine doesn't stop the person from getting the virus..it also doesn't stop you from getting symptoms...so why are people expecting it to kill off Covid? If I gave you magic underwear to stop bullets...would you be bullet proof?

 

[Confucius]

The vaccine doesn't stop the person from getting the virus..it also doesn't stop you from getting symptoms...so why are people expecting it to kill off Covid? If I gave you magic underwear to stop bullets...would you be bullet proof?

Are we talking oversized long johns here? Then yeah... lol

 

[Brown Dog]

The vaccine doesn't stop the person from getting the virus..it also doesn't stop you from getting symptoms...so why are people expecting it to kill off Covid? If I gave you magic underwear to stop bullets...would you be bullet proof?

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Eventually it will occur to the decision makers if we locked down everything but true essentials this virus may have been contained, through contact tracing. It is and always was lockdown everything or do nothing, middle of the road leaves us with no winners.

That’s what Wuhan did. That’s what worked.

Wuhan (and all of China) already had a pro-mask culture, which massively escalated with sars 20 years ago. So even back in December everyone in Wuhan was wearing masks. The masks help a bit, but as Wuhan showed (when they were forced to crash build new hospitals in February ), masks and socials distancing aren’t enough.
What worked in Wuhan was putting pretty much everybody under house arrest.

so yeah, I agree. TRUE lockdowns is what worked. We should have done that for like a month way back in March.

 

[kb]

 

[Nineteen67]

When guys like this are directing health policy like this, it’s no wonder the public does not take them seriously.

 

[stealth1]

Its the same here. I bet if they looked into it they would find the same place where cases are coming from. In private homes where most don't wear masks or practice social distancing.

 

[hfman]

I am a Covid denier thank you very much, in that I deny Covid access to my body by properly wearing a doctor recommended facemask and by following all local and federal health recommendations.

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER

you are awesome bro

you should make a video called "I DENY" and have everyone wearing a mask pop up on the camera one after the other saying "I Deny"

 

[hfman]

I understand that it's a highly contagious virus. What many seem to gloss over is that for the virus to spread you need people to do it. If you limit the amount of social interaction people have it should lower the spread.

If people would just limit their social interactions on their own there wouldn't have to be lock downs.

yeah but not everybody can be like you and lock themselves inside alone for half a year and not talk to or see anyone.. for you it's ok, nothing lost.. but most other people have lives to live, jobs to go to, family and friends to love, kids to take care of and see off to school... you're not one of them so nothing lost for you.

 

[stealth1]

yeah but not everybody can be like you and lock themselves inside alone for half a year and not talk to or see anyone.. for you it's ok, nothing lost.. but most other people have lives to live

I haven't locked myself inside alone for half a year without talking to anyone. I have lived my life the past 6 months. You can still limit social interactions and live your life. I have worked this whole time, I visited family outdoors where it's safer then indoors, still went out to eat and shopped. The difference was I have severely cut down how much of those things I did. I do my groceries once a week since this started, I only eat out once or twice a month instead of weekly.

When I visit family its outside from a distance other my mom who visits as she lives alone. I try to limit as much as possible social interactions with others while still trying to live my life.

 

[hfman]

I haven't locked myself inside alone for half a year without talking to anyone. I have lived my life the past 6 months. You can still limit social interactions and live your life. I have worked this whole time, I visited family outdoors where it's safer then indoors, still went out to eat and shopped. The difference was I have severely cut down how much of those things I did. I do my groceries once a week since this started, I only eat out once or twice a month instead of weekly.

When I visit family its outside from a distance other my mom who visits as she lives alone. I try to limit as much as possible social interactions with others while still trying to live my life.

so what was it, 3 people allowed per household, plus another 2 from a different household as long as those other 2 live alone?

 

[stealth1]

so what was it, 3 people allowed per household, plus another 2 from a different household as long as those other 2 live alone?

Meeting outdoors is much different then meeting indoors for one. Its only supposed to be your own household only and 1 person can be added if they live alone. Why are trying to make it so confusing?

 

[hfman]

you said one household of 3 plus another two from a different household but only if that other two lives alone. You are the one making it confusing, not me

 

[stealth1]

you said one household of 3 plus another two from a different household but only if that other two lives alone. You are the one making it confusing, not me

I never said one household of 3 at all. I said the guideline they put out was for gatherings for Christmas it is your household only doesn't matter how many live in you house, and you can add 1 more person if that person lives alone.

 

[hfman]

lets say you have 3 in your household, and you add one more from another household. that equals 4.

So what happens if you only have 1 in your household, and then you have 3 people from a different household over - it still equals 4.

Is that ok?

 

[stealth1]

lets say you have 3 in your household, and you add one more from another household. that equals 4.

So what happens if you only have 1 in your household, and then you have 3 people from a different household over - it still equals 4.

Is that ok?

No it's not ok. It has nothing to do with the number of people. It has to do with households. You're making this way more complicated then it needs to be.

I will try to simplify it. For Christmas dinner it should only be your own household. Doesn't matter how many live there. Nobody should be joining your family for dinner. The only exception is if someone lives alone they can join you.

 

[hfman]

but if I live alone, and go to my neighbour's place who has 3 people living there, then that would equal 4.

Now if those 3 neighbours in their same household come over to my place instead, it still equals the exact same 4 people.

So that scenario is okay, right?

 

[stealth1]

but if I live alone, and go to my neighbour's place who has 3 people living there, then that would equal 4.

Now if those 3 neighbours in their same household come over to my place instead, it still equals the exact same 4 people.

So that scenario is okay, right?

Yes that would be ok.

 

[hfman]

but doesn't it break the "only one person from visiting household allowed" rule?

you'd be breaking the rules if you did that

 

[stealth1]

but doesn't it break the "only one person from visiting household allowed" rule?

you'd be breaking the rules if you did that

Then I guess you better go to their home instead.

 

[hfman]

what happens if the 4 of us meet out on the sidewalk. Can the 4 of us enter either one of our houses all at the same time, or are we still limited to just 3 per house?

 

[stealth1]

what happens if the 4 of us meet out on the sidewalk. Can the 4 of us enter either one of our houses all at the same time, or are we still limited to just 3 per house?

Where do you keep getting the number 3 from? Why are you still going on about this? There is no limit to how many are in you household.

 

[hfman]

you said it was 3. and that you could have two from another household, but only if those two live by themselves.

 

[stealth1]

you said it was 3. and that you could have two from another household, but only if those two live by themselves.

I'm going to say this for the last time and I'm done with conversation.

I never said anything about how many are in a household. You can only have 1 PERSON join your household if they live alone.

I do think I see your point in that they are making this confusing and it's no wonder people aren't following rules.