What are your thoughts on the Kung Flu?

[Jauwater]

Funny how the people who won't wear a mask are the same Karen's that want to tell a women what to do with her body because "every life matters"

Sent from my F1 using Tapatalk

What a morbid analogy.

Sent from my SM-S205DL using Tapatalk

 

[durangobrad]

What a morbid analogy.

Sent from my SM-S205DL using Tapatalk

More of a highlight of hypocracy, than an analogy. Both sides are guilty. Just saying if "all life's matter" and there is a chance that wearing a mask while your grocery shoping might save one person's life, wtf is it so hard to do?

Don't wear one while your driving, hiking, walking down the sidewalk, no big deal. But if you go inside a office, store, airplane, where everyone breaths the same air, just put it on, on the off chance it might save someone else from being infected.

Sent from my F1 using Tapatalk

 

[FatCampzWife]

You vehemently crusade for saving all the obese asthmatic diabetics from a virus but killing 900,000 babies every year is just meh, oh well.

Pretty sure you’re the Karen, Karen.

What about my not-yet 20 yr old student on immunosuppresant drugs for Chron's? What about that organ transplant patient on immunosupresant drugs? What about that healthy except for juvenile diabetes 17 yr old? I wear a mask for THEM, not those that refuse to live a healthy lifestyle. I wear a mask for those that were dealt a shi++y hand & are fighting like hell to live a normal life. It's NOT just the habitually obese-don't-listen-to-a-thing-their-dr-says heart disease 47 yr olds that are susceptible..,

 

[*zap*]

Yup, hopefully they start locking people up for speeding because it will save a lot of lives. People who drive drunk probably need at least 5 years in the can for the first offense.

 

[Glockster26]

What about my not-yet 20 yr old student on immunosuppresant drugs for Chron's? What about that organ transplant patient on immunosupresant drugs? What about that healthy except for juvenile diabetes 17 yr old? I wear a mask for THEM, not those that refuse to live a healthy lifestyle. I wear a mask for those that were dealt a shi++y hand & are fighting like hell to live a normal life. It's NOT just the habitually obese-don't-listen-to-a-thing-their-dr-says heart disease 47 yr olds that are susceptible..,

Why don’t those people just wear a mask?

 

[Dustin the wind]

What about my not-yet 20 yr old student on immunosuppresant drugs for Chron's? What about that organ transplant patient on immunosupresant drugs? What about that healthy except for juvenile diabetes 17 yr old? I wear a mask for THEM, not those that refuse to live a healthy lifestyle. I wear a mask for those that were dealt a shi++y hand & are fighting like hell to live a normal life. It's NOT just the habitually obese-don't-listen-to-a-thing-their-dr-says heart disease 47 yr olds that are susceptible..,

What about the guy with aids down the street? What about my aunt who is susceptible to pneumonia? What about the dozen people I know with diabetes? What about my cousin’s friends stepdad’s sister’s dog who just got a triple bypass? What about Jon Bon Jovi’s uncle with server undiagnosed hypertension? What about some sick person somewhere with something? What about what about what about?

See, I think we can all do that stupid crap.

 

[jmez]

Most of those same people are also at an increased risk with influenza as well.

I know this isn't the flu and not comparing it to the flu. But as a society we see the flu as an acceptable risk even though it kills 30k-60k like clockwork every year. No one is advocating masks to protect the vulnerable. Not many stay home with the flu. Where was the self righteous indignation when 80k died from influenza in 2017-2018?


Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

 

[blueyceman]

I think this sentiment wraps it all up pretty well for me, at least. Give this a read if you have 5 mins to spare:

Politics and screaming lunatics aside, you have your re-open crowd and you have your stay-at-home crowd. Generally speaking, of course, most people have a fairly strong opinion either way.

The stay-at-home people believe in taking the pandemic very seriously, and it usually helps if they have a living situation which isn't too much at odds with lockdown orders to begin with (i.e. they already worked from home/their job now allows them to work from home, they have food and comfortable living conditions, etc).

Those who want to re-open the economy and lift the orders seem to see the negative effects of the lockdown as far outweighing any possible threat from the virus. In my friends list, it usually means people in rural areas, not yet heavily affected by illness. The general consensus is that problems like loss of wages, lack of food access, missed rent, businesses going bankrupt, shops permanently closing, poverty and pending homelessness, are all more dangerous than the illness. (Also, in a more vague sense, some talk of possible depression and/or suicide rates going up.)

It is a pretty callous stance for stay-at-homers to just casually dismiss every single one of these realistic and practical concerns. As if anyone who wants to re-open is an ignorant, financially driven, asshole.

It is equally insensitive for re-openers to pompously flaunt their misplaced bravado in the face of a very serious threat, and belittle and ridicule those who feel they are doing the right thing to keep those they love safe and alive, by following the necessary orders.

Here's the thing though: you shouldn't have to pick a side and fight and yell at the other side, telling them how ignorant and delusional they are. The government should have the ability to solve both of those problems simultaneously.

The entire reason for a government's existence in any society is to solve problems and protect their citizens in an emergency situation. Sometimes this means military defense, sometimes it means gathering and stockpiling vital resources, natural disaster relief, etc. In this case, it means protection from the illness and the security of life's necessities, while the battle is ongoing. This is the system's primary job at the moment, the very definition of its function, and it is failing miserably.

If a government only works well when everything is running smoothly, but falls apart during an emergency situation, then you have to wonder 'what are you actually paying taxes for, exactly?'

So now, as citizens of the same inept government, we have to fight and argue with one another over what to do, because the government has put us in a position where too many people have to make a choice between living in crushing poverty or dying from an illness.

The answer to the problem can be seen in other countries that are not failing their people: You stay at home and guess what? None of those other bad things happen to you. Rent and mortgages are frozen, you continue to receive wages, you will not be fired, your business will still be there when it's all over, free food is delivered to your door, if you get sick you will receive your care at no cost to you, government services are in place to assist you and your neighbors, so that a very effective lockdown can happen and the infection rate drops very quickly. You still have your home, job, food, car, etc. and the efficiency of the quarantine means you spent a few weeks inside instead of depressing and endless months. Now, orders can be relaxed because the remaining infected have been identified and quarantined and strict testing infrastructure is in place to help keep it from a resurgence.

These things aren't happening in the U.S. because every system that could help make it happen has been stripped, dismantled, and defunded so that those tax payer dollars could be funneled right into various private bank accounts. There simply is no money to do what needs to be done.

For decades and decades the amount of your tax money available to this country for emergencies and necessary life-saving programs has dwindled, and dwindled, and dwindled.... while the bulk of that lost money has been shifted straight up to the highest of the elite, where they sit on it and put it in tax free accounts in other countries, hoarding it and never putting it back into the country. It's a slow and steady siphoning effect that has sucked the country dry and is now literally killing people.

Look at the wage gap. Look at the trillions in debt the country is now in. Look at the poverty level and the unemployment. Even in the best of times over the last few decades, most jobs couldn't even pay a living wage. The general populus makes less and less, while the stock market goes up and any programs or systems put in place to help the average person are killed and that money goes straight to corporate contracts and subsidies.

So, now what happens when there is a crisis? SORRY. We don't have the money. It's not there when we need it. Why? Not sure exactly, maybe ask Boeing... or Amazon... or your bank. Well, we can go further in debt and borrow a metric shit ton of money for a stimulus bill to keep the economy happy but, GUESS WHAT?!? Most of that is going to those same corporations and you get a few scraps, but not much else (5% of the first stimulus package went out as direct payments to American citizens). We have to keep big business happy over any other concern. That's what's best for everyone, right?

SORRY, there are no systems in place to help, we killed those. Unnecessary. There is no money, a handful of people have most of that now and they don't seem too eager to give any of it back.

Because the government couldn't perform even its most basic function, (preparing for an emergency and protecting its citizens when there was one) now we have to fight amongst one another over who is right: those who love poverty or those who love illness.

We're so busy fighting each other, we don't bother turning back around to the government and saying "Hold on now... What the actual ****?!?"

 

[jmez]

"It is a pretty callous stance for stay-at-homers to just casually dismiss every single one of these realistic and practical concerns. As if anyone who wants to re-open is an ignorant, financially driven, asshole.

It is equally insensitive for re-openers to pompously flaunt their misplaced bravado in the face of a very serious threat, and belittle and ridicule those who feel they are doing the right thing to keep those they love safe and alive, by following the necessary orders."

Pretty much the only thing I agree with in that article.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

 

[Btaylor]

More of a highlight of hypocracy, than an analogy. Both sides are guilty. Just saying if "all life's matter" and there is a chance that wearing a mask while your grocery shoping might save one person's life, wtf is it so hard to do?

Don't wear one while your driving, hiking, walking down the sidewalk, no big deal. But if you go inside a office, store, airplane, where everyone breaths the same air, just put it on, on the off chance it might save someone else from being infected.

Sent from my F1 using Tapatalk

How about the people who are afraid of the virus wear a mask, it's their right to do so for as long as they think it is needed. The rest of us should not be required to do so. Just cause someone is scared of the dark doesnt mean I have to leave my lights on all the time.

 

[durangobrad]

How about the people who are afraid of the virus wear a mask, it's their right to do so for as long as they think it is needed. The rest of us should not be required to do so. Just cause someone is scared of the dark doesnt mean I have to leave my lights on all the time.

Your analogy does not apply to how simple cloth masks help to lessen the spread of viruses.

So just because your not scared and don't want to help, you could be assymptomatic and spreading your contagions much further and at a higher rate all over the grocery store.

I'm not scared of the virus and don't particularly want to wear a mask. But I'm doing it for others. Not wearing a mask or face covering in close public places doesn't make you a patriot it makes you selfish.



Sent from my F1 using Tapatalk

 

[Trevor73402]

Your analogy does not apply to how simple cloth masks help to lessen the spread of viruses.

So just because your not scared and don't want to help, you could be assymptomatic and spreading your contagions much further and at a higher rate all over the grocery store.

I'm not scared of the virus and don't particularly want to wear a mask. But I'm doing it for others. Not wearing a mask or face covering in close public places doesn't make you a patriot it makes you selfish.



Sent from my F1 using Tapatalk

OK......wear your mask. Stop preaching here. I cant believe this shit is even still being talked about.

 

[Mike7]

What about my not-yet 20 yr old student on immunosuppresant drugs for Chron's? What about that organ transplant patient on immunosupresant drugs? What about that healthy except for juvenile diabetes 17 yr old? I wear a mask for THEM, not those that refuse to live a healthy lifestyle. I wear a mask for those that were dealt a shi++y hand & are fighting like hell to live a normal life. It's NOT just the habitually obese-don't-listen-to-a-thing-their-dr-says heart disease 47 yr olds that are susceptible..,

You should wear a mask for the rest of your life then. This is another virus among many viruses, bacteria, and parasite...out of thousands that we can and are exposed to all of the time. I take care of people who "you" can kill with or without the current coronavirus around.

As sad as it may sound to some, at some point maybe we all need to take a little responsibility for ourselves. These medical ethics issues that everyone is weighing in on and are suddenly so aware of since the media's abrupt about face and extreme concern beginning in March, have been around forever flying under the average person's radar.

Just some questions to ponder...

At what point does the nanny state go too far in your minds? What level of deaths is acceptable vs. not acceptible? Should I be prosecuted or persecuted for serving someone french fries and a soda pop or selling them cigarettes or selling them pesticides, as people are currently being prosecuted or being barred from areas for not wearing a mask? After all, all of these lead to an earlier death in ourselves and others.

A mask "may" help prevent someone from getting a disease in certain situations, a disease that will certainly spread regardless of mask use. Should we require mask use in all public places from here on out, like some state laws banning cigarette smoking in certain enclosed public areas?

Currently we have indefinite executive orders (not laws) mandating mask use in situations where contract tracing has not demonstrated any viral spread at all...why? Should this be legal?

 

[Trevor73402]

Unless this virus burns itself out, its here to stay. Just like the flu....... So its not really a matter of "if" you will get it, but rather "when" you will get it. All this mask shit, social distancing, nonsense, etc...... cant go on forever, and wont. The virus will still be here. Unless you plan to live in a bubble the rest of your life, get over it and move on with your business. Lots of America already is.........come on in, the water is fine.

 

[SlickStickSlinger]

Is anyone else seeing the plexi glass go up literally every establishment you walk into in their state?
It is at work and even in the dentist's chair.... I understand the purpose but it seems like conditioning to me. As if we are being broken down and getting used to it.

Anyone else know where else we see a lot of plexi glass being used long before the pandemic?

In prisons and jails ....

 

[204guy]

I think this sentiment wraps it all up pretty well for me, at least. Give this a read if you have 5 mins to spare:

Politics and screaming lunatics aside, you have your re-open crowd and you have your stay-at-home crowd. Generally speaking, of course, most people have a fairly strong opinion either way.

The stay-at-home people believe in taking the pandemic very seriously, and it usually helps if they have a living situation which isn't too much at odds with lockdown orders to begin with (i.e. they already worked from home/their job now allows them to work from home, they have food and comfortable living conditions, etc).

Those who want to re-open the economy and lift the orders seem to see the negative effects of the lockdown as far outweighing any possible threat from the virus. In my friends list, it usually means people in rural areas, not yet heavily affected by illness. The general consensus is that problems like loss of wages, lack of food access, missed rent, businesses going bankrupt, shops permanently closing, poverty and pending homelessness, are all more dangerous than the illness. (Also, in a more vague sense, some talk of possible depression and/or suicide rates going up.)

It is a pretty callous stance for stay-at-homers to just casually dismiss every single one of these realistic and practical concerns. As if anyone who wants to re-open is an ignorant, financially driven, asshole.

It is equally insensitive for re-openers to pompously flaunt their misplaced bravado in the face of a very serious threat, and belittle and ridicule those who feel they are doing the right thing to keep those they love safe and alive, by following the necessary orders.

Here's the thing though: you shouldn't have to pick a side and fight and yell at the other side, telling them how ignorant and delusional they are. The government should have the ability to solve both of those problems simultaneously.

The entire reason for a government's existence in any society is to solve problems and protect their citizens in an emergency situation. Sometimes this means military defense, sometimes it means gathering and stockpiling vital resources, natural disaster relief, etc. In this case, it means protection from the illness and the security of life's necessities, while the battle is ongoing. This is the system's primary job at the moment, the very definition of its function, and it is failing miserably.

If a government only works well when everything is running smoothly, but falls apart during an emergency situation, then you have to wonder 'what are you actually paying taxes for, exactly?'

So now, as citizens of the same inept government, we have to fight and argue with one another over what to do, because the government has put us in a position where too many people have to make a choice between living in crushing poverty or dying from an illness.

The answer to the problem can be seen in other countries that are not failing their people: You stay at home and guess what? None of those other bad things happen to you. Rent and mortgages are frozen, you continue to receive wages, you will not be fired, your business will still be there when it's all over, free food is delivered to your door, if you get sick you will receive your care at no cost to you, government services are in place to assist you and your neighbors, so that a very effective lockdown can happen and the infection rate drops very quickly. You still have your home, job, food, car, etc. and the efficiency of the quarantine means you spent a few weeks inside instead of depressing and endless months. Now, orders can be relaxed because the remaining infected have been identified and quarantined and strict testing infrastructure is in place to help keep it from a resurgence.

These things aren't happening in the U.S. because every system that could help make it happen has been stripped, dismantled, and defunded so that those tax payer dollars could be funneled right into various private bank accounts. There simply is no money to do what needs to be done.

For decades and decades the amount of your tax money available to this country for emergencies and necessary life-saving programs has dwindled, and dwindled, and dwindled.... while the bulk of that lost money has been shifted straight up to the highest of the elite, where they sit on it and put it in tax free accounts in other countries, hoarding it and never putting it back into the country. It's a slow and steady siphoning effect that has sucked the country dry and is now literally killing people.

Look at the wage gap. Look at the trillions in debt the country is now in. Look at the poverty level and the unemployment. Even in the best of times over the last few decades, most jobs couldn't even pay a living wage. The general populus makes less and less, while the stock market goes up and any programs or systems put in place to help the average person are killed and that money goes straight to corporate contracts and subsidies.

So, now what happens when there is a crisis? SORRY. We don't have the money. It's not there when we need it. Why? Not sure exactly, maybe ask Boeing... or Amazon... or your bank. Well, we can go further in debt and borrow a metric shit ton of money for a stimulus bill to keep the economy happy but, GUESS WHAT?!? Most of that is going to those same corporations and you get a few scraps, but not much else (5% of the first stimulus package went out as direct payments to American citizens). We have to keep big business happy over any other concern. That's what's best for everyone, right?

SORRY, there are no systems in place to help, we killed those. Unnecessary. There is no money, a handful of people have most of that now and they don't seem too eager to give any of it back.

Because the government couldn't perform even its most basic function, (preparing for an emergency and protecting its citizens when there was one) now we have to fight amongst one another over who is right: those who love poverty or those who love illness.

We're so busy fighting each other, we don't bother turning back around to the government and saying "Hold on now... What the actual ****?!?"

I love me sone irony. Plagiarizing an article promoting socialism is dripping with it. Thanks for that.

 

[Alaskanopolis]

What about the guy with aids down the street? What about my aunt who is susceptible to pneumonia? What about the dozen people I know with diabetes? What about my cousin’s friends stepdad’s sister’s dog who just got a triple bypass? What about Jon Bon Jovi’s uncle with server undiagnosed hypertension? What about some sick person somewhere with something? What about what about what about?

See, I think we can all do that stupid crap.

They should self-isolate. It's pretty simple.

 

[blueyceman]

I love me sone irony. Plagiarizing an article promoting socialism is dripping with it. Thanks for that.

I stated up front that I was sharing a viewpoint (implied someone else wrote it), sorry you missed that in the first sentence.

You're right though, could be a form of what people would refer to as 'Democratic Socialism' coming to America in Nov 2020.

When it comes right down to it, the choice we face come election time is rat poison or stale bread.

 

[MattB]

How about the people who are afraid of the virus wear a mask, it's their right to do so for as long as they think it is needed. The rest of us should not be required to do so. Just cause someone is scared of the dark doesnt mean I have to leave my lights on all the time.

Am I the only one who is starting to see the anti-mask and anti-vax crowds in the same light? At least the anti-vax'ers are mostly impacting their own safety rather than that of others.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I watched on the news tonight that the stats are proving if you are below 60 years of age, the corona virus is less deadly then the common flu. Anybody else hear the doctors at Stanford claim that? Or, are you puppets still too pissed at Trump to hear anything but shut down?