LINK Between Governor's PARTY, & COVID, Per Capita DEATH RATES

So there is no good argument for not social distancing and wearing a mask.

 

We're talking about total industry shutdowns.

 

Here is as good a single example of your specious method of arguing this issue as I could expect to find.

I. You cite ONE particular industry, not fully shut down, but largely debilitated by the pandemic. Unlike you, I do not narrow this to just government regulations or restrictions, due to the virus, since if there were no restrictions whatsoever, it is unbelievable that there would not still be a STEEP drop in restaurant business, across the country (though not necessarily evenly spread amongst all places, or all restaurants). Right now, fast food chains are operating, predominantly using their drive- through windows (as McDonald's) or delivery services (as Pizza Hut), I would imagine. These restaurants, early on, made commercials touting all their safety precautions, from food prep to, "touchless delivery;" it is insupportable to assume that having the government take a role in regulating this has not added to consumers' confidence in, & so business for, those restaurants.

The obvious problem with your let everyone suffer the consequences of their own choices argument, is that those whose irresponsibility causes them to contract Covid, are not limited to only spreading it to other careless individuals. This may be a fundamental difference between our perspectives which may be resistant to finding a fulcrum of agreement. Using our two, drastically-different scales of appraisal, however, devoids our even debating the issue (with our disparate ideas of the facts) of any cause to expect positive results, much less the idea of finding common ground, or even conceding equal value to the other's opinion.

A person cannot always avoid Coronavirus, even by wearing a mask & frequently washing their hands (& trying to keep at least 6 feet between themselves & others, at all times). But, as with any contagious disease, & many other illnesses, besides, the difference in exposure is not as clearly-marked as a light switch, between off (zero exposure) & on (being infected). The SIZE of one's exposure is an extremely relevant part of the equation. Six feet is NOT the absolute max distance Coronavirus can travel in the air, by a long shot: it is considered usually sufficient distance; a practicable standard to substantially reduce, but not eliminate, viral transmission. Likewise, the virus can go on living, for days, on containers one carries home from the supermarket. So the idea of CONCENTRATION of infection comes strongly into play. Each person who walks around wearing a mask below the bottom of their nose, contributes more greatly to the overall load of active viral cells in the places they pass through, than is simply a necessary consequence of that person's being allowed to do whatever they are undertaking. That is why compliance with protocols is a GROUP responsibility, not merely a case of individual responsibility & consequence.

II. You add that some other industries are also badly affected, or at least notably affected, if less-significantly than restaurants.

Though your stratagem relies on using generalized statements, which can later be further abstracted & inflated, and so does not dwell on details, which would tend to narrow the focus of your grievances (unless you actually had a boatload of specifics, which you don't), I will mention that the Airline travel Industry cannot have escaped being ravaged by this health crisis, as well as any, "hospitality," industry, such as Hotels/Motels, and industries which have these as a client, or which rely on those sources to transport & lodge their own, would-be, clients, for them (e.g., tourism-reliant businesses).

Again, for these types of businesses: A) there was GOING TO BE A SLOWDOWN, because of this virus, regardless. It was only a matter of how many were going to get sick & spread the disease, leading to outbreaks that surpass healthcare capacity, resulting in increased mortality, before those who were not insensible to rational thought, would all come to the same conclusion.
Hence, B) it would have been TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE to have NOT placed any restrictions on airlines, hotels, & the like.

III. You now add, "ONE Industry (restaurants)" to, "SOME other businesses or entire industries (e.g., travel, hospitality) to magically arrive at your concluding remark, talking once more about, "the cost of SHUTTING DOWN THE ENTIRE ECONOMY," after I had previously gone through extensive pains to debunk that claim of yours. But, after you, momentarily, seemed to accept that reality, so shifted your focus to just a single industry for a couple of posts, we find ourselves right back on 3rd base (inside joke, for those who aren't veterans of Chris's thread on California department stores being barred from having separate, "Boys," &, "Girls," sections). Or, perhaps my meaning will be clearer to you, if I say, "well here's another fine mess you've gotten us into."

 

There have been very few total shutdowns. Retail and the catering industry have been amongst the hardest hit but even they have been able to adapt with things like take-aways and home deliveries.
The point remains though that social distancing is an important way to slow the spread of the disease and therefore save lives.

 

Is there a "good argument" FOR the mask and SD? Can you articulate that "good argument?"

 

Well what country are you talking about?

 

Most countries to varying degrees.

 

I think that it's safe to say that this only worked with restaurants which were already in the takeaway/home deliveries business. I don't think that too many fine dining restaurants were doing a whole lot of takeaways and home deliveries.

 

No, my mention of that was this, which you should read again:

And are you not also saying that the cost of "SHUTTING DOWN THE ENTIRE ECONOMY" (other than at the beginning) would be too great to be warranted by the pandemic?

 

I thought that you acknowledged that the restaurant industry WAS fully shut down at times!

I already acknowledged this in a previous post, when I said:

"I think that we can very safely say that trade would have gone down due to less customers."

You're assuming that if not for the government regulations, businesses wouldn't have implemented any safety measures. Do you also think that businesses would start refusing service to black people if the Civil Rights Act was scrapped?

Correct, they will spread it to other non-vulnerable people, assuming that vulnerable people are protected.

Yeah, I agree with all of that.

Sure, but I do make a distinction between airlines and 'mom and pop' businesses.

I'm certainly not against restrictions altogether.

 

???????????????????

How are you, in your comment asking me if I agree with you, that shutting down the ENTIRE Economy, is too great a price, NOT talking about a shut down of the ENTIRE Economy?


To further clarify my earlier position: if it is not relevant to the current situation, then it is not relevant to our discussion.

I tried giving you leeway for your hypothetical examples, in this very argument, though in other threads, and the results were a dissatisfying mess, a bottomless rabbit hole which never led to a shred of benefit, as I well-explained my feelings about (especially clearly the final time you refused to venture an answer to one of your own questions, after you'd, over a span of time, pestered a couple of, increasingly specific, answers from me to the question, as if it was a crucial point).

So, I've drawn the hard line, with you, on, "for the sake of argument," type scenarios, which have no direct connection to the reality at hand, that we've been dealing with for a year, or that might be reasonable to, yet, expect from it, at least for this particular debate.

 

I am simply asking you, IF the entire economy was shut down, would this have been justified?

 

ALL potentially dangerous activities? You may want to think about that!

 

I am NOT assuming that. I am assuming that government mandates bring much greater consistency to the application of precautions and, in a pandemic, if the precautions are worthwhile, then consistency plays a vital role in their effectiveness.

Though you seem to have quoted all or most of my argument, your comments on each of its pieces do not show an appreciation of the argument leading up to the particular line you are trying to heckle. The point of yours I was refuting was that government regulations were solely responsible for killing business.
And your response is that, oh businesses, on their own, would've done the same thing without the govt. mandates? GIVE ME A BREAK. Do you actually have a solid point of view to explicate, or is your only goal to break my balls?
-- and yes, if there were no anti-discrimination laws, I am sure there would be some businesses that wouldn't cater to blacks (did you not hear of the saleswoman at a high-priced, Swiss store, that tried to suggest to Oprah Winfrey that she'd be better off going someplace with less-expensive merchandise?), though in many instances, it might be a policy that was enforced on a case-by-case basis.

 

Answered in the rest of the post you excerpted, as well as prior to this. It is nothing more than a hypothetical-- without even a stated purpose, I would add-- and so is irrelevant to our discussion.

 

Agreed.

Well I'd be most grateful if you would direct me to my post in which I said that government regulations were solely responsible for killing business. For the second time now, you appear to have missed this: "I think that we can very safely say that trade would have gone down due to less customers."

Well you've said that businesses would have at least done SOMETHING without government intervention! Sure, it wouldn't have been as consistent, but they would have used the health advice and implemented it to the best of their ability.

I think that I have made it perfectly clear that I have a solid point of view to explicate, given that it's what I've been doing.

Why would you assume that businesses want to go out of business?

Okay, so she didn't refuse to serve her then.