By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread

EricHiggin said:
curl-6 said:

Should we just give people absolute freedom to drive any speed they want? To drive on the sidewalks? To drive drunk? Of course not. Safety measures need to be put in place to protect human lives. It's the same with masks and other anti-COVID measures. 

So when COVID is all over with and the Gov decides, 'now it's time to solve MOVED' (motor vehicle deaths), when they outlaw motor vehicles, as inconvenient as that would be, you and most others worldwide will get on board and put your best foot forward to save every last life possible?

That's not analogous; we already take measures to prevent motor vehicle deaths like speed limits and other road rules, airbags, seatbelts, not letting people drive drunk, etc. The common sense thing to do is to take equivalent action to protect human life during a pandemic.



Around the Network
SvennoJ said:
EricHiggin said:

As I said prior, free to choose, within reason.

Most people will make the more logical choice if it's properly presented to them by trustworthy sources. If you can't convince those people, it's just as much your problem as theirs. Forcing them to comply is not the right answer. It will eventually lead to the opposite of what you're trying to achieve.

How would you convince our fellow Ontarians to do the right thing? It's not working, yet another new record today. How many chances do you give before resorting to lock downs.

By now we have enough examples of what works and what doesn't. Letting it up to the people to self regulate their social distancing has proven not to work. Pls reduce your contacts by 25% so the spread goes down again was the message a couple months ago. Then, if this continues we'll have to add extra measures. Now we're getting into heavier measure again.

I'm not sure there is a way anymore nowadays with social media and people self isolating in self reinforcing 'news' groups. Government has successfully eroded all trust in government over the past decades. A direct result when political campaigns resort to making the other side look bad, which is the new standard. All you hear during election time is what everyone did wrong and is going to eff up. Why would people trust the government or anyone they appoint to speak for them.

I don't have any answers, I'm staying home. Doing my groceries once a week, 8 AM right as the store opens, air still uncontaminated, nice and quiet, mask on, sanitizer handy.

Our news went from talking about the increasing death rate non stop, to never mentioning it, and talking about the increasing spread rate instead. Odd...

Ontario/T.O. news is always pointing out how our premier or the other provincial premiers of the same party are screwing up, even if opposition premiers aren't doing any better if not worse, no matter the subject. They rarely talk about the P.M. and when they do it's super rare to cast a negative light, no matter how legit.

Want to know what would help a lot in terms of covid? Talking about the death rate when it comes to many things, like the common cold and flu. Why it was never brought up before is one thing, but regardless, how about talk about other important life and death related illnesses to show you're at the least willing to try and do your job, even if done poorly.

You can't cry wolf over and over then expect people to come running when there is actually a problem. As some like to say, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If you don't want to conduct yourself in a manner that will remain relevant and trustworthy in the future, you're going to pay for it down the road. The more power you have, the more who will be negatively impacted. Considering the public themselves allow this, it's partially on them as well.



curl-6 said:
EricHiggin said:

So when COVID is all over with and the Gov decides, 'now it's time to solve MOVED' (motor vehicle deaths), when they outlaw motor vehicles, as inconvenient as that would be, you and most others worldwide will get on board and put your best foot forward to save every last life possible?

That's not analogous; we already take measures to prevent motor vehicle deaths like speed limits and other road rules, airbags, seatbelts, not letting people drive drunk, etc. The common sense thing to do is to take equivalent action to protect human life during a pandemic.

Not everyone follows the driving laws, and even those who do, still get injured and die, yet no highway lockdowns.

Some people don't wear masks, even those who do get sick or die, yet we lock everyone down.

The covid pandemic lockdown may be inconvenient, but it's worth it, even if others and the economy suffers. The 'movid pandemic' however, is no different in that sense, yet let's disregard that.

This is hypocrisy, and many will not stand for that. My way or the highway, is no way to get people behind you.



EricHiggin said:
curl-6 said:

That's not analogous; we already take measures to prevent motor vehicle deaths like speed limits and other road rules, airbags, seatbelts, not letting people drive drunk, etc. The common sense thing to do is to take equivalent action to protect human life during a pandemic.

Not everyone follows the driving laws, and even those who do, still get injured and die, yet no highway lockdowns.

Some people don't wear masks, even those who do get sick or die, yet we lock everyone down.

The covid pandemic lockdown may be inconvenient, but it's worth it, even if others and the economy suffers. The 'movid pandemic' however, is no different in that sense, yet let's disregard that.

This is hypocrisy, and many will not stand for that. My way or the highway, is no way to get people behind you.

There's no hypocrisy. In both cases, practical solutions to protect human lives should be implemented and mandated to minimise preventable mortality and morbidity. In times of crisis, temporary inconveniences are sometimes necessary; that's not authoritarian, that's just being responsible and realistic.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 17 December 2020

EricHiggin said:
curl-6 said:

That's not analogous; we already take measures to prevent motor vehicle deaths like speed limits and other road rules, airbags, seatbelts, not letting people drive drunk, etc. The common sense thing to do is to take equivalent action to protect human life during a pandemic.

Not everyone follows the driving laws, and even those who do, still get injured and die, yet no highway lockdowns.

Some people don't wear masks, even those who do get sick or die, yet we lock everyone down.

The covid pandemic lockdown may be inconvenient, but it's worth it, even if others and the economy suffers. The 'movid pandemic' however, is no different in that sense, yet let's disregard that.

This is hypocrisy, and many will not stand for that. My way or the highway, is no way to get people behind you.

the reason traffic deaths aren't thought of as a pandemic is because they aren't contagious (or even if you're going to make a stupid analogy between car accidents and getting others sick it's not contagious in nearly the same way). Also traffic accidents kill an order of magnitude less people, so there's that. 



...

Around the Network
curl-6 said:
EricHiggin said:

Not everyone follows the driving laws, and even those who do, still get injured and die, yet no highway lockdowns.

Some people don't wear masks, even those who do get sick or die, yet we lock everyone down.

The covid pandemic lockdown may be inconvenient, but it's worth it, even if others and the economy suffers. The 'movid pandemic' however, is no different in that sense, yet let's disregard that.

This is hypocrisy, and many will not stand for that. My way or the highway, is no way to get people behind you.

There's no hypocrisy. In both cases, practical solutions to protect human lives should be implemented and mandated to minimise preventable mortality and morbidity. In times of crisis, temporary inconveniences are sometimes necessary; that's not authoritarian, that's just being responsible and realistic.

Some don't follow the driving rules, leading to perhaps a pile up of deaths, and best case, we punish them and only them.

Some don't follow the masking and social distancing rules, leading to deaths, and yet we punished everyone.

This is hypocrisy. Most people don't and won't blindly follow hypocrites. Things could have been different.



Torillian said:
EricHiggin said:

Not everyone follows the driving laws, and even those who do, still get injured and die, yet no highway lockdowns.

Some people don't wear masks, even those who do get sick or die, yet we lock everyone down.

The covid pandemic lockdown may be inconvenient, but it's worth it, even if others and the economy suffers. The 'movid pandemic' however, is no different in that sense, yet let's disregard that.

This is hypocrisy, and many will not stand for that. My way or the highway, is no way to get people behind you.

the reason traffic deaths aren't thought of as a pandemic is because they aren't contagious (or even if you're going to make a stupid analogy between car accidents and getting others sick it's not contagious in nearly the same way). Also traffic accidents kill an order of magnitude less people, so there's that. 

Driving is just as 'contagious' as socializing. The accidents themselves aren't exactly contagious, just like how covid isn't contagious simply on it's own.

Traffic accidents take place everywhere since vehicles have spread worldwide. Who decides how many deaths are reasonable? Who decides if it's news worthy? What's that matter if none of them are seen as trustworthy?



EricHiggin said:
curl-6 said:

There's no hypocrisy. In both cases, practical solutions to protect human lives should be implemented and mandated to minimise preventable mortality and morbidity. In times of crisis, temporary inconveniences are sometimes necessary; that's not authoritarian, that's just being responsible and realistic.

Some don't follow the driving rules, leading to perhaps a pile up of deaths, and best case, we punish them and only them.

Some don't follow the masking and social distancing rules, leading to deaths, and yet we punished everyone.

This is hypocrisy. Most people don't and won't blindly follow hypocrites. Things could have been different.

Wearing a mask and socially distancing isn't punishment. It's a small and temporary inconvenience that saves lives. 

I swear, if the Blitz had happened in 2020...



curl-6 said:
EricHiggin said:

Some don't follow the driving rules, leading to perhaps a pile up of deaths, and best case, we punish them and only them.

Some don't follow the masking and social distancing rules, leading to deaths, and yet we punished everyone.

This is hypocrisy. Most people don't and won't blindly follow hypocrites. Things could have been different.

Wearing a mask and socially distancing isn't punishment. It's a small and temporary inconvenience that saves lives. 

I swear, if the Blitz had happened in 2020...

Not being able to drive is punishment for breaking the law. Being locked down because you wouldn't mask up would be it's equal. Instead, the few drivers who caused the accidents led to, 'all the highways being shut down'.

Not sure the exact situation of the pic, besides the overall scenario, but forcing them down there wouldn't be the right answer. Offering it would be. The entire world wasn't taking pics like that at that time for some reason.

Where are those roomy safe offerings for the at risk individuals now?



EricHiggin said:
Torillian said:

the reason traffic deaths aren't thought of as a pandemic is because they aren't contagious (or even if you're going to make a stupid analogy between car accidents and getting others sick it's not contagious in nearly the same way). Also traffic accidents kill an order of magnitude less people, so there's that. 

Driving is just as 'contagious' as socializing. The accidents themselves aren't exactly contagious, just like how covid isn't contagious simply on it's own.

Traffic accidents take place everywhere since vehicles have spread worldwide. Who decides how many deaths are reasonable? Who decides if it's news worthy? What's that matter if none of them are seen as trustworthy?

I'm going to need some kind of proof that driving accidents are as contagious as a respiratory disease that has caused a pandemic and killed 316,000 people in America alone in just 9 months. 



...