Posted on 03/30/2020 10:20:46 PM PDT by Persevero
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
— Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
One of my Fox colleagues recently sent me an email attachment of a painting of the framers signing the Constitution of the United States. Except in this version, George Washington — who presided at the Constitutional Convention — looks at James Madison — who was the scrivener at the Convention — and says, “None of this counts if people get sick, right?”
In these days of state governors issuing daily decrees purporting to criminalize the exercise of our personal freedoms, the words put into Washington’s mouth are only mildly amusing. Had Washington actually asked such a question, Madison, of all people, would likely have responded: “No. This document protects our natural rights at all times and under all circumstances.”
It is easy, 233 years later, to offer that hypothetical response, particularly since the Supreme Court has done so already when, as readers of this column will recall, Abraham Lincoln suspended the constitutionally guaranteed writ of habeas corpus — the right to be brought before a judge upon arrest — only to be rebuked by the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.washingtontimes.com ...
Oh, so you just want delivery drivers to get sick. Selfish twerp. Feel free to cower in your home but don’t tell me what to do.
And shove your crocodile tears for businesses having a tough time.
Agreed on all points.
In his a status presentation a few days ago, President Trump introduced 2,000,000 as the number of deaths if they took no action. In that context he said 100,000 deaths would be a success.
At least this panic exposes the fake conservatives on this site. One even called me a libertarian like that was a bad thing.
So many sheep on Fear Republic.
No, it seems to be all about YOU.
Just keep your head firmly planted up your ass and leave me alone.
[[Unfortunately, during an epidemic “hiding from the germs” IS exactly how you fight it.]]
When people go back out into the world after hiding, the virus is still there- only now everyone is jam packed together- trying to get their lives back in order-
IF we had a vaccine, then yes, shelter inplace, and don’t come out till it’s available IF it’s short term as you suggest- but we know the vaccine isn’t gonna be available for months likely- maybe a year 1/2- We can’t hide that long- And as soon as folks get back out- there will still be sickness going around, and this will spread rapidly as people jam into subways, buses, cabs, workplaces, restaurants once again- sheltering is only delaying the inevitable while the vaccine is still months or a year or more away-
Black death came from fleas- once they eradicated most of the flea ridden vermin - they were safe to get back to life- sheltering place didn’t eliminate the vermin- and in the virus corona, we aren’t eliminating it by sheltering, we’re simply slowing it —while— we shelter - it’s still out there- waiting to start the process of doubling infections every 2 days once again-
you have to wonder how many the regular flu would kill to if we took no action- (ie got vaccines out there as soon as possible, and had medical staff to help the sick and elderly whether it as well as possible)- I think the hospitals would be overwhelmed in that scenario too and deaths would go up quite a bit for regular flues too-
Theoretically, if we can keep everyone from getting it while in isolation there will not be any when we emerge. It’s not like Anthrax spores that can be active after decades. (Which reminds me, I was vaccinated for Anthrax.). Of course that is ridiculously impossible. And of course, you are correct. The entire game starts over. But at the levels it was a month ago. If we can “let it simmer” after that, the health care system won’t be over run, it can be managed at low levels. People will have to continue measures for months or years. Masks. Can we do masks tomorrow and drop Plaquenil?
I suppose you have a point. But my point is that we should be striving to separate the sick from the not as soon as possible.
[[Theoretically, if we can keep everyone from getting it while in isolation there will not be any when we emerge.]]
Yes, but problem is we can’t- that’s why it will still be out there when folks get out-
[[the health care system won’t be over run,]]
That certainly is the positive case for sheltering-
Indeed! All this comes from numerical models.
Kinda like the global warming thing. ;)
This should be a top priority.
“Hap9ens every year moron. It’s called influenza and it kills tens of thousands.”
For the past 5 days, moron, CCP-19 has killed more people than the flu does per day, in-season, in a bad flu year.
In any given year, moron, about 20% of the population gets the flu. This is due, moron, to widespread immunities derived from previous years and to vaccines. We have neither for CCP-19, moron, as this is a “novel” virus. The common flu, moron, kills 0.1% of the people that catch it.
So far with CCP-19, moron, perhaps 1% of the population have been infected. As stated, moron, there are no existing immunities to protect the other 99%. The reason many, many more have not been infected, moron, is because of all the social distancing, lockdowns, closures, etc.
Nevertheless, moron, even at 1/20th the infection rate, more people are dying from CCP-19 than from the flu. A lot more, moron, by a factor of 2 or more. The best outcome in the world for a large scale infection, moron, had about a 2% mortality among the infected.
Scale that up, moron, to a 20% infection rate and redo the calculation.
Now consider, moron, that there are no immunities and it will take at least a 50% infection rate to establish significant ones. So, moron, scale it up to 50% and redo the calculation.
Now consider, moron, that the disease moves too fast to easily identify infected people and avoid them. So scale it up to 70%, moron, and redo the calculation.
If all that math is too hard for you, moron, just consider that CCP-19 is about 20 times as deadly as “influenza”. Our HCS is scaled for a bad flu year, moron, not 10 or 20 bad flu years all at once. What do you think happens to the economy, moron, if our HCS fails? What do you think happens to all of us when the economy collapses, moron?
It’s not the flu, moron.
Now, if you want to can the abuse, moron, we can have a rational discussion of any and all of those points.
I don’t argue with swine.
Wallow in your own bitterness and ignorance.
How ‘bout that!?!?
This aspect gets very little attention. I suppose because it would detract from what the mainstream media wants the focus to be.
They are both an airborne virus. One is called the flu and the other is call Coronavirus.
What’s your point?
Sure I can reason but I will almost always fall onto the side of individual freedoms over government mandates enforced through the business end of a gun.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he stated, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
JoMa
Well, there is the rub. Where did the number 2,000,000 come from? Did it come from some government agency? Maybe the United Nations? Please tell me how that number came about so that you could come up with your $1,000,00 per person number.
Additionally, even if you came up with a reasoning of where that ‘estimate’ came from, how is that number compare to the number of people world-wide who usually die from the yearly flu strain when we did not shut down the economy or restrict freedoms (and make it a number that is per capita, so we can compare apples to apples)? What changed? Did we shut down the economy and restrict personal freedoms to “potentially” save some of those people? That 2,000,000 number is supposition and screams as a “burning platform” argument that forces the need for an answer to a question (or number) that is well, just a guess.
My basic problem is that throughout history, crisis and emergency have always been used to perpetrate the growth of the “state” (in quotes because I am using that as a generic term, not to refer to a state in the US union). Rahm Emanuel was publicized in recent years when he stated “never let a crisis go to waste”, which is ultimately just a Machiavellian lesson that many have learned and restated in other words throughout the years.
History is replete with examples of this happening and even in the last 100 years or so of the US experiment, there are plenty of examples of ‘government created’ crisis that were used to argue for ‘government created’ solutions.
The Great Depression, arguably created by government action in the first place according to Milton Friedman, was used to created the New Deal. WWI-WWII, a government created crisis, was an argument for the permanent military industrial complex. Social unrest in the 1960s, arguably created again by government through 150+ years of discriminatory laws, lead to Johnson’s “Great society”, and even what was a minimal recession combined with the housing bubble in the 2000s, arguably created by the Community Reinvestment Act, lead to TARP and Obamacare and ultimately trillion dollar yearly budget deficits.
All of these combined (and plenty more) have led this country to be $23+ trillion in debt with no end in sight. Oh, by the way, we just tacked on $2 trillion more with the most recent ‘government stimulus’ to ostensibly solve an economic problem that was caused by government restrictions in the first place. And this was done to save some people who, in past years, died from complications (many had other underlying conditions) of the flu, just like throughout all of human history.
In short, the United States was started as an experiment to get away from the centralized ‘state’ and distribute power and authority. Yet, here we are, 200+ years later and each new ‘crisis’ has allowed the ‘state’ to consolidate power again.
In the end, Ben Franklin said it best when he stated, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” The idea of weighing personal freedom against societal requirements is not a new question.
Through the course of time, however, it seems inevitable that people, in general, will give up freedoms, fought for and died for by so many before us, just to gain a little, “temporary” safety. The comments on this post alone show how many people are so willing to give up those freedoms.
Thanks for reading.
JoMa
Excellent writeup! I agree with every single point.
The U.S. will have to pay a heavy price for the national debt one way or another, and it will be painful.
One problem with our system is that the minute a politician starts talking about cutting “benefits” to reduce the debt, they lose the election. We will never elect someone to fix it. Each administration kicks the can down the road until one unlucky president will have to deal with the outcome.
Our citizens seem to be unable to provide adult supervision.
I was an early enthusiast for Trump for a number of reasons. But, for the first time, he’s disappointed me by asking for this level of spending under these circumstances.
The 2,000,000 number came from a model that Fauci is using that determined the death toll if the administration took no action. The model, of course, has the same value as those used to justify spending on global warming. There are so many assumptions going into it that the outcome isn’t meaningful.
The 2m is the denominator of the spend/death, so using 200,000 means we’re spending $10m per person.
Thanks for your thoughts, FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.