Just occured to me,

Oh how the 2020's are going to be so different from the 2010's and 2000's.

This global pandemic hitting us in 2020 means that 20's have really a different tone historically as what came before it. Such collective experience from start of the decade has to have at least some effect how later people will view the 2020's to the 2010's.

So what do people think about Trump's new idea:

President Trump said Thursday that he planned to label different areas of the country as at a “high risk, medium risk or low risk” to the spread of the coronavirus, as part of new federal guidelines to help states decide whether to relax or enhance their quarantine and social distancing measures.

What regions is talking about? States? Lower level cities, communities and counties?

This sounds as great as Trump's proposal of a joint US-Russia taskforce to counter hacking.

Looking to thinkers online for stability is a by-product of loving people? Nevermind. :smile: — praxis

Yes and yes. :heart:

I was half kidding. The fact is that the dynamics of good-samaritanship have changed. If you want to help the elderly you need to protect them from yourself by wearing gloves, a facemask, etc. You could potentially kill with the best intentions, but poor foresight.

So was I. I can take a dig, and perhaps it is even deserved.

Where I live the cases are rare-ish. So I don't think we should completely throw our humanity to the wind quite yet. Like you said, steps can be taken to mitigate the risk, and I think that's better than avoiding susceptible populations entirely.

This global pandemic hitting us in 2020 means that 20's have really a different tone historically as what came before it. Such collective experience from start of the decade has to have at least some effect how later people will view the 2020's to the 2010's. — ssu

Yes! And we have the choice as people and companies to create our new normal just like we did on 9/12/01. Our society is built upon our collective moral compass and a whole lot more. We should take the time to think about how we want/need our society to be structured.

Should we go with Nietsche's idea of a pyramid shaped society with the masses at the bottom and the power as you ascend? Or should we stratify that power across the steps on the ladder so more people can have upward movement as well as lateral movement.

The USA is activating the social welfare system that is one of our strengths and together we will emerge stronger for it.

So what do people think about Trump's new idea

A step in the right direction, in my opinion. I think a sort of juggling act between lockdown and tentatively opening the economy is the reasonable approach.

Where I live the cases are rare-ish. So I don't think we should completely throw our humanity to the wind quite yet. Like you said, steps can be taken to mitigate the risk, and I think that's better than avoiding susceptible populations entirely. — NOS4A2

As is your habit, you contradict yourself. Humans have the capacity to feel AND think, and we have the gift of foresight, at least some of us, so it is most human to express our foresight and take precautions for the benefit of others.

a step in the right direction, in my opinion. I think a sort of juggling act between lockdown and tentatively opening the economy is the reasonable approach. — NOS4A2

Yes! Please!

How many people are you willing to support sacrificing?

A step in the right direction, in my opinion. I think a sort of juggling act between lockdown and tentatively opening the economy is the reasonable approach.

Do you watch unpartisan media at all? There are hotspots developing in all the large cities across the US, in a week they will all be overwhelmed like New York is today. This juggling you mention is the hope for a few months down the line when the first big wave has passed.

So what do people think about Trump's new idea:

President Trump said Thursday that he planned to label different areas of the country as at a “high risk, medium risk or low risk” to the spread of the coronavirus, as part of new federal guidelines to help states decide whether to relax or enhance their quarantine and social distancing measures.
What regions is talking about? States? Lower level cities, communities and counties?

It's already to late.

Yes! And we have the choice as people and companies to create our new normal just like we did on 9/12/01. Our society is built upon our collective moral compass and a whole lot more. We should take the time to think about how we want/need our society to be structured. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That is a good point, Tiff.

9/11 did change a lot in the thinking. And on the positive side, hopefully this pandemic will make the focus to be afterwards on the prevention of pandemics from erupting, not on having the ability to cope with pandemics (or us just given it as some act of God). If there is now this surveillance network to track down terrorists (which many do fear), hopefully there truly will be a similar surveillance network to track down zoonotic diseases and other infectious diseases before they become a nasty epidemic/pandemic. How much emphasis will there be in this effort will be determined, unfortunately, by the death toll of this pandemic and the economic cost it will create.

I like your positive attitude, Tiff. Never forget that moral collective compass and that lot more, or otherwise all those guns you have will make a truly toxic cocktail.

I agree. Now there are places that are hit by the pandemic and those that will be hit.

A step in the right direction, in my opinion. I think a sort of juggling act between lockdown and tentatively opening the economy is the reasonable approach. — NOS4A2

Have to say that at least he is optimistic. Perhaps his followers like it when Trump goes against the stream. But otherwise it's more of a denial. This first pandemic will take the time as any other one, 4-6 months, and there's no changing that. People won't come out when the infections and the death toll still rises.

Here for example the Armed Forces has determined (without coming out publicly about it, naturally) that the pandemic will be with us for 6 months. So going back to normal (from the start of the pandemic here) is after the summer here.

That's the probable way things will go. If it doesn't behave like the Spanish flu.

So what do people think about Trump's new idea: — ssu

It's reasonable enough in theory. You'd need to set up something like border controls between the areas though, which might well be tricky.

Of course anything of the sort can only work if you have the testing capacity to accurately assess the risk in the first place. Germany has recently set it's minimum goal for accurate assessment at 200.000 tests a day. Scale that up to the US, you are looking at over a million.

Do you watch unpartisan media at all? There are hotspots developing in all the large cities across the US, in a week they will all be overwhelmed like New York is today. This juggling you mention is the hope for a few months down the line when the first big wave has passed.

The “unpartisan media” is a contradiction in terms. What I do not listen to is the Chicken Little approach to all this. Already the CDC is telling us the models of, say, the Imperial College of London, were wildly inaccurate, and these are the same models both the US and the UK have used to justify the suspension of our liberties. I wish to see other approaches.

But I will suspect it will get worse before it gets better in the US. The populace is not the healthiest of communities and the underlying conditions are the biggest killer.

Stupid. Everywhere is high risk and anything labeled low risk automatically becomes higher risk when opened up.

Stupid. Everywhere is high risk and anything labeled low risk automatically becomes higher risk when opened up. — Baden

Read what I write, Baden.

Now there are places that are hit by the pandemic and those that will be hit. — ssu

But nobody is suggesting any one model should be believed as entirely accurate. There's is simply not enough information.

There's enough information to see what happens if you don't act early and decisively. Italy was clear enough.

Have to say that at least he is optimistic. But otherwise it's more of a denial. This first pandemic will take the time as any other one, 4-6 months, and there's no changing that.

Here for example the Armed Forces has determined (without coming out publicly about it, naturally) that the pandemic will be with us for 6 months. So going back to normal (from the start of the pandemic here) is after the summer here.

That's the probable way things will go. If it doesn't behave like the Spanish flu.

Is it not possible that people can go about their regular lives while still taking proactive measures to limit the spread of the virus? Personally I require no government to tell me that and I fear for people who do.

I have to disagree. They position would be an argument to stay in lock down ad infinitum. I think the measure of openness should be dictated by what the health care system can cope with for the time being.

But nobody is suggesting any one model should be believed as entirely accurate. There's is simply not enough information.

There's enough information to see what happens if you don't act early and decisively. Italy was clear enough.

I suspect there is a little more to it than simply not acting quickly enough. There are environmental, demographic, healthcare and other situational factors that should be considered.

I was responding to this not criticizing you.

So what do people think about Trump's new idea: — ssu

This is Trump we're talking about. It seems to me a cover for premature openings.

But I will suspect it will get worse before it gets better in the US. The populace is not the healthiest of communities and the underlying conditions are the biggest killer.

Quite, and the obesity and borderline diabetic epidemic is a liability.

I can describe the motion of planets with Newtonian mechanics. There's more to it than that but we don't need perfect information to make informed decisions.

That's a different point all together.

Is it not possible that people can go about their regular lives while still taking proactive measures to limit the spread of the virus? Personally I require no government to tell me that and I fear for people who do. — NOS4A2

I would say it will go backwards in slow motion.

First the most stringent restrictions will be opened after the infection rate (and the death rate) has dramatically fallen. Then the next thing will be that smaller gatherings will be allowed yet with events of 100 or 500 people still being restricted. Finally, large events will be allowed. The next thing is when people will people will start to flock to these larger events and then finally when they come without having head masks.And if you have looked at older Asian tourists, some of them use all the time masks when walking in urban areas. Social distancing might be for a while, but then again, even those who experienced the Spanish flu didn't take precautions later in the roaring 1920's. People forget. And always there's going to be a new generation that hasn't experienced the corona-virus pandemic later (assuming there isn't a larger deadlier pandemic later).

Personally I require no government to tell me that and I fear for people who do. — NOS4A2

Yes you do, you just walked up to an old lady and potentially infected her while sensible people were moving away to keep her safe. It's idiocy like this that needs to be controlled.

That’s untrue, I kept my distance. But it’s fantasies like yours which result in the knee-jerk measures we now find ourselves in.

That’s the key to the successes of places like Japan, South Korea and Singapore. They remember the SARS outbreak and took it seriously. They never forgot.

According to your own story, you went up to her to try to carry her groceries, which would involve obliterating the 2m rule. If you are too stupid to obey simple precautions, just stay the fuck at home. People like you are the reason the rest of us have to be put on full lockdown.