Fox News questions lockdowns

[Head Empty 27,077]

The rant about supermarkets

Of course people need to go there. There isn't any other system in place that can completely replace supermarkets. Which is where the 6ft rule and washing hands come into play - the best thing we can do right now without completely surrendering to the virus.

In The Netherlands, the government can fine any business that doesn't make sure people can stay 6ft apart. If a supermarket is too crowded, they have to limit access at the door - or risk getting fined. As a result, most supermarkets have made sure to take protective measures like putting indications of distance on the floor, offering places to wash hands, and putting up protective barriers for personell. 

It's a shitty situation that doesn't have a cookie-cutter solution. All we can do is look at the things we do know, and act accordingly. And not attempt to point fingers at people who are only trying to find solutions.

[Head Empty 27,077]

9 minutes ago, Florin said:

Italy is right now asking themself how they should reopen their economy. Their initial response : people who had covid 19 can work. Until you dont get it and heal yourself, you should continue the lockdown. This sounds to you like something ok? 

 

That is the problem for me. A lockdown shouldn't last more than 2 weeks - a month. Get ready in that period and take other measures to control it after that. 

You can't just "get ready" in 2 weeks or a month. Supplies are still short GLOBALLY - including raw materials to make new equipment and medicine. Not to mention factory workers AND medical personell getting infected. That takes time. 

I don't know the exact current situation in Italy, but it sounds similar to what is being posed in the Netherlands, where those who are supposedly "immune" can come out of quarantine in an attemt to keep the economy going. For now, that seems safest - until we have the proper safety net in place to gradually end quarantine. For instance by allowing some people to go back to work in order to keep the economy going (but not the ones who can still work for home without issue).

[Leoj305 3,774]

9 minutes ago, rumours said:

While I’m not gonna watch that (stuck in a location currently with people that have Fox blaring constantly), much of the network is trying to convince the public that reopening would not be all that harmful... in hopes of jumpstarting the economy. Essentially, they are putting their own pocket books (well... portfolios more likely) above the well-being of the American people. And THAT is disgusting. 

Capitalism will always put money first. Always. 
 

 

[mister max 18,480]

7 minutes ago, Florin said:

Italy is right now asking themself how they should reopen their economy. Their initial response : people who had covid 19 can work. Until you dont get it and heal yourself, you should continue the lockdown. This sounds to you like something ok? 

 

That is the problem for me. A lockdown shouldn't last more than 2 weeks - a month. Get ready in that period and take other measures to control it after that. 

But how can you prepare for this? You simply cant prepare nor control this. All you can do is try and diminish the infections and the deaths and you are not gonna do that when you have a lockdown for 2 weeks (aka sick ones arent healthy yet, infected people only get the first symptoms yet, some people dont even notice that they have it yet because sometimes it takes up to 2 weeks to get actually "sick", and you want to end a lockdown at that moment already?)

[HeavyCapiLover 4,389]

If your against lockdown then go outside, go meet people and keep on acting as if there was nothing. But don't you dare complaining the day you and your family gets infected. Karma has never been so real with this epidemic.

[gabeoz 7,915]

17 minutes ago, Florin said:

Italy is right now asking themself how they should reopen their economy. Their initial response : people who had covid 19 can work. Until you dont get it and heal yourself, you should continue the lockdown. This sounds to you like something ok? 

 

That is the problem for me. A lockdown shouldn't last more than 2 weeks - a month. Get ready in that period and take other measures to control it after that. 

Sis a lockdown should stay in place however long necessary, if you try to open it up too early then you will cause a second wave. You can’t just magically make new measures because you don’t like the previous ones  
 

I was gonna try to continue my argument but I just can’t fathom as to why you think it’s actually okay to start reopening the economy in the middle of a pandemic. Just because It’s about to peak doesn’t mean that we should loosen current measures. It’s defeats the purpose of them in the first place.

[gagzus 23,625]

the lockdown is necessary to protect people, here in the UK our lockdown is probably gonna get extended, some suspect till June even depending on the rate of infection come the end of next week. 

As someone who works as a key worker, lockdowns and the restrictions are necessary to protect you and more importantly; us. We keep the system running so people need to not question the lockdowns just to be seen as edgy or purposely right wing. Trump doing a lockdown is better late than never and given that the US death and infection rate is the highest out of us all I'd say y'all should lockdown till the Fall and pull off some restrictions come late summer. Similar to what we're doing here.

[Bt1 5,213]

9 minutes ago, Why am I on GGD said:

You can't just "get ready" in 2 weeks or a month. Supplies are still short GLOBALLY - including raw materials to make new equipment and medicine. Not to mention factory workers AND medical personell getting infected. That takes time. 

I don't know the exact current situation in Italy, but it sounds similar to what is being posed in the Netherlands, where those who are supposedly "immune" can come out of quarantine in an attemt to keep the economy going. For now, that seems safest - until we have the proper safety net in place to gradually end quarantine. For instance by allowing some people to go back to work in order to keep the economy going (but not the ones who can still work for home without issue).

I cant believe that people can agree with such SF ideas. 

Be ready people for a new virus every year, if people will agree to go to work or work from home, go to supermarket, stay home solutions for forever. 

[Whispering 18,865]

I’m not listening to that idiot Tucker Carlson for twelve minutes. In the last two weeks we’ve gone from 1,200 deaths to 12,000. Pushing this propaganda is irresponsible and downright dangerous, but Fox doesn’t care. I’m going to listen to and trust the epidemiologists, medical community and science. 

[Bt1 5,213]

3 minutes ago, Whispering said:

I’m not listening to that idiot Tucker Carlson for twelve minutes. In the last two weeks we’ve gone from 1,200 deaths to 12,000. Pushing this propaganda is irresponsible and downright dangerous, but Fox doesn’t care. I’m going to listen to and trust the epidemiologists, medical community and science. 

Some experts dont agree with the lockdowns. Dont think that the uk, sweden, switerzland initial strategy came from nowhere. 

The difference may be on when people will die, not so much on how many. 

I'm curious. If an expert say that we need a lockdown for a year, what will be your response? 

[Mister G 10,513]

Just now, Florin said:

Some experts dont agree with the lockdowns. Dont think that the uk, sweden, switerzland initial strategy came from nowhere. 

The difference may be on when people will die, not so much on how many. 

I'm curious. If an expert say that we need a lockdown for a year, what will be your response? 

A year is unlikely but if it got to that point, suck it up and move on. Safety first. If you think you’re above this virus, go out and get sick and see what happens. Its effects are random on every single person and there’s no telling who will fall into the asymptomatic or presymptomatic groups. You already said you agreed with Fox News, so what do you care what the experts have to say at this point?

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,980]

I was kinda with him for the most part at the beginning, but he really was spewing some s*** around the time he talked about targeted lockdowns vs. mass lockdowns. I'm not gonna comment on the officials he quoted because they could easily be taken out of context. While there's still a risk of being infected in a store, chances are you're touching less surfaces. Most of the time you're not opening doors at a store, as many are automatic. I'd hope that people are taking the virus seriously and not touching products unless the plan on purchasing them. The biggest concern would be cashiers handling everyone's items. Whereas in an office you're touching equipment such as printers and probably the front door that all other employees have had to handle. Printers, phones, etc. Then you'd still go to the store and buy items anyways. So minimizing points of contact are key. 

 

I do think the most enraging comment he made was that the virus killed 10,000 people and drugs kill 40,000 people every year, but only one is tracked. The thing is, not all COVID-19 related deaths are tracked because if a person dies before they are diagnosed with the virus, chances are they won't be tested after anyways as to not "waste" tests. This is a point he himself made when talking about how we've only known about the existence of the virus in the U.S. since January even though its suspected it has been around longer. It's funny how Fox decides what parts of an argument to ignore and which to highlight. Also, drug related deaths can at times be traced to addiction, which is a terrible disease requiring intensive rehab, while deaths related to the virus can be slowed with the lockdowns. 

 

Another point he made was regarding it mostly affecting small businesses and it being handled differently were it to affect big businesses. That's obviously not the case as one of the largest tech companies has majority of its storefronts closed (Apple). But if we want to take a more direct example he himself provided, we'll take a look at universities. Universities are currently stressed not just with the ongoings of its faculty, but also its finances. Many universities have issued refunds for housing that they have lost due to sending its students home, as well as the need to improve its online footprint. Universities are now having to seek solutions such as Zoom, which are not free. On top of that, universities are losing commission on the restaurants on their campuses that are no longer receiving the same business they had prior to sending its students home.

 

Lastly, Fox tries to make the argument that the economic impact on individuals will result in more harm than if they were to contract the virus. It's implied that the stress from the economic situation will hurt their health, but it's been found that mortality rates went down during the great depression and life expectancy increased. While suicide rates did increase, they accounted for less than 2% of deaths.

[gabeoz 7,915]

4 minutes ago, Whispering said:

I’m not listening to that idiot Tucker Carlson for twelve minutes. In the last two weeks we’ve gone from 1,200 deaths to 12,000. Pushing this propaganda is irresponsible and downright dangerous, but Fox doesn’t care. I’m going to listen to and trust the epidemiologists, medical community and science. 

Why wouldn't you want to listen to the network who's hosts are only concerned about their stock portfolios?

[Suuus 5,632]

57 minutes ago, mister max said:

Wow i think i lost some braincells watching this

I'm not even gonna comment

The irony of this comment LoL

[mister max 18,480]

2 minutes ago, Suuus said:

The irony of this comment LoL

I shouldve made it clear that I was not gonna comment on the video sorry