COVID-19 Response: An issue that shouldn't be at all political....yet here we are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Everything is going to be based on opinion in this lol. The point is it is a comprehensive plan with expert opinion being given for the benefit of the community. We can't govern without basing it on opinions lol. Not everyone's opinions will be the same and each area will be different so many outcomes can arise. Basing it off expert opinion with government aiming for public safety is better than basing it on groups wanting special treatment.

I wouldn't overly care if that's what they decided best in their plan.

---

No, if you base it on statistics that is objective mathematics, not subjective opinion.

We should have a plan that states what level of spread we are willing to deal with, and base all enforcement on falling within that parameter.

America is just ****in retart. China used this approach within months and stopped the spread. Thank you science. Here we are almost a year later and we're still going with the shotgun approach.

We can't even figure out if we want school open or closed. This is retart level ****.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

In a hypothetical where you can do things with no risk I would just open everything up and still not give special treatment.

---

Ok, so if you have no issue with opening up so long as it's not a health risk, then why were you pushing back so hard when I said that's what I would base my opinion on?

You're concerned about the labels. Why? So long as the spread is controlled, what difference does the label make?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

How do you even know exactly what these people used in their determinations?

We know that the counter so far is opinion based on special treatment towards one specific group.

---

I dont know what they used, that's why I along with sitewolf had been asking what parameters the essential classification is based on.

Based on links provided, they did not seem to use any objective measure to form their lists of essential business. Based on links provided it was entirely subjective opinion used to do so. For this reason, I do not lend extra credibility to NY for labeling it non essential, just as I wouldnt for Idaho labeling it essential.

To me it doesn't matter what the initial opinion of our incompetent govt was, all that matters is how these lists effect spread of covid.

If a church operating under essential status is safe, I support it being open as an essential business. If a church operating under non essential status is dangerous, I oppose them being labeled as non essential and being allowed to operate as such.

To me the label isn't important, the stats are.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

No, if you base it on statistics that is objective mathematics, not subjective opinion.

We should have a plan that states what level of spread we are willing to deal with, and base all enforcement on falling within that parameter.

America is just ****in retart. China used this approach within months and stopped the spread. Thank you science. Here we are almost a year later and we're still going with the shotgun approach.

We can't even figure out if we want school open or closed. This is retart level ****.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

What is the statistic that gives the objective answer on what to do? Experts likely include plenty of statistics when making these determinations. It’s still opinion at the end of the day when implemented.

That isn’t answering the question. What’s the plan? If they were wrong and there is just an obvious different way and statistic out there share it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

Ok, so if you have no issue with opening up so long as it's not a health risk, then why were you pushing back so hard when I said that's what I would base my opinion on?

You're concerned about the labels. Why? So long as the spread is controlled, what difference does the label make?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

You clearly aren’t paying attention. The concern is with scotus and making it illegal to treat similar groups/risks the same for safety concerns in a pandemic. One specific group above all else must be treated x way now based on subjective opinion (against health experts plan in place with local gov).

Those labels matter in terms of that case and restrictions across the country. The restrictions and how to apply them matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

I dont know what they used, that's why I along with sitewolf had been asking what parameters the essential classification is based on.

Based on links provided, they did not seem to use any objective measure to form their lists of essential business. Based on links provided it was entirely subjective opinion used to do so. For this reason, I do not lend extra credibility to NY for labeling it non essential, just as I wouldnt for Idaho labeling it essential.

To me it doesn't matter what the initial opinion of our incompetent govt was, all that matters is how these lists effect spread of covid.

If a church operating under essential status is safe, I support it being open as an essential business. If a church operating under non essential status is dangerous, I oppose them being labeled as non essential and being allowed to operate as such.

To me the label isn't important, the stats are.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Why are churches allowed special treatment based on subjective opinion? You aren’t answering the most basic question you keep talking around it.

You say it’s bad to have subjective opinion be forced on others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

What is the statistic that gives the objective answer on what to do? Experts likely include plenty of statistics when making these determinations. It’s still opinion at the end of the day when implemented.

That isn’t answering the question. What’s the plan? If they were wrong and there is just an obvious different way and statistic out there share it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I already told you, some type of spread coefficient would be the stat used to make these determinations.

If you have a strong coefficient then that minimizes the opinion and maximizes the science driving these decisions.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

You clearly aren’t paying attention. The concern is with scotus and making it illegal to treat similar groups/risks the same for safety concerns in a pandemic. One specific group above all else must be treated x way now based on subjective opinion (against health experts plan in place with local gov).

Those labels matter in terms of that case and restrictions across the country. The restrictions and how to apply them matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

If the difference in those labels is housing 10 people vs 25, you dont have much to worry about.

So a lot of this depends on what exactly is diff in labeling them as essential.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Why are churches allowed special treatment based on subjective opinion? You aren’t answering the most basic question you keep talking around it.

You say it’s bad to have subjective opinion be forced on others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

They are allowed special treatment because they are of that degree in many peoples lives.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

I already told you, some type of spread coefficient would be the stat used to make these determinations.

If you have a strong coefficient then that minimizes the opinion and maximizes the science driving these decisions.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Oh, how specific. Some type of spread coefficient will answer all our problems. You sure know science up and down and all around.

That is actually opinion. All of it is opinion. That is how we always end up governing. All of our laws are not based just on stats/science but they do often have expert opinion within just like these orders. That is simply the reality of how things work and you can't just ignore that because you think a spread coefficient can dictate all answers for us (and maybe that was involved in their plan anyways, again how do you know what all went into it?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

If the difference in those labels is housing 10 people vs 25, you dont have much to worry about.

So a lot of this depends on what exactly is diff in labeling them as essential.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

The difference is the laws/legal aspect and SCOTUS around special treatment towards specific groups against local government plans in place based on expert opinion and risk factors/services etc.

It only depends if it is forced to always be one thing. If you are alright with it being alright to label it either way depending on expert opinion/government then there is now an issue. If you think there needs to be special treatment given for subjective opinion not necessarily based in that/possibly going against it then it's what was decided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

They are allowed special treatment because they are of that degree in many peoples lives.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

So we agree this argument isn't based in science. It is about getting special treatment for yourself/others who are religious.

That's what was said previously and a fit was thrown. If you wanna just state this is how it is to you fine, at least you own it I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Oh, how specific. Some type of spread coefficient will answer all our problems. You sure know science up and down and all around.

That is actually opinion. All of it is opinion. That is how we always end up governing. All of our laws are not based just on stats/science but they do often have expert opinion within just like these orders. That is simply the reality of how things work and you can't just ignore that because you think a spread coefficient can dictate all answers for us (and maybe that was involved in their plan anyways, again how do you know what all went into it?).

---

Yes, all of it is opinion, but some opinions can be strongly backed up with statistics and some can't. Some opinions can hold more weight than others.

I dont know what went into it, based off of what people have linked in this thread no statistical analysis went into it. It seems to be based on opinion of what is essential. That's fine, in some cases we all agree, such as electricity. In some we dont, so where do we turn in those situations? I say to stats.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

So we agree this argument isn't based in science. It is about getting special treatment for yourself/others who are religious.

That's what was said previously and a fit was thrown. If you wanna just state this is how it is to you fine, at least you own it I guess.

---

It CAN be based in science.

If churches are essential, how is labeling it essential special treatment? If every other essential entity was labeled essential then so should church.

If big box stores are open and operating, then I certainly see the case for church to be open. Why do big box stores get special treatment?

Is big box stores being labelled essential based in science?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nastynice

They are allowed special treatment because they are of that degree in many peoples lives.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

:facepalm: