— Musings —03.26.2020 09:40 AM
Kevin Libin should be fired for publishing something this reckless in the Post
— Musings —03.26.2020 09:40 AM
Could not agree more. And I’m not a coffee drinker anyway, but I’ll be sure to not be buying it or anything else from the author’s establishment now.
Mr. Solomon: Read and learn, you dumb f**k…..https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-coronavirus-teenager-becomes-youngest-21735421
This is what should have been posted, my apologies…
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/coronavirus-21-year-old-becomes-youngest-victim-with-no-underlying-health-issues/ar-BB11HpDH?li=AAJt1k3
.apparently a twelve year old with no pre-existing conditons is currently fighting for her life on a ventilator as well in the UK…..
Oh and the young man who licked the toilet as part of the “corona virus challenge”….is now in hospital….with coronvirus…..
Does he realize that in the UK yesterday a 21 yr old and a 36 yr old both died of it?
What an ignorant piece of shit
You want to fire an editor for publishing an opinion piece in the opinion section by an opinion writer?
That’s not very punk rock.
Furthermore, how do you know the “reckless” strategy of today doesn’t become the standard operating practice two weeks from now. Or are we all forgetting that border closings were racist two weeks ago?
Only the adolescent minded ignore economic versus health questions. Even if you prefer the ostrich-esque approach, someone is answering those questions for you. Why don’t we have ten times the number of hospital beds in this country that we do now to prepare for this type of situation? Someone made an economic decision.
Failing to balance the economic impact of our collective situation with the health impact is frightening naive and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the of the connectivity of the two.
Fire him? I disagree. He should not be fired. Free speech is essential at this time.
But listen to the experts who you say? And no contrary opinions allowed. This assumes the “experts” know what they are talking about AND all the experts agree on the same course of action. Even then they may not be right.
The whole concept of diversity in decision making is based on differing points of view improving the answer.
Remember when the experts, including our chief medical officer, said shutting borders wouldn’t work? In fact some experts said it was racist and xenophobic. Well our border is effectively shut. Even China has just announced it is banning foreigners coming to China by air.
Remember when the experts said masks wouldn’t work? Perhaps the correct answer was; make your own mask out of a pillow case or T-shirt. Use, then wash. Now the experts will tell us such a solution won’t work – it only stops 50 to 80% of virus particles. That’s definitely not good enough for those in high risk areas (doctors, nurses etc treating COVID-19 patients). But for people just going to the grocery store it could be a very good idea.
With respect to Soloman’s article; we are going to have to confront such a decision at some point in time. When do we allow people to go back to work? Do we allow
just some people? Whom? When our leaders make that difficult decision, will we blame them for every death that subsequently occurs?
Please feel free to disagree with Mr Solomon. It would be most helpful to hear your reasoning. Calling him names and demanding someone be fired, doesn’t advance the argument that he presented a bad idea.
We live in a trying time. I suspect there is no magic silver bullet instant solution. We will survive, but at what cost? A bunch of partial, or even minor actions, will get us through this with the least amount of pain. It’s time to listen to ideas and debate them. There will be pain with all the solutions, so let’s discuss.
Rather than undertaking the sometimes long and difficult process of branding someone a fool, better to just let them open their mouth and prove it for you.
Sunlight is one of the best dissinfectents.
Humour me. My default is to ascribe positive intent till proven otherwise. Perhaps Warren was using hyperbole to draw attention to the debate involving who should and shouldn’t isolate and for how long. There’s the dialectic and then there’s rhetoric, and I’ve witnessed Warren oscillate between the two in an effectual manner. Here we are, putting more light onto this idea of economic vs. health considerations. Lyndon Dunkley and Joe Long, brilliant replies both. And to Chris Sigvaldason’s sentiment, sunlight is the best dissinfective, I will add, health of the Western World is as much a product of sanitation as medication. Be well, folks.
My email is breezak@yahoo.ca and I am into little kids.
And unlike with those dastardly right-wingers, there is certainly no pattern to your comments, Mike.
What is intriguing is how most of these musings and opinion pieces on the limits to mass isolation seem to be coming from the starboard side of the divide, who seem to me much more worried about the economic, domestic and health distresses the lower half of the socio-economic ladder will suffer if the mass isolation becomes protracted. Leaving aside that many of them have to work, those that can’t because of layoffs don’t have much financial margin or childcare alternatives. Progressives seem to be only thinking of the medical perspective, which is the right one for now, but maybe not for that long before some very tough trade-offs will emerge. Or they are musing about long term solutions like guaranteed incomes for all, which are hardly realistic short term fixes.
Part of this can be explained by the fact that Trump is musing about easing the lock down, which by definition is enough for most on the left to oppose it, but it also reflects the steady shift of the ideological paradigm that explains his election and the nature of his support and the electoral results in lots of other countries. More and more, the left has become to reflect the go-to principles of the secure and comfortable.
The right isn’t suddenly caring about poor people. The left are calling for more supports for the poor and openly talking about a emergency income which may become a permanent guaranteed income.