Wisconsin

[SERocks]

One of my problems with the argument that the only vulnerable should shelter is that no one espousing that explains what vulnerable people who need to work should do, or what about households that contain both young healthy people and vulnerable people. It seems to assume that all those in that position don't work and live by themselves.

Agreed.  I think that people that do not believe in wearing masks, or have a medical exception to wearing masks, should shelter in place.  Our (used loosely) collective belief in individualism will be the downfall of this country.  Unless you are off grid somewhere on your own land you are not an individual but a member of a community.  So tired of the idiots that refuse to acknowledge this. 

[Hards Alumni]

It's not my intention to minimize it but rather treat it with the level of respect it deserves.  It's a virus that if you're old or have multiple preexisting conditions can really wipe you out, so those populations should be very careful and essentially isolate in their home.  They should be able to make that decision for themselves, not be forced to make that decision by government mandates.

But if you're not high risk and/or old the amount of self imposed damage we have caused ourselves is unthinkable because of the fear mongering and BS you see on cable news.

I'd love to know your opinion on drunk driving.  Should the government put the safety of all drivers first, or should we put the freedom of people who toss back 5 scotch and sodas with their lunch ahead of them?

[pacearrow02]

I'd love to know your opinion on drunk driving.  Should the government put the safety of all drivers first, or should we put the freedom of people who toss back 5 scotch and sodas with their lunch ahead of them?

Silly analogy, apples and oranges.

[pacearrow02]

Because your opinion doesn't logically make sense. It would if it was a sexually transmitted virus, where you can consciously choose if you're going to put yourself at risk. But the transmission of this makes it other people's decision not yours. That's why people are so frustrated that you keep repeating these same tired lines about "people should have the choice" well if I choose to be cautious and wear a mask, limit social engagement etc but you don't and we both go grocery shopping, and you give me the virus. What good was my choice?

By leaving your house you are consciously making a decision to take on the risk of getting an airborne virus.  It's your decision to make that calculation whether that's to a grocery store, work, school, shopping, etc. 

In the context of your silly analogy to STDs would you be ok with the government telling you can't go on a date because of the chance that date leads to slapping skins and that leads to the possibility of contracting an STD?

[Galway Eagle]

By leaving your house you are consciously making a decision to take on the risk of getting an airborne virus.  It's your decision to make that calculation whether that's to a grocery store, work, school, shopping, etc. 

In the context of your silly analogy to STDs would you be ok with the government telling you can't go on a date because of the chance that date leads to slapping skins and that leads to the possibility of contracting an STD?

Well that's an egregious misrepresentation of theSTD analogy, wearing a mask is akin to wearing a condom. Is it 100% effective? Nope, but if you have to take the risk, protect yourself and others. No different than masks. And wait, the government does (or did under realistic people not religious nut jobs) advocate for condoms, so to answer your question, yes I would be okay with that.

And let me get this straight, you're saying stay home to protect yourself, but when it's a necessary trip your take is that they should starve or accept the extreme risk of going to the grocery store so guys like you can... read lips better as opposed to simply wearing masks and minimizing activities for a bit? Do you not see how blatantly selfish that is?

[pacearrow02]

One of my problems with the argument that the only vulnerable should shelter is that no one espousing that explains what vulnerable people who need to work should do, or what about households that contain both young healthy people and vulnerable people. It seems to assume that all those in that position don't work and live by themselves.

It does not assume that in anyway.  In those scenarios the option of working from home should be available, if it's not that's where all the stimulus money should be going.  Old/high risk or blended households or for that matter anyone too concerned and doesn't feel it's worth going to work but doesn't have the option of working from home should be kept afloat via stimulus checks or ramped up unemployment benefits.

While the rest of everyone who is comfortable going to work, school, etc is allowed to carry on. 

[pacearrow02]

Well that's an egregious misrepresentation of theSTD analogy, wearing a mask is akin to wearing a condom. Is it 100% effective? Nope, but if you have to take the risk, protect yourself and others. No different than masks. And wait, the government does (or did under realistic people not religious nut jobs) advocate for condoms, so to answer your question, yes I would be okay with that.

And let me get this straight, you're saying stay home to protect yourself, but when it's a necessary trip your take is that they should starve or accept the extreme risk of going to the grocery store so guys like you can... read lips better as opposed to simply wearing masks and minimizing activities for a bit? Do you not see how blatantly selfish that is?

That's not what I'm saying at all

[Galway Eagle]

That's not what I'm saying at all

Seems like it. Here's an easy summary

You: people at risk should stay home

Me: grocery store is necessary

You: well then you're making the choice to put yourself at risk so deal with it.

[Galway Eagle]

Let's even just take a step back here and realize that your plan doesn't even account for the massive quantity of people who aren't aware of underlying issues. People going with undiagnosed heart issues, unaware of asthma, "skinny fat" people with fatty liver disease, etc etc etc.

[pacearrow02]

Seems like it. Here's an easy summary

You: people at risk should stay home

Me: grocery store is necessary

You: well then you're making the choice to put yourself at risk so deal with it.

Not going to lie you're losing me here with the whole grocery store thing.  Aren't high risk people going to the grocery store now and taking on that risk?

[pacearrow02]

Let's even just take a step back here and realize that your plan doesn't even account for the massive quantity of people who aren't aware of underlying issues. People going with undiagnosed heart issues, unaware of asthma, "skinny fat" people with fatty liver disease, etc etc etc.

So cause people are walking around with undiagnosed/underlying conditions means what exactly?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I'm taking the bait here, but why do you minimize/trivialize Covid so much?

You know the reason for that.

[lawdog77]

You know the reason for that.

So he/she could respond and make an ass of himself/herself?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

So he/she could respond and make an ass of himself/herself?

Ha ha, this is true. And he didn't disappoint.

[injuryBug]

Still confused by WI numbers that continue to go down, with what I see when i go to grab take out on the weekends. Bars are elbow to elbow not a mask in sight.  Everyone stares at me as I walk in with my mask on.  Just want to flip them all off, but I just grab my food and get out

[The Lens]

It's not just cases and test that are down.  Hospitalizations are down 200 from last week (1200) and ICUs are down 27 from last week (292).

[injuryBug]

It's not just cases and test that are down.  Hospitalizations are down 200 from last week (1200) and ICUs are down 27 from last week (292).

great to see.

Based on what i have seen around my area recently it is not cause people are staying home or masking up when they do go out.

[The Sultan]

great to see.

Based on what i have seen around my area recently it is not cause people are staying home or masking up when they do go out.

Anecdotally, I don't have the same experience.  I am rarely out, and when I do, I hardly see anywhere near the crowds I would normally.  I had to make a run to the local Target for instance, and I told my wife that it would have been dead for a typical Saturday morning much less the Saturday morning before Christmas. And everyone was wearing a mask.

And then there is this.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1341132925413306368/photo/1

[Jockey]

No time to meet to discuss Covid, though.

Two Republican state lawmakers are suing Gov. Tony Evers as part of a federal lawsuit to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  Reps. Jeff Mursau of Crivitz and David Steffen of Howard are plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought in federal court today against officials in all five states.

[MU82]

No time to meet to discuss Covid, though.

Two Republican state lawmakers are suing Gov. Tony Evers as part of a federal lawsuit to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  Reps. Jeff Mursau of Crivitz and David Steffen of Howard are plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought in federal court today against officials in all five states.

This is a great idea, and I'm guessing it will be every bit as successful as the 5 dozen other lawsuits that have gotten laughed at by judges of all political persuasions, including many appointed by the emperor himself.

[Marquette Fan]

State Democrats may skip Assembly Inaguration Ceremony next week as State Republicans are not mandating masks for it saying they are encouraging them but not requiring them:

https://www.fox6now.com/news/wisconsin-democrats-threaten-to-skip-assembly-inauguration?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%20Manual&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0ND4PPgwAtAPbwL9zdO00do0O5VKjVI89H655p87vRHO70i5bztbb4Xng

[GooooMarquette]

With that 33% difference in 7-day death it will only take about 6 years to catch Minnesota in overall deaths.

Looking forward to daily updates for the next 1900+ days

Didn't take 6 years.

As of today, WI has 6,135 deaths, while MN has 6,100.

But both are still WAY too many....

[pacearrow02]

Didn't take 6 years.

As of today, WI has 6,135 deaths, while MN has 6,100.

But both are still WAY too many....

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Where did you pull your number from?  I've always used this site which shows Wisconsin death count well below what you posted.

[GooooMarquette]

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

Where did you pull your number from?  I've always used this site which shows Wisconsin death count well below what you posted.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-us-maps-and-cases/

The numbers are based on the data from Johns Hopkins.

[pacearrow02]

Didn't take 6 years.

As of today, WI has 6,135 deaths, while MN has 6,100.

But both are still WAY too many....

https://www.wha.org/Covid-19Update

This is the wisconsin hospital association dashboard which shows less then your number above as well.  You were way too excited to post what appears to be fake news to "win" a back and forth we had two months ago.