Social Question

jca2's avatar

Coronavirus Question: Would you rather live in a state or area that allows things to open up and has a higher death rate, or one that keeps things closed and has a lower/slower death rate?

Asked by jca2 (8637points) 2 months ago

I live in a liberal state that is keeping things closed for now (except essential businesses, restaurants for take-out only, etc.). I can see both sides of the coin.

There are no right or wrong answers, as these are opinions I’m seeking. I am not posting to argue.


Posted in Social so the debate is allowed to take a meandering path.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

23 Answers

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Even though I am a Canadian I will play, and I choose the lower slower death rate, and open up when safe to do so, not as greed dictates .

Soubresaut's avatar

I want to live in a state that keeps things closed according to the advice of health officials monitoring the available data, which coincidentally is how health officials in the Bay Area have managed to keep the rate of coronavirus relatively low in our area despite a national dearth of testing, and despite the Bay Area being a highly populated, highly traveled area. I feel quite fortunate to live where I do right now.

(I want to also note that a slower death rate isn’t just the same people dying over a longer period of time. Slowing the spread of the virus gives us time as better treatments are developed, more testing is available, and this virus is better understood (and it keeps our medical infrastructure from being overrun in the meantime, which would add yet more deaths). This means fewer people who would survive given better treatments are dying needlessly in the interim.)

I don’t want to live in a state where government officials view me and my loved ones as expendable for the sake of an abstract concept of “the economy” (“the economy” isn’t an almighty, untouchable entity that we should be expected to give our lives to “protect.” It’s a name given to the aggregate effect of our monetary transactions so that we might study, understand, and improve outcomes for us—not for “it.”)…nor do I want to live in a state where government officials balk at the idea that part of their chosen career as a government official is to coordinate responses and provide needed support in times of crisis. Government in this country is supposed to be for the people, full stop.

Jaxk's avatar

I’m not sure the choices are as given. The states with more restrictive rules have higher death rates while the ones loosening the rules have lower death rates. Nonetheless, I would rather live in a place where I am the master of my own destiny. I won’t sacrifice the future of my kids and grand kids for a marginal improvement of my own safety. If we allow the economy to deteriorate further we may not be able to recover. I won’t relegate my heirs to a Venezuelan like future. I say open it up and put me where there’s life worth living.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I’m with @Jaxk. Life’s a gamble.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@Jaxk -Ditto.Sweden’s looking pretty good right now.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Jaxk Sources please ” The states with more restrictive rules have higher death rates while the ones loosening the rules have lower death rates”

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Restrictive because if it gets out of hand and swamps the hospitals, there will not be enough ICU beds to go around, or regular beds for Stroke and auto accidents victims.

ucme's avatar

I would rather not live in a state…which is rather convenient as it turns out :D

Demosthenes's avatar

I agree with @Jaxk. There’s a chance that this disease could stick around for years or that we may never have a vaccine. What are we going to do—suspend life as we know it indefinitely? We need to find another way to cope with diseases like this (which I do fear will become more common as the population of the world increases) that doesn’t involve destroying normal life.

filmfann's avatar

@Jaxk To properly analyze to success or failure of the shelter in place orders, you have to look at State population density, State size (taking into consideration large cities and large agricultural areas), the number of actual cases, and the individual state strategies.
For example, New Jersey has the second greatest population density, and has the second most cases per 1 mil. population.
Alaska has the greatest population disbursement, and ranks 53rd in cases. It also benefits from separation from the rest of the US.
Hawaii has the 19th greatest population density, and ranks 50th in cases, again understandable by its isolation.
Utah, Kansas, Nevada, Idaho, Montana and others are doing well due to their population density.
New Hampshire ranks 27th in population density, and 40th in cases per million, so they are doing a good job.
California has the 5th most cases, yet ranks 17th in pop. density, but you must consider large population centers. L.A. and The Bay Area make up the bulk of the population. Their large percentage is not due to their government’s political parties.

josie's avatar

I’m with @Jaxk

You can lock everything down for a year, and destroy the entire economy, but until there is a vaccine, or a curative treatment-neither of which are likely real soon- you are still going to have sickness and death from the virus.

All the mitigation is not to make the virus go away. It is merely to trade intensity of the pandemic for duration. It is like an organized retreat. The battle continues, it just takes longer to come to a decisive conclusion.

It is so like the current generation of leaders to delay the reckoning and leave it for their kids and grand-kids to have to pay for the problem

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

I’d prefer a happy medium, which appears to be what is happening in Ohio. We’re slowly opening up, but with restrictions and within reason. As I understand it, it seems that our hospitals are in pretty good shape and for the most part my personal experience has been that the majority of people out in public are being at least somewhat careful. The grocery store I go to I’d guess about 80% of the shoppers are wearing masks my past couple of visits. That makes me feel secure about things being a little more open. If people are being careful matters the most, I just saw a graphic the other day that said if 60% of people wear masks that are 60% effective it would be enough to control the pandemic. That actually seems extremely doable even with all the conflicting opinions and some of the people who refuse to cooperate at all. I think it would be lovely, if not ideal, if everyone could stay home for an extended time and it not have a major negative impact… but it’s just not realistic to me. I might feel differently if there were better safety nets for people who are suffering due to the stay-at-home, but it’s just not the case as from my perspective I have seen more families facing hardship from being forced to be at home than from the virus directly (not minimizing the issues with the virus, I know multiple families who have been impacted as well, but a friend is facing the closure of her business after losing 2 loved ones to Covid and I have to echo her sentiment that things open up with good, common sense precautions.)

tinyfaery's avatar

Glad I live in California. Easing of restrictions is beginning this week. We’re not remaining on lockdown as is for a year. That’s just a stupid comment.

Sweden has a population of 10 million people, about twice as large as its nearest Scandinavian neighbors. As of April 28, the country’s Covid-19 death toll reached 2,274, about five times higher than in Denmark and 11 times higher than in Norway. Those dead people might have a different opinion about Sweden’s tactics for the virus.

Gamble with your own lives, not mine. Wear a fucking mask because I still have to go to work and have a lung disease.

Nice to see you @Soubresaut.

I guess places like Georgia and Florida will be the guinea pigs. We are all about to find out how opening up everything is going to effect the infection rates. ¯\(ツ)

kritiper's avatar

It’s a hard question to answer when you are one of those who face death at a higher risk factor than others.
Also, death in this case is a crap shoot seeing as how people of all ages and threat levels are dying.
It’s like playing a form of Russian Roulette with every person you meet. They all carry a revolver with or without a single cartridge, and they may or may not point it at you. But, as far as you are concerned they all spin the cylinder, point the gun at you and squeeze the trigger.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I want to live in a state that considers everything and uses science for the best possible outcome for both the economy and the safety and health of the public.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

No,NO you just want a President that goes on his hunches, that is the safest way to get back to work.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 It is not his hunches but Donnie Jr and Eric are telling him his stock portfolio has tanked and th RNC is telling him get re-elected.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Oh Right sorry my mistake again.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

I don’t know. Two people close to me have lost their jobs permanently because everything is closed.

mazingerz88's avatar

People have the right to kill themselves and their families if they want to but they don’t have the right to endanger and risk the lives of others who want to survive this pandemic. It’s just sad when I read people say yeah if I die I die and so is my family.

Soubresaut's avatar

@Dutchess_lll—I see that as a failure in the US’s response to economic needs during a pandemic, rather than the fault of the social distancing guidelines necessary to protect people from that pandemic. The economy is going to hurt even without a government response because… it’s a pandemic. Other nations are addressing economic pains better than the US is right now. By contrast, we’ve got people in positions of power that are being dogmatic about their economic -isms rather than responding to need.

(Yes, Sweden is feeling economic pain, too.)

Anyway, wanted to share this article and got distracted. The science-based responses we have available to us right now require coordination and teamwork in order to work. State governments prematurely abdicating of their responsibility to oversee those efforts will cost lives (and still cause economic hardships).

stanleybmanly's avatar

Just as with every other epidemic that ever plagued the country, this one is going to disproportionately ravage the redlands. If you don’t believe it, I ask you to consider every epidemic the country has yet to experience that was initially believed confined to our population centers—opioids and meth, the arrival of the rust belt, mass shootings. @Josie ‘s point that the lockdown is a delaying action, trading (temporarily) a reduced death rate for a wrecked economy is correct. The question is which would wreck the economy more—business as usual or locking it all down. My take is that the lockdown is prudent as a delaying defense in anticipation of treatment advances, viable testing and an effective vaccine. It’s a gruesome trade, but running the risk of overwhelming the medical sector to the point of collapse is a greater threat to the economy than anything we’ve got coming on the present course. The great experiment is on with those places already noted for shuttered or closing hospitals and a shortage of physicians clamoring for opening up in order to buttress already tenuous economic viability. But I believe it is a mistake for small town and rural America to endorse any policy that will hasten the arrival of ANY affliction bedeviling our population centers. As the wave passes through New York and California NOW, it is surer than shit headed for those places least prepared and equipped to deal with it—just as it has all the other calamities that sweep through the country. It’s a BIG experiment, and we’re all going to see just how it works out. Isn’t it curious that even the plague can be boiled down to a red/blue issue. Free Michigan with maga hats, m16s, Confederate flags & Nazis. What a country! Must freedom so reliably coincide with stupidity?

rockfan's avatar

I want less death so I’ll go with the second option

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther