The Covid-19 Pandemic is not (R) or (D). The virus does not distinguish between male or female. It has been proven that it spreads by touch or by airborne moisture droplets that are expelled by people carrying/infected by the virus. Medical recourses are being stressed to their maximum as caregivers are going above and beyond the call of duty. Yes vaccines have arrived and are being distributed, but that process will require many months to accomplish.
We still need to protect ourselves and our families/neighbors from this horrible virus. Is it really so much to ask that mask be worn in public and risk is lowered lowered with (6 ft.) social distancing. The vaccines are our light at the end of the tunnel, but they do not magically make gathering in groups safe once more.
Right now a new, more contagious strain, has arrived around the world. It is no worse or better than the strain we've been fighting, however it is a more aggressive spreader. Use common sense and protect yourself and others. No one likes the temporary measures being taken to protect us, and too many are suffering as a result. Let's not allow political affiliations to affect keeping ourselves safe.
Originally Posted by: Smokey
Let me preface this by saying I don't agree with the views of KRK (and, frankly, have no time to call out his worse than 'bad' legal takes, less than basic understanding of racism (and the irony of a white man expounding on the topic), and not-so-subtle calls for violence).
That said, his post actually raises a valid point and I don't see how your post disproves it. If studies are suggesting that asymptomatic transmission occurs far less than originally feared, it becomes fair to question why exactly masks, social distancing and aggressive lockdowns are necessary - especially when millions of Americans are facing financial ruin.
Add that to evidence that COVID-19 transmission is far less likely to occur outdoors, then it is important to ask if aggressive strategies are necessary because they possibly don't help reducing the risk of transmission.
The issue isn't that the virus indiscriminately targets people. It's that the initial understanding transmission of COV-SARS-2 strain appears to have been wrong, and this requires a recalibration of how exactly to prevent its transmission so that the economic devastation isn't occuring.
And this isn't a politically driven viewpoint; as a racial minority I know of many people that live paycheck-to-paycheck and/or support extended family members (often abroad) - the financial downturn is literally horrific domestically and abroad (particularly given America is an economic driver in ways many people may not be able to understand if they aren't a minority or don't have overseas relatives relying on a breadwinner in America). The financial impact of aggressive lockdowns needs to be questioned if scientific studies (both peer-reviewed and with an empirical basis) are suggesting such aggressiveness may not result in any meaningful reduction of the risk of transmission.
To be clear, this is not to diminish the surges that are occurring or the huge strain on medical professionals and hospital workers; the emphasis should be on reviewing how to prevent or manage such outbreaks and recrafting a strategy to limit transmission in light of emerging evidence that risk of transmission outdoors or among asymptomatic carriers of the COV-SARS-2 strain is much lower than originally thought/feared. At the end of the day, a "better safe than sorry" strategy becomes problematic when "safe" = financial ruin and no statistically significant impact on reducing virus transmission.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.