NationStates

San Lumen wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
The alternative being thousands of people die of sickness, people are too afraid to shop, the economy crashes, the state goes bankrupt.

And what should he do? close the state again, destroy the economy and lose his job?

Well, yes. Lives are more important than lines.

Thermodolia wrote:Ya know maybe we should look into what NZ did because they are COVID-19 free

They banned all travel into NZ for non citizens.

Cisairse wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
And what should he do? close the state again, destroy the economy and lose his job?

Well, yes. Lives are more important than lines.

And what good is it handing his all but certain successor he lost in landslide to a completely ruined economy?

San Lumen wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
The alternative being thousands of people die of sickness, people are too afraid to shop, the economy crashes, the state goes bankrupt.

And what should he do? close the state again, destroy the economy and lose his job?

I'm a master proofreader of posts after they go live. You should reread some because you might have missed crucial information (like my support for increased testing capacity over lockdowns).

But yes, if the choice is between letting a lot of people die and bankrupting the state (through low consumer confidence) and saving some lives and bankrupting the state (through mandated business closure), I'd hope he pick the latter.

Galloism wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Ya know maybe we should look into what NZ did because they are COVID-19 free

They banned all travel into NZ for non citizens.

And I was called crazy when I said we should have done that back in February.

San Lumen wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
Well, yes. Lives are more important than lines.

And what good is it handing his all but certain successor he lost in landslide to a completely ruined economy?

"He shouldn't try to maximize saving lives because it might cost him the election" is a super weak take, dude.

Valrifell wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
And what should he do? close the state again, destroy the economy and lose his job?

I'm a master proofreader of posts after they go live. You should reread some because you might have missed crucial information (like my support for increased testing capacity over lockdowns).

But yes, if the choice is between letting a lot of people die and bankrupting the state (through low consumer confidence) and saving some lives and bankrupting the state (through mandated business closure), I'd hope he pick the latter.

I do not oppose large scale testing.

If he bankrupts the state and puts shits the doors of millions of businesses he's not getting reelected. If you were in office you wouldn't care if you got voted out and handed your successor of completely ruined state economy?

San Lumen wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
Well, yes. Lives are more important than lines.

And what good is it handing his all but certain successor he lost in landslide to a completely ruined economy?

Lives are also more important than elections.

Thermodolia wrote:

Galloism wrote:They banned all travel into NZ for non citizens.

And I was called crazy when I said we should have done that back in February.

We had community transmission in late December. If we were going to ban all travel to non-citizens, we would need to do that in early December. Nobody was taking the threat seriously then.

Cisairse wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
And what good is it handing his all but certain successor he lost in landslide to a completely ruined economy?

Lives are also more important than elections.

Therefore you wouldnt care if you lost in landslide and everything you achieved in office in your first term was undone.

San Lumen wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
Lives are also more important than elections.

Therefore you wouldnt care if you lost in landslide and everything you achieved in office in your first term was undone.

If it saved lives? Yes.

I've lost (small) elections before. Bettering the lives of people is far, far more important than holding power. Anyone who says otherwise is an authoritarian and not to be trusted.

San Lumen wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
Lives are also more important than elections.

Therefore you wouldnt care if you lost in landslide and everything you achieved in office in your first term was undone.

A politicians priorities lie in the good being of his constituents. You can argue that the economic impacts would be worse than the impacts on life (which I would object to but I recognize it's a valid concern), but arguing that he should take a course of action that, a priori, would directly lead to the deaths of innocent people for the sake of his legacy and re-election is just unconscionable.

Cisairse wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Therefore you wouldnt care if you lost in landslide and everything you achieved in office in your first term was undone.

If it saved lives? Yes.

I've lost (small) elections before. Bettering the lives of people is far, far more important than holding power. Anyone who says otherwise is an authoritarian and not to be trusted.

If you were in his position I doubt you feel the same way

San Lumen wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
If it saved lives? Yes.

I've lost (small) elections before. Bettering the lives of people is far, far more important than holding power. Anyone who says otherwise is an authoritarian and not to be trusted.

If you were in his position I doubt you feel the same way

No, I certainly would.

Cisairse wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:And I was called crazy when I said we should have done that back in February.

We had community transmission in late December. If we were going to ban all travel to non-citizens, we would need to do that in early December. Nobody was taking the threat seriously then.

Something would have been better than nothing. NZ had community transmission before they shutdown the borders yet they are now COVID free.

Maybe we should have done the same and not left it to the states?

Thermodolia wrote:

Galloism wrote:They banned all travel into NZ for non citizens.

And I was called crazy when I said we should have done that back in February.

As Will Smith once said, "does thinking you're the last sane man on the face of the earth make you crazy?"

Cisairse wrote:

San Lumen wrote:If you were in his position I doubt you feel the same way

No, I certainly would.

Press x to doubt. I don’t think you’d want to lose re-election

Thermodolia wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
We had community transmission in late December. If we were going to ban all travel to non-citizens, we would need to do that in early December. Nobody was taking the threat seriously then.

Something would have been better than nothing. NZ had community transmission before they shutdown the borders yet they are now COVID free.

Maybe we should have done the same and not left it to the states?

A strong, federally-led response would have been better, yes.

Alas, instead we have Trump, who sent the national guard to raid supplies ordered by the states.

San Lumen wrote:

Cisairse wrote:No, I certainly would.

Press x to doubt. I don’t think you’d want to lose re-election

Election is not a legitimate alternative to killing constituents.

San Lumen wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:Kind of weird that the anti-lockdown protests help spread the virus, the BLM riots don't, but Trump rallies do. I'm seeing a pattern here.

I find it very hypocritical at this point. Why should anybody listen to their executives orders when they pick and chose what types of protests and gatherings they will allow?

I personally think all of them should be banned. The Wuhan Flu is still a very real danger.

Solomons Land wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I find it very hypocritical at this point. Why should anybody listen to their executives orders when they pick and chose what types of protests and gatherings they will allow?

I personally think all of them should be banned. The Wuhan Flu is still a very real danger.

Personally I think all executives should be banned.

Cisairse wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Press x to doubt. I don’t think you’d want to lose re-election

Election is not a legitimate alternative to killing constituents.

And what about people who lose their business, fall into poverty, of children who can’t eat dinner because their parents have to chose between rent or dinner?

As governor you wouldn’t care?

Solomons Land wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I find it very hypocritical at this point. Why should anybody listen to their executives orders when they pick and chose what types of protests and gatherings they will allow?

I personally think all of them should be banned. The Wuhan Flu is still a very real danger.

Are you familiar with the first amendment?

Valrifell wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Something would have been better than nothing. NZ had community transmission before they shutdown the borders yet they are now COVID free.

Maybe we should have done the same and not left it to the states?

A strong, federally-led response would have been better, yes.

Alas, instead we have Trump, who sent the national guard to raid supplies ordered by the states.

Definitely. Short term hurt is better than long term fuck up

San Lumen wrote:

Cisairse wrote:Election is not a legitimate alternative to killing constituents.

And what about people who lose their business, fall into poverty, of children who can’t eat dinner because their parents have to chose between rent or dinner?

Now you're just making an entirely different argument than before.