Buying & Selling Real Estate
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback
Updated about 3 years ago, 09/30/2021
COVID-19 vs. Basic Freedoms
Let me start by being crystal clear. I am very sympathetic to all of those who have been exposed to COVID-19 – those who have either struggled through severe (or even mild) symptoms and certainly those who have passed away or lost loved ones due to complications from this virus. The magnitude in which this virus has overtaken our entire world is unprecedented and we need to protect those who are most at risk… BUT, at a certain point, we need to ask ourselves, “Are we doing more harm than good by shutting down the entire country?”
This country was built on freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to pretty much do whatever we want within the confines of the law. It’s our right as Americans to willfully make decisions that are in the best interest of ourselves and our families. Since when can a governing body tell us what we can and cannot lawfully do? I can’t go see my brother at his house (a private residence, by the way), under the pretense that we both agree to see each other, without the risk of being handcuffed, arrested and thrown into a police car?
Sure, we hear and read all about the death rate from COVID-19 and how the number of cases goes up by the thousands on a daily basis. Any death is a terrible death – no one wants to see anyone suffer or die because of an infectious disease. But we also need to take a look at the reality of these statistics. The people that are most at risk of developing complications from this virus are the elderly and those with pre-existing health conditions. The VAST majority of deaths related to this virus are those who fall into one or both of those categories.
For example, in New York, the epicenter of this virus in America, there have been 118,000+ confirmed cases and 10,000+ people have died from COVID-19. As of Monday 4/13, a total of 128 of these deaths were people who had no pre-existing health issues. On a percentage basis, that’s less than 0.11% death rate for those without pre-existing conditions. 0.11% - that’s the same death rate as Influenza.
If I want to take the risk and go outside, go to work, go to a sporting event, go to a concert, go to a bar, go to a restaurant, go to my brother’s house(!), then that it MY right to do that. If someone else wants to quarantine, stay home, not go to work, or not do anything social, that is THEIR right to do exactly that. We need to make decisions for ourselves, not be dictated to stay at home and wear a mask when I want to get into my car.
Yes, my real estate business has been put to a complete stop. Rents will be harder to obtain the longer this goes on and lender will be less likely to underwrite as things become more and more uncertain. That's not good news for any of us. But my frustrations go well beyond real estate. They expand to all aspects of human life and our civil liberties.
I can’t stand idly by and watch our country turn into a Totalitarianism state that I don’t even recognize anymore. It’s time to open up the country. It’s time to open up the economy. It’s time to get back to work and get back to our normal lives. If you agree (or even disagree), please respond back to this and let’s have a discussion about this.
@Matthew McNeil I know there's been A LOT of back and forth on this thread and I don't expect people to read the whole thing. In an earlier post I acknowledge that I overreached with the "Totalitarian" comment as I was trying to make a point. I should have been more careful with my words and that's on me.
Respectfully, I disagree with this assertion that somehow my interpretation of rights is "shallow." Is it "shallow" for a small business owner to keep his doors open so they can make a living? Is it "shallow" for a real estate investor who depends on monthly rent collection to expect that their rent get paid? Is it "shallow" to want what's best for your family? Maybe we have a different definition of "shallow" but there's nothing "shallow" about wanting to make a better life for yourself and for your family.
Originally posted by @Curtis Mears:
@John Collins
you do realize doctors and nurses are being laid off because of lack of work? many hospitals and patients are canceling procedures, resulting in not enough work. obviously not in all areas, but enough.
most of us will get the virus eventually. we are simply putting it off while destroying the economy. yes we are flattening the curve, but only till another wave comes through.
most of us will get the virus eventually
South Korea this is not true. Other countries are doing a WAY better job with testing & in general fighting this disease.
my sister is an OB/GYN your argument is dumb
She is at home thank goodness. She is next in line if an OB gets sick. Without shutting down elective procedures this would have continued to spread. Without stay at home orders this would have spread more. Hard to put genie back in bottle once it's out.
I grudgingly gave her my n-95 construction masks. Doctors didn't/don't have enough. The government lied to us that it wasn't safer for people to wear masks. A Chinese roommate is like masks help. Chinese people aren't just wearing them for fun.
The governor in her state FINALLY shut down schools. One of the gyms was gonna have all the kids come in for daycare. What?
I guess your logic is that we should spread the virus to help keep our health care workers employed?
UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE INTUBATED BY A GYNECOLOGIST, STAY AT HOME.
@Bryan Beal It is NOT shallow to want what's best for your family.
There is no question that we've got to figure out a balance between not overwhelming our healthcare system with allowing people to earn their livings.
The analogy that comes to mind is my daily 5 mile urban walk where I'm dodging either other people who are possible carriers of the virus or cars or both. It is a delicate thread we must navigate but please keep in mind that California has done better than Massachusetts at managing that thread. Both states are facing serious financial collapse but Massachusetts is also facing a potential hospitalization spike that will surpass the one in NY. Many think it is because our governor did not act soon enough. 20/20 hindsight... Please don't slam California for acting sooner. It really did save lives and your income has not been hit any harder than the incomes of investors and small business owners in Massachusetts.
Of course not. Some have interpreted your desire to keep making a living as you doing so at the cost of others dying or ending up on a respirator and that's just complete hyperbole.
Originally posted by @Steven Lowe:
Of course not. Some have interpreted your desire to keep making a living as you doing so at the cost of others dying or ending up on a respirator and that's just complete hyperbole.
his original post:
.........
If I want to take the risk and go outside, go to work, go to a sporting event, go to a concert, go to a bar, go to a restaurant, go to my brother’s house(!), then that it MY right to do that. If someone else wants to quarantine, stay home, not go to work, or not do anything social, that is THEIR right to do exactly that. We need to make decisions for ourselves, not be dictated to stay at home and wear a mask when I want to get into my car.
........
Of course not. Some have interpreted your desire to keep making a living as you doing so at the cost of others dying or ending up on a respirator and that's just complete hyperbole.
.......
hyperbole?
His original post says he believes that it's his right to go out & do sporting events restaurants concerts etc.
Then when/if he gets sick, he'll expect my MD sister to put her life at risk trying to save him/his family (with a shortage of PPE & testing) . I say let all these people go out. Then if they get sick they can go lock down with their family.
Don't give anyone that is out & about access to health care. soory it's my sister's right to deny you service. Or even better yet, once they get sick I guess it's still their right to go out & infect the rest of the population that think it's their right to go out & about.
Originally posted by @Kirk R.:
His original post says he believes that it's his right to go out & do sporting events restaurants concerts etc.
Then when/if he gets sick, he'll expect my MD sister to put her life at risk trying to save him/his family (with a shortage of PPE & testing) . I say let all these people go out. Then if they get sick they can go lock down with their family.
Don't give anyone that is out & about access to health care. soory it's my sister's right to deny you service. Or even better yet, once they get sick I guess it's still their right to go out & infect the rest of the population that think it's their right to go out & about.
At present there are no sporting events, restaurants open to the public, or concerts to go to, and by the time they are made available again the COVID-19 situation will not be what it presently is. But let's humor your idea for a moment.
You are saying that anyone who is "out and about" should be denied ANY medical care because they are possibly at greater risk of getting sick. Further, medical professionals should have the right to deny treatment just on the off chance that they might be exposed to COVID-19 by someone who engaged in risky behavior.
This would never happen--health care professionals, Doctors and Nurses, they have a code of ethics to treat the sick and injured, not to pass judgment. Besides, how would they even know if someone went to one of those places?
I mean you're basically saying anyone who goes out to a restaurant, sporting event or concert and needs medical attention should suffer and/or die because you think their behavior is selfish. That's just insane not to mention immoral and depraved.
- Rock Star Extraordinaire
- Northeast, TN
- 15,396
- Votes |
- 9,591
- Posts
Originally posted by @Steven Lowe:
Originally posted by @Kirk R.:
His original post says he believes that it's his right to go out & do sporting events restaurants concerts etc.
Then when/if he gets sick, he'll expect my MD sister to put her life at risk trying to save him/his family (with a shortage of PPE & testing) . I say let all these people go out. Then if they get sick they can go lock down with their family.
Don't give anyone that is out & about access to health care. soory it's my sister's right to deny you service. Or even better yet, once they get sick I guess it's still their right to go out & infect the rest of the population that think it's their right to go out & about.
At present there are no sporting events, restaurants open to the public, or concerts to go to, and by the time they are made available again the COVID-19 situation will not be what it presently is. But let's humor your idea for a moment.
You are saying that anyone who is "out and about" should be denied ANY medical care because they are possibly at greater risk of getting sick. Further, medical professionals should have the right to deny treatment just on the off chance that they might be exposed to COVID-19 by someone who engaged in risky behavior.
This would never happen--health care professionals, Doctors and Nurses, they have a code of ethics to treat the sick and injured, not to pass judgment. Besides, how would they even know if someone went to one of those places?
I mean you're basically saying anyone who goes out to a restaurant, sporting event or concert and needs medical attention should suffer and/or die because you think their behavior is selfish. That's just insane not to mention immoral and depraved.
I don't think he's saying that at all. Let me ask a question: how should medical professionals handle any of the multitude of "protesters" that were out and about today/yesterday, purposely shaking hands and hugging people, and "rallying" about their rights, should they come down with Corona? I know what the answer *will* be - medical professionals will treat them just like anyone else - but what should the answer be, for someone who blatantly disregards a dangerous situation and then catches a disease that is highly contagious?
In a just world, they would die in the streets, alone, without chance of infecting anyone else (although that's not realistic since the virus still survives in the dead body for at least some time). In reality, people are going to treat them and take the chance of becoming infected.
We bail a lot of stupid people out in this country. I'm not just talking about ignorant people - those who get hurt or find themselves in a dangerous situation because they just don't know any better - I'm talking about people who *know* there are big risks, take them anyway, and then dial 911 to bail them out because they're unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions. I'm not saying a guy going to a restaurant to pick up take-out and catches Corona should just suffer. There is a difference, however, in purposely giving a big middle finger to the safety of society and doing your best to minimize the risks to others. Fortunately, most people with sense have concluded (rightly) that it is better to keep things closed down, temporarily, while our health system tries to maintain control of the crisis, than to just let everyone do what they want in honor of their "rights".
- JD Martin
- Podcast Guest on Show #243
I can pull stuff off the internet too
Originally posted by @JD Martin:
In a just world, they would die in the streets, alone, without chance of infecting anyone else (although that's not realistic since the virus still survives in the dead body for at least some time). In reality, people are going to treat them and take the chance of becoming infected.
As Don Corleone once said, "that is not justice, your daughter is still alive".
What I was responding to was the idea that medical care should somehow only be reserved for those who don't do stupid things and medical professionals should be allowed to dispense life or death according to some ambiguous and completely unenforceable standard.
I'll wager that every single person on this board has done multiple stupid things in their lives, including you. I know I have. Should we be denied medical care and made to--what was it, die in the streets alone?--because some moral authority decided that we weren't worthy of saving because we didn't follow whatever made up standards they put in place? I'll assume for sake of argument that you would be OK with this but I certainly would not, no matter how much I might disagree with the so-called stupid behavior.
Medical professionals treat people who do stupid things all the time. My dad was Chief of trauma surgery for a major hospital in Chicago. The majority of his patients were not card carrying MENSA members and/or Nuns. They were typically victims of domestic and gang violence. Gunshot wounds. Stabbings. Beatings. Drug overdoses. Suicide attempts. Child abuse. One guy even got high on PCP, cut off his own d*ck and wanted it sewn back on.
But I suppose we should start turning people who flaunt the shelter in place orders away because they aren't worthy of being treated if they get sick? If people want to go out and gather, protest, shake hands, kiss babies, despite the global pandemic we are currently going through,though we may think they are being stupid, that is their right.
People like my father didn't sit there and judge the ones that came asking for help. But to decide certain people aren't worthy of saving if they get sick is completely reprehensible and shows how little you understand what a medical professional's code of ethics means to them.
We aren't under martial law. No amount of legislation can legislate the stupid out of people. It might flatten the stupid curve, to borrow a popular phrase, but not erase it. All you can do is hope that common sense will prevail and in the meantime wear a mask, gloves, wash your hands and pray this very sh*tty situation comes to an end soon enough.
- Rock Star Extraordinaire
- Northeast, TN
- 15,396
- Votes |
- 9,591
- Posts
Originally posted by @Steven Lowe:
Originally posted by @JD Martin:
In a just world, they would die in the streets, alone, without chance of infecting anyone else (although that's not realistic since the virus still survives in the dead body for at least some time). In reality, people are going to treat them and take the chance of becoming infected.
As Don Corleone once said, "that is not justice, your daughter is still alive".
What I was responding to was the idea that medical care should somehow only be reserved for those who don't do stupid things and medical professionals should be allowed to dispense life or death according to some ambiguous and completely unenforceable standard.
I'll wager that every single person on this board has done multiple stupid things in their lives, including you. I know I have. Should we be denied medical care and made to--what was it, die in the streets alone?--because some moral authority decided that we weren't worthy of saving because we didn't follow whatever made up standards they put in place? I'll assume for sake of argument that you would be OK with this but I certainly would not, no matter how much I might disagree with the so-called stupid behavior.
Medical professionals treat people who do stupid things all the time. My dad was Chief of trauma surgery for a major hospital in Chicago. The majority of his patients were not card carrying MENSA members and/or Nuns. They were typically victims of domestic and gang violence. Gunshot wounds. Stabbings. Beatings. Drug overdoses. Suicide attempts. Child abuse. One guy even got high on PCP, cut off his own d*ck and wanted it sewn back on.
But I suppose we should start turning people who flaunt the shelter in place orders away because they aren't worthy of being treated if they get sick? If people want to go out and gather, protest, shake hands, kiss babies, despite the global pandemic we are currently going through,though we may think they are being stupid, that is their right.
People like my father didn't sit there and judge the ones that came asking for help. But to decide certain people aren't worthy of saving if they get sick is completely reprehensible and shows how little you understand what a medical professional's code of ethics means to them.
We aren't under martial law. No amount of legislation can legislate the stupid out of people. It might flatten the stupid curve, to borrow a popular phrase, but not erase it. All you can do is hope that common sense will prevail and in the meantime wear a mask, gloves, wash your hands and pray this very sh*tty situation comes to an end soon enough.
The problem with your example is that there is/was virtually no risk to the treating professional as a result of all of those examples of stupidity. So what you are saying is that you think it is absolutely fine for people to purposely put themselves at risk for a highly contagious disease, and then potentially infect your father and his family when they show up for their treatment - is that correct? Because your father happens to be a medical professional, he and his family are fair game to be sacrificed to a pretty awful disease so that others can not hang out at the house for a few weeks and instead yell at the government and shake hands. Do I read that right?
Nobody has to tell me about "rights." I served in the US Navy during Gulf War 1. I got my share of decorations. I served my country, but I didn't serve so that a bunch of self-serving babies could purposely go out and take ridiculous and unnecessary risks that can kill a lot of vulnerable people. I don't have a problem with people going to work to keep the country running; someone has to stock groceries and deliver gasoline. But to suggest that no citizen should ever have to sacrifice some of their comfort for the greater good of society is a slap in the face of every citizen who ever did sacrifice for this country.
- JD Martin
- Podcast Guest on Show #243
Great thread from both sides...
The reality(so far) is that you are statistically more likely:
1. to not get it(so far)...is this most likely due to the quarantining, or the nature of the virus?
2. if you do get it, most likely to be a-symptomatic
3. if you do get it, you will be more likely to survive, than die...even in the high risk groups like the elderly(age 79+), the death rate is around 15%(in the US), so you are 85% chance of NOT be terminal, in the most vulnerable age range.
Before, during, and after the Covid-19 Pandemic....100% of humans will die at some time. It sucks when it's someone you know and love, but real easy for most people to to take in stride when its just statistical numbers that are people you don't know/love.
Only time will tell if tanking our economy in the name of quarantining is better than having let the virus run its course unimpeded. If no one you know dies, it would be real easy for you to argue against quarantining, unless quarantining IS the reason they didn't die, then again maybe you are a sociopath that doesn't love anybody except yourself.
Lastly, isn't it better to listen to the really smart people with very high IQ that dedicate their life to the study and application of human healthcare? If the brilliant doctors and scientists that we are so lucky to have among us in the human race, say self-quarantining is the right thing to do, why the hell would you test that or doubt it, because you think you are smart enough to realize the odds are in your favor?
Best health and wishes to all!!!
So, @JD Martin, let me understand this. And I want to be perfectly clear and I would like you to be as well. You think that someone who catches this diseases during a peaceful protest, which is specifically outlined in the First Amendment of the Constitution, your belief is that person should "die in the streets, alone?" That's your stance on this? That's your wish? You can't talk about rights in a singular fashion. They apply to everyone or they apply to no one. You can't pick and choose who has certain rights and who doesn't. This isn't an "I disagree with your stance so the rights don't apply to you." That's both ignorant and dangerous. I have to say that your logic here is astoundingly flawed and you need to take a firm look at how you interpret rights.
Originally posted by @Bryan Beal:
So, @JD Martin, let me understand this. And I want to be perfectly clear and I would like you to be as well. You think that someone who catches this diseases during a peaceful protest, which is specifically outlined in the First Amendment of the Constitution, your belief is that person should "die in the streets, alone?" That's your stance on this? That's your wish? You can't talk about rights in a singular fashion. They apply to everyone or they apply to no one. You can't pick and choose who has certain rights and who doesn't. This isn't an "I disagree with your stance so the rights don't apply to you." That's both ignorant and dangerous. I have to say that your logic here is astoundingly flawed and you need to take a firm look at how you interpret rights.
I want to be perfectly clear. You think it's ok to go out. When Governor's have issued stay at home orders. & put health workers (my sister) at higher risk & her family?
If it's your wife who is a doctor & the bread winner of your family gets infected & dies from one of these protesters. What's your reaction to them exercising their supposed constitutional rights during a pandemic?
@Kirk R. you can deflect all you want but that doesn't at all answer the question I posed. A right is a right is a right is a right and those are protected. You don't have to like it but you have to respect it. So sounds like you're also of the belief that those who peacefully protest should "die on the streets, alone?" What Constitutional rights do you speak of here? I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution about letting people die in the streets... Maybe I missed that one?
Originally posted by @Bryan Beal:
@Kirk R. you can deflect all you want but that doesn't at all answer the question I posed. A right is a right is a right is a right and those are protected. You don't have to like it but you have to respect it. So sounds like you're also of the belief that those who peacefully protest should "die on the streets, alone?" What Constitutional rights do you speak of here? I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution about letting people die in the streets... Maybe I missed that one?
As has been stated 1,000 times on here, but you don't seem to want to get it.
The Declaration specifically mentions three rights which human beings possess by birth or by nature-life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So my sister's right to life is lesser than these protesters right to liberty?
I gave up my freedom to serve in the armed forces. Do I believe people have the freedom to burn the flag? Yes I do. Do I believe you have the right to infringe on my rights? NO I DON'T.
Do I want anyone to die? NO I DON'T. Does anyone on BP want people to die? Very much doubt it. Now would some people not be good samaritans? dunno
Would my sister treat these protesters? yes she would with all her skills like she does every one of her patients.
BUT 1,001 times this logic has been repeated, but you choose to ignore it/not understand it? ANOTHER PERSON'S RIGHTS STOP WHERE ANOTHER PERSON'S BEGIN. (Is this deflection or will yiu continue to not understand this concept?)
Here is an OUTDATED thread that talks about the value of a human life ($10M?).
$3.4B value of a life? 593 deaths $2 trillion stimulus
https://www.biggerpockets.com/...
Which is where you might start to make a case the number of lives saved is not commensurate with the amount of financial damage.
Originally posted by @Bryan Beal:
What Constitutional rights do you speak of here? I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution about letting people die in the streets... Maybe I missed that one?
-------------------------------------
The Constitution says nothing about health care, so the Constitution will let you die in the streets all you want. As for protests, protest away, but you are subject to state government laws regarding how you may protest. Particularly where health, safety, and welfare -- and the ability to patronize bars and restaurants has nothing to do with health, safety, or welfare -- is involved.
Just like states are within their rights to ban snake handling in churches, even though religious practice is protected by the First Amendment.
Finally, there is the fact that your legal analysis is flawed. The application of the Constitution to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment did not disparage state jurisdiction (general health, safety, and welfare) unless it conflicted with the federal right. No state has, or can, ban peaceful assembly for political purposes. Every state can, however, tell you that if you do assemble, it will be in a manner that protects health, safety, and welfare.
And the Constitution doesn't give a toss whether anyone dies in the streets -- that's an issue for the states and their general jurisdiction.
- Rock Star Extraordinaire
- Northeast, TN
- 15,396
- Votes |
- 9,591
- Posts
Originally posted by @Bryan Beal:
So, @JD Martin, let me understand this. And I want to be perfectly clear and I would like you to be as well. You think that someone who catches this diseases during a peaceful protest, which is specifically outlined in the First Amendment of the Constitution, your belief is that person should "die in the streets, alone?" That's your stance on this? That's your wish? You can't talk about rights in a singular fashion. They apply to everyone or they apply to no one. You can't pick and choose who has certain rights and who doesn't. This isn't an "I disagree with your stance so the rights don't apply to you." That's both ignorant and dangerous. I have to say that your logic here is astoundingly flawed and you need to take a firm look at how you interpret rights.
That's right. My/my family's right to be alive trumps your right to act like an *** on the street, and if you do you should die in the streets without treatment. Come talk to me when you've actually sacrificed anything for this country. These "protesters" are a bunch of narcissistic crybabies who believe the individual always trumps the collective, even when you're talking about an invisible pandemic. They care for no one but themselves and can't see 5 feet in front of them regarding sacrifice for the collective good.
I don't care one way or the other how you feel about my logic and I don't need to look at anything. I have given a lot of myself and my family to my neighbors and my country and if you think watching a bunch of jerks in the street crying about having to stay home for a month pisses me off, you are right. I already told you that I get your original point and I don't disagree with a lot of it. Your point is you simply want to be right.
With that, I am done with this conversation.
- JD Martin
- Podcast Guest on Show #243
Virtually no risk to the treating professional? Ha. You should volunteer at an inner city ER or Trauma Unit and then rethink that statement.
Do you know what happens for example when a gang member gets shot and they bring him in for emergency treatment? Sometimes whoever shot him shows up to finish the job. Or his homies show up and threaten the docs/nurses. Or they are violent and on drugs. Or maybe they have a communicable disease like hepatitis. It's like a war zone.
I know a paramedic that was on a call in the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago because a woman was going into labor. The boyfriend pulled out a pistol and said "if my baby dies, you die too." But hey, at least he wasn't out at the beach during a shelter in place order!
There is no justification for you wishing suffering and death on people that aren't sheltering in place. Docs and nurses don't judge HOW people became afflicted with whatever malady forced them to seek medical care. Imagine if you went to get treated for a life threatening situation and the doc said "oh, I see you were former military. Well, I am anti war so you aren't getting treated." That doc would lose their license. To suggest that they should turn sick people away for going to a rally, restaurant, etc. during a shelter in place order is complete lunacy.
To your last point, if my father was still alive, he wouldn't ask how someone got to be sick in the first place, nor judge them for their circumstances, nor turn away someone who was in need of help. He would charge into the breach and treat them.
Originally posted by @Steven Lowe:
Virtually no risk to the treating professional? Ha. You should volunteer at an inner city ER or Trauma Unit and then rethink that statement.
Do you know what happens for example when a gang member gets shot and they bring him in for emergency treatment? Sometimes whoever shot him shows up to finish the job. Or his homies show up and threaten the docs/nurses. Or they are violent and on drugs. Or maybe they have a communicable disease like hepatitis. It's like a war zone.
I know a paramedic that was on a call in the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago because a woman was going into labor. The boyfriend pulled out a pistol and said "if my baby dies, you die too." But hey, at least he wasn't out at the beach during a shelter in place order!
There is no justification for you wishing suffering and death on people that aren't sheltering in place. Docs and nurses don't judge HOW people became afflicted with whatever malady forced them to seek medical care. Imagine if you went to get treated for a life threatening situation and the doc said "oh, I see you were former military. Well, I am anti war so you aren't getting treated." That doc would lose their license. To suggest that they should turn sick people away for going to a rally, restaurant, etc. during a shelter in place order is complete lunacy.
To your last point, if my father was still alive, he wouldn't ask how someone got to be sick in the first place, nor judge them for their circumstances, nor turn away someone who was in need of help. He would charge into the breach and treat them.
It was very noble of your dad to work in such a rough area. He made that choice & the risks & continued to serve.
Other health care workers most likely don't want to be subjected to the risks of high crime areas ESPECIALLY UNNECESSARILY.
unnecessarily imo these protesters are creating the same high risk environment as your dad chose to work in.
not treating a veteran because he's a veteran ≠ not treating a covid-19 patient because he is contagious (surely you can see this logic?) Let me explain.......
bottom line: giving medical care to protesters shaking hands during covid19 is probably higher risk to medical professionals than working in high crime areas.
so being a protester = being worse than a violent criminal in a high crime area? (at least as far health care workers health is concerned)
your dad's choice to work in a high crime area ≠ health care workers being forced to serve protesters "exercising their rights"
God I love this quarantine, people magically learned everything there is to know about infectious disease, Epidemiology, and disaster control...
Let’s not listen to doctors and health experts. Let’s listen to some REIs...
Good stuff.
I do not agree with the idea that the rights of one end where the rights of another begin. I don't think it works that way.
I think the way it really works is that rights coexist simultaneously. Not so unlike a difference in opinion. Or maybe a counter-suit in court, where both parties have wronged the other and can hold the other accountable under law.
I do see how people might not like that sometimes.
Originally posted by @Kirk R.:
Other health care workers most likely don't want to be subjected to the risks of high crime areas ESPECIALLY UNNECESSARILY.
unnecessarily imo these protesters are creating the same high risk environment as your dad chose to work in.
not treating a veteran because he's a veteran ≠ not treating a covid-19 patient because he is contagious (surely you can see this logic?) Let me explain.......
bottom line: giving medical care to protesters shaking hands during covid19 is probably higher risk to medical professionals than working in high crime areas.
so being a protester = being worse than a violent criminal in a high crime area? (at least as far health care workers health is concerned)
your dad's choice to work in a high crime area ≠ health care workers being forced to serve protesters "exercising their rights"
There are certain circumstances under which a patient may be denied emergency medical care but "being stupid" is not one of them.
We have this thing in the US called The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. This is a federal law that requires all doctors and medical facilities to see a patient who is suffering from a medical emergency (such as complications from COVID-19) even if the patient has no ability to pay the anticipated bill.
There is also a professional standard for physicians according to the AMA, the obligation to "provide urgent medical care during disasters," an obligation that holds "even in the face of greater than usual risk to physicians' own safety, health or life." I would think a global pandemic qualifies as a disaster!
There's simply no way any health care system would start denying treatment to patients because they engaged in risky behavior. And I find it really idiotic to suggest that people should suffer and die because they didn't stay home during a shelter in place order and got COVID-19. There's no legal, moral or ethical justification for this.
@Bryan Beal I can’t believe this is even a discussion. If you want to carry the risk and go to work, the virus will be lingering for much more time and much more people will be infected. Your risk affects those around you. If you go grocery shopping guess what? Now everyone that took massive precaution just stepped into the same place and touched the same things you did. Your irresponsibility affects others.
Originally posted by @Sergio Aguinaga:
@Bryan Beal I can’t believe this is even a discussion. If you want to carry the risk and go to work, the virus will be lingering for much more time and much more people will be infected. Your risk affects those around you. If you go grocery shopping guess what? Now everyone that took massive precaution just stepped into the same place and touched the same things you did. Your irresponsibility affects others.
You also take a risk every time you get in a car, fly on an airplane, or even go for a walk outside. Life has an inherent risk level, there is no way to eliminate it from the equation. We don't live in a laboratory. And if people keep staying home indefinitely eventually the economy is going to collapse because the Government can't just keep printing money to make up for the lack of actual work being done. People need to go back to work even if it means an increased risk to some.