I'm sorry to hear you contracted this contagion and am glad to hear you have a mild case.
ChrisC":18jl5c2f said:
However, to throw Generation X, Y and Z into economic chaos to save a few Boomers?? C'mon. The Boomers really cannot afford this - we are saddled with debt. Money should be going to climate change, education, etc - the future.
I've got two teenage nephews who were born immunocompromised. My parents are in their 80s (with adequate savings!). As for me, I'm 51, 5'11", 160 lbs., can still handle 25+ pull ups from a dead hang on an average day, and over 5 trips to Mustang have yet to find a lead guide I can't keep up with (in terms cardio fitness, not ski technique) even though I live at 800 ft. On the other hand, just this morning my oncologist emailed me to remind me that after 3+ years of ongoing treatments for a hematologic cancer, I am at significant risk from this bug. I agree that in the end most of us are likely to get this thing. I'd just like there to be available hospital beds for my nephews, my parents, myself and anybody you might happen to love if needed.
Even if the opportunity to manage this thing primarily through testing hasn't already been missed, there are few signs that adequate numbers of test kits are available, or likely to soon be available, in much of the country, including where I live:
http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-s- ... 568864222/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Getting people to move around a lot less and getting people not to gather in large groups are two proven ways to slow down the demand for hospital care. I posted this earlier, I'll post it again:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... simulator/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's a simplified simulation, but makes a persuasive argument that getting people to move around a lot less would likely result in a flattened curve much less likely to overwhelm the healthcare system. It takes about 5 minutes. Please take it for a spin.
I agree that the likelihood of catching coronavirus on a chairlift must be pretty small, but closing ski areas is just one small way to get people to stop moving around. Of course skiers on their way to and from resorts also travel through airports, stand at rental car counters, stay in hotels, eat in restaurants (or get takeout from restaurants), etc. From this perspective, I'm surprised more governors didn't shut down their states' resorts the way Jared Polis did in Colorado.
With respect to civil liberties, I'm generally all for individuals managing their own risks. Just about all the the skiing I have done over the last 3 season has been against Dr.'s orders. However, where I start to have an issue is where other's exercise of their perceived rights puts me and my loved ones at risk. One treatment I underwent in late 2017 wiped out my immune system and all the immunity I gained through childhood vaccinations. It was not until December 2019 that my new immune system was mature enough to accept new vaccinations for measles. In the meantime, every ignorant and reckless anti-vaxer with whom I unknowingly came in contact with put me at totally unnecessary risk of a potentially-deadly disease. The issues raised by coronavirus-related travel restrictions are much more complex, but not entirely different.
With respect to the economic fallout of movement and gathering restrictions, if, as you argue, as a society we decide that anybody boomer and older, all people with preexisting conditions that make them vulnerable to the virus, and really anyone that needs life-saving healthcare for all sorts of reasons (but won't get from an overwhelmed health care system) are expendable, I would very much like to see some hard numbers that show this would be the economically better alternative before that decision is made.
