Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Quote of the Day: Courage

 

“A decline in courage may be the most striking feature, which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course, there are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

How much of our government today is marked by a lack of courage? We see it most clearly in the response to the COVID-19 epidemic. The states, counties, and cities whose leaders are most frightened are the ones maintaining the lockdown longest. Especially the politicians who fear the electorate and mistrust the common sense of the average person.

Similarly, the decline in courage has led to today’s bubble-wrap society — the desire to insulate people from any shock or hurt is overriding people’s ability to live their lives. Even those of us who realize the emperor is wearing no clothes lack the courage to proclaim it aloud.

When I was younger, when Solzhenitsyn was still alive and wrote this quote, I believed he was too pessimistic, especially about Americans. Today? I am not so sure he was wrong.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 32 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. E. Kent Golding Member

    I don’t have the count in front of me, but it is amazing the number of times Jesus said to not worry, don’t be afraid, etc.

    It is almost like he thought fear and worry were signs of lack of faith.

    • #1
    • May 23, 2020, at 5:51 AM PDT
    • 20 likes
  2. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    I don’t have the count in front of me, but it is amazing the number of times Jesus said to not worry, don’t be afraid, etc.

    It is almost like he thought fear and worry were signs of lack of faith.

    Yup.

    I wish I could like your comment many times.

    • #2
    • May 23, 2020, at 5:56 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  3. EODmom Coolidge

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    I don’t have the count in front of me, but it is amazing the number of times Jesus said to not worry, don’t be afraid, etc.

    It is almost like he thought fear and worry were signs of lack of faith.

    I think fear is what Satan uses to get us to invite him in. Since we have to invite, he had to find a tool. If we allow fear to be our driver, we become prey. When I’m most afraid I try- and it’s often really hard – to ask myself What’s the worst thing that can happen?

    • #3
    • May 23, 2020, at 6:06 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  4. D.A. Venters Member

    I think you’re being a little too harsh on us here. A brand new disease, about which little was known, arrived on our shores, and rapidly became the leading cause of death. It’s expecting an awful lot of a society to just shrug that off, and it’s not clear to me that you could call a society that did so courageous. 

    As it happened, emergency measures were taken to reduce the spread, while keeping basic economic activity going, and for the most part, with due recognition of the various constitutional restrictions on power. Measures were taken to blunt the harm to those who lost jobs. As the spread of the disease slowed, and more data about the disease came in, the restrictions were relaxed. This was a cowardly response? 

    • #4
    • May 23, 2020, at 6:28 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  5. I Walton Member

    I’m not at all sure fear applies to Democrat leadership. It may define the groups they appeal to, but they’re brave enough to lie about everything always. 

    • #5
    • May 23, 2020, at 6:39 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  6. Arahant Member

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    while keeping basic economic activity going

    Basic economic activity is all economic activity.

    • #6
    • May 23, 2020, at 7:00 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  7. MarciN Member

    I love the quote, but I’m uncertain that courage per se is what’s needed right now.

    Massachusetts seems to be ignored by the media quite a bit, which I find interesting. We’ve had the fourth- or fifth-highest death count in the country. We have a wonderful Republican governor who has the support of most of the people in the state–his approval ratings are in the high 60s, and he’s considered one of the most popular governors in the country.

    Governor Baker has not had the success in the nursing home survival rates that Governor DeSantis has had in Florida. Our stats look much more like New York City’s, and I attribute the difference to the weather. We in the upper Northeast have the dark and gloomy, cold but never quite freezing March and April weather in which this virus thrives. People in this part of the country don’t get enough vitamin D through those months, and in the long-term-care facilities people aren’t getting any exercise either. To my knowledge, it has not been reported that our governor Charlie Baker knowingly sent infected nursing home patients into nursing homes where they could infect others. There’s been no order from him that has been unearthed demanding that nursing home administrators take covid-19 patients into their unprepared midst. Baker is acutely aware of the problem, however, and is opening covid-19-specific hospitals across the state. At any rate, the virus is hitting our long-term-care facilities hard.

    The latest death stats for Massachusetts on death by age group are these:

    age 0-19, none

    20-29, 8

    30-39, 18

    40-49, 57

    50-59, 226

    60-69, 625

    70-79, 1,398

    80+, 3,896

    In order for our states’ leaders, including Massachusetts, to get the economy rolling again, they would have to say that this disease is really deadly for those people 80 years old and older, a little bit deadly for those aged 70 to 79, and a curable nuisance for those aged 50 to 69.

    I started to say here, for leaders to say “Don’t worry about it, it’s only killing those in their eighties and older” would be political suicide. But having written out the actual numbers, it suddenly dawned on me that that is the right approach. Stick to the numbers.

    It’s sort of like the advice head hunters give job seekers. Don’t brag and don’t worry about bragging. Stick to the numbers in describing your achievements.

    I think perhaps that would be the best answer here. Don’t make blanket statements to the public about the risk. Stick to the facts and keep repeating those. Little by little, people will feel safe to go out again, to be with people again, and to put the risk in some perspective for themselves and others.

    So perhaps it is more a language problem we are dealing with now rather than an emotional problem of courage.

    • #7
    • May 23, 2020, at 7:01 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  8. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    As it happened, emergency measures were taken to reduce the spread, while keeping basic economic activity going, and for the most part, with due recognition of the various constitutional restrictions on power. Measures were taken to blunt the harm to those who lost jobs. As the spread of the disease slowed, and more data about the disease came in, the restrictions were relaxed. This was a cowardly response? 

    Continuing the lockdown is cowardly. Pretending masks and social distancing are necessary when the CDC data shows the disease is not serious enough to merit extreme protection is cowardly. Keeping schoolchildren (almost unaffected by the disease) out of school for the rest of this year and forcing them to stay six feet apart and wear masks next year is cowardly. Refusing to admit we overestimated the severity of the disease is cowardly. 

    There is a saying that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and the next time as farce. The first month – from March 15 to April 15 was tragedy. After April 15 it has become farce.

    Unwillingness to face the dangers of the lockdown and the unnecessary panic while obsessing over the potential dangers of a disease no worse than a bad influenza – and that only for the population over 65 is cowardly. I went along with the first two weeks as a necessary precaution. After that, and as more data has been revealed, the necessity for this silliness has evaporated. Refusing to acknowledge that is cowardly.

    • #8
    • May 23, 2020, at 7:02 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  9. Arahant Member

    This conversation is part of our Quote of the Day Series. It is a Ricochet member organized, coördinated, and fulfilled activity to bring a bit more variety to our daily fare. If you have a quotation you would like to share, our June sign-up sheet has plenty of available openings. Come sign up today.

    • #9
    • May 23, 2020, at 7:03 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  10. E. Kent Golding Member

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    As the spread of the disease slowed, and more data about the disease came in, the restrictions were relaxed.

    Not relaxed nearly fast enough. The lockdown was sold as a method to keep hospital emergency rooms from getting overloaded. That was achieved. However, the restrictions were not relaxed very much after the it became apparent that hospital emergency rooms were well below maximum capacity. We are getting mission creep — from “flatten the peak ” to “keep everyone safe” to “keep everyone subjects and slaves”.

    • #10
    • May 23, 2020, at 7:06 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  11. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter

    MarciN (View Comment):
    So perhaps it is more a language problem we are dealing with now rather than an emotional problem of courage.

    Nah. It is not a language problem. It is politicians lacking the courage to speak the truth about the risks of the disease and take actions (like the governors of Florida and Georgia did) to open things up when others were scared to because the data said the risk was overstated. What they did was unpopular, and had significant political risks. They had the courage to act. Most of all, it is politicians and experts too cowardly to admit they were wrong or that the actions they took, while based on the best advice at the time, were wrong. Instead, they double down on stupid like the governors of Michigan and Oregon, extending draconian measures because they lack the courage to admit they were wrong.

    • #11
    • May 23, 2020, at 7:09 AM PDT
    • 9 likes
  12. philo Member

    Seawriter (View Comment): There is a saying that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and the next time as farce. The first month – from March 15 to April 15 was tragedy. After April 15 it has become farce.

    This should be the opening line in the official written history of the year 2020.

    • #12
    • May 23, 2020, at 7:11 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  13. EODmom Coolidge

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I think you’re being a little too harsh on us here. A brand new disease, about which little was known, arrived on our shores, and rapidly became the leading cause of death. It’s expecting an awful lot of a society to just shrug that off, and it’s not clear to me that you could call a society that did so courageous.

    As it happened, emergency measures were taken to reduce the spread, while keeping basic economic activity going, and for the most part, with due recognition of the various constitutional restrictions on power. Measures were taken to blunt the harm to those who lost jobs. As the spread of the disease slowed, and more data about the disease came in, the restrictions were relaxed. This was a cowardly response?

    I think this flu has not yet become the leading cause of death – those comparisons are yet to be established for the periods since inception and it is certainly not demonstrated that principal cause of death is reported consistently and accurately in all reporting jurisdictions. Heart disease and cancer have long been leaders by far in that regard, with “accidents” a close 3rd. There is in fact ample anecdotal evidence that flu is being attributed as THE cause of death even when more pervasive and long term illnesses ( like heart disease and cancer) are present. Further, it’s yet to be known how many more people will die this year due to untreated diseases that would have been tested and treated but for hospital closures.

    I think you way overstate the extent of consensus of medical view of the nature and seriousness of the disease. It is true that a dominant view took control of policy making, and alternative views were discouraged. I strongly believe that you dismiss the extent that constitutional provisions have been and continued to be trampled. Finally – the more I read about how the elderly and just frail are being treated, disrupted and isolated in their previously comfortable and safe (for them) environments, the more cruel and reprehensible the (primarily local)policy makers are. 

    • #13
    • May 23, 2020, at 7:13 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  14. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter

    EODmom (View Comment):
    Finally – the more I read about how the elderly and just frail are being treated, disrupted and isolated in their previously comfortable and safe (for them) environments, the more cruel and reprehensible the (primarily local)policy makers are. 

    Don’t forget cowardly. Cruelty is often accompanied by cowardice. The decision to place recovering Covid patients in nursing homes was a panic reaction. Refusing to acknowledge the error goes beyond panic to cowardice.

    • #14
    • May 23, 2020, at 7:20 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  15. D.A. Venters Member

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    As it happened, emergency measures were taken to reduce the spread, while keeping basic economic activity going, and for the most part, with due recognition of the various constitutional restrictions on power. Measures were taken to blunt the harm to those who lost jobs. As the spread of the disease slowed, and more data about the disease came in, the restrictions were relaxed. This was a cowardly response?

    Continuing the lockdown is cowardly. Pretending masks and social distancing are necessary when the CDC data shows the disease is not serious enough to merit extreme protection is cowardly. Keeping schoolchildren (almost unaffected by the disease) out of school for the rest of this year and forcing them to stay six feet apart and wear masks next year is cowardly. Refusing to admit we overestimated the severity of the disease is cowardly.

    There is a saying that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and the next time as farce. The first month – from March 15 to April 15 was tragedy. After April 15 it has become farce.

    Unwillingness to face the dangers of the lockdown and the unnecessary panic while obsessing over the potential dangers of a disease no worse than a bad influenza – and that only for the population over 65 is cowardly. I went along with the first two weeks as a necessary precaution. After that, and as more data has been revealed, the necessity for this silliness has evaporated. Refusing to acknowledge that is cowardly.

    Declaring things cowardly is not making much of an argument. One could just as easily declare them courageous attempts to protect society’s most vulnerable people. Both of those statements are empty rhetoric. Put yourself in the shoes of a state governor in early April, with real responsibility, for whom empty rhetoric means nothing.

    Even if I granted just for the sake of argument that the lockdown orders were mistaken in hindsight, there is no evidence they were motivated by cowardice as opposed to reasonable risk calculation. It is the same with the gradual release of restrictions. Another quick flare up could have disastrous consequences beyond the government’s ability to mitigate. It makes sense to be careful.

    This incessant need to declare Covid no worse than the flu is also ridiculous. It seems clear that it is much worse than the flu, but even if it wasn’t, even if it was just like the flu – it’s still another flu! On top of the one we already have. If another Al Qaeda-type terrorist group burst on the scene and killed 2,000 Americans, only a fool would go around saying, “What’s the big deal? They’re no worse than Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda killed more people. In fact, they’re just killing people Al Queda would have eventually killed, so why are we freaking out?” Having two problems where there was one problem doubles the problem.

    • #15
    • May 23, 2020, at 7:22 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  16. Arahant Member

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    As the spread of the disease slowed, and more data about the disease came in, the restrictions were relaxed.

    Not relaxed nearly fast enough. The lockdown was sold as a method to keep hospital emergency rooms from getting overloaded. That was achieved. However, the restrictions were not relaxed very much after the it became apparent that hospital emergency rooms were well below maximum capacity. We are getting mission creep — from “flatten the peak ” to “keep everyone safe” to “keep everyone subjects and slaves”.

    Indeed, and here in Michigan, the stay at home order was once more extended to 12 JUN.

    • #16
    • May 23, 2020, at 7:25 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  17. aardo vozz Member

    Hope this works🙏

    LEEyijiTW-1/G633 HVQ1 YPSV

    • #17
    • May 23, 2020, at 7:29 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. Jules PA Member

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I think you’re being a little too harsh on us here. A brand new disease, about which little was known, arrived on our shores, and rapidly became the leading cause of death. It’s expecting an awful lot of a society to just shrug that off, and it’s not clear to me that you could call a society that did so courageous.

    As it happened, emergency measures were taken to reduce the spread, while keeping basic economic activity going, and for the most part, with due recognition of the various constitutional restrictions on power. Measures were taken to blunt the harm to those who lost jobs. As the spread of the disease slowed, and more data about the disease came in, the restrictions were relaxed. This was a cowardly response?

    I think to continue in that fashion is cowardly. 

    We can move forward with care and courage. To remain frozen is not only cowardly, it is suicidal.

    • #18
    • May 23, 2020, at 8:22 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  19. Percival Thatcher
    PercivalJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    Even if I granted just for the sake of argument that the lockdown orders were mistaken in hindsight, there is no evidence they were motivated by cowardice as opposed to reasonable risk calculation. It is the same with the gradual release of restrictions. Another quick flare up could have disastrous consequences beyond the government’s ability to mitigate

    I would maintain that not reducing restrictions as the risk declines is cowardice.

    Solzhenitsyn had more insight into our condition than I gave him credit for when I first read this.

     

    • #19
    • May 23, 2020, at 9:05 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  20. E. Kent Golding Member

    aardo vozz (View Comment):

    Hope this works🙏

    LEEyijiTW-1/G633 HVQ1 YPSV

    And some random numbers and letters to you, too!

    • #20
    • May 23, 2020, at 9:10 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  21. aardo vozz Member

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    aardo vozz (View Comment):

    Hope this works🙏

    LEEyijiTW-1/G633 HVQ1 YPSV

    And some random numbers and letters to you, too!

    I will try again later. I was trying to link a video. Oh well🙄

    • #21
    • May 23, 2020, at 1:26 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  22. Percival Thatcher
    PercivalJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    aardo vozz (View Comment):

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    aardo vozz (View Comment):

    Hope this works🙏

    LEEyijiTW-1/G633 HVQ1 YPSV

    And some random numbers and letters to you, too!

    I will try again later. I was trying to link a video. Oh well🙄

    Grab and copy the contents of the address box of your browser from the video into the comment field. If you do just that, you get a link to the video. If you “break the link” by selecting it and clicking the symbol that looks like an exploding link, the site will (or should) recognize it as video and properly display it as embedded video.

    • #22
    • May 23, 2020, at 1:31 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  23. Saint Augustine Member

    MarciN (View Comment):

    I love the quote, but I’m uncertain that courage per se is what’s needed right now.

    . . .

    So perhaps it is more a language problem we are dealing with now rather than an emotional problem of courage.

    Courage doesn’t work by itself. Courage is for preserving what the other virtues do.

    • #23
    • May 23, 2020, at 3:57 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  24. MarciN Member

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    I love the quote, but I’m uncertain that courage per se is what’s needed right now.

    . . .

    So perhaps it is more a language problem we are dealing with now rather than an emotional problem of courage.

    Courage doesn’t work by itself. Courage is for preserving what the other virtues do.

    Yup. :-)

    • #24
    • May 23, 2020, at 4:41 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  25. MiMac Thatcher

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    As it happened, emergency measures were taken to reduce the spread, while keeping basic economic activity going, and for the most part, with due recognition of the various constitutional restrictions on power. Measures were taken to blunt the harm to those who lost jobs. As the spread of the disease slowed, and more data about the disease came in, the restrictions were relaxed. This was a cowardly response?

    Continuing the lockdown is cowardly. Pretending masks and social distancing are necessary when the CDC data shows the disease is not serious enough to merit extreme protection is cowardly. Keeping schoolchildren (almost unaffected by the disease) out of school for the rest of this year and forcing them to stay six feet apart and wear masks next year is cowardly. Refusing to admit we overestimated the severity of the disease is cowardly.

    There is a saying that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and the next time as farce. The first month – from March 15 to April 15 was tragedy. After April 15 it has become farce.

    Unwillingness to face the dangers of the lockdown and the unnecessary panic while obsessing over the potential dangers of a disease no worse than a bad influenza – and that only for the population over 65 is cowardly. I went along with the first two weeks as a necessary precaution. After that, and as more data has been revealed, the necessity for this silliness has evaporated. Refusing to acknowledge that is cowardly.

    Ok so how many projected deaths would be your threshold for masks & social distancing? Not fear mongering- an honest question. If the IFR is “only” 0.26% and herd immunity requires 200 million people to be infected (both reasonable numbers) that is 520K deaths. Isn’t that a sufficient number to take steps to avoid? Shouldn’t we take steps to BOTH reopen and protect lives? It is unlikely that merely isolating the at risk population will be enough-it isn’t practical for many & the data shows that it is unlikely we will have a robust enough testing regimen (plus if you don’t like masks you will hate a real program of trace & isolate the infected). How about at least masks & 3 feet distancing? Neither is exceedingly onerous (and there is data supporting their effectiveness)-we can reopen, protect lives and slow the spread while hoping for a vaccine or effective treatment (both have a significant chance of occurring in the next 9 months). Or do you advocate throwing all caution to the wind- and accept that if we get a 2nd wave that we could suffer greater than a hundred thousand deaths this fall? What policymaker wants that scenario?

    • #25
    • May 23, 2020, at 5:55 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  26. RushBabe49 Thatcher

    I am 71 years old and in good health and working full-time. I don’t need your “protection”. It is not anyone else’s responsibility to keep me safe. Safety is not my prime directive. Liberty is. 

    • #26
    • May 23, 2020, at 10:35 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  27. Arahant Member

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Ok so how many projected deaths

    Let me stop you right there. The projections have consistently been off. At this point, “projected” means “I’m lying.”

    • #27
    • May 24, 2020, at 2:18 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  28. Lilly B Coolidge

    Arahant (View Comment):

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    As the spread of the disease slowed, and more data about the disease came in, the restrictions were relaxed.

    Not relaxed nearly fast enough. The lockdown was sold as a method to keep hospital emergency rooms from getting overloaded. That was achieved. However, the restrictions were not relaxed very much after the it became apparent that hospital emergency rooms were well below maximum capacity. We are getting mission creep — from “flatten the peak ” to “keep everyone safe” to “keep everyone subjects and slaves”.

    Indeed, and here in Michigan, the stay at home order was once more extended to 12 JUN.

    Since we Virginians have been subject to a stay at home order through June 10th all along, I can commiserate. I have frequently thought it would have been better for the governor to issue a shorter order with extensions if necessary, but now I think that would be worse psychologically. Ultimately, I think problem is not the manner of the orders, but the length.

    Virginia started opening up May 15 with limitations, whereas my county and many others in Northern Virginia asked to maintain more restrictions. My haircut has been postponed from last week to the end of this week, if the salon is allowed to open. Now that it’s based on cases or trends, reopening is extremely uncertain. Since precautions and reduced capacity will be required in any case, I don’t understand why they don’t just pick a date (preferably one that has already past) and let businesses operate.

    Some businesses are closing permanently. The local ballet studio closing is particularly sad, and also infuriating based on the science as we now know it: https://www.arlnow.com/2020/05/20/adagio-ballet-on-lee-highway-to-close/?mc_cid=2176a7113d&mc_eid=2bfec13661

    • #28
    • May 24, 2020, at 5:06 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  29. MiMac Thatcher

    Arahant (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Ok so how many projected deaths

    Let me stop you right there. The projections have consistently been off. At this point, “projected” means “I’m lying.”

    Stoping debate is the lefts favorite tactic-I expect more at a conservative website. The projections have been off but they clearly will improve with time-to be expected when dealing with a novel infection. We still have to make decisions & one is better served examining what information you have before making a decision.

    • #29
    • May 24, 2020, at 6:08 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  30. MarciN Member

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    As it happened, emergency measures were taken to reduce the spread, while keeping basic economic activity going, and for the most part, with due recognition of the various constitutional restrictions on power. Measures were taken to blunt the harm to those who lost jobs. As the spread of the disease slowed, and more data about the disease came in, the restrictions were relaxed. This was a cowardly response?

    Continuing the lockdown is cowardly. Pretending masks and social distancing are necessary when the CDC data shows the disease is not serious enough to merit extreme protection is cowardly. Keeping schoolchildren (almost unaffected by the disease) out of school for the rest of this year and forcing them to stay six feet apart and wear masks next year is cowardly. Refusing to admit we overestimated the severity of the disease is cowardly. . . .

     

    Ok so how many projected deaths would be your threshold for masks & social distancing? Not fear mongering- an honest question. If the IFR is “only” 0.26% and herd immunity requires 200 million people to be infected (both reasonable numbers) that is 520K deaths. Isn’t that a sufficient number to take steps to avoid? Shouldn’t we take steps to BOTH reopen and protect lives? It is unlikely that merely isolating the at risk population will be enough-it isn’t practical for many & the data shows that it is unlikely we will have a robust enough testing regimen (plus if you don’t like masks you will hate a real program of trace & isolate the infected). How about at least masks & 3 feet distancing? Neither is exceedingly onerous (and there is data supporting their effectiveness)-we can reopen, protect lives and slow the spread while hoping for a vaccine or effective treatment (both have a significant chance of occurring in the next 9 months). Or do you advocate throwing all caution to the wind- and accept that if we get a 2nd wave that we could suffer greater than a hundred thousand deaths this fall? What policymaker wants that scenario?

    The Mass General study has found that in three very hard hit small cities near Boston only 10 percent of the residents have antibodies to the virus. These results were troubling and surprising to the state’s leaders. In the Boston area, there has been a very high rate of hospitalization and death from this virus, and it only got us 10 percent of the way to some level of immunity in the Boston area. 

    I don’t think the continued lockdown will do anything helpful. It will pit young people against old people, and I don’t want to see that. We just have to find other answers. I think our governor in Massachusetts (a Republican) is moving toward that as fast as he can. He is going with the contact-tracing system to quarantine individuals rather than places. I think that’s a good start. 

     

    • #30
    • May 24, 2020, at 6:37 AM PDT
    • 2 likes