OPEN THE SCHOOLS?

[jspilot]

So, someone says something you don't like and instead of continuing the debate on the subject, you pick up your toys and go home. How's that going to solve the problem? But don't worry, we'll keep discussing the issues and work out a solution regardless if we all like it or not.

Umm no but the guy is being rude by posting " Have a nice weekend" and stuff like that. He's just looking for a fight and that's cool. Someone else will give it to him-- not me. I don't need to waste my time reading messages from a guy whose so far removed from reality and just posting nonsense. If he offered a single logical or well defined point that offers anything to the conversation I'd be willing to continue( as is evident by how I've had many disagreements with people on here and their are currently only 2 posters I ignore.)

Anyway, this thread is not about whose positing here-- it's about opening schools.

 

[Eric Brunelle]

I was a small business man for 22 years before I started teaching. The only times that I got sick was on a day off or holiday. I think it was adrenaline.
I started teaching school 20 years ago. Taught for 4 days and had to call in sick for the next few. Schools are loaded with germs. I have built up a pretty good tolerance since then, but for the uninitiated - not a place to be especially with this virus. A lot of kids come to school sick, and spread it around.
We are out until May at this point. We are in touch with our students as much as we can through email and phone, but obviously can’t assign work because of resource inequalities. I teach CAD in a city school of 4500. Many don’t have computers that will handle the software. It’s a tough go right now- I miss my guys and their enthusiasm for learning.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So, someone says something you don't like and instead of continuing the debate on the subject, you pick up your toys and go home. How's that going to solve the problem? But don't worry, we'll keep discussing the issues and work out a solution regardless if we all like it or not.

The problem here is, this isn't just some argument on the Internet. This is one where, if we don't do the right things, it will literally mean the difference between life and death for many people. Having such a cavalier attitude as @Doc Holliday does has much more potential to cause real harm here.

For those of us with close relatives in the high risk groups, it's not so easy to shrug this one off the way we would if it were just SGOTI spouting nonsense. This is life and death.

 

[jspilot]

The problem here is, this isn't just some argument on the Internet. This is one where, if we don't do the right things, it will literally mean the difference between life and death for many people. Having such a cavalier attitude as @Doc Holliday does has much more potential to cause real harm here.

For those of us with close relatives in the high risk groups, it's not so easy to shrug this one off the way we would if it were just SGOTI spouting nonsense. This is life and death.

Thank you for the support and saying exactly what needed to be said. People have the right to their own opinion but not the right to try and convince others they are right when doing so would place larger amounts of people in harms way.

The biggest thing here is it’s not even that much to ask someone to do. Stay inside! Oh the humanity...

 

[Ted]

Thank you for the support and saying exactly what needed to be said. People have the right to their own opinion but not the right to try and convince others they are right when doing so would place larger amounts of people in harms way.

Not at all true. Freedom of speech has its limits, but that’s not one of them.

 

[Salty]

Thank you for the support and saying exactly what needed to be said. People have the right to their own opinion but not the right to try and convince others they are right when doing so would place larger amounts of people in harms way.

The biggest thing here is it’s not even that much to ask someone to do. Stay inside! Oh the humanity...

Who appointed you decider of what puts people in more harm than something else?

 

[Doc Holliday]

The problem here is, this isn't just some argument on the Internet. This is one where, if we don't do the right things, it will literally mean the difference between life and death for many people. Having such a cavalier attitude as @Doc Holliday does has much more potential to cause real harm here.

For those of us with close relatives in the high risk groups, it's not so easy to shrug this one off the way we would if it were just SGOTI spouting nonsense. This is life and death.

By not submitting to hysteria is not "a cavalier attitude". Believe it or not, the best way to handle any situation is to remain calm and work out the problems rationally. Would you want to be in a cockpit with someone who goes hysterical during an engine failure?

Also, there are tons of misinformation circulating right now. It's best when a news agency or source starts reporting wild claims to step back and do a little research before jumping to conclusions.

Oh, and I never realized wishing someone a good weekend was so dastardly.

 

[Half Fast]

People have the right to their own opinion but not the right to try and convince others they are right when doing so would place larger amounts of people in harms way.

You might consider that when the founders of this country were advocating rebellion against King George, they trying to “convince others they are right when doing so would place larger amounts of people in harms way.”

 

[jspilot]

Who appointed you decider of what puts people in more harm than something else?

No one. My comment was a direct reply to someone. That’s why I quoted him.

 

[jspilot]

You might consider that when the founders of this country were advocating rebellion against King George, they trying to “convince others they are right when doing so would place larger amounts of people in harms way.”

Not the same at all. In fact this is one of the biggest leaps you’ve made when countering me. I respect you sir but asking people to stay home to protect others from death is nothing like fighting back against a king who was taking away rights because he disagreed and felt the colonists were in rebellion. Ironically enough, since you attempted to bring the founding fathers into this— they were dealing with a similiar situation with small pox. Their is a great scene in HBO’s John Adams where he and his wife decide to have their children inoculated with small pox in order to try and save them from the rapid outbreak. John Adams and his wife were terrified of doing it but they recognized this would be the only way to save their kids and themselves. George Washington actually needed to save his entire army from the outbreak and came up with many plans, including inoculation and vaccination before a desease destroyed his army long before the British did.

So analogous to today— stay inside to save lives is exactly the same as have a small bit of the desease put into your body to save you.

Solid effort in taking a quote totally out of context from me and making a gigantic leap. Maybe you learned something from my post- if not read this article. Hmmmmm seems like the founding fathers agreed exactly with what I’m saying— take action to save lives!

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/09/how_vaccination_helped_win_the_revolutionary_war.html


I particularly like this quote—.

“Washington's cautious approach to smallpox absolutely helped keep his army healthy and functional”

The John Adams scene I was referring to.

https://sites.google.com/site/adamsfammedhistory/small-pox-in-boston-1700-s

 

[jspilot]

Not at all true. Freedom of speech has its limits, but that’s not one of them.

Obviously he has the right to say just about anything but when speech places others in harm( remember the “yelling fire in a movie theater example you learned as a student”) you actually are pretty much violating many of the tenets of the freedom of speech amendment. Again I struggle with those defending a guy who wants to make the situation seem less important when doing that and listening to this guy’s opinion places many more lives at risk. It’s really revealing and makes me really wonder if it’s worth being on this site or engaging in these type of discussions. There are arguements worth having but look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you are going after me here rather than the guy shoveling dangerously cavalier attitudes into the situation.

 

[Salty]

Obviously he has the right to say just about anything but when speech places others in harm( remember the “yelling fire in a movie theater example you learned as a student”) you actually are pretty much violating many of the tenets of the freedom of speech amendment. Again I struggle with those defending a guy who wants to make the situation seem less important when doing that and listening to this guy’s opinion places many more lives at risk. It’s really revealing and makes me really wonder if it’s worth being on this site or engaging in these type of discussions. There are arguements worth having but look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you are going after me here rather than the guy shoveling dangerously cavalier attitudes into the situation.

For me, it’s people with your attitude that are dangerous.

 

[jspilot]

For me, it’s people with your attitude that are dangerous.

Care to clarify? The belief that keeping people separated during a pandemic( a historically accurate and proven successful tactic) works, or the idea that a small sacrifice of staying home to stop others from dying is not too much to ask? Or is it my general drive to shut down those spreading dangerous messages of “ just go on with your life because everything is ok” that rubs you the wrong way?

 

[Salty]

Care to clarify? The belief that keeping people separated during a pandemic( a historically accurate and proven successful tactic) works, or the idea that a small sacrifice of staying home to stop others from dying is not too much to ask? Or is it my general drive to shut down those spreading dangerous messages of “ just go on with your life because everything is ok” that rubs you the wrong way?

What rubs me the wrong way is your belief that you know better than anyone else what is dangerous and what is not. You’ve decided where the line is all by yourself, and anyone that crosses it should be controlled to meet your standard. THAT is dangerous.

 

[azure]

Also, there are tons of misinformation circulating right now. It's best when a news agency or source starts reporting wild claims to step back and do a little research before jumping to conclusions.

Which news agencies have been reporting wild claims and jumping to conclusions? The ones I pay attention to (mainly PBS and NPR) have not been doing that at all. If anything, they've been doing a pretty good job of countering the "tons of misinformation circulating right now". There are always occasional factual inaccuracies, but I wouldn't say that they are a major source of misinformation on this subject.

 

[azure]

What rubs me the wrong way is your belief that you know better than anyone else what is dangerous and what is not. You’ve decided where the line is all by yourself, and anyone that crosses it should be controlled to meet your standard. THAT is dangerous.

Seems to me this discussion is going into the weeds. I don't see @jspilot asking that someone be "controlled". Calling out what one considers to be poor advice is not controlling or trying to control someone else's actions. At the same time, I don't see where @Doc Holliday has said anything or given any advice that would place people in harm's way. Telling people to keep calm and carry on is good advice at a time like this. Arguing that we should not shut down the country over this is not a dangerous thing to say, it's an idea. We seem to be faced with a Sophie's choice: let the health system be overwhelmed vs. shut the country down and risk doing untold damage to the economy. Not a pretty picture. Is there a middle route? A way to avoid both outcomes? Certainly a discussion worth having, if we can avoid thinking in extremes and accusing each other of harboring dangerous ideas / trying to suppress free speech.

 

[Ted]

Obviously he has the right to say just about anything but when speech places others in harm( remember the “yelling fire in a movie theater example you learned as a student”) you actually are pretty much violating many of the tenets of the freedom of speech amendment. Again I struggle with those defending a guy who wants to make the situation seem less important when doing that and listening to this guy’s opinion places many more lives at risk. It’s really revealing and makes me really wonder if it’s worth being on this site or engaging in these type of discussions. There are arguements worth having but look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you are going after me here rather than the guy shoveling dangerously cavalier attitudes into the situation.

Yelling “Fire!” In a crowded theater is pretty bipolar. There either is a fire or there isn’t. Sure, the fire could be bigger or smaller, but if it’s engulfed half the theater everyone knows there’s a fire. Get out or you burn.

This is a multifaceted situation where even the people who follow diseases for a living are trying to figure out the details. People are having affects ranging from “I was sick?” (we just found out yesterday that apparently we have beer flu) to literally dying in the ICU, and we’ve shut down the world over it. Not without its negative effects, as you have pointed out yourself vis a vis high school seniors not getting a graduation.

Even if you take the stance of “The world is on fire” with this, one can do it without panicking. As Doc pointed out, if the plane is actually on fire, do you want the pilot screaming his head off and panicking or the one who calmly (but appropriately) reacts to get us on the ground? Panicking never does any good, but I’m seeing a lot of people panicking over the beer flu who are getting very upset if others aren’t panicking.

 

[jspilot]

What rubs me the wrong way is your belief that you know better than anyone else what is dangerous and what is not. You’ve decided where the line is all by yourself, and anyone that crosses it should be controlled to meet your standard. THAT is dangerous.

Ok so much of this is wrong. I've said over and over that he's allowed to have his own opinion and he's allowed to think what he thinks. How exactly is that trying to control him or others like him? It's absolutely not accurate. The line I've taken mirrors exactly the line of the federal government. I've advocated for nothing more than what they have. So are you saying the federal government has taken too strong a stance? Come on now- I get it if you don't agree with me-- whatever, but please at least be fair to me in your critique.

 

[jspilot]

Yelling “Fire!” In a crowded theater is pretty bipolar. There either is a fire or there isn’t. Sure, the fire could be bigger or smaller, but if it’s engulfed half the theater everyone knows there’s a fire. Get out or you burn.

This is a multifaceted situation where even the people who follow diseases for a living are trying to figure out the details. People are having affects ranging from “I was sick?” (we just found out yesterday that apparently we have beer flu) to literally dying in the ICU, and we’ve shut down the world over it. Not without its negative effects, as you have pointed out yourself vis a vis high school seniors not getting a graduation.

Even if you take the stance of “The world is on fire” with this, one can do it without panicking. As Doc pointed out, if the plane is actually on fire, do you want the pilot screaming his head off and panicking or the one who calmly (but appropriately) reacts to get us on the ground? Panicking never does any good, but I’m seeing a lot of people panicking over the beer flu who are getting very upset if others aren’t panicking.

I couldn't agree more that panicking never helped a single situation( In fact of said it to my mom numerous times these past few weeks.) But again where I'm struggling is I don't believe staying in your house to stop the spread of the disease is panic. It's a sound strategy. Did you read the article I posted about how Washington handled the smallpox epidemic within his own army? If your issue is with our current President or the government's response being "too much" than at least understand that it is entirely in line with previous similar situations. Washington knew that keeping men seperated who had the disease would save lives. How is that any different than what we are being asked to do now?

Here's how this ends-- test people for the anti-bodies( just like was done during the smallpox break out) Then you know whose safe and who is not. Until then, stay in your house and enjoy. I'm so confused why this is such and impossible sacrifice for some.

 

[Half Fast]

Ok so much of this is wrong. I've said over and over that he's allowed to have his own opinion and he's allowed to think what he thinks. How exactly is that trying to control him or others like him? .

No, what you said was, “...but not the right to try and convince others they are right when doing so would place larger amounts of people in harms way.”

You are missing the point. You think he doesn’t have the right to free speech when that speech might lead to harm.

And your “fire in a theatre” example is a red herring; a fire is an obvious and conclusive immediate threat, but this situation is a bit more ambiguous as not every theatre in the country is on fire yet we’re trying to flood all of them.

My point was that the Founders understood better than anyone that some opinions could lead to dangerous actions. The 1A exists to protect speech that others might oppose. Your statement that he doesn’t have the right to express an opinion with which you disagree is incorrect; he most certainly does have that very right.

 

[Half Fast]

 

[Everskyward]

Obviously he has the right to say just about anything but when speech places others in harm( remember the “yelling fire in a movie theater example you learned as a student”) you actually are pretty much violating many of the tenets of the freedom of speech amendment. Again I struggle with those defending a guy who wants to make the situation seem less important when doing that and listening to this guy’s opinion places many more lives at risk. It’s really revealing and makes me really wonder if it’s worth being on this site or engaging in these type of discussions. There are arguements worth having but look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you are going after me here rather than the guy shoveling dangerously cavalier attitudes into the situation.

His speech is not putting anyone in harms way. No matter what side of this issue you are on, people pontificating on POA will have zero effect. So how about everybody taking a deep breath... although not around someone who is coughing.

 

[Salty]

Ok so much of this is wrong. I've said over and over that he's allowed to have his own opinion and he's allowed to think what he thinks. How exactly is that trying to control him or others like him? It's absolutely not accurate. The line I've taken mirrors exactly the line of the federal government. I've advocated for nothing more than what they have. So are you saying the federal government has taken too strong a stance? Come on now- I get it if you don't agree with me-- whatever, but please at least be fair to me in your critique.

I have no idea what you want. I guess you want everyone that disagrees with you to decide on their own to not speak.

 

[Doc Holliday]

It's Sunday, everyone fix a nice drink and relax

 

[Bell206]

But again where I'm struggling is I don't believe staying in your house to stop the spread of the disease is panic.

It boils down to how you define panic. As to whether staying at home is "sound strategy" or not, even those individuals who have issued local/regional "stay-at-home" orders are now rethinking that may not have been best strategy. So when it comes to defining "panic" in my mind, isolating the general public as a whole vs isolating the vulnerable people from SARS exposure follows more the published definition of "panic" than not.

 

[azure]

It boils down to how you define panic. As to whether staying at home is "sound strategy" or not, even those individuals who have issued local/regional "stay-at-home" orders are now rethinking that may not have been best strategy. So when it comes to defining "panic" in my mind, isolating the general public as a whole vs isolating the vulnerable people from SARS exposure follows more the published definition of "panic" than not.

Well, not exactly. If the ONLY way you can protect the vulnerable population (whether for their protection, or more importantly, to protect everyone else who might need health services at this time) is to isolate the general public, then isolating the general public might be your only choice. A better way would be to isolate those people carrying the virus... but to do that you have to know who they are. That's why getting enough tests to test everyone who should be tested is such a high priority. If we had that capability we wouldn't *need* to isolate everyone, at least not to the extreme extent we're doing now.

You could also RECOMMEND that everyone who is susceptible to the virus self-isolate until a vaccine is developed. But then the only people we know aren't susceptible are those who've recovered from the disease. So the other priority should be developing a widely-available test for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Such tests already exist, but are not yet as widely available as they need to be. Hopefully that will change soon.

 

[GrummanBear]

What frustrates me is the lack of sacrifice people are willing to make nowadays. For multiple years Americans went to war and fought and died on battle fields during World Wars, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq ( something I proudly teach about each year) and it’s too much to ask people to stay at home and sacrifice a few weeks of pay. Give it up already— perspective people— important to remember at times like this that this is nothing compared to that.

Appreciate the sentiment but heartily disagree. I was in the recent one in combat arms. We had to make various levels of sacrifices, but it was our choice. ...I’m no longer “in” but my wife is ArmyMed. She, along with most of her nurses, gets paid ok, and they are elbows deep in the tragedies of the human race every day...since way before this craziness. From a self preservation standpoint, I think I was in a better place. Anyway, she-and many like her-are the damn heroes. ...they will fight this war, and these draconian measures simply delay the day that many Americans will go to meet them at the hospitals. No way around it.

Sacrifices? Most Americans seem pretty willing to sacrifice: Autonomy, freedom of public worship, freedom of the press, freedom from the press, freedom to obtain arms, freedom from state controlling industry, freedom from mass compulsory social welfare...
We are sacrificing some of the things those wars were fought for without the state having to fire a shot.

 

[jspilot]

No, what you said was, “...but not the right to try and convince others they are right when doing so would place larger amounts of people in harms way.”

You are missing the point. You think he doesn’t have the right to free speech when that speech might lead to harm.

And your “fire in a theatre” example is a red herring; a fire is an obvious and conclusive immediate threat, but this situation is a bit more ambiguous as not every theatre in the country is on fire yet we’re trying to flood all of them.

My point was that the Founders understood better than anyone that some opinions could lead to dangerous actions. The 1A exists to protect speech that others might oppose. Your statement that he doesn’t have the right to express an opinion with which you disagree is incorrect; he most certainly does have that very right.

Which I've said over and over again- He can spew whatever garbage he wants. Listen I'm not interested in going down a semantic argument here. It's boring honestly. He and those defending him are 100% missing the point-- the message is dangerous and misleading. But at least each time you all respond to me it's less time you are out in the public possibly helping to spread the virus around.

 

[Salty]

Which I've said over and over again- He can spew whatever garbage he wants. Listen I'm not interested in going down a semantic argument here. It's boring honestly. He and those defending him are 100% missing the point-- the message is dangerous and misleading. But at least each time you all respond to me it's less time you are out in the public possibly helping to spread the virus around.

I’m going flying. Later.

 

[jspilot]

Appreciate the sentiment but heartily disagree. I was in the recent one in combat arms. We had to make various levels of sacrifices, but it was our choice. ...I’m no longer “in” but my wife is ArmyMed. She, along with most of her nurses, get paid ok, and are elbows deep in the tragedies of the human race every day...since way before this craziness. From a self preservation standpoint, I think I was in a better place. Anyway, she-and many like her-are the damn heroes. ...they will fight this war, and these draconian measures simply delay the day that many Americans will go to meet them at the hospitals. No way around it.

Sacrifices? Most Americans seem pretty willing to sacrifice: Autonomy, freedom of public worship, freedom of the press, freedom from the press, freedom to obtain arms, freedom from state controlling industry, freedom from mass compulsory social welfare...
We are sacrificing some of the things those wars were fought for without the state having to fire a shot.

I appreciate what your wife is doing and thank her and you for the service. I think you know what I meant by sacrifice-- this nation now has a professional army that gets paid but for many of the wars I cited it did not. My exact point is the government can't even ask people to stay at home( not even a sacrifice) without a group of people pointing that it's too much. I bet these same people would change their tune if their was an enemy with a "face"-- someone to get mad at, someone to hate. They'd all probably be trumpting the "lets get me" rally cry. The issue here is this enemy has no face and the actions we are asked to take does not "feel" in line with American values( as you correctly point out.) The point remains the same-- Americans need to be willing to take the appropriate actions to win. Whether it be build weapons or got to the front lines like in the World Wars or stay in your house( like this one) the point remains the same-- do your part to help win the war. How many of these same people would be screaming ( It's all a hoax and nothing to worry about) if they could see the enemy and or were asked to take visible actions( like switch a business over to producing materials to help in the battle.) I find it ironic that many who are arguing against me here throw historical references into the argument when, simply put-- they really should just come out and say they are anti-government through and through.

 

[jspilot]

I’m going flying. Later.

Good for you sir. I just really hope you don't have the virus and wont spread it to some old person who will die because of it. God willing.

Again-- case and point to how SELFISH you are. I know I can rest knowing I'm not part of the problem.

Further evidence that I'm done with this insane asylum clouded over as a place to discus flying. I think I'll stick to flying only topics from now on. You represent this site as a "supporter" and are spewing garbage into the air and putting people at risk. Shows a lot about what this site and you stand for.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I find it ironic that many who are arguing against me here throw historical references into the argument when, simply put-- they really should just come out and say they are anti-government through and through.

 

[GrummanBear]

I appreciate what your wife is doing and thank her and you for the service. I think you know what I meant by sacrifice-- this nation now has a professional army that gets paid but for many of the wars I cited it did not. My exact point is the government can't even ask people to stay at home( not even a sacrifice) without a group of people pointing that it's too much. I bet these same people would change their tune if their was an enemy with a "face"-- someone to get mad at, someone to hate. They'd all probably be trumpting the "lets get me" rally cry. The issue here is this enemy has no face and the actions we are asked to take does not "feel" in line with American values( as you correctly point out.) The point remains the same-- Americans need to be willing to take the appropriate actions to win. Whether it be build weapons or got to the front lines like in the World Wars or stay in your house( like this one) the point remains the same-- do your part to help win the war. How many of these same people would be screaming ( It's all a hoax and nothing to worry about) if they could see the enemy and or were asked to take visible actions( like switch a business over to producing materials to help in the battle.) I find it ironic that many who are arguing against me here throw historical references into the argument when, simply put-- they really should just come out and say they are anti-government through and through.

My wife would laugh at this. As a provider. As someone with elderly family in Queens. Staying home will just delay the battle or prolong the war. Also, service members were paid in literally every war you mentioned.

 

[jspilot]

My wife would laugh at this. As a provider. As someone with elderly family in Queens. Staying home will just delay the battle or prolong the war. Also, service members were paid in literally every war you mentioned.

So to clarify, the governments response is to keep people seperated to stop the spread and this will somehow make the war go on longer?? The collective knowledge group making the decisions is all so collectively wrong that I'm to believe your wife over the entire brain trust of the nation including Democrats like Andrew Cuomo in New York who, believe me I don't agree with often but fully agree with in this one??? I'm sorry man, I have to believe those in power know way more.

I tried to give you a compliment and you insulted me-- again shows why I think I'm just wasting my time here.

Being paid to fight in a war does not mean many did not sacrifice during those times. Clearly I don't need to tell you that but come on here. Why argue something you know to be true.

 

[Bell206]

I have to believe those in power know way more.

Well perhaps you might want to stay up to speed with your powers to be:
https://nypost.com/2020/03/26/cuomo-admits-that-quarantine-may-have-backfired-in-some-cases/

 

[GrummanBear]

So to clarify, the governments response is to keep people seperated to stop the spread and this will somehow make the war go on longer?? The collective knowledge group making the decisions is all so collectively wrong that I'm to believe your wife over the entire brain trust of the nation including Democrats like Andrew Cuomo in New York who, believe me I don't agree with often but fully agree with in this one??? I'm sorry man, I have to believe those in power know way more.

I tried to give you a compliment and you insulted me-- again shows why I think I'm just wasting my time here.

Being paid to fight in a war does not mean many did not sacrifice during those times. Clearly I don't need to tell you that but come on here. Why argue something you know to be true.

I told my wife about your profound connection to history and sacrifice. Maybe she’ll stitch your name on her uniform as she deploys to serve the patients in NY in the coming weeks. You know, the ones not getting sick because of your state protecting you.

 

[Half Fast]

Good for you sir. I just really hope you don't have the virus and wont spread it to some old person who will die because of it. God willing.

Again-- case and point to how SELFISH you are. I know I can rest knowing I'm not part of the problem.

Further evidence that I'm done with this insane asylum clouded over as a place to discus flying. I think I'll stick to flying only topics from now on. You represent this site as a "supporter" and are spewing garbage into the air and putting people at risk. Shows a lot about what this site and you stand for.

Oh come on. The man has a private hangar next to his house.

Salty walks out his front door, goes about 20 feet to his own hangar, gets into his own plane by himself, and taxis out to his community runway. How on earth is he putting anyone at risk? How is that selfish?

You're judging people without any real understanding of what they're doing.

 

[Bell206]

A better way would be to isolate those people... who is susceptible to the virus self-isolate until a vaccine is developed.

This^^^. On several levels. 1st, pure math as in 80% of population are asymptomatic or mild symptoms, i.e., require no advance medical treatment. 2nd, if those who are susceptible decide to break self-isolation then it falls onto them for that decision. And 3rd, it would advance the herd-immunity concept dramatically. This option has been discussed at the national level per reports. In my opinion, it's a much better approach to have the 80% support and aid the 20% than the 20% locking up the 80%.

 

[Doc Holliday]

For some reason, this clip keeps coming to mind..............

 

[jspilot]

I told my wife about your profound connection to history and sacrifice. Maybe she’ll stitch your name on her uniform as she deploys to serve the patients in NY in the coming weeks. You know, the ones not getting sick because of your state protecting you.

Got it- Not sure what I did to **** you off( only gave you a compliment, thanked you and your wife for your service, showed examples of how the military sacrifices more in times of need and challenge...you know all things that nice guys do to people) but you really are coming after me. Hope your wife is safe-- I really do. She is absolutely a hero in all this. I am so confused why you want to side with those making her life much harder but hey- to each their own I guess.