> Didn't numerous specialized covid hospitals close in Washington without ever seeing a patient?
The Army field hospital, which was set up to treat non-Covid cases shut down because our medical system wasn't overwhelmed as it was feared we could be. I think that our response in WA had something to do with flattening the curve here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/04/seattles-leade...
And yes, I'm proud to say that due to our response we have been able to send equipment elsewhere. We geared up for the worst, responded, and have been able to help our neighbors. I am pretty proud of that.
> A lot of governors "went it alone" because generally, for anyone under 60 who didn't have multiple co-morbidities, this was just a bad flu season. That gave these governors a grand opportunity to implement And enforce bad policies in the name of keeping people safe.
As I write this, over 100,000 people in our country are dead. This is already like 3 flu seasons. I'm one degree of separation from someone who died at 36. I feel that the policies that have been implemented have been pretty good given how quickly they needed to be devised and implemented. And they've been refined over time.
> The irony of it is, the policies of these governors effectively isolated quarantined those who were most vulnerable to the virus, those in assisted living and nursing homes with those known to be infected with coronavirus effectively turning them into death camps. Your governor effectively executed them, while quarantining anyone least likely to be affected by the covid. The fallout effects from their actions will be felt long after this is over.
I don't understand this argument, and I guess I'll assume positive intent on your part. Seeing the death rates in Washington vs other parts of the world and indeed other parts of the US, we have models for how things could have been / could still be much worse. I don't see how instituting policies that kept massive numbers of other people out of the hospitals, thus reserving the hospital capacity for those most vulnerable to infection, could be seen as anything other than mitigating a bad situation.
EDIT: looking through your comment history, please, take a deep breath and try to at least entertain the possibility that you could be wrong. I pledge to do the same.
The Army field hospital, which was set up to treat non-Covid cases shut down because our medical system wasn't overwhelmed as it was feared we could be. I think that our response in WA had something to do with flattening the curve here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/04/seattles-leade...
And yes, I'm proud to say that due to our response we have been able to send equipment elsewhere. We geared up for the worst, responded, and have been able to help our neighbors. I am pretty proud of that.
> A lot of governors "went it alone" because generally, for anyone under 60 who didn't have multiple co-morbidities, this was just a bad flu season. That gave these governors a grand opportunity to implement And enforce bad policies in the name of keeping people safe.
As I write this, over 100,000 people in our country are dead. This is already like 3 flu seasons. I'm one degree of separation from someone who died at 36. I feel that the policies that have been implemented have been pretty good given how quickly they needed to be devised and implemented. And they've been refined over time.
> The irony of it is, the policies of these governors effectively isolated quarantined those who were most vulnerable to the virus, those in assisted living and nursing homes with those known to be infected with coronavirus effectively turning them into death camps. Your governor effectively executed them, while quarantining anyone least likely to be affected by the covid. The fallout effects from their actions will be felt long after this is over.
I don't understand this argument, and I guess I'll assume positive intent on your part. Seeing the death rates in Washington vs other parts of the world and indeed other parts of the US, we have models for how things could have been / could still be much worse. I don't see how instituting policies that kept massive numbers of other people out of the hospitals, thus reserving the hospital capacity for those most vulnerable to infection, could be seen as anything other than mitigating a bad situation.
EDIT: looking through your comment history, please, take a deep breath and try to at least entertain the possibility that you could be wrong. I pledge to do the same.