So wth is going on in MI?

[Randomguy]

?

[Longjohn ★]

They want to go back to work.

[Chris...]

Same as in Ohio. 
Zombies

[maddmaxx ★]

They've brought back "lock her up" as a social gathering talking point at the same time they maintain their position as the 4th state in the country by case and 3 by death.

Could be Darwinism.

[bikeman564™]

10 minutes ago, Longjohn said:

They want to go back to work.

and get a hair cut

[bikeman564™]

9 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

They've brought back "lock her up" as a social gathering talking point at the same time they maintain their position as the 4th state in the country by case and 3 by death.

Could be Darwinism.

state lets us spread germs buying lottery tickets and beer

[Mr. Silly]

The protest was publicized and hosted by a foundation run by the DeVos crime family.  

 

[12string]

Understanding the groupthink that causes this, expect more of these rallies.

Darwinism would be cool here, but it can't be contained to the practitioners

[2Far ★]

19 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

They've brought back "lock her up" as a social gathering talking point at the same time they maintain their position as the 4th state in the country by case and 3 by death.

Could be Darwinism.

Meh, 82% (made up internet fact) of the deaths are in Detroit & environs. Bulldoze the city into the lake & the numbers get bigger.

[Randomguy]

I read just a snippet about the lock-down provisions, and some seemed completely unnecessary.  "No going to a second home or camp" seems particularly unnecessary, as well as counterintuitive if you want to get away from the center of infection.

[bikeman564™]

Just now, 2Far said:

Bulldoze the city

If it were that easy. Detroit sucks, way beyond the China virus.

[Longjohn ★]

2 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

I read just a snippet about the lock-down provisions, and some seemed completely unnecessary.  "No going to a second home or camp" seems particularly unnecessary, as well as counterintuitive if you want to get away from the center of infection.

Ya think?

[Chris...]

Aren’t these the same people that wanted more power for the states in the past. 

[Mr. Silly]

Daily new cases seems to have been cut from 1200 new cases / day to about 700 / day so her restrictions are working.

 

 

[bikeman564™]

1 minute ago, Randomguy said:

I read just a snippet about the lock-down provisions, and some seemed completely unnecessary.  "No going to a second home or camp" seems particularly unnecessary, as well as counterintuitive if you want to get away from the center of infection.

She says you'll take the virus w/ you to said second home, and stop for gas/food/supplies on the way. Which could be possible. Then you'd infect the upnorth that is pure

[bikeman564™]

Just now, Chris... said:

Aren’t these the same people that wanted more power for the states in the past. 

that was Tim Allen

[Mr. Silly]

8 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

I read just a snippet about the lock-down provisions, and some seemed completely unnecessary.  "No going to a second home or camp" seems particularly unnecessary, as well as counterintuitive if you want to get away from the center of infection.

You can go to your second home if you want.  No one is stopping you.  What they don't want you to do is going to the second home for a couple days then back to your primary residence.  The frequent travel back and forth between the locations increases the chance the virus spreads.

[petitepedal ★]

They have encouraged the same dont go to your summer place in MN too...the problem being much smaller health care resources in the towns in lake country or on the North Shore...it is about local resources.

[maddmaxx ★]

11 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

I read just a snippet about the lock-down provisions, and some seemed completely unnecessary.  "No going to a second home or camp" seems particularly unnecessary, as well as counterintuitive if you want to get away from the center of infection.

Ask Rhode Island about that.  The were turning back New Yorkers who were escaping the virus.  Unfortunately they turned them away too little and too late given RI's now position as a hot spot.

The point being that the rich running for cover are just as likely to be infected as anyone else.  A lockdown is a lockdown, not an opportunity to go visit your 2nd home.

[12string]

21 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

 counterintuitive if you want to get away from the center of infection.

You're thinking backwards.  It brings the center of the infection to a summer resort that doesn't have the medical resources to deal with it. 

Sure, if you are the only one driving to that cabin in the woods with no houses for miles, and you have all of the fuel to et there and back, and all of the food you need, and you won't be near another human while you're there. it's the place to be

 

[maddmaxx ★]

2 minutes ago, 12string said:

You're thinking backwards.  It brings the center of the infection to a summer resort that doesn't have the medical resources to deal with it. 

Sure, if you are the only one driving to that cabin in the woods with no houses for miles, and you have all of the fuel to et there and back, and all of the food you need, and you won't be near another human while you're there. it's the place to be

 

Unfortunately many who have 2nd homes expect the staff to work.

[Randomguy]

27 minutes ago, Chris... said:

Aren’t these the same people that wanted more power for the states in the past. 

I think more power for the states is better than more power for the federal government a fair bit of the time, even here.  She is having to deal with the blowback from constituents, though, just part of the consequences for going too far.  

I can understand why they want people stuck in place, but it presumes you are infected already, and if you go to camp, you are gonna infect the locals.  In this case, where you ride it out should be up to you.

[maddmaxx ★]

2 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

I think more power for the states is better than more power for the federal government a fair bit of the time, even here.  She is having to deal with the blowback from constituents, though, just part of the consequences for going too far.  

I can understand why they want people stuck in place, but it presumes you are infected already, and if you go to camp, you are gonna infect the locals.  In this case, personal liberty and freedom of movement in state is not the state's to take away, or at least shouldn't be.

But it is.  The right to police is a distinct part of the states rights.

[Randomguy]

11 minutes ago, 12string said:

You're thinking backwards.  It brings the center of the infection to a summer resort that doesn't have the medical resources to deal with it. 

Sure, if you are the only one driving to that cabin in the woods with no houses for miles, and you have all of the fuel to et there and back, and all of the food you need, and you won't be near another human while you're there. it's the place to be

 

Yes, backwards, a little.  However, it assumes the state has the right to put you in greater danger by keeping you in the disease zone, rather than in camp or your vacation home, should you be obscenely wealthy, where you are far less likely to get sick.

I would do what most people would do, which is to say screw you, my property is where I will hunker down in.

I would definitely break the law.  I have quarantined, not visited anybody, washed up, and now I am heading out.  I would feel pretty happy about getting out of Detroit and wouldn't feel bad about doing it in the least.

[12string]

1 minute ago, Randomguy said:

where you are far less likely to get sick

still backwards.

The best way to keep the most people safe is to stop the virus from travelling.  Sucks to be you.  But sucks a lot less for a lot of other people if you get sick and hundreds of others don't

If we don't do this together, we'll fail.  Horribly.

[maddmaxx ★]

5 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

Yes, backwards, a little.  However, it assumes the state has the right to put you in greater danger by keeping you in the disease zone, rather than in camp or your vacation home, should you be obscenely wealthy, where you are far less likely to get sick.

I would do what most people would do, which is to say screw you, my property is where I will hunker down in.

I would definitely break the law.  I have quarantined, not visited anybody, washed up, and now I am heading out.  I would feel pretty happy about getting out of Detroit and wouldn't feel bad about doing it in the least.

In Maine some locals cut down trees across New Yorkers driveways to keep out of towners from wandering around at will.

There will be shootings if this keeps up.

[maddmaxx ★]

Part of the problem is that those who run to safety don't feel any responsibility toward the town their second home is in.  They are special.

[Kzoo]

55 minutes ago, Mr. Silly said:

The protest was publicized and hosted by a foundation run by the DeVos crime family.  

No it wasn't and you know this.  'That woman from Michigan' started that stupid rumor with NO basis of fact and had her PR people falling all over Amway and the great jog then have been doing the next day.

38 minutes ago, Mr. Silly said:

You can go to your second home if you want.  No one is stopping you

Not now.  You have a few hour window to pick which place you were going to 'stay at home' in.  The EO was issues in the afternoon and went into effect at midnight.  Any traveling after that was against the EO

41 minutes ago, Mr. Silly said:

Daily new cases seems to have been cut from 1200 new cases / day to about 700 / day so her restrictions are working.

And the results of her initial EO are what caused these numbers to head in the right direction, not her draconian orders issued last Thursday.

She is making decisions that look like they are coming our her butt.  There is no logic to her whim.

 

 

[Randomguy]

29 minutes ago, 12string said:

still backwards.

If you feel fine and have taken all necessary steps, is your duty to the state or your family?  That is rhetorical, your duty is to self-preservation and family first.  You are healthy now and feel physically vulnerable, you go, simple as that.  Sorry, people depend on you and not the state, your responsibility is to your family.

[Randomguy]

26 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

Part of the problem is that those who run to safety don't feel any responsibility toward the town their second home is in.  They are special.

WRONG!  Some of them feel that way, but most don't want to get sick.  People who stay put in a hotspot when their odds of getting it are high and they have underlying issues are simply irresponsible to the smaller groups that most depends on them.

[Razors Edge ★]

18 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

Not now.  You have a few hour window to pick which place you were going to 'stay at home' in.  The EO was issues in the afternoon and went into effect at midnight.  Any traveling after that was against the EO

That makes sense.  Seems you want to avoid folks going back and forth between two or more properties.  Pick one and stick to it.  Ideally, it would need to be additionally nuanced with a step between moves for testing, so folks wouldn't bring their contagion with them to new areas - especially those with limited healthcare facilities.

But human nature - the base part of it that is common enough these days - is "me first".  Hard to counter that with common sense or an appeal to a person's better nature.

[Randomguy]

1 minute ago, Razors Edge said:

That makes sense.  Seems you want to avoid folks going back and forth between two or more properties.  Pick one and stick to it.  Ideally, it would need to be additionally nuanced with a step between moves for testing, so folks wouldn't bring their contagion with them to new areas - especially those with limited healthcare facilities.

But human nature - the base part of it that is common enough these days - is "me first".  Hard to counter that with common sense or an appeal to a person's better nature.

I agree to pick a spot is best, one that affords personal choice and limits risk to others.  That said, you ignore nature's instinct for survival to your own detriment.  "Me first" or "our family first" is clearly one half of how our entire specie's genes are presented, the other half being your finite tribe's survival.  Contradictory expressions are possible in their most advantageous contexts.

If the assumption and all available evidence says you and family are not a risk to others, you go.  If the assumption is that the others are a high risk for your family, you go.  THAT is your responsibility, not to those assholes in Detroit or on Big Beaver Road.

[maddmaxx ★]

19 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

If you feel fine and have taken all necessary steps, is your duty to the state or your family?  That is rhetorical, your duty is to self-preservation and family first.  You are healthy now and feel physically vulnerable, you go, simple as that.  Sorry, people depend on you and not the state, your responsibility is to your family.

Special,  Your rights stop at my nose.  Stay home.  New York is Connecticut's problem  unless of course you are also a world wide expert on virus and can prove you don't have it.

[Kzoo]

2 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

Big Beaver Road.

Best road name ever.

 

[bikeman564™]

Just now, Kzoo said:

Best road name ever.

 

and exit number, 69

[Randomguy]

3 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

Special,  Your rights stop at my nose.  Stay home.  New York is Connecticut's problem  unless of course you are also a world wide expert on virus and can prove you don't have it.

If I had a house in CT and thought it was safer, I would say my rights are to shelter in my place in CT if I felt like it, and your rights stop at your driveway.  You simply can't fault anyone for maximizing their own odds of being safe.  

[Razors Edge ★]

8 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

I agree to pick a spot is best, one that affords personal choice and limits risk to others.  That said, you ignore nature's instinct for survival to your own detriment.  "Me first" or "our family first" is clearly one half of how our entire specie's genes are presented, the other half being your finite tribe's survival.  Contradictory expressions are possible in their most advantageous contexts.

If the assumption and all available evidence says you and family are not a risk to others, you go.  If the assumption is that the others are a high risk for your family, you go.  THAT is your responsibility, not to those assholes in Detroit or on Big Beaver Road.

Society is a two way street. Live in it - and all the benefits and the drawbacks - or don't.  We had the "wild west", and if folks think that's a better path, they should realize the "locals" tended to shoot the foreigners who showed up under the suspicion of bringing disease or ill will.  Society "fixed" that by creating some set of general rules for all of us.  So, folks can jump on that "me first" bandwagon, but then society would be equally able to "look past" a few trees across driveways or some "accidental" tourist shootings.

I prefer to pick a reasonable set of rules and then have folks live by them.

[maddmaxx ★]

9 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

If I had a house in CT and thought it was safer, I would say my rights are to shelter in my place in CT if I felt like it, and your rights stop at your driveway.  You simply can't fault anyone for maximizing their own odds of being safe.  

I can when the state orders it.  The New England states have already identified a problem with out of towners trying to make their problem our problem.  You have not got a clue whether you have the virus or not so don't expect anyone here to trust you.

The rights of a whole community to stay safe are greater than your rights to move where you feel like during a national emergency like this.  Other times different rules.

[Razors Edge ★]

6 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

I can when the state orders it.  The New England states have already identified a problem with out of towners trying to make their problem our problem.  You have not got a clue whether you have the virus or not so don't expect anyone here to trust you.

I think RG is assuming you don't have a problem with folks coming and going and will do nothing to prevent him from showing up - COVID-19 in hand - at all your local spots.  That's why folks love the country! They can do whatever they want.

[Randomguy]

14 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

Society is a two way street. Live in it - and all the benefits and the drawbacks - or don't.  We had the "wild west", and if folks think that's a better path, they should realize the "locals" tended to shoot the foreigners who showed up under the suspicion of bringing disease or ill will.  Society "fixed" that by creating some set of general rules for all of us.  So, folks can jump on that "me first" bandwagon, but then society would be equally able to "look past" a few trees across driveways or some "accidental" tourist shootings.

I prefer to pick a reasonable set of rules and then have folks live by them.

Like I said earlier, a lot of that is reasonable, but your duty is not to lines on a map. If you own property someplace, you are part of that society.  The locals being a superstitious and fearful lot is their own problem, and doesn't absolve them of their responsibility of minding their own fucking households and not others.  Some assholes 'accidentally' shooting at a fellow property owner is likely to get them shot at, too, or putting logs in driveways, etc will provoke retaliation, sometimes much larger than what they started.

If you think local assholes are more important than your own family or should be, then you are not thinking straight.  If you think you are thinking straight with that mindset, then you are dumb.

[Kzoo]

Why is anyone arguing rights and responsibilities with RG?

Are you nuts or just bored our of your mind?

Trying to argue with RG is like arguing with Indy except no one is labeled and idiot.  (Too soon?)

[maddmaxx ★]

2 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

Like I said earlier, a lot of that is reasonable, but your duty is not to lines on a map. If you own property someplace, you are part of that society.  The locals being a superstitious and fearful lot is their own problem, and doesn't absolve them of their responsibility of minding their own fucking households and not others.  Some assholes 'accidentally' shooting at a fellow property owner is likely to get them shot at, too, or putting logs in driveways, etc will provoke retaliation, sometimes much larger than what they started.

If you think local assholes are more important than your own family or should be, then you are not thinking straight.  If you think you are thinking straight, then you are dumb.

You're right of course.

[Randomguy]

3 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

I think RG is assuming you don't have a problem with folks coming and going and will do nothing to prevent him from showing up - COVID-19 in hand - at all your local spots.  That's why folks love the country! They can do whatever they want.

Folks have no basis for preventing someone from even renting a house in their neighborhood unless specifically against the law.  If country people want to be safer, they can just stay in their houses.  People getting away from disease areas in MI likely just want to do that, too.

[smudge ★]

During her on TV comments yesterday she noted one guy who was traveling and ended up with da Corona. Said the only thing he could think was he got it from the gas pump handle. She milked that for all it was worth.

I think she mostly wants people to stay put to not allow any virus to get out and about. Good plan, I suppose. 

If nothing else, there is #7. Exception. Says you can go out to recreate. Walk, hike, cycle....

[Randomguy]

3 minutes ago, smudge said:

During her on TV comments yesterday she noted one guy who was traveling and ended up with da Corona. Said the only thing he could think was he got it from the gas pump handle. She milked that for all it was worth.

I think she mostly wants people to stay put to not allow any virus to get out and about. Good plan, I suppose. 

If nothing else, there is #7. Exception. Says you can go out to recreate. Walk, hike, cycle....

What is it like being a scofflaw?  You are now considered "me first" and a danger to society, remember.

[smudge ★]

Mostly, people are being too Me, Me, poor poor me. Typical 21st century.

[Mr. Silly]

48 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

No it wasn't and you know this.  'That woman from Michigan' started that stupid rumor with NO basis of fact and had her PR people falling all over Amway and the great jog then have been doing the next day.

Conservative group linked to DeVos family organizes protest of coronavirus restrictions in Michigan

57 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

Not now.  You have a few hour window to pick which place you were going to 'stay at home' in.  The EO was issues in the afternoon and went into effect at midnight.  Any traveling after that was against the EO

So?

59 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

And the results of her initial EO are what caused these numbers to head in the right direction, not her draconian orders issued last Thursday.

She is making decisions that look like they are coming our her butt.  There is no logic to her whim.

Too early to tell.  Even though the number of new cases is going down, the total number of cases is still increasing.  I think it is reasonable to wait until the total number of cases decrease before opening businesses.  The new restrictions should further reduce the new cases to a point that is less than the number of recovered cases. 

[Mr. Silly]

33 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

Big Beaver Road

Two miles from my home

 

28 minutes ago, bikeman564™ said:

and exit number, 69

True dat!

[Kzoo]

1 minute ago, Mr. Silly said:

Too early to tell.  Even though the number of new cases is going down, the total number of cases is still increasing.  I think it is reasonable to wait until the total number of cases decrease before opening businesses.  The new restrictions should further reduce the new cases to a point that is less than the number of recovered cases. 

Not the point.  Her new restrictions were arbitary at best and draconian at worst and have no bearing on current numbers.

[Randomguy]

Just now, Mr. Silly said:

Two miles from my home

I have been there, you know.  Not your house (that you know of), but sniffing around the REI close by.