Is Florida less honest than China?

[avromie7]

Arguably? https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=115301.0

1 hospital being overwhelmed is not a hospital system being overwhelmed, although at best it was really close to it. According to ny.gov at the peak NYC had 11% of their beds available.

[Dan]

In NYC arguably. The preparation for an influx of COVID patients probably caused many of the excess deaths.

Except that NYC's excess death count compared to COVID deaths is much less egregious than most other places.

[Euclid]

That would be from the panic.... and neglecting patients who were there before.

The actual system never got close to capacity. The Javits Center had 1000 beds yet over a span few months saw about 1200 patients. The Hospital ship saw 75 the entire time it was there.

Maybe there are concerns about where particular patients were sent but there was never a shortage of beds

You can overflow a system without running out of physical beds. There are humans that are required to care for the patients filling the beds...

What do you think happened in Maimonides? The hospital staff was obviously overwhelmed.

[PlatinumGuy]

complete disbelief at the line not being exactly where individuals want it to be at that moment on that particular subject is head-scratching.

Well articulated argument. Somebody finishes Shmone Esre and looks around him, everybody who already finished couldn't possibly have Kavana and those that are still davening must be faking it.

You can overflow a system without running out of physics beds. There are humans that are required to care for the patients filling the beds...

Israel has been stressing this point a lot. They are now hiring more doctors in anticipation of a dreaded winter.

[Euclid]

1 hospital being overwhelmed is not a hospital system being overwhelmed, although at best it was really close to it. According to ny.gov at the peak NYC had 11% of their beds available.

So if there were plenty of beds in other hospitals why weren't the patients transferred?

[Mikes@Micro]

This right here is about to take this thread way off topic, but it's been bothering me a lot lately. (I want to clarify that I don't know @avromie7's position on this, I'm just quoting him because it serves my purpose.) Why is it that people who express shock and outrage at the idea of government interfering with our lives and businesses also expect the government and police to keep them safe? IMO, once you've determined that it is the government's job to protect the public, you've moved yourself into a grey area where you're arbitrarily setting the line where it's convenient to you, with complete disregard to where others need or want that line to be. That's not to say you can't have an opinion, but line seems to move daily, and the complete disbelief at the line not being exactly where individuals want it to be at that moment on that particular subject is head-scratching.

Congratulation!!! You have hit the million dollar question!

Some things are obviously a public hazard (hurt others... like speeding, stealing, killing) included in the 7 Mitzvos bnei Noach that we need govt enforcement.

Some things are obviously a personal hazard and can not be banned by a government  (they only hurt you - drinking large sodas and getting fat)

Coronavirus has both categories:
 
You can get sick - THIS is YOUR DECISION  to make.
You can get others sick - if you are clearly going to infect others the govt can treat that like murder.

If hospitals were actually overwhelmed it MAY be the government's job to ensure everyone has access to healthcare.

As this is a gray area legally it falls along classic big govt or little govt arguments that have been around since the 1st constitutional convention.

[yitzgar]

NYC hospitals are consistently understaffed and crowded. Way before all of this

[avromie7]

This right here is about to take this thread way off topic, but it's been bothering me a lot lately. (I want to clarify that I don't know @avromie7's position on this, I'm just quoting him because it serves my purpose.) Why is it that people who express shock and outrage at the idea of government interfering with our lives and businesses also expect the government and police to keep them safe? IMO, once you've determined that it is the government's job to protect the public, you've moved yourself into a grey area where you're arbitrarily setting the line where it's convenient to you, with complete disregard to where others need or want that line to be. That's not to say you can't have an opinion, but line seems to move daily, and the complete disbelief at the line not being exactly where individuals want it to be at that moment on that particular subject is head-scratching.

As a general rule my position is the government is responsible to protect us from others, not to decide what is best for me. Anyone can decide they want to take the risk and return to normal as long as it's not putting others in harms way by creating a situation where the hospitals can't properly treat everyone.

So if there were plenty of beds in other hospitals why weren't the patients transferred?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just explaining why I used the word arguably.

[Mikes@Micro]

So if there were plenty of beds in other hospitals why weren't the patients transferred?

Bc businesses dont get paid if they send their customers elsewhere.

[avromie7]

Bc businesses dont get paid if they send their customers elsewhere.

I don't think this is why, other hospitals were also struggling to keep up. There were reports of hospitals requesting diversion for incoming ambulances being denied.

[Lurker]

Congratulation!!! You have hit the million dollar question!

Some things are obviously a public hazard (hurt others... like speeding, stealing, killing) included in the 7 Mitzvos bnei Noach that we need govt enforcement.

Some things are obviously a personal hazard and can not be banned by a government  (they only hurt you - drinking large sodas and getting fat)

Coronavirus has both categories:
 
You can get sick - THIS is YOUR DECISION  to make.
You can get others sick - if you are clearly going to infect others the govt can treat that like murder.

If hospitals were actually overwhelmed it MAY be the government's job to ensure everyone has access to healthcare.

As this is a gray area legally it falls along classic big govt or little govt arguments that have been around since the 1st constitutional convention.

As a general rule my position is the government is responsible to protect us from others, not to decide what is best for me. Anyone can decide they want to take the risk and return to normal as long as it's not putting others in harms way by creating a situation where the hospitals can't properly treat everyone.

I don't agree with the premise that the actions of individuals don't affect the masses. There are certain basic infrastructures that people cannot survive without. By individuals compromising the safety of those infrastructures, they are putting the public at risk. This extends even beyond that. If I own a condo, I own a right to the common areas. Why do your rights as an individual supersede my rights to access those common areas? That may or may not be for the government to decide; maybe it's for the courts. But when that scenario plays out in any place with public access, then government has an obligation to get involved.

[Mikes@Micro]

I don't think this is why, other hospitals were also struggling to keep up. There were reports of hospitals requesting diversion for incoming ambulances being denied.

If they need to they will but only once they reach a certain threshold where the liability is more than gain.

Reports of diversion may not be an indicator that beds are full rather they have no ER staff available for intake.

Why were the requests being denied and who was denying?

[Mikes@Micro]

I don't agree with the premise that the actions of individuals don't affect the masses. There are certain basic infrastructures that people cannot survive without. By individuals compromising the safety of those infrastructures, they are putting the public at risk. This extends even beyond that. If I own a condo, I own a right to the common areas. Why do your rights as an individual supersede my rights to access those common areas? That may or may not be for the government to decide; maybe it's for the courts. But when that scenario plays out in any place with public access, then government has an obligation to get involved.

1) So because SOME wont want to go to the condos open area we should ban ALL from going?

2) Certain actions certainly dont affect the masses for example drinking a large fountain soda. Do you think the govt should ban those?

[PlatinumGuy]

Some things are obviously a personal hazard and can not be banned by a government  (they only hurt you - drinking large sodas and getting fat)

Coronavirus has both categories:
 
You can get sick - THIS is YOUR DECISION  to make.
You can get others sick - if you are clearly going to infect others the govt can treat that like murder.

If hospitals were actually overwhelmed it MAY be the government's job to ensure everyone has access to healthcare.

As this is a gray area legally it falls along classic big govt or little govt arguments that have been around since the 1st constitutional convention.

Governments the world over make decisions their citizens are incapable of making on their own - cigarette laws, alcohol laws, gambling laws, prostitution laws, seatbelt laws, and even medical prescription laws.

Of course, that's even without the potential for harming others with the coronavirus.

[PlatinumGuy]

If they need to they will but only once they reach a certain threshold where the liability is more than gain.

There was no liability. NY issues EOs exempting all healthcare from liability suits.

[yaakov35]

Have any hospital systems actually been overwhelmed? I mean in the USA....?

Hospital systems in the USA are always running full, so doesn't take much to get overwhelmed. But there was never a shortage of beds.

[Lurker]

So because SOME wont want to go to the condos open area we should ban ALL from going?

Certain actions certainly dont affect the masses for example drinking a large fountain soda. Do you think the govt should ban those?

I think that if I need to use the building's elevator, then there should be rules making sure that it is safe for me to do so. That doesn't absolve me from taking my own precautions, but your freedoms do not give you the right to put my safety at risk.

[PlatinumGuy]

I wonder if all the posters here advocating libertarian personal freedoms would also be willing to relinquish all government financial support? Including the laws forcing hospitals to provide them with emergency care regardless of payment?

Not a single country in the world operates on this basis.

[avromie7]

I wonder if all the posters here advocating libertarian personal freedoms would also be willing to relinquish all government financial support? Including the laws forcing hospitals to provide them with emergency care regardless of payment?

Not a single country in the world operates on this basis.

Such needs can generally be covered by charity. Evidence shows an increase in charitable contributions directly linked to a decrease in taxes.

[Mikes@Micro]

@PlatinumGuy 5 out of the 6 laws you mentioned are not comparable: all of those provide pleasure/ addiction and profiteers can encourage personally harmful behavior which the user will be incapable of stopping.

Example: A big part of the cigarette laws are to stop companies from ads to make cigarettes appealing. Or taxes to discourage people from smoking.  Or age restrictions to make sure people are mature enough to make a responsible decision.

Alcohol cigarettes and gambling are not outright banned. Indesputabley harmful aspects are illegal.

How is the virus similar?