Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Corona Virus

Ja Rhule

By Ja Rhule,
in Huddle Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

electro's horse Grand Master

electro's horse

Posted
Posted

"The president today posted another instagram story of him squatting while talking to the prime minister of england. They hashed out a new trade deal while he finished his the final set of his 5x5 at 80%.

Critics have said the President shouldn't wear only his singlets under a Pikachu tshirt. Defenders of the president have said 'he looks fantastic. who gives a poo.'

We're joined now by right wing talk show host Ben Shapiro and should say, in the interest of journalistic integrity, he absolutely does not lift."

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes21 Mentor

Wes21

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

Because you can't lock up the sick, the elderly, people with health issues, etc. just because you want to "play normally". That's not the way the world works. You want to go back to work? You want to play? WEAR A MASK. If everyone wore a mask from the start we wouldn't be where we are. But the youth, and the anti-mask people have kept the pandemic afloat.

Simple question: If someone said, yes, you can go back to work. Yes, you can go to the club, and the bar. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO is wear a mask. Would you wear a mask? So odd that some people still wouldn't.

As was said earlier in the thread, the "at risk" category starts in the 40s and increases in the 50s and 60s.  Society absolutely can not function "normally" with those people on lock down.  The second we put that policy in place, nearly every major construction project in the country would stop instantly because the higher risk age groups are where most of your foreman and superintendents are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AU-panther Mentor

AU-panther

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

Because you can't lock up the sick, the elderly, people with health issues, etc. just because you want to "play normally". That's not the way the world works. You want to go back to work? You want to play? WEAR A MASK. If everyone wore a mask from the start we wouldn't be where we are. But the youth, and the anti-mask people have kept the pandemic afloat.

Simple question: If someone said, yes, you can go back to work. Yes, you can go to the club, and the bar. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO is wear a mask. Would you wear a mask? So odd that some people still wouldn't.

I used the word "play" to refer to activities outside of work, and I actually said "especially with wearing a mask".

I actually agree with you on the importance of wearing mask so relax.

My point was I think we could do a better job of really protecting the high risk.  Maybe everyone wear a mask and then subsidize the high risk to stay at home.

During the lockdown the government paid low risk people to stay at home, meanwhile you had high risk people still working in "essential" businesses.

22 year old healthy bartender gets unemployment to stay at home but 65 year old person with diabetes is still working at the grocery store?

Are we trying to stop the spread or trying to stop the deaths?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stirs Grand Master

stirs

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

I used the word "play" to refer to activities outside of work, and I actually said "especially with wearing a mask".

I actually agree with you on the importance of wearing mask so relax.

My point was I think we could do a better job of really protecting the high risk.  Maybe everyone wear a mask and then subsidize the high risk to stay at home.

During the lockdown the government paid low risk people to stay at home, meanwhile you had high risk people still working in "essential" businesses.

22 year old healthy bartender gets unemployment to stay at home but 65 year old person with diabetes is still working at the grocery store?

Are we trying to stop the spread or trying to stop the deaths?

 

 

Don't come in here with common sense, who do you think you are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Devil Doc Collaborator

Devil Doc

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, AU-panther said:

I used the word "play" to refer to activities outside of work, and I actually said "especially with wearing a mask".

I actually agree with you on the importance of wearing mask so relax.

My point was I think we could do a better job of really protecting the high risk.  Maybe everyone wear a mask and then subsidize the high risk to stay at home.

During the lockdown the government paid low risk people to stay at home, meanwhile you had high risk people still working in "essential" businesses.

22 year old healthy bartender gets unemployment to stay at home but 65 year old person with diabetes is still working at the grocery store?

Are we trying to stop the spread or trying to stop the deaths?

 

 

I only care about stopping the deaths, that is the only controllable thing. It is going to spread, that is the inevitable thing. All we are doing is delaying the spread, so these "Numbers" going up, does not necessarily represent deaths. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • tukafan21
      We joke about how the NFL has a script for the season. But maybe it's not a joke?

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • rayzor
      Our guys working their azz's off to be the winners they know they are!!

      By rayzor · Posted

      Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Rocky Davis
      NHL Draft 2025

      By Rocky Davis · Posted

      Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...