Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1490276)	10/2/2024 2:49:28 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571040

>> It's a trade-off between economic activity and saving lives, Assuming, arguendo, that were an element of it, it still doesn't it make acceptable what was done. And I think you're "leadership" proved it in person when they ignored their own rules. But my point is that before that claim holds water, there must be science showing strong proof of not just correlation, but that Cali's ranking in deaths per capital was specifically CAUSED by these rules. You can believe it, and that is fine. But there really isn't any convincing proof of it (although there are bogus "studies" that support the claim). Statistically and scientifically the claim doesn't hold water. More importantly, the action makes no sense. You don't destroy the life blood of your state (or nation) by forcing companies to stop operating. Imagine if you business were shut down today and how it might affect your entire life going forward. Just think about that a little bit. Would you STILL support it? If I had owned a business in Cali at that time, I would have packed up and left for good. It is clearly far too dangerous for any business to operate there, and certainly to be homed there.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1490276)	10/2/2024 3:27:24 PM
From: i-node	3 Recommendations Recommended By longz miraje rxbond Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571040

>> Of course, it's hard to argue for sacrificing lives just to keep state economies going, so that where denial comes in. If you are facing loss of your life's work at the hands of a rogue state government, you might prefer to save your work. I watched as Houston Methodist stupidly fired nurses and doctors for refusing to get vaccinated. But the point is that states just shouldn't be making the decision. If a person wants to close his business, he can do it. It is even okay to recommend closure, and tell people they may get sick and die if the go out for pizza. (It's a lie, but governors lying is nothing new). There are always competing interests. CA and some other states, did not consider other interests, and instead attacked the freedom of its residents in an untried overkill response to Covid. Some of you find that as acceptable, but as someone who has had a business destroyed by government actions in the past; I have a lot of respect for those states that understood the need to keep kids in school, keep businesses open, and demand absolute science before making the outrageous decision CA did. If there were compelling proof...but I don't see it. A Johns Hopkins study says 'ill-founded' COVID lockdowns did more harm than good \| Health News Florida (usf.edu) Newsom Cites Dubious Evidence That Lockdowns Saved California's Economy (reason.com) The Covid Lockdown Disaster: Three Years Later (californiapolicycenter.org)