Coronavirus Thread

[WreckinGT]

Those at risk groups are not just a handful of people. They also depend on the less at risk group for survival while "isolating and staying home as long as they want", meaning they have to be exposed in a number of ways to survive. Why do people so want to make this a zero sum game, while it has many many shades of gray?
I have yet to hear one salient case against what Drs. Fauci & Brix are suggesting as a road map to reopening---other than: I'm sick of this. I tend to believe as a layperson medically speaking, that most of us will become infected eventually, and that current expert (majority that is) opinion on reopening will buy extremely valuable time for finding and developing therapeutics to bridge the gap of time to develop a vaccine and testing capability, that is if we ever do.

It's not even an "im sick of this" topic anymore. Once it became politicized, there was no remaining logical rationale moving forward. It just became our side vs your side. The hatred and division in this country basically makes us incapable of dealing with anything properly.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Hopefully, something good can come out of all this. Hindsight is 2020 ---

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Allow open borders to her state and provide assistance for illegal immigrants, but totally shut down the town of Gallup, not letting ANYBODY in or out. WOW. Fascism is alive and well in New Mexico.
https://www.lcsun-news.com/videos/n...-act-closing-off-all-roads-gallup/3072950001/

 

[GT_EE78]

> now we know why we can't get the good quality masks
DHS report: China hid virus’ severity to hoard supplies
The report also says China held off informing the World Health Organization that the coronavirus “was a contagion” for much of January so it could order medical supplies from abroad — and that its imports of face masks and surgical gowns and gloves increased sharply.
https://apnews.com/bf685dcf52125be54e030834ab7062a8

 

[GT_EE78]

Federal Appeals Court Bars Kentucky From Banning Drive-Up Church Services
The Sixth Circuit ruled on Saturday, May 2, 2020, granting in part the injunction pending appeal. The Order (pdf.) provides a good example of how we can expect court’s to address these issues: The appeals court does not question the government’s authority to impose substantial health-related restrictions even on religious groups. But those restrictions both must be applied equally to secular and religious groups, and must have a legitimate health-related purpose. Where, as in this case, there was no issue of compliance with social distancing practices, there was no legitimate purpose in prohibiting churches from doing what drive-up and drive-in restaurants and big box stores do.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/...ntucky-from-banning-drive-up-church-services/

 

[GT_EE78]

Leaked Government Documents Suggest Serious Virus Outbreaks at Hospitals in Northern China
All medical staff at designated hospitals in Mudanjiang cannot go back to their homes at this time, and can only stay at the hospital or a designated hotel.
Patients must wear an electronic tracker wristband. The wristband is part of a geofence system; when the person walks outside the allowed perimeter, the system will alarm authorities.Mudanjiang also decided to prolong the quarantine period for people returning to China from overseas—from 14 days to 35 days. The city will also temporarily stop flights and trains to and from Beijing
https://www.ntd.com/leaked-governme...ks-at-hospitals-in-northern-china_462074.html

 

[LibertyTurns]

A Raleigh nurse tells it like it is ---

There’s nothing new here. It has been like this for more than a month. The media thinks the American people are dumb and will buy whatever BS they spew out.

 

[GoldZ]

Im tired of the “this has so much nuance or shades of grey” talk. Some would have us sit still until we’ve covered every possible scenario there is.

At some point, and that point is now if we are going to have hope of recovering economically, you have to move forward and not live in fear huddled in your home.

This virus presents low risk for much of the country, so it’s time for people to be free to decide for themselves and their families how best to handle this, not the so-called experts you name (who have been wrong on this, by the way).

If they have been wrong at times, imagine the likelihood that you are as well---and the shoe would be on the other foot for them at your place of work. Plus, "they" ARE recommending moving forward. I wasn't suggesting by pointing out the many nuances that we "sit still until we've covered every possible scenario there is". Neither is Fauci etal.
Imo, zero sum is far too simplistic when it comes to economic harm vs unecessarily harming the vulnerable---and this from someone who believes both choices are very real and very damaging. Further more, the notion of the elderly are gonna die soon anyway, is pathetically stupid (not stoopid, but downright stupid).

 

[takethepoints]

You don't think the highlighted portions aren't inconsistent? How can a right/liberty be both "not invaded" yet unwilling to be held "secured" when it favors (passively, I might add) the minority? The fact that the direct contradiction appears in the same paragraph is what amuses me. Obviously there are limits; the constitution happens to talk a lot about the limits (e.g. "due process of law", "without just compensation", "equal protection", etc.) and even does say when the rights/liberties can be suspended, i.e. "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Frankly, I thought the more solid ground would be to label the pandemic as an invasion and thus validating suspension, but the Jacobson case didn't take that direction.

This part is very vague. What can states do to "get people to behave" and what power does the federal government not have?

What is simple? the government? Who says the government can't protect the lives of their citizens? As for what is the government for... well, the preamble of the Constitution does offer the following list: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

!. The clause you mention applies to the federal government, not to the states. For what seems to be the millionth time, states have an inherent police power that the federal government doesn't have, except on federal reservations. There is no constitutional right to not get vaccinated in the face of a deadly disease (you can look), so it can't be invaded. By the same token, it can't be secured by a federal court ruling for a minority that doesn't want to be inoculated. On these questions, I'm reminded of what Lord Keynes said of one of his critics, "He refuses to understand me."

2. Read Art 1, sec. 8 of the constitution. That and the power of the president to represent the country in foreign affairs is the power the federal government has. It specifically does not include a general police power. When the US is at war, Congress has passed laws that give the government police powers for the duration and the exercise of martial law is still available. Otherwise, the federal government's main role - as in this crisis - is to coordinate efforts by the states, plan our response on a national basis, and to provide funds through its ability to take on debt. Well … one out of three ain't bad, I suppose.

3. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, you are. What your arguments seem to say is that, since the Bill of Rights is unconditional and most of it applies to states, the power of government doesn't extend to mandating things in an emergency that you disagree with. As I've pointed out before, your rights, even in normal times, extend exactly as far as to not cause damage to others. No one has a right to take actions that are deemed dangerous to others. The present orders are in place for a good reason.

Well, enough.

 

[GoldZ]

There are indeed shades of grey, but the counter argument (which you ignore) is that many people, perhaps as many as 100 million Americans, are being severely impacted in dollars and cents and making ends meet. Can you make your next rent or mortgage payment, do yo know how you will pay for food next month? Many Americans don't know with any certainty. THAT is the price that is being paid. There is your salient case...and to ignore it is unbelievably obtuse.

What is truly obtuse, is not understanding that Fauci and many others like him, that actually know a LOT more than you or I about this, ARE actually suggesting that reopening is possible, but with a speed control. Another sign of obtuseness, is assuming someone is ignoring the harm done to the economy. This is the prob with msg brds, if you knew me, you would understand that I not only understand such, but that I believe it's very real. Many shades of grey = economic pain, unnecessary deaths of elders, National security, etc. etc. etc. Z

 

[takethepoints]

Nobody is advocating for behavior like that.

See the recent demonstration in Michigan. Obviously, there are people advocating "behavior like that".

 

[684Bee]

If they have been wrong at times, imagine the likelihood that you are as well---and the shoe would be on the other foot for them at your place of work. Plus, "they" ARE recommending moving forward. I wasn't suggesting by pointing out the many nuances that we "sit still until we've covered every possible scenario there is". Neither is Fauci etal.
Imo, zero sum is far too simplistic when it comes to economic harm vs unecessarily harming the vulnerable---and this from someone who believes both choices are very real and very damaging. Further more, the notion of the elderly are gonna die soon anyway, is pathetically stupid (not stoopid, but downright stupid).

I don't claim to be an expert. I also don't claim to know how to order anyone else's life, unlike our betters in govt. I'm advocating for freedom of choice and individual responsibility. Shutting young and healthy people up in their homes for extended periods of time, closing down schools, declaring large amounts of people and businesses as "non-essential", etc. is asinine.

 

[bobongo]

your rights, even in normal times, extend exactly as far as to not cause damage to others. No one has a right to take actions that are deemed dangerous to others.

Exactly, For instance, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Yet we have laws against libel and slander, truth-in-lending laws, truth-in-advertising laws, laws against inciting a riot, laws against shouting "fire" in a public theater.

"The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Amendment IX

 

[takethepoints]

There are indeed shades of grey, but the counter argument (which you ignore) is that many people, perhaps as many as 100 million Americans, are being severely impacted in dollars and cents and making ends meet. Can you make your next rent or mortgage payment, do yo know how you will pay for food next month? Many Americans don't know with any certainty. THAT is the price that is being paid. There is your salient case...and to ignore it is unbelievably obtuse.

Last figures I saw on the "inactive population" and those who are in the medically fragile group came out to around 145M people. The answer to this isn't to take risks with these people. It's to write laws that provide the funds the less threatened need.

But that's too easy and makes too much sense.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

See the recent demonstration in Michigan. Obviously, there are people advocating "behavior like that".

They’re advocating to open the state back up. Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen any groups advocating for people to be able to do “whatever they want”. Michigan in particular had some of the most ridiculous rules possible.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Last figures I saw on the "inactive population" and those who are in the medically fragile group came out to around 145M people. The answer to this isn't to take risks with these people. It's to write laws that provide the funds the less threatened need.

But that's too easy and makes too much sense.

And therein lies the great dichotomy. Very few elderly are in the workforce. Hell, if all we did was protect and defend nursing homes and that’s it, we’d cut the number of deaths in half. And only .003 of Americans live in nursing homes.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Last figures I saw on the "inactive population" and those who are in the medically fragile group came out to around 145M people. The answer to this isn't to take risks with these people. It's to write laws that provide the funds the less threatened need.

But that's too easy and makes too much sense.

44% of the US population are “medically fragile”. That’s insane.

 

[684Bee]

And therein lies the great dichotomy. Very few elderly are in the workforce. Hell, if all we did was protect and defend nursing homes and that’s it, we’d cut the number of deaths in half.

I think you may be right. What NYC did regarding nursing homes is just sad.

 

[IEEEWreck]

Most of what you said has already been debunked earlier in the thread. Yea, its a long thread.
It's just sad that so much media is putting out disinformation while others are saving lives and trying to get therapies approved.
Note - debunked means that of the studies i think your referencing have already been explained they were irrelevant due to either late application, lack of zinc, much larger dosage than the covid-19 dose, or in the VA case just scientific misconduct, so i'd request that you link your sources.Some of these just winnowed down what works and doesn't; which is as it should be. The Z-pack isn't for everyone,at least one other antibiotic that also works has been identified.

> the first french study was small
the mortality in the third French study (1061 patients) was 0.47%, and presently the IHU-Mediterrannee Infection is reporting 15 fatalities in 3181 patients treated for more than 3 days with HCQ/AZ, which is still a mortality rate of 0.47%.
Patients not treated with HCQ in other hospitals in the Mareille area: 128 deaths in 4763 cases. (2.7%)
Given the same proportion of fatalities as in the non-HCQ cohort one would have expected more than 85 deaths in the HCQ treated patients.
This is a highly significant difference, p < 0.0002. (not to mention 0 side effects over 1061 patients)
.
Ten comparative studies were identified involving 1,642 patients (965 patients treated witha 53chloroquine derivative) from fivecountries (Brazil, China, France, Iran, and USA) (Table S1).When considering all ten included studies (Figure 1, Table S2), chloroquine derivatives were associated with a lower need for hospitalisation (n = 1, Odds ratio (OR) 0.35, p = .024), shorter duration of cough (n = 1, OR 0.13, p = .001), shorter duration of fever (n = 1, OR 0.14, p = .001), decreased C-reactive protein level (n = 1, OR 0.55, p = .045), and increased hospital discharge (n = 1, 67OR 0.05, p =.050).
CQ derivatives were associated with a beneficial effect (OR < 1) for 11 of the 12 outcomes analysed (Figure 1). Of the comparisons made, 19 were favourable (Table S1).Accordingly, the two-sided sign-test p-value was 0.015. The fatality rate was analysed in two studies with an opposite direction of effect. The study reporting an increased fatality rate was suspected of scientific misconduct (patientsweresignificantly more severe in the treated group [7]). No significant negative effect was observed. https://www.mediterranee-infection....cy-of-Chloroquine-derivatives-in-COVID-19.pdf

>> 91.6 % success over 2333 patients ) an excellent idea rather than a bad one
Hydroxychloroquine Has about 90 Percent Chance of Helping COVID-19 Patients, States Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
To date, the total number of reported patients treated with HCQ, with or without zinc and the widely used antibiotic azithromycin, is 2,333, writes AAPS, in observational data from China, France, South Korea, Algeria, and the U.S. Of these, 2,137 or 91.6 percent improved clinically. There were 63 deaths, all but 11 in a single retrospective report from the Veterans Administration where the patients were severely ill.The antiviral properties of these drugs have been studied since 2003. Particularly when combined with zinc, they hinder viral entry into cells and inhibit replication. They may also prevent overreaction by the immune system, which causes the cytokine storm responsible for much of the damage in severe cases, explains AAPS. HCQ is often very helpful in treating autoimmune diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hydroxychloroquine-90-percent-chance-helping-155637974.html
>> 5 studies?? here's a list of over 20 peer reviewed studies from AAPS
"Historical controls are used in many previous studies in medicine. In this respect, the safety of Hydroxychloroquine is well documented. When the safe use of this drug is projected against its apparent effect of decreasing the progression of early cases to ventilator use, it is difficult to understand the reluctance of the authorities in charge of U.S. pandemic management to recommend its use in early COVID-19 cases. "
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1545C_dJWMIAgqeLEsfo2U8Kq5WprDuARXrJl6N1aDjY/edit

What I mean is that I read the CDC's website to understand how they estimate the flu burden. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/how-cdc-estimates.htm For deaths, they say:


For even just counting the number of hospitalizations, they use data from 9% of the US population and extrapolate hospitalizations for the entire country out of that. For number of people infected, they use the number of hospitalizations and information from a behavioral survey to estimate how many people didn't even seek medical care.

Overall, the actually measured and available numbers for flu are not accurate according to the CDC. The numbers for COVID-19 are being looked at and measured to a much higher level than the flu is every year. I am pretty certain that there are a lot of people who have been infected who weren't tested. I am pretty certain that some of the deaths being attributed as COVID-19 deaths were not caused by COVID-19. I am pretty sure that there are some people who died from COVID-19 who are not being counted. I am pretty sure that there are people who die every year from complications from the flu who are not counted.(Thus the CDC uses model estimates since they know they don't have all of the information).

In percentage, I believe there are more people who die every year from the flu and don't have it listed on their death certificates than are dying this year from COVID-19 without that being listed on their death certificates. I believe that because hyper attention is being paid to COVID-19, while in normal years nobody pays attention to flu. The uncertainty in COVID-19 deaths is less than the uncertainty in flu deaths. However, I don't know how much uncertainty there is in either of those.

What I was saying before is that there isn't enough information available to take the uncertainty out of either and make an apples to apples comparison. It is entirely possible to have many times more unattributed deaths due to flu and than to COVID-19 because hyper attention is being paid to COVID-19.

Most of what you're saying is basic mathematical truth. Both numbers contain type I and type II errors of multiple sources. That's a near certainty.

It would be nice to be able to quantify that error and either name it or correct for it in both, but we can't. So while the error may be different, naming raw data vs raw data is far less misleading than publishing raw data vs corrected data.

And while we're just posting opinions in the dark at this level, I suspect you severely underestimate how seriously physicians take influenza in normal times as well as severely underestimating the effect of testing shortages in creating type I errors.

 

[gthxxxx]

!. The clause you mention applies to the federal government, not to the states. For what seems to be the millionth time, states have an inherent police power that the federal government doesn't have, except on federal reservations. There is no constitutional right to not get vaccinated in the face of a deadly disease (you can look), so it can't be invaded. By the same token, it can't be secured by a federal court ruling for a minority that doesn't want to be inoculated. On these questions, I'm reminded of what Lord Keynes said of one of his critics, "He refuses to understand me."

Perhaps you could quote exactly what section of my comment you are replying to, because I can't seem to see what you are responding to for the "millionth time"? From my perspective, you introduce something from one part of my comment, set up a different argument from another, and then answer from possibly a third?

2. Read Art 1, sec. 8 of the constitution. That and the power of the president to represent the country in foreign affairs is the power the federal government has. It specifically does not include a general police power. When the US is at war, Congress has passed laws that give the government police powers for the duration and the exercise of martial law is still available. Otherwise, the federal government's main role - as in this crisis - is to coordinate efforts by the states, plan our response on a national basis, and to provide funds through its ability to take on debt. Well … one out of three ain't bad, I suppose.

Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Can you be more specific as to which number(s) have to do with your point with respect to federal government, state government, powers, and their relationship to "getting people to behave" during an epidemic? I'm not seeing how Article I, Section 8 has to deal with "federal government's main role - as in this crisis".

3. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, you are. What your arguments seem to say is that, since the Bill of Rights is unconditional and most of it applies to states, the power of government doesn't extend to mandating things in an emergency that you disagree with. As I've pointed out before, your rights, even in normal times, extend exactly as far as to not cause damage to others. No one has a right to take actions that are deemed dangerous to others. The present orders are in place for a good reason.

I'm getting rather confused, since I don't believe I've made such arguments. Can you quote where I said such? Also, I don't know why you keep making vague declarations that seem to get broader and broader when most of my input/questions are trying to narrow down to specific elements of your statements for clarity or references to original authority.