Coronavirus COVID-19

[CID1990]

There’s some promise in this article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... a.amp.html

I have an old high school friend is currently working night and day on 3 different trial vaccines. There are hundreds world wide in development it sounds indeed like we’re over a year away and that’s if someone gets lucky and hits the lottery of drug development.

Btw, Ganny you were right in your estimate regarding the sheer number of tests required to safely open things back up. It’s in the trillions worldwide. Surveillance level track and trace lije Taiwan (who seriously kicked ass at halting the spread) is going to be attempted in some states with California and WA already hiring staffing to implement the programs. Of course that ain’t gonna jive well with civil liberties.

Petri dishes like Florida, Georgia, and Sweden will be interesting to watch. Singapore is nervously spiking suggesting a 2nd wave.

Be sure to stock up on meat products because the number of major processing facilities being shut down is already threatening supply chains.

It’s such a weird bug. Almost like it was created to fuck with our psyche. I’m holding out hope that this is still a massive overreaction and at some point we can safely say fuck it but we’re not quite there yet.

I just want to go fishing.

Happy Friday!

Taiwan was always an example we can't replicate. Besides the advantages that Asian countries had given their experiences with SARS and other crazy viruses that have come out of China over the past two decades but never really impacted us, Taiwan already was exceedingly cautious and skeptical of visitors from China. Plus, given their potential to be overrun by military assault at a moments notice, and that they are an island, they are pretty capable of shutting the whole country down to the outside in rapid fashion. If only we could live under impending threat of annihilation then maybe we would respond better to virus like these.

But yes, I'm sure we're going to try the testing, but I'm still not seeing how we test all 330M of us, every day, for as long as we need to until a vaccine arrive. Maybe we spread it out and only do the 330M tests on even numbered days, or just Tuesdays and Thursdays, but the longer the interval in between testing the more people you may have come in contact with who will need to be traced and monitored. I'm still waiting to see how we enforce a quarantine on people we deem contagious. Are we going to be quarantine camps or just trust them to shelter in place for 14 days?

You’re right about Taiwan

One of their biggest advantages was that they assumed China (and the WHO) were full of shit from the outset and acted accordingly

And now the head of WHO is playing as China’s attack dog by attacking Taiwan

Imagine that... this insanely important and invaluable international organization, with the number one responsibility of preventing or controlling world pandemics...

does not allow membership to, and openly criticizes the one country in the world with the best virus response .... and that response was first and foremost to not believe the bullshit coming out of China and the WHO

you can’t make that crap up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

I’m sorry if that’s how I’ve come off. I see the opposite in my social circles and it’s equally as dangerous. I’m looking forward to economic studies that weigh and balance the whole ball of wax with the best minds, data, and logic applied.

I’ve seen very little of that posted through the economic lens so far. It’s ultimately a risk tolerance question which requires all of the above. All numbers should be questioned as we learn more about true threat potential but what z had offered up is .5% and it’s the flu. That’s getting close to willful ignorance level bs.

I’d think you agree that the economics and health threat shouldn’t be separated.

We all know that Z is prone to hyperbole but that doesn't make his underlying questions/points any less valid. If we've underestimated the number of people who have been infected by a factor of 10 it's fair to ask if we're overreacting. No this isn't the flu, it's more contagious and deadly but if it is 1/10 as deadly it's a lot closer to the regular flu then it is to the Spanish Flu and we might be kicking ourselves down the road over the damage we did to the economy and people's lives.

And yes, I don't think the economics and health threat should be separated. They need to be considered together.

And Gil's meme about Doctor/Not Doctor demonstrates my earlier point - the underlying message of that meme is that we should trust doctors period. I've seen a lot of stuff like that and if I question them I get asked how many lives I'm willing to sacrifice for the economy.

When this all comes out in the wash and we have sufficient testing/data we’re going to find out that it’s highly contagious and deadly only to those who are old and infirm. Just like every other virus/disease known to man. Mark my words. Death rate will be < .5% COMBINED, and < .15% under aged 60.

[kalm]

As long as their actions don’t threaten the rights of others, correct?

No

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Thank you John Liden.

[BDKJMU]

Tests have now eclipsed the 5 million mark.

[Ivytalk]

Tests have now eclipsed the 5 million mark.

Great. Only 325 million to go.

[Ivytalk]

Define “threat.”

Well in the current context let’s start with community spread of a pandemic that can effect another’s health or destroy an economy.

That’s the pickle. How do you define that and what tools do you use to establish the definition?

The key Libertarian principle is “forcible interference” with the rights of others. The libertarian view of the proper role of government in the “right to life” sphere is to limit the initiation of physical force by one person against another. If I exercise my right to go to a place of business, a church, or a park, by definition I’m not interfering in any way with the rights of those who choose to shelter in place. Nor am I interfering with the right of others who are outside, unless I walk up to them and cough in their face. That’s probably “forcible interference.” Merely being in the presence of others in a group larger than ten is not forcible interference.

Capisce?

[kalm]

Well in the current context let’s start with community spread of a pandemic that can effect another’s health or destroy an economy.

That’s the pickle. How do you define that and what tools do you use to establish the definition?

The key Libertarian principle is “forcible interference” with the rights of others. The libertarian view of the proper role of government in the “right to life” sphere is to limit the initiation of physical force by one person against another. If I exercise my right to go to a place of business, a church, or a park, by definition I’m not interfering in any way with the rights of those who choose to shelter in place. Nor am I interfering with the right of others who are outside, unless I walk up to them and cough in their face. That’s probably “forcible interference.” Merely being in the presence of others in a group larger than ten is not forcible interference.

Capisce?

Yes. It’s reasonable....on paper.

What if the social distancing and stay at home practices are the only known prevention of community spread and the number of cases goes back up as do deaths, prohibiting a person from going to work or even the store or being able to sell their wares at a market?

[Ivytalk]

The key Libertarian principle is “forcible interference” with the rights of others. The libertarian view of the proper role of government in the “right to life” sphere is to limit the initiation of physical force by one person against another. If I exercise my right to go to a place of business, a church, or a park, by definition I’m not interfering in any way with the rights of those who choose to shelter in place. Nor am I interfering with the right of others who are outside, unless I walk up to them and cough in their face. That’s probably “forcible interference.” Merely being in the presence of others in a group larger than ten is not forcible interference.

Capisce?

Yes. It’s reasonable....on paper.

What if the social distancing and stay at home practices are the only known prevention of community spread and the number of cases goes back up as do deaths, prohibiting a person from going to work or even the store or being able to sell their wares at a market?

That’s an absurd hypothetical. Next question.

[kalm]

Yes. It’s reasonable....on paper.

What if the social distancing and stay at home practices are the only known prevention of community spread and the number of cases goes back up as do deaths, prohibiting a person from going to work or even the store or being able to sell their wares at a market?

That’s an absurd hypothetical. Next question.

Strike the store from the equation and numbers going up and it’s literally happening in places.

[Ivytalk]

That’s an absurd hypothetical. Next question.

Strike the store from the equation and numbers going up and it’s literally happening in places.

So would you join the full-throated liberal mob that wants to criminalize protesters for objecting to overbroad shutdown orders? Jesus. As others have said, we take risks every day, even by crossing the street. We’re becoming a nation of pussified germophobes.

[kalm]

Strike the store from the equation and numbers going up and it’s literally happening in places.

So would you join the full-throated liberal mob that wants to criminalize protesters for objecting to overbroad shutdown orders? Jesus. As others have said, we take risks every day, even by crossing the street. We’re becoming a nation of pussified germophobes.

No I, I wouldn't. And I hope they are right. But the possibility of an early reopening helping to lead to further extended shutdowns is very real and will piss me off.

We've also become a nation of confirmation bias and selfishness.

[CAA Flagship]

No I, I wouldn't.

[AZGrizFan]

Strike the store from the equation and numbers going up and it’s literally happening in places.

So would you join the full-throated liberal mob that wants to criminalize protesters for objecting to overbroad shutdown orders? Jesus. As others have said, we take risks every day, even by crossing the street. We’re becoming a nation of pussified germophobes.

The point of sheltering in place AT ALL was to flatten the curve. Well? Mission accomplished.

Let’s get back to work and living.

[grizzaholic]

No I, I wouldn't.

[SDHornet]

So would you join the full-throated liberal mob that wants to criminalize protesters for objecting to overbroad shutdown orders? Jesus. As others have said, we take risks every day, even by crossing the street. We’re becoming a nation of pussified germophobes.

The point of sheltering in place AT ALL was to flatten the curve. Well? Mission accomplished.

Let’s get back to work and living.

Yep. Get back to work people.

[kalm]

You can both go directly to H E double hockey sticks!

[kalm]

The point of sheltering in place AT ALL was to flatten the curve. Well? Mission accomplished.

Let’s get back to work and living.

Yep. Get back to work people.

The point of flattening the curve was to prevent hospitals from being overstrained. The downside of the curve is not steep, it’s gradual. Loosening up restrictions will be measured in smart states. WA State is reopening residential construction. Voluntary surgeries and outdoor rec are next. They’ll give it a few weeks of monitoring and if things go well continue to open up more.

[UNI88]

The key Libertarian principle is “forcible interference” with the rights of others. The libertarian view of the proper role of government in the “right to life” sphere is to limit the initiation of physical force by one person against another. If I exercise my right to go to a place of business, a church, or a park, by definition I’m not interfering in any way with the rights of those who choose to shelter in place. Nor am I interfering with the right of others who are outside, unless I walk up to them and cough in their face. That’s probably “forcible interference.” Merely being in the presence of others in a group larger than ten is not forcible interference.

Capisce?

Yes. It’s reasonable....on paper.

What if the social distancing and stay at home practices are the only known prevention of community spread and the number of cases goes back up as do deaths, prohibiting a person from going to work or even the store or being able to sell their wares at a market?

So it's ok for the government to involuntarily prohibit a person from going to work or a store from selling their wares but it's wrong if people voluntarily chose to not go to work open their store because they're worried that relaxed rules increase the possibility of infection?

[Ivytalk]

Yes. It’s reasonable....on paper.

What if the social distancing and stay at home practices are the only known prevention of community spread and the number of cases goes back up as do deaths, prohibiting a person from going to work or even the store or being able to sell their wares at a market?

So it's ok for the government to involuntarily prohibit a person from going to work or a store from selling their wares but it's wrong if people voluntarily chose to not go to work open their store because they're worried that relaxed rules increase the possibility of infection?

Good point, 88. The missus and I are staying home, for the most part, and I won’t travel to Dover for the “big” protest. It’s a matter of liberty and choice. Don’t mess with my shyt, and I won’t mess with yours.

[UNI88]

Posting this from AGS (big thanks to Professor Chaos) for those that say we should listen to the doctors ...



And the Professor's thoughts on the video ...

Perspective of a couple ER doctors from the Sacramento California area:

The first guy spends a lot of time initually going over data extrapolation of cases/deaths which is certainly flawed because for the most part we're only testing those people showing symptoms. So that stuff isn't all that interesting IMO but a few things that I thought were interesting based on their personal observation and discussion amongst their colleagues:

1) Hospitals there are treating far less cases of cardiovascular disease than they have in the past leading to the assumption that those conditions are going untreated. A dangerous situation.

2) He's seeing increased cases of domestic abuse (both child and spousal) and suicides across his clinics.

3) Forcing "healthy" people to shelter in place for extended periods of time weakens their immune systems since they aren't being exposed COVID amongst many other infectious diseases that their immune systems are losing resistance to. One doctor's exact words: "Viruses and bacteria are the building blocks of our immune system."

4) Both doctors agreed with the initial guidance regarding social distancing but as they're seeing more data accumulate and spending more time witnessing what's happening in their hospitals they think that we need to re-evaluate whether it's still necessary.

5) Co-morbidities are being discounted more than ever when diagnosing COVID deaths because, according to this doctor, hospital administrations are pressuring doctors to diagnose deaths with COVID as COVID deaths when they've never had that pressure for anything else.

6) According to them asymptomatic spreaders are spreading a less virulent form of COVID therefore are not as dangerous as a symptomatic spreader.

They're both adamantly in favor if lifting lockdowns, reopening businesses, and of widespread testing.

Give it a listen... what I hear is a lot of common sense and good discussion (and they're grilled by some of the press there so they do defend their positions instead of just giving their opinions uncontested).

[kalm]

Yes. It’s reasonable....on paper.

What if the social distancing and stay at home practices are the only known prevention of community spread and the number of cases goes back up as do deaths, prohibiting a person from going to work or even the store or being able to sell their wares at a market?

So it's ok for the government to involuntarily prohibit a person from going to work or a store from selling their wares but it's wrong if people voluntarily chose to not go to work open their store because they're worried that relaxed rules increase the possibility of infection?

Huh?

[BDKJMU]

Tests have now eclipsed the 5 million mark.

Great. Only 325 million to go.

Well, according to Worldometer, US at 5.2 million is almost double the 2nd closest, the Russians. And is pointless to try to virus test all 329 million. That wouldn't even tell you if someone had it. It only tells if they have it the day they are tested.

The antibody test is the one where we need to test everyone.

[BDKJMU]

The point of sheltering in place AT ALL was to flatten the curve. Well? Mission accomplished.

Let’s get back to work and living.

Yep. Get back to work people.

Yep.

[Ivytalk]

Great. Only 325 million to go.

Well, according to Worldometer, US at 5.2 million is almost double the 2nd closest, the Russians. And is pointless to try to virus test all 329 million. That wouldn't even tell you if someone had it. It only tells if they have it the day they are tested.

The antibody test is the one where we need to test everyone.

Get on it!

[SDHornet]

Yep. Get back to work people.

The point of flattening the curve was to prevent hospitals from being overstrained. The downside of the curve is not steep, it’s gradual. Loosening up restrictions will be measured in smart states. WA State is reopening residential construction. Voluntary surgeries and outdoor rec are next. They’ll give it a few weeks of monitoring and if things go well continue to open up more.

I understand that. CA never came close to hospital capacity. Not even close. Max was a third of ICU beds occupied, and a small fraction of overall hospital beds. It might be different for other states, but there is no reason CA should extend its lock down and should start opening things back up.