Ebola vs COVID-1984

[doodle]

There’s been a lot of pushback from the right and from libertarians on shutdowns and mandated mask wearing related to COVID-1984.

If it was Ebola, which has a very painful infection process with a 50% death rate, does anyone think we’d need the government to close bars and gyms? Or would people voluntarily stay home? Would we need the government to enforce mask wearing? Or would people voluntarily use PPE?

But it’s not Ebola, and instead of a 50% death rate, it’s 0.4% total death rate, split such that death rate for people under 40 is 0.001%

And so people think the mask law is stupid, people think closing business is stupid, people don’t want the government to be involved.

What if the people are right? And what if the solution is the government lets people do whatever they want, and if it’s something like Ebola, people will weigh the risks and make their decisions. And most will decide to stay home and wear masks in Public. Because Ebola.

And if it’s a bullshit thing, people won’t stay home, people won’t wear masks, and a small number of people will die and life will move on.

How are people supposed to make decisions if they have no idea what the truth is until it is too late? Perhaps it's just another crazy scheme cooked up by george soros to take over the planet and turn us into robot sex slaves.

[doodle]

Or the ultra reliable right wing media.

[doodle]

How are people supposed to make decisions if they have no idea what the truth is until it is too late?

So the government should have a monopoly on "truth" as well as force?

Force...no other option as far as I'm concerned. In a world where people commit murders and crimes we need some entity to hold those people accountable. I know libertarians have this great private legal system and private defense force thesis...I'd rather have that power publically vested in an accountable democratically run government subject to constitutional restraints. We can agree to disagree but I think you are fighting a losing battle there.

As for monopoly on truth I don't think I ever made the claim that government is the arbiter of that. I stated the idea that perhaps opinion and analysis oriented shows on news networks should carry express notifications that they are that. That might sound stupid to geniuses like you that are instantly able to determine fact from opinion but for the general public perhaps it would be a good idea to plant the seed through a simple notification on such shows that what they are listening to, although persuasive, might simply be interpretation.

I don't know if there is an easy answer to this question yet....but just looking at this election, there is an awful lot of misinformation being tossed around that when organized through the right channels has the possibilty of eventually undermining the entire country. That is a danger that should be taken seriously as the ramifications are quite severe.

[doodle]

since the dawn of civilization man has had a problem with individuals that violate the basic rules and do harm to others, our solution the entire time has been let some of the same people take, or be given the ability to threaten the rest (government)..... people are a threat to others the solution-- give some of them a gun and tell them to point it at us and force us to do the right thing... it seems to have more than met the definition of insanity, trying the same thing over and expecting different results... maybe it is time to start thinking outside the "government box"

the problem with government is that it expands constantly (to those of you who want more government this should be obvious ) and democratic civilian rule will never stop the creep.. THANK YOU 2020 ELECTION for pushing me over the edge to becoming a rational anarchist..

Ok, but the suggestions I've heard are private mercenary forces and private for profit legal systems. I'd rather have police and military forces under democratic civilian rule accountable to public through constitutionally organized political processes.

[doodle]

I'd also say, while our legal and justice system is far from perfect, it's pretty darn good. There is always room for improvement but I'd much rather live here with this system than some place where safety and security is carried out by drug cartel forces or aristocratic families or tribal war lords.

[sophie]

Actually let me ask the question a slightly different way. Mask laws only work if people are willing to follow suit, because they've decided on their own that they think Mask Wearing Is Good. Right? Which each person is certainly entitled to do, science or no science.

If there is a sizeable population who think the mask thing is stupid and they won't do it, then what?

The government is now in a position where it has to send out police to enforce mask laws, leading to potentially violent confrontations and arrests. How many of those arrests & confrontations would you consider to be OK? At the same time, the government in all its wisdom is going about dismantling and/or defunding the police at the behest of BLM.

Consistency has never been one of the government's problems :-)

[Tortoise]

I'd also say, while our legal and justice system is far from perfect, it's pretty darn good. There is always room for improvement but I'd much rather live here with this system than some place where safety and security is carried out by drug cartel forces or aristocratic families or tribal war lords.

I'll remind you that you said this if the justice system ends up ruling that election fraud invalidated some states' Presidential election results this year, and Trump is reelected as a result.

[doodle]

Yes, social pressure is probably best way of enforcing masks...arrests, fines etc would be last resort. Would your perspective change on the matter if the virus was 10x more contagious and 10x more deadly and masks were 10x more effective in containing spread? Would it then be up to individuals as well? If it were and someone went maskless and infected my child and they died, should I not have recourse?

[Tortoise]

If it were [up to individuals] and someone went maskless and infected my child and they died, should I not have recourse?

Would you be able to prove in court that your child contracted the virus from that maskless person and not from any other person, doorknob, etc.?

[Lonestar]

We certainly have seen the "to wear" or "not to wear" a mask issue become very contentious during the last few months. It has made me wonder what would be the general public's reaction should we ever experience a pandemic of greater severity.

Large-scale isolation and quarantine was last enforced during the influenza (“Spanish Flu”) pandemic in 1918–1919. In recent history, only a few public health events have prompted federal isolation or quarantine orders. It appears the CDC may issue a Federal isolation or quarantine order. I think they are the only entity with this authority.

So, if isolation became mandatory how would folks react? I used to feel people would have enough concerns for others to accept it............now I'm not sure.

[boglerdude]

In Coronavirus Fight, China Gives Citizens a Color Code, With Red Flags
A new system uses software to dictate quarantines — and appears to send personal data to police, in a troubling precedent for automated social control.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/busi ... lance.html

[Maddy]

For how long can the mask debaters continue to ignore the fact--now admitted by even the CDC--that for the vast majority of people, this virus has no greater consequence than the flu? When you ask the question, "What if your refusal to wear a mask causes my kid to die," you're engaging an unstated premise that has been thoroughly debunked--namely, that this virus is so deadly to the general population that the threat of contagion justifies not only the indefinite suspension of individual liberties but the widespread destruction of lives and livelihoods. At this point, continuing down that road simply outs the proponent of enforced mask-wearing as a shill with a political agenda.

This virus, like any other, is not going away any time soon. Like any other virus, it will not burn out until all of the dry tinder is used up. That "dry tinder" is the young, otherwise healthy, population. That includes your kid. Until you allow that segment of the population to develop herd immunity, the vulnerable population (consisting nearly entirely of older, co-morbid people, particularly those in congregate care facilities) remains at risk. To repeat: It's exactly the strategies being promoted by the lockdown/mask-up crowd that are killing people.

[jalanlong]

Yes, social pressure is probably best way of enforcing masks...arrests, fines etc would be last resort. Would your perspective change on the matter if the virus was 10x more contagious and 10x more deadly and masks were 10x more effective in containing spread? Would it then be up to individuals as well? If it were and someone went maskless and infected my child and they died, should I not have recourse?

In a situation with Ebola or something more contagious and more deadly, the average person most likely would have been severely affected and would therefore be more likely to wear a mask or take precautions to protect themselves and their family. The percentages would say they would either personally gotten Ebola or known someone who did and suffered greatly. With Covid, the percentages suggest that the average citizen has either not been affected at all or was affected and recovered without issue. That makes forcing masks and shutdowns much more difficult.

[sophie]

We certainly have seen the "to wear" or "not to wear" a mask issue become very contentious during the last few months. It has made me wonder what would be the general public's reaction should we ever experience a pandemic of greater severity.

I expect that if this virus actually were killing a significant fraction of the people it infected, e.g. something closer to bubonic plague or Ebola, people would not only be wearing masks and gloves outdoors, but they'd be afraid to leave their homes, and employers would have to let people work from home. Enforcement would become a non-issue. Lockdown and masks would happen without any need for government decree.

You can't compare this situation to the Spanish flu. That flu killed mainly young people in their 20s and 30s, and the death rate was much higher than it is for COVID. The elderly were actually less susceptible. it's thought they had already encountered a similar virus in the past (unlike the younger crowd) and already had some natural immunity. Also, life expectancy in those days was a lot lower. You didn't have nursing homes or extreme measures to prolong life, nor were there antibiotics. And, with no USDA food pyramid or subsidies of grains and sugar to screw up the national diet, there was much less obesity and diabetes. Plus, this was also before widespread water treatment & city sewage systems. Anyone vulnerable to infectious diseases in general got bumped off much earlier in life. So there was a much smaller slice of the population in the vulnerable/elderly category which is the main source of COVID victims.

[boglerdude]

SARS-CoV-1 8,000 cases

SARS-CoV-2 53,000,000 cases

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002%E2%8 ... S_outbreak

[doodle]

I'd also say, while our legal and justice system is far from perfect, it's pretty darn good. There is always room for improvement but I'd much rather live here with this system than some place where safety and security is carried out by drug cartel forces or aristocratic families or tribal war lords.

I'll remind you that you said this if the justice system ends up ruling that election fraud invalidated some states' Presidential election results this year, and Trump is reelected as a result.

What are the betting odds on that right now?

[sophie]

Here's another unintended consequence of the faith-based reliance on masks:

I just got notified that I was exposed to COVID, via an employee with whom I was in direct contact for a total of 2.5 hours earlier this week. So I'm now caught up in the contact tracing system, will be interesting to see how it works.

The contact tracer told me they don't consider it an exposure if everyone was masked. That strikes me as ridiculous. Whether or not the person was/is symptomatic, and the duration of exposure don't figure into this?? And are homemade/surgical masks really that miraculous as protectors, all by themselves? That is simply ridiculous. It also ignores any other type of contact, e.g. hand to hand, into eyes etc. We weren't wearing gloves or face shields, because hospital policy on these were quickly relaxed plus the procedure can't really be done with the face shield (I can't see stuff I need to see with it on).

Not sure what to do about it, except that I should probably stay away from my 84 year old mom for a while. Which has its own consequences. I have no way of assessing the actual risk, unless I find out who the COVID positive person was and call him/her to find out if they truly are a case, rather than just a random positive test.

[sophie]

Here's another unintended consequence of the faith-based reliance on masks:

I just got notified that I was exposed to COVID, via an employee with whom I was in direct contact for a total of 2.5 hours earlier this week. So I'm now caught up in the contact tracing system, will be interesting to see how it works.

The contact tracer told me they don't consider it an exposure if everyone was masked. That strikes me as ridiculous. Whether or not the person was/is symptomatic, and the duration of exposure don't figure into this?? And are homemade/surgical masks really that miraculous as protectors, all by themselves? That is simply ridiculous. It also ignores any other type of contact, e.g. hand to hand, into eyes etc. We weren't wearing gloves or face shields, because hospital policy on these were quickly relaxed plus the procedure can't really be done with the face shield (I can't see stuff I need to see with it on).

Not sure what to do about it, except that I should probably stay away from my 84 year old mom for a while. Which has its own consequences. I have no way of assessing the actual risk, unless I find out who the COVID positive person was and call him/her to find out if they truly are a case, rather than just a random positive test.

Can't you just wait a day or two and then get tested? If it's negative after that length of time you're prob safe, no?

Well yes that's the plan, except that my planned Mom visits were tomorrow & Monday. The point though is that breathtaking assumption that exposure is fine if you're wearing a mask, and not fine otherwise. Based on what I have no idea.

[Tortoise]

I'd also say, while our legal and justice system is far from perfect, it's pretty darn good. There is always room for improvement but I'd much rather live here with this system than some place where safety and security is carried out by drug cartel forces or aristocratic families or tribal war lords.

I'll remind you that you said this if the justice system ends up ruling that election fraud invalidated some states' Presidential election results this year, and Trump is reelected as a result.

What are the betting odds on that right now?

"Never tell me the odds." -- Han Solo

[boglerdude]

^ youre going down the bioweapon route?

"A "COVID case" is when anyone takes a test and there is even a hint of any coronavirus detected by the overly-sensitive process. If you had the disease 6 months ago and beat it, and had no idea, you have enough residue to call it a new "case." If you have some other coronavirus besides COVID, that can be a new "case." If you currently have it but have no symptoms and are at no risk of transmitting it, that is a new "case."

A "COVID death" is when someone dies for (nearly) any reason, and there is a record of them testing as a positive "case" (see above) at any point in the last 30 days. Some places grant exemptions if the death was from trauma or suicide, but who knows if those are even granted, because hospitals get more money from the government when they report a "COVID death." Lung cancer with a positive test four weeks ago? Guess what -- that's a COVID Death."

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginal ... pdate.html

[Maddy]

Sophie, I'm betting that you've been "exposed" many thousands of times without ever being aware of it.

[sophie]

Sophie, I'm betting that you've been "exposed" many thousands of times without ever being aware of it.

That could well be. I was thinking about that too. It's so hard to know if I'm over-reacting here. Mainly it's about protecting my mom, but if she starts calling me this weekend begging to see me I might just cave.

[sophie]

Sophie, I'm betting that you've been "exposed" many thousands of times without ever being aware of it.

That could well be. I was thinking about that too. It's so hard to know if I'm over-reacting here. Mainly it's about protecting my mom, but if she starts calling me this weekend begging to see me I might just cave.

Your mom is 84.

If she gets COVID, there’s about a 5% chance she’ll die.

If you don’t see her until Covid is over, there’s a 100% chance you won’t see her for a couple years. You’ll constantly be exposed without realizing it.

The cost to mitigate the risk seems excessive, since she may only live a few more years at her age regardless of covid. I would think see her as often as possible, ignoring covid risk, if doing a statistical Monte Carlo analysis would yield more time with her compared to not seeing her until covid is over, and potentially extending her life by a few years the 5% of the time when she would die of covid in the simulation. I’d bet you’d see her more time if ignoring covid risk by a significant margin.

Cold, emotionless way to look at it, but that’s how libertarians think I guess.

Apart from the current situation, that's exactly how I look at it. Especially given my mom's response to social isolation (not good).

I stood in line for 3 hours yesterday (wondering what the heck I was doing) and got my rapid antigen test. Negative. I think I'm good for a Mom visit next weekend!