Coronavirus General Discussion

[doodle]

9qalz4e27ms51.jpg (68.14 KiB) Viewed 3141 times

[Mountaineer]

Interesting anecdote. My daughter works in a clinic in central Washington state; it is adjacent to a hospital where she used to work and is friends with many of the medical staff. Nurses at the hospital noticed that several Covid tests came back positive and when they called the persons affected, they said they had been in line to get tested but the line was long so they left before being swabbed. The nurses decided to do a "test". They submitted several unused swabs to be tested. The all came back positive. Just Wow! I wonder if there is there some incentive for hospitals/states to have lots of positives? Do they get some kind of governmental aid based on cases?

No, but I've heard of lawsuits alleging the opposite.


https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/932722

The nurses decided to do a "test". They submitted several unused swabs to be tested. The all came back positive.

Or maybe they just read propaganda on their Facebook feed about nurses who did that....that seems more plausible.

Perhaps. I'd hate to think that my daughter's long time friends were all liars and colluders. But, who knows, maybe they all suffer from TDS Stage 4.

[doodle]

Interesting anecdote. My daughter works in a clinic in central Washington state; it is adjacent to a hospital where she used to work and is friends with many of the medical staff. Nurses at the hospital noticed that several Covid tests came back positive and when they called the persons affected, they said they had been in line to get tested but the line was long so they left before being swabbed. The nurses decided to do a "test". They submitted several unused swabs to be tested. The all came back positive. Just Wow! I wonder if there is there some incentive for hospitals/states to have lots of positives? Do they get some kind of governmental aid based on cases?

No, but I've heard of lawsuits alleging the opposite.


https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/932722

The nurses decided to do a "test". They submitted several unused swabs to be tested. The all came back positive.

Or maybe they just read propaganda on their Facebook feed about nurses who did that....that seems more plausible.

Perhaps. I'd hate to think that my daughter's long time friends were all liars and colluders. But, who knows, maybe they all suffer from TDS Stage 4.

You mean BDS Stage 4?

Not liars...stretchers of the truth...like when our president says he's a genius and stretches his iq about 40 points.

Either way, whichever way tests go, there is evidently something happening:

2020-Mortality-Chart.jpg (117.82 KiB) Viewed 3026 times

[jalanlong]

Early this week, three of the world’s top epidemiologists published the Great Barrington Declaration, a short treatise that advocates a controversial approach to managing the coronavirus pandemic. Professors Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University argue that societies across the globe should reopen immediately and completely.

Instead of observing measures designed to slow the spread of the virus, the young and healthy should resume normal activity in order to incur herd immunity and thereby protect those vulnerable to severe illness. The authors urge the adoption of this strategy, which they call “Focused Protection,” in light of increasing evidence that “current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. . . Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”

As of this writing, the Declaration has been signed by 3,089 other medical and public health scientists, 4,532 medical practitioners, and around 70,000 members of the general public.

The Great Barrington Declaration

I believe I saw some of those authors on Laura Ingraham the other day.

This seems to be turning into a consensus opinion but as long as "the science" equals "what Dr. Fauci says" I expect the lockdown states to stay locked down. Just glad I live in Florida.

I just don't see any end to this and I live in a very Red state. There was a scientist on 60 mins last night claiming we are in for at least 2 more years of masks and distancing. Which means 2 more years of no concerts, no sporting events, no movies in theaters and shutdowns/panic whenever a case hits your office or general vicinity.

But even if a return to normalcy did become a consensus opinion, do we really believe the government would back down on its previous decisions? To piggyback on tomfoolery's other thread about government successes, how many times has the government instituted a new policy, order or department and then changed course and admit they were mistaken in a relatively short amount of time (not 100 years later)?

[doodle]

Early this week, three of the world’s top epidemiologists published the Great Barrington Declaration, a short treatise that advocates a controversial approach to managing the coronavirus pandemic. Professors Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University argue that societies across the globe should reopen immediately and completely.

Instead of observing measures designed to slow the spread of the virus, the young and healthy should resume normal activity in order to incur herd immunity and thereby protect those vulnerable to severe illness. The authors urge the adoption of this strategy, which they call “Focused Protection,” in light of increasing evidence that “current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. . . Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”

As of this writing, the Declaration has been signed by 3,089 other medical and public health scientists, 4,532 medical practitioners, and around 70,000 members of the general public.

The Great Barrington Declaration

I believe I saw some of those authors on Laura Ingraham the other day.

This seems to be turning into a consensus opinion but as long as "the science" equals "what Dr. Fauci says" I expect the lockdown states to stay locked down. Just glad I live in Florida.

I just don't see any end to this and I live in a very Red state. There was a scientist on 60 mins last night claiming we are in for at least 2 more years of masks and distancing. Which means 2 more years of no concerts, no sporting events, no movies in theaters and shutdowns/panic whenever a case hits your office or general vicinity.

But even if a return to normalcy did become a consensus opinion, do we really believe the government would back down on its previous decisions? To piggyback on tomfoolery's other thread about government successes, how many times has the government instituted a new policy, order or department and then changed course and admit they were mistaken in a relatively short amount of time (not 100 years later)?

I too would like to see more clarity on end game strategy. I think the reason we haven't seen more of that is because we are still largely debating whether or not this even exists or was some scheme cooked up by Soros. I also would like to see some randomized antibody testing done across population to try to determine if maybe we are even approaching herd immunity. From my perspective though the masks and distancing are mostly measured being taken to avoid a spike in cases that would overwhelm hospital system so that when fat old farts like Trump and Christie get sick and need a hospital bed there is one available for them. These measures are mostly about controlling numbers not erradicating the virus...which is hopefully what a vacccinne will take care of shortly.

[Cortopassi]

how many times has the government instituted a new policy, order or department and then changed course and admit they were mistaken in a relatively short amount of time (not 100 years later)?

Never!
--------------------

https://twitter.com/i/status/1314297485318217728

It was pretty funny. I saw the 60 minutes segment on The Lincoln Project last night.

[WiseOne]

Interesting anecdote. My daughter works in a clinic in central Washington state; it is adjacent to a hospital where she used to work and is friends with many of the medical staff. Nurses at the hospital noticed that several Covid tests came back positive and when they called the persons affected, they said they had been in line to get tested but the line was long so they left before being swabbed. The nurses decided to do a "test". They submitted several unused swabs to be tested. The all came back positive. Just Wow! I wonder if there is there some incentive for hospitals/states to have lots of positives? Do they get some kind of governmental aid based on cases?

Mountaineer, if that's true they should contact a newspaper, show some hard evidence that this occurred, and get it published. Have the nurses considered doing that?

If this is true and not just an isolated issue with a specific lab, it's potentially a very big deal.

[Tortoise]

This just keeps getting better and better. Check out the new Cooties-19 dance!

I would like you, yes you, Tortoise, to research this and please tell me this was a one off "covid" joke dance that they decided to do, as a joke, among other normal dances.


If you can find proof that the entire dance was all ass to ass like this, then I will have no words, but this has to be a single, let's do something stupid, dance.

I traced the video clip back to this tweet by a user named @YellowCube7, but they didn’t provide a source. And to my knowledge, there’s no way to determine the source of a video clip uploaded to Twitter.

Since there’s no source, I’ll just assume it was a single “fun” dance and not the entire prom. Thanks for catching the fake news, Corto!

[vnatale]

This just keeps getting better and better. Check out the new Cooties-19 dance!

I would like you, yes you, Tortoise, to research this and please tell me this was a one off "covid" joke dance that they decided to do, as a joke, among other normal dances.


If you can find proof that the entire dance was all ass to ass like this, then I will have no words, but this has to be a single, let's do something stupid, dance.

I traced the video clip back to this tweet by a user named @YellowCube7, but they didn’t provide a source. And to my knowledge, there’s no way to determine the source of a video clip uploaded to Twitter.

Since there’s no source, I’ll just assume it was a single “fun” dance and not the entire prom. Thanks for catching the fake news, Corto!

Ironic given what "YellowCube7" has under the Twitter name?

VInny

Capture.JPG (31.13 KiB) Viewed 3033 times

[Cortopassi]

This just keeps getting better and better. Check out the new Cooties-19 dance!

I would like you, yes you, Tortoise, to research this and please tell me this was a one off "covid" joke dance that they decided to do, as a joke, among other normal dances.


If you can find proof that the entire dance was all ass to ass like this, then I will have no words, but this has to be a single, let's do something stupid, dance.

I traced the video clip back to this tweet by a user named @YellowCube7, but they didn’t provide a source. And to my knowledge, there’s no way to determine the source of a video clip uploaded to Twitter.

Since there’s no source, I’ll just assume it was a single “fun” dance and not the entire prom. Thanks for catching the fake news, Corto!

That's what I'm here for.

[doodle]

Masks protect others...not the person wearing them.

[Cortopassi]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

[doodle]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

[jalanlong]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

Seat belt requirements (for the front seat) went into effect in Texas in 1985 when I was a teenager. I can assure you that there were many, many people up in arms about it. My father steadfastly refused to wear one. He tried all sorts of trickery to get around wearing them. But over time, like most government laws people dislike, people saw that they are not going away and they just adjust.

I guess I was a libertarian teen and didn't even know it because at the age of 17 I was already thinking to myself "why is it a politician's responsibility to protect me if I want to do something that is risky to me?"

[doodle]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

Seat belt requirements (for the front seat) went into effect in Texas in 1985 when I was a teenager. I can assure you that there were many, many people up in arms about it. My father steadfastly refused to wear one. He tried all sorts of trickery to get around wearing them. But over time, like most government laws people dislike, people saw that they are not going away and they just adjust.

I guess I was a libertarian teen and didn't even know it because at the age of 17 I was already thinking to myself "why is it a politician's responsibility to protect me if I want to do something that is risky to me?"

I think it's a bit more complicated than that though...and a lot of it comes down to the issues of living in a society. If you have insurance and are not wearing a seat belt I don't believe they will cover your medical expenses...but as a society we don't just let you die in your car...we have decided to take it upon ourselves to rescue you. So society then incurs the cost of your poor decision. If you spend years in a vegetative state or need all kinds of surgery that cost falls on society and so seatbelt laws are a way of saying if you are going to engage in dangerous activities like driving a car then if you get injured you can't just expect us to pick up the expenses of fixing you if you won't even take the most basic measures to protect yourself.

[doodle]

But again, masks arent like seat belts. It would be like if you didn't wear your seat belt, you would become a projectile and kill the person in the other vehicle. In that case it isn't a personal choice.

[vnatale]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

Do you think that seatbelt laws could have been passed in today's political climate? We've had mandatory motorcycle helmet laws in Massachusetts for decades and decades. Some of the "freedom" people don't like that. In our neighboring "live free of die" state of New Hampshire I believe that they still have no such laws.

Vinny

[doodle]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

Do you think that seatbelt laws could have been passed in today's political climate? We've had mandatory motorcycle helmet laws in Massachusetts for decades and decades. Some of the "freedom" people don't like that. In our neighboring "live free of die" state of New Hampshire I believe that they still have no such laws.

Vinny

I often didn't wear a helmet when riding...and many times the helmets that people do wear to fulfill law are insufficient at really protecting head. That said, I don't see how one gets around the issue that as long as we live in a society which takes it upon itself to medically treat individuals for injuries they can't afford, we have the right to exert influence. The problem with libertarians is that they completely negate the concept of society and that is not realistic. No one wants to live in a society where a person just lays dying on the street or in some holding room while doctors sit around playing cards waiting for a paying patient with money.

[doodle]

I'm addition, as long as taxpayers and society pay for roads and the issuance of licenses (driving is not a constitutional right) then they have the right to make the rules concerning it...and if seatbelts are a rule that society deems to be necessary so be it.

[doodle]

Breathing and masks could be understood in terms of negative externalities. If you have a virus and live alone on island, then there is no negative externality from your breathing. When your airspace interferes with mine and I'm forced to breathe in your viral pollution it's on you to contain it. Just as companies can't spew toxins into public airspace, neither do you have a right to spew your virally loaded droplets into mine.

[jalanlong]

But again, masks arent like seat belts. It would be like if you didn't wear your seat belt, you would become a projectile and kill the person in the other vehicle. In that case it isn't a personal choice.

I think the argument that masks are like seat belts is still rooted in the thought that government is forcing the individual to do something for their own good and for some perceived benefit to society. Masks allow them to change the narrative a bit and claim you are protecting others as they are protecting you. But the moral and philosophical argument still stands: is it right that one person is subject to the force of government to do something that may be against their will in order to protect themselves and someone else from something that may possibly happen?

[Libertarian666]

But again, masks arent like seat belts. It would be like if you didn't wear your seat belt, you would become a projectile and kill the person in the other vehicle. In that case it isn't a personal choice.

I think the argument that masks are like seat belts is still rooted in the thought that government is forcing the individual to do something for their own good and for some perceived benefit to society. Masks allow them to change the narrative a bit and claim you are protecting others as they are protecting you. But the moral and philosophical argument still stands: is it right that one person is subject to the force of government to do something that may be against their will in order to protect themselves and someone else from something that may possibly happen?

That's easy: no.

[jalanlong]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

Do you think that seatbelt laws could have been passed in today's political climate? We've had mandatory motorcycle helmet laws in Massachusetts for decades and decades. Some of the "freedom" people don't like that. In our neighboring "live free of die" state of New Hampshire I believe that they still have no such laws.

Vinny

I don't see how one gets around the issue that as long as we live in a society which takes it upon itself to medically treat individuals for injuries they can't afford, we have the right to exert influence.

You are using the system that statists created to justify even more statism. Libertarians would not have created a system whereby tax payers have to pay any medical bill for anyone else by government force. Therefore you cannot use that as justification as to why they should now have to accept even more laws that dictate behavior in order to mitigate losses from that system.

[Libertarian666]

CDC study show 85% of Covid cases were people who Often or Always wear masks.

Rewrite that. "CDC shows mask wearing prevents 15% of cases"

Does that sound better? Currently there's about 7.83M cases, 215k deaths, .02746 CFR. If we prevented 15% of those cases with 100% mask usage (1.1745M), possibly could have saved (doing the math), ~32,250 deaths of the 215k so far.

I think I did that right.

Is that not a good enough reason?

There are around 6 million auto accidents every year in US and approximately 40,000 deaths. Perhaps that number would be 4 times greater in the absence of seatbelt laws. The big difference is that seat belt laws protect your own life..which I can see the argument against...whereas mask laws are meant to protect others lives. I don't understand how wearing a mask is being seen as a 'personal choice's whereas no one is up in arms about seatbelt laws...where it is in fact a personal choice.

Do you think that seatbelt laws could have been passed in today's political climate? We've had mandatory motorcycle helmet laws in Massachusetts for decades and decades. Some of the "freedom" people don't like that. In our neighboring "live free of die" state of New Hampshire I believe that they still have no such laws.

Vinny

I don't see how one gets around the issue that as long as we live in a society which takes it upon itself to medically treat individuals for injuries they can't afford, we have the right to exert influence.

You are using the system that statists created to justify even more statism. Libertarians would not have created a system whereby tax payers have to pay any medical bill for anyone else by government force. Therefore you cannot use that as justification as to why they should now have to accept even more laws that dictate behavior in order to mitigate losses from that system.

Exactly.

[jalanlong]

I'm addition, as long as taxpayers and society pay for roads and the issuance of licenses (driving is not a constitutional right) then they have the right to make the rules concerning it...and if seatbelts are a rule that society deems to be necessary so be it.

So then if society suddenly decided tomorrow that soda, candy and cakes should be illegal, then I assume you would wholeheartedly support the banning of those correct? Because society has deemed them damaging to health (in certain cases) and since we all have to pay for healthcare others cannot afford then any foods society deems unhealthy need to go in order to cut the chances of adverse health outcomes.

Should we also go ahead and dictate how much television people watch, how much exercise we require from individuals each day and measure how much sunscreen they put on before allowing them outside? Because we are all in this together right? Really there is no end to the rules we could impose upon each other since society is paying for almost everything these days.