Coronavirus General Discussion

[Cortopassi]

2) On the Somali population, what am I supposed to do, look at ethnicities in a country to determine if there's a genetic element? Regardless white or black, the population lives in Sweden. Can we not just look at the raw numbers without getting subjective trying to support a specific position?

When trying to prove an assertion, it's vital to remove any confounding factors. For example, Corto, your (at least tentative) assertion is that lockdowns are the difference in results between Sweden and other countries.

Other potential factors besides lockdowns have to be considered and accounted for before you can conclude that lockdowns are the reason for the difference.

Sure. What are those?

--WiseOne threw out genetics
--temperature
--age
--weight/comorbidities
--mask wearing
--lockdowns
--highly social country or not
--population density
--etc, etc, etc

We'll likely never have an answer that will even come close to satisfying a majority of anyone, anywhere!

**My bottom line is Sweden may have done it right. Hell, Illinois may have done it right. We can't have an experiment to see which way was better, there are too many variables. I want to know how we don't have this happen again, whether yearly or every few decades!

I don't *think* the majority of the population is ready to go through this more than once in a lifetime. I know I am not.

[Xan]

2) On the Somali population, what am I supposed to do, look at ethnicities in a country to determine if there's a genetic element? Regardless white or black, the population lives in Sweden. Can we not just look at the raw numbers without getting subjective trying to support a specific position?

When trying to prove an assertion, it's vital to remove any confounding factors. For example, Corto, your (at least tentative) assertion is that lockdowns are the difference in results between Sweden and other countries.

Other potential factors besides lockdowns have to be considered and accounted for before you can conclude that lockdowns are the reason for the difference.

Sure. What are those?

--WiseOne threw out genetics
--temperature
--age
--weight/comorbidities
--mask wearing
--lockdowns
--highly social country or not
--population density
--etc, etc, etc

We'll likely never have an answer that will even come close to satisfying a majority of anyone, anywhere!

In theory, it should be possible to statistically remove all of those factors. In theory!

[Tortoise]

I want to know how we don't have this happen again, whether yearly or every few decades!

Elect politicians who are openly committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) at all times, including during so-called “crises”.

[Cortopassi]

I want to know how we don't have this happen again, whether yearly or every few decades!

Elect politicians who are openly committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) at all times, including during so-called “crises”.

Sure, that's one aspect. But the next one could have a real death rate 2/3/10x of Covid. At what point would we actually agree on the same reality? I think it would need to be Ebola-level, where you are bleeding from your eyeballs in 36 hours for the country to actually agree on it being a crisis. Anything with a long incubation, only slightly higher death rate than normal and asymptomatic spread is going to be pooh-poohed by 30-60% of the country in any future event.

Do you guys think if we were at 3MM dead vs. 300k that we'd all be more on the same page?

[Tortoise]

I guess I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, Corto.

If the virus is truly and obviously deadly, people will voluntarily modify their own behaviors to reduce their risk of getting infected. No government mandates needed.

I stand by my point that this really comes down to politicians openly committing to uphold the U.S. Constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) at all times, period.

[pp4me]

I want to know how we don't have this happen again, whether yearly or every few decades!

Elect politicians who are openly committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) at all times, including during so-called “crises”.

Sure, that's one aspect. But the next one could have a real death rate 2/3/10x of Covid. At what point would we actually agree on the same reality? I think it would need to be Ebola-level, where you are bleeding from your eyeballs in 36 hours for the country to actually agree on it being a crisis. Anything with a long incubation, only slightly higher death rate than normal and asymptomatic spread is going to be pooh-poohed by 30-60% of the country in any future event.

Do you guys think if we were at 3MM dead vs. 300k that we'd all be more on the same page?

3 Million would be almost 1% of the U.S. population so I'm pretty sure people would take it more seriously. Almost everyone would know somebody who died but right now I don't even know anybody who's gotten the disease except for people in the news.

[Cortopassi]

Not sure what point I am trying to make!

We have now been "conditioned" by a lockdown.

--Will that make it easier or harder to do in the future? I think that's an open question.
--I haven't watched news lately, but it seems even many of the governors who weren't locking down originally have needed to reverse course on that, or at least on masking. Are there still some holdouts in the US? I am curious how things are going for them.
--300k vs. 3MM, yes a big difference, and would result in a different attitude. But I still question at what point would that shift happen? 500k? 750k? Especially if initial signs were that it wasn't going to be an issue, or some aspects/methods change along the way because of increasing knowledge? Seems many people, once they get a certain idea in their head, are very difficult to change (most of us, I'd say)

--I know 6 people at least who've gotten it. None were in the hospital. 2-3 lost smell. One said it was the worst sickness he ever had. I don't know how that jives with everything. Doesn't seem lockdown level. But, I have to weigh that against news stories outside of the people I interact with.

--The biggest thing that sticks in my head is the it's going to magically disappear Nov 4th. It did not. It's increased. If it was a plan, why didn't that happen? Is there some even grander master plan that it's evolved into? Or is it just real, we chose a path, and are doomed to ride it out in this manner, this time, and hopefully not the next time?

[SomeDude]

I guess I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, Corto.

If the virus is truly and obviously deadly, people will voluntarily modify their own behaviors to reduce their risk of getting infected. No government mandates needed.

I stand by my point that this really comes down to politicians openly committing to uphold the U.S. Constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) at all times, period.

Yeah but if people want to die of the flu???? We must destroy the economy to stop them.

Seriously, I think I read a study that a majority of elderly people in retirement facilities (the bulk of people at risk from the flu) would rather die than be without their family for the holidays.

[SomeDude]

I want to know how we don't have this happen again, whether yearly or every few decades!

Elect politicians who are openly committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) at all times, including during so-called “crises”.

Sure, that's one aspect. But the next one could have a real death rate 2/3/10x of Covid. At what point would we actually agree on the same reality? I think it would need to be Ebola-level, where you are bleeding from your eyeballs in 36 hours for the country to actually agree on it being a crisis. Anything with a long incubation, only slightly higher death rate than normal and asymptomatic spread is going to be pooh-poohed by 30-60% of the country in any future event.

Do you guys think if we were at 3MM dead vs. 300k that we'd all be more on the same page?

3 Million would be almost 1% of the U.S. population so I'm pretty sure people would take it more seriously. Almost everyone would know somebody who died but right now I don't even know anybody who's gotten the disease except for people in the news.

I know about 10 people who've gotten the flu this year and they were all over it in a couple days. I have heard some people on work calls who say they know someone who died who might have also had the flu. they were not healthy people.

I am pretty sure there has been zero increase in the overall American death rate as most of the people who have died where the wu-flu is supposedly a factor are over 80 and with health problems. Many of them would have died this year or next.

Was it worth to destroy so many millions of lives and futures to let a few more elderly and sick people live another year or so? Answer.....100% absolutely. No question. In fact, if you question it, you need to be censored from all social media, attacked and mocked, and maybe thrown in jail.

[Cortopassi]

I want to know how we don't have this happen again, whether yearly or every few decades!

Elect politicians who are openly committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) at all times, including during so-called “crises”.

Sure, that's one aspect. But the next one could have a real death rate 2/3/10x of Covid. At what point would we actually agree on the same reality? I think it would need to be Ebola-level, where you are bleeding from your eyeballs in 36 hours for the country to actually agree on it being a crisis. Anything with a long incubation, only slightly higher death rate than normal and asymptomatic spread is going to be pooh-poohed by 30-60% of the country in any future event.

Do you guys think if we were at 3MM dead vs. 300k that we'd all be more on the same page?

3 Million would be almost 1% of the U.S. population so I'm pretty sure people would take it more seriously. Almost everyone would know somebody who died but right now I don't even know anybody who's gotten the disease except for people in the news.

I know about 10 people who've gotten the flu this year and they were all over it in a couple days. I have heard some people on work calls who say they know someone who died who might have also had the flu. they were not healthy people.

I am pretty sure there has been zero increase in the overall American death rate as most of the people who have died where the wu-flu is supposedly a factor are over 80 and with health problems. Many of them would have died this year or next.

Was it worth to destroy so many millions of lives and futures to let a few more elderly and sick people live another year or so? Answer.....100% absolutely. No question. In fact, if you question it, you need to be censored from all social media, attacked and mocked, and maybe thrown in jail.

Wouldn't it be great if the world were so black and white as your statements?

Go to CDC and look at the graph. There has been a significant increase. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covi ... deaths.htm

If you can't tell, I don't like the situation either. I would like to work towards making sure it doesn't happen again. Personally, I think joking and mocking about it does not strengthen the position of those who think it is no worse than the regular flu. It just creates animosity and wanting to dig in on positions however radical they are in either direction. Your position may be mocked by readers of the NYT and CNN. The other side's position gets mocked by Fox and Trump. No one is 100% right.

These immovable views are what's wrong with some topics of this forum and definitely this country.

[yankees60]

2) On the Somali population, what am I supposed to do, look at ethnicities in a country to determine if there's a genetic element? Regardless white or black, the population lives in Sweden. Can we not just look at the raw numbers without getting subjective trying to support a specific position?

When trying to prove an assertion, it's vital to remove any confounding factors. For example, Corto, your (at least tentative) assertion is that lockdowns are the difference in results between Sweden and other countries.

Other potential factors besides lockdowns have to be considered and accounted for before you can conclude that lockdowns are the reason for the difference.

Sure. What are those?

--WiseOne threw out genetics
--temperature
--age
--weight/comorbidities
--mask wearing
--lockdowns
--highly social country or not
--population density
--etc, etc, etc

We'll likely never have an answer that will even come close to satisfying a majority of anyone, anywhere!

**My bottom line is Sweden may have done it right. Hell, Illinois may have done it right. We can't have an experiment to see which way was better, there are too many variables. I want to know how we don't have this happen again, whether yearly or every few decades!

I don't *think* the majority of the population is ready to go through this more than once in a lifetime. I know I am not.

Since I had no money in 1974 to 1975 I was completely oblivious to what happened in the stock market. Many years later read about it many, many times.

By 2000 I had a significant amount of investment only to see it erode by 1/3 over two years.

I certainly never expected a repeat that would come only six short years later! With all the damaged now being compressed to a 1/2 year period.

Then earlier this year we had it happen again. This time compressed into how long? 3 weeks? Less than that?

How many weather related events have we had in the last decade or so which were each supposed to be once every 500 year events?

Is Talib's Black Swan the commonality in all I have cited, including our current virus experience?

Vinny

[yankees60]

I want to know how we don't have this happen again, whether yearly or every few decades!

Elect politicians who are openly committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) at all times, including during so-called “crises”.

Except if the U.S. Constitution was so clear in all matters then we'd not need so many Supreme Court rulings on matters related to it?

Vinny

[SomeDude]

I want to know how we don't have this happen again, whether yearly or every few decades!

Elect politicians who are openly committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) at all times, including during so-called “crises”.

Except if the U.S. Constitution was so clear in all matters then we'd not need so many Supreme Court rulings on matters related to it?

Vinny

We need the rulings because legislators ignore the constitution. The rulings should be very simple though since the constitution in written in English. Very little interpretation needed!

[Tortoise]

I want to know how we don't have this happen again, whether yearly or every few decades!

Elect politicians who are openly committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) at all times, including during so-called “crises”.

Except if the U.S. Constitution was so clear in all matters then we'd not need so many Supreme Court rulings on matters related to it?

Yes, there are some cases that come before SCOTUS that deal with more subtle, complex aspects of the Constitution that intelligent people may interpret differently.

But in the case of government officials telling entire populations that they cannot attend church or operate the businesses they own, I see that as a pretty cut-and-dried violation of the Bill of Rights. Do you disagree?

[Tortoise]

--300k vs. 3MM, yes a big difference, and would result in a different attitude. But I still question at what point would that shift happen? 500k? 750k? Especially if initial signs were that it wasn't going to be an issue, or some aspects/methods change along the way because of increasing knowledge? Seems many people, once they get a certain idea in their head, are very difficult to change (most of us, I'd say)

Is there a "threshold" number of deaths above which you think the Constitutional argument changes? I.e., is there a certain threshold above which you think it's okay for government officials to start violating the Bill of Rights for large swaths of the population in order to ostensibly protect them from themselves?

--The biggest thing that sticks in my head is the it's going to magically disappear Nov 4th. It did not. It's increased. If it was a plan, why didn't that happen? Is there some even grander master plan that it's evolved into? Or is it just real, we chose a path, and are doomed to ride it out in this manner, this time, and hopefully not the next time?

I'll admit I'm one of the people who seriously thought the casedemic would mostly disappear after the election, but it didn't. I was wrong about that.

It now appears that the reality is a bit more complex. The various government officials seem to be motivated by a combination of (1) the desire to avoid blame, bad press, and lawsuits, and (2) drunkenness by the new power that has suddenly fallen in their laps due to circumstance.

I don't think there was a master plan related to Covid. This whole affair seems to have just been the newest example of collective mania, examples of which we've seen throughout history. It's not fundamentally new. Various politicians and organizations were unwillingly swept up in its current, while others grabbed surfboards of exploitation and rode the waves in a direction that furthered their personal objectives and ambition.

[yankees60]

I want to know how we don't have this happen again, whether yearly or every few decades!

Elect politicians who are openly committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) at all times, including during so-called “crises”.

Except if the U.S. Constitution was so clear in all matters then we'd not need so many Supreme Court rulings on matters related to it?

Vinny

what if the constitution was clear? what if it said what it meant and meant what it said? what if the only people who want you to think it is unclear are the people who want to escape its limitations?

Am I correct in interpreting your response that you believe it to be totally clear? That that pesky 2nd amendment is as clear as me saying the sun will rise tomorrow? That there should be black and white one interpretation of what it means? That if anyone does not agree with your interpretation then those who promulgate a different interpretation are deliberately twisting its meaning for their own purposes?

[yankees60]

I want to know how we don't have this happen again, whether yearly or every few decades!

Elect politicians who are openly committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) at all times, including during so-called “crises”.

Except if the U.S. Constitution was so clear in all matters then we'd not need so many Supreme Court rulings on matters related to it?

Yes, there are some cases that come before SCOTUS that deal with more subtle, complex aspects of the Constitution that intelligent people may interpret differently.

But in the case of government officials telling entire populations that they cannot attend church or operate the businesses they own, I see that as a pretty cut-and-dried violation of the Bill of Rights. Do you disagree?

I do disagree.

If it was as clear you believe it to be I cannot believe that no one has succeeded in getting it front of the Supreme Court and easily won their case.

Vinny

Vinny

[yankees60]

--300k vs. 3MM, yes a big difference, and would result in a different attitude. But I still question at what point would that shift happen? 500k? 750k? Especially if initial signs were that it wasn't going to be an issue, or some aspects/methods change along the way because of increasing knowledge? Seems many people, once they get a certain idea in their head, are very difficult to change (most of us, I'd say)

Is there a "threshold" number of deaths above which you think the Constitutional argument changes? I.e., is there a certain threshold above which you think it's okay for government officials to start violating the Bill of Rights for large swaths of the population in order to ostensibly protect them from themselves?

--The biggest thing that sticks in my head is the it's going to magically disappear Nov 4th. It did not. It's increased. If it was a plan, why didn't that happen? Is there some even grander master plan that it's evolved into? Or is it just real, we chose a path, and are doomed to ride it out in this manner, this time, and hopefully not the next time?

I'll admit I'm one of the people who seriously thought the casedemic would mostly disappear after the election, but it didn't. I was wrong about that.

It now appears that the reality is a bit more complex. The various government officials seem to be motivated by a combination of (1) the desire to avoid blame, bad press, and lawsuits, and (2) drunkenness by the new power that has suddenly fallen in their laps due to circumstance.

I don't think there was a master plan related to Covid. This whole affair seems to have just been the newest example of collective mania, examples of which we've seen throughout history. It's not fundamentally new. Various politicians and organizations were unwillingly swept up in its current, while others grabbed surfboards of exploitation and rode the waves in a direction that furthered their personal objectives and ambition.

In other words, just another example of human nature on display and then the politicians reaction to it?

Vinny

[yankees60]

I want to know how we don't have this happen again, whether yearly or every few decades!

Elect politicians who are openly committed to upholding the U.S. Constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) at all times, including during so-called “crises”.

Except if the U.S. Constitution was so clear in all matters then we'd not need so many Supreme Court rulings on matters related to it?

Vinny

what if the constitution was clear? what if it said what it meant and meant what it said? what if the only people who want you to think it is unclear are the people who want to escape its limitations?

Am I correct in interpreting your response that you believe it to be totally clear? That that pesky 2nd amendment is as clear as me saying the sun will rise tomorrow? That there should be black and white one interpretation of what it means? That if anyone does not agree with your interpretation then those who promulgate a different interpretation are deliberately twisting its meaning for their own purposes?

Vinny

can you think of a constitutional question that doesn't involve somebody loosing something and somebody else getting control over someone? ... i am saying ... ask the question...

like tortoise said

"Yes, there are some cases that come before SCOTUS that deal with more subtle, complex aspects of the Constitution that intelligent people may interpret differently."

covid overreach seems pretty clear..

Was this the case when Judge Roberts was the deciding vote in maintaining the Affordable Care Act? If so, who was losing and who was gaining control?

My view does not match what you describe is always the case. I think that both sides may each have good intentions but they obviously have different views of what will produce the best outcomes.

[Mountaineer]

Put not your faith in princes. They will ALWAYS let you down.

As to the clarity of the Constitution, seems pretty clear to me. It's worth a read if you have not done so recently.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... /full-text

[yankees60]

Put not your faith in princes. They will ALWAYS let you down.

As to the clarity of the Constitution, seems pretty clear to me. It's worth a read if you have not done so recently.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... /full-text

If it IT as clear as you state it its.......

Can Trump pardon himself of any crimes?

Vinny

[Tortoise]

If [the U.S. Constitution] was as clear you believe it to be I cannot believe that no one has succeeded in getting [Covid-related cases] front of the Supreme Court and easily won their case.

You should do your homework, Vinny. Some Covid-related cases have gotten in front of SCOTUS and won:

Supreme Court sides with California church protesting coronavirus restrictions

Supreme Court sides with houses of worship in Colorado, New Jersey, on coronavirus restrictions

Splitting 5 to 4, Supreme Court Backs Religious Challenge to Cuomo’s Virus Shutdown Order

And some Covid-related cases have been won in lower courts, so they don't need to be pushed all the way up to SCOTUS:

Michigan Supreme Court rules against governor again, ending Covid-19 executive orders

In COVID-19 Restrictions Ruling, Judge Holds Pennsylvania Governor to the Constitution

In the next year or two, I suspect we're going to see a lot more Covid-related court rulings, some of them at the SCOTUS level. The Constitutional violations in many states during Covid-1984 have been egregious.

[yankees60]

If [the U.S. Constitution] was as clear you believe it to be I cannot believe that no one has succeeded in getting [Covid-related cases] front of the Supreme Court and easily won their case.

You should do your homework, Vinny. Some Covid-related cases have gotten in front of SCOTUS and won:

Supreme Court sides with California church protesting coronavirus restrictions

Supreme Court sides with houses of worship in Colorado, New Jersey, on coronavirus restrictions

Splitting 5 to 4, Supreme Court Backs Religious Challenge to Cuomo’s Virus Shutdown Order

And some Covid-related cases have been won in lower courts, so they don't need to be pushed all the way up to SCOTUS:

Michigan Supreme Court rules against governor again, ending Covid-19 executive orders

In COVID-19 Restrictions Ruling, Judge Holds Pennsylvania Governor to the Constitution

In the next year or two, I suspect we're going to see a lot more Covid-related court rulings, some of them at the SCOTUS level. The Constitutional violations in many states during Covid-1984 have been egregious.

In regards to your first three cited cases? What was the need for three cases? After the first one was won why did it not cover all the same issues brought up in the other two cases? Don't Supreme Court decisions apply to every state and every locality?

Vinny

[Mountaineer]

Put not your faith in princes. They will ALWAYS let you down.

As to the clarity of the Constitution, seems pretty clear to me. It's worth a read if you have not done so recently.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... /full-text

If it IT as clear as you state it its.......

Can Trump pardon himself of any crimes?

Vinny

Any? Sure. Will it stick? That is the real question isn’t it? What say you?

[Tortoise]

Don't Supreme Court decisions apply to every state and every locality?

No, I don't think so. My understanding is that SCOTUS decisions are usually for very specific cases and don't apply universally to every state and entity, but they can -- and often are -- used as legal precedent in other similar cases that are subsequently brought by other states or entities. Perhaps Maddy can confirm?