COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

That will just make the raging mask debate even worse.

 

[Danoff]

I certainly don't misunderstand that, nor made that claim. No need to resort to hyperbole on points we mostly agree on.

You said:

Any freedom not allowed is an infringement on my rights.

The freedom to shoot people is a freedom. Therefore, it follows directly from your argument that denying you the freedom to shoot people is an infringement of your rights. Your statements, not mine. You're wrong, because you misunderstood rights when you made this statement.

Except this is a new law, and thus a new infringement

No. Those licenses to operate are contingent on the conditions imposed by the state. It is not a new infringement of anything.

It is what it is. Just like the lockdowns.

Lockdowns are a mostly different animal, but that would depend on how the licenses are written in each individual state, city, and county.

So what happens when a shop tries to kick out someone being unruly about wearing a mask and they refuse, and now the police have also refused to show up to enforce the law?

Then that is a dysfunctional police and criminal justice system.

No, the words you put i my mouth are absurd, if you can't discuss this without changing my words then you don't have much of an argument. And what about the thousands of families who's bread-winners don't get any bread. Anyone for a depression? So I'm a heartless, but you're not because your victims are indirect?

I'm following your argument. You said:

There is a huge presupposition in that though. That suppression is better than contagion.

...and I was explaining why that is not a presupposition, because of morality. You want to make this about utilitarianism with what you wrote above, but my point was about morality.

 

[Rallywagon]

You know Danoff. I typically, even in those moments when I keep on debating you, listen to what your saying, especiaaly on the financial and economic topics. But right now I can't help but feel you are being obtusely semantic and taking things way, way to literal. So much so that we are a mike away from anything I was even originally saying to... well, hell, I've forgotten who I was even originally talking too. I don't feel like this conversation is moving forward in good faith. Like I could say look at the beautiful blue sky and you would argue its not really blue its all just an illusion due to reflectivity of sun rays across gasses and moisture. No ****. Stop being so absolute and just enjoy the blue sky man.

 

[Danoff]

You know Danoff. I typically, even in those moments when I keep on debating you, listen to what your saying, especiaaly on the financial and economic topics. But right now I can't help but feel you are being obtusely semantic and taking things way, way to literal. So much so that we are a mike away from anything I was even originally saying to... well, hell, I've forgotten who I was even originally talking too. I don't feel like this conversation is moving forward in good faith. Like I could say look at the beautiful blue sky and you would argue its not really blue its all just an illusion due to reflectivity of sun rays across gasses and moisture. No ****. Stop being so absolute and just enjoy the blue sky man.

We're still directly on your original point.

No-one is forcing you to wear a mask - you are within your rights to refuse. But everyone has rights, and your right to refuse a mask does not trump the right of others to protect themselves from danger, and that means that you can rightly expect to be refused entry or service in a shop or on public transport etc. because of your choice to not wear a mask.

Thats not strictly true. The US Federal gov may not have instituted a mask law, but a lot of states have. I personally am wearing a mask when out in public, but at this point I also dont have the "freedom" to make the shop keep kick me out or not. It's now a state punishable offense.

It is strictly true.

You're not stating an opinion here (like that the sky is beautiful).

 

[Denur]

If it's real then the future is terrifying.

If it's fake, than the future is even more terrifying to me.

 

[Touring Mars]

Is this a deepfake? If it's fake then the technology is terrifying. If it's real then the future is terrifying.

Man uses charts to explain why America is below even The World in the figures, has charts to prove it:



(13:00 onwards for the charts. Well worth seeing).

It's a close run thing between this and Prince Andrew's interview on the BBC for the title of 'Most ill-advised TV interview ever'.

Interesting (and also disturbing) that they also involve discussions of the same person.

 

[Robin]

He probably could have worded it better but Trump isn't wrong about the US being 'lower than the world'.

World Cases - 18,196,221
World Cases Minus The USA - 13,400,728
USA Cases - 4,795,493

World Deaths - 691,740
World Deaths Minus The USA - 534,011
USA Deaths - 157,729

Although it's a pretty irrelevant statistic he is in fact correct.

 

[Danoff]

Is this a deepfake? If it's fake then the technology is terrifying. If it's real then the future is terrifying.

Man uses charts to explain why America is below even The World in the figures, has charts to prove it:



(13:00 onwards for the charts. Well worth seeing).

It's really clear that he's lost on this subject. Deeply. Deaths as a percentage of cases is an interesting figure. But not from the perspective of staying on top of the spread pandemic - which is what he's very confused on.

He's saying "we only have cases because we test" (and what he means is that we only have positive tests because we test), but then he's touting deaths/case as though this is indicative of staying on top of the spread. Well... we only have cases because we test right? Meaning the more we test, the lower the deaths/case. We're not as likely to miss a death as we are to miss a case.

Deaths/population does not put the US at the top of the list though. But we're not "best" in that regard either. We sit better than places like Spain, Italy, and the UK. But not as good as places like South Korea and Germany.

Anyway, thanks for that cringe-fest.

 

[Danoff]

A school district in Boulder just cancelled on their plans to have any in-person classes. This plan was announced about 2 weeks ago. So they came out with this big detailed hybrid 2 out of 5 days in-person plan, and then 2 weeks later tossed it out. This kind of behavior is so hard on everybody. We're talking about what will be happening every weekday starting in only a few weeks, and school districts are swinging around wildly.

I'm personally going to spend probably $1000 or more to hedge, because of the Boulder decision, even though my kid is not in that district.

Edit:

Actually I just learned that it's worse than I thought. The boulder plan is based on current number of cases. So they might jerk their families around regularly through the year, shifting to in-person or remote on a regular basis. What a mess.

 

[Touring Mars]

We're kind of in the opposite situation - my nephew's school came up with a detailed plan for 'blended learning' which was subsequently tossed out because the Scottish Government announced that all schools will be going back in full with no social distancing... but that was a few weeks ago. Parents are understandably confused and worried. 'Blended learning' has since become a political dirty word, even though it is actually a very wise plan given that the entire situation could be put into reverse at a moment's notice.

This isn't an easy situation for anyone, but trying to plan something as fundamental as child care and how to get to work is something that requires some planning, and yet everyone apparently needs to be prepared for all possibilities and to pivot at a moment's notice. I feel truly sorry for parents across the world right now, because even though both the schools and (our) government are doing the best they can, it is still a confusing mess of a situation.

 

[Danoff]

because even though both the schools and (our) government are doing the best they can

I think we can up our game.

 

[Rallywagon]

We're still directly on your original point.





It is strictly true.

You're not stating an opinion here (like that the sky is beautiful).

How does states forcing its citizens in public places to wear maskes make it strictly true that no one is forcing anyone to wear masks in public places?

 

[Danoff]

How does states forcing its citizens in public places to wear maskes make it strictly true that no one is forcing anyone to wear masks in public places?

Let's examine where the goalpost used to be:

No-one is forcing you to wear a mask - you are within your rights to refuse. But everyone has rights, and your right to refuse a mask does not trump the right of others to protect themselves from danger, and that means that you can rightly expect to be refused entry or service in a shop or on public transport etc. because of your choice to not wear a mask.

Thats not strictly true. The US Federal gov may not have instituted a mask law, but a lot of states have. I personally am wearing a mask when out in public, but at this point I also dont have the "freedom" to make the shop keep kick me out or not. It's now a state punishable offense.

It is strictly true that you're not being forced to wear a mask. Unless someone is forcing you into a grocery store where you're forced to wear a mask, you're not being forced to wear a mask. Maybe someone who committed a crime and is forced to appear in court (with a mask) would have a case. But then... they're there because they committed a crime.

 

[Rallywagon]

Let's examine where the goalpost used to be:





It is strictly true that you're not being forced to wear a mask. Unless someone is forcing you into a grocery store where you're forced to wear a mask, you're not being forced to wear a mask. Maybe someone who committed a crime and is forced to appear in court (with a mask) would have a case. But then... they're there because they committed a crime.

Ahh, gotcha. As long as you dont go into public, youre not forced to wear a mask in public... my goal posts are soundly right where they were at the beginning. Your argument however, I find to be quite silly.

 

[Touring Mars]

Ahh, gotcha. As long as you dont go into public, youre not forced to wear a mask in public... my goal posts are soundly right where they were at the beginning. Your argument however, I find to be quite silly.

In fairness, the goal posts have been shifted by the appearance of an easily transmitted virus that can be both totally unnoticed or fatal, depending on your health status, genetics and/or blind luck.

As such, it is not unreasonable to expect or even demand a (very minor) change in behaviour from visitors in order to help minimise the risks posed by such a pathogen.

As has been mentioned before, though, merely covering one's mouth and nose with a piece of fabric is not going to protect you very much from the virus - the only significant protection masks provide is from what other people might eject, hence one's safety in a public or crowded space where social distancing is difficult or not possible, then one's safety becomes contingent not on whether you choose to wear a mask, but whether everyone is wearing a mask.

Demanding that people wear masks in a place where they are likely or certain to encroach on someone else's space automatically makes it a question of considering more than just one's personal freedoms.

 

[polysmut]

Man uses charts to explain why America is below even The World in the figures, has charts to prove it:

Why don't you just make 10 louder and still call it 10?

These go to 11.

 

[Danoff]

Ahh, gotcha. As long as you dont go into public, youre not forced to wear a mask in public... my goal posts are soundly right where they were at the beginning. Your argument however, I find to be quite silly.

You shifted your goalposts from saying that you're forced to wear masks to saying that you're forced to wear masks when you're on someone else's property. And that's a big shift, that's shifting from talking about something immoral to talking about something perfectly moral. If you don't notice the shift, it's because you're missing some very important moral implications.

It's your prerogative to consider my argument silly. What's not your prerogative is to demand that property which is not yours conform to your concept of "freedom". It's not your property. Even public property is not solely your property. What you have to wear on not your property is not an infringement of your rights, it's not force. What you have to wear on property you share with the rest of the public is not an infringement of your rights unless it's arbitrary and discriminatory, which this is not.

Edit:

Apparently I'm going to do another lap here. The reason this strikes you as force is because the property owner is not requiring it, the government is. And you're right to think that it smells funny. Because basically the government is pretending that they are the property owner. The government is treating "private property" including licensed businesses and storefronts as if it owned and could set restrictions on that property as though they were the property owner. And I've already gone to great lengths to explain why they think they can do that... because they can and do all the time for all kinds of requirements, especially when it pertains to public health. So you're right to complain about it, but it's a much deeper and older issue and it's an issue between the property owner and the government, which is (at worst) co-opting the property owner's property rights.

 

[gnomefromnome]

want to travel to Alaska, it'll cost ya
https://www.ktuu.com/2020/08/05/ala...itors-now-theyll-have-to-pay-for-covid-tests/

JUNEAU, Alaska (KTUU) - Alaska was poised to block visitors from coming into the state without a negative COVID test, now the state is changing course. Starting on Aug. 11, nonresidents will still be able to come to Alaska and get tested locally, but it will now cost them $250 per test.

Commissioner Adam Crum of the Department of Health and Social Services made the announcement at a press conference with the governor on Tuesday evening. Nonresidents will have to pay for tests in Alaska unless they got a test within 72 hours of arriving.

Visitors to Alaska would need to pay for COVID tests and quarantine will waiting for their results. Crum said that Alaskans could still get a COVID test for free.

 

[Rallywagon]

You shifted your goalposts from saying that you're forced to wear masks to saying that you're forced to wear masks when you're on someone else's property. And that's a big shift, that's shifting from talking about something immoral to talking about something perfectly moral. If you don't notice the shift, it's because you're missing some very important moral implications.

I shifted it?

No-one is forcing you to wear a mask - you are within your rights to refuse. But everyone has rights, and your right to refuse a mask does not trump the right of others to protect themselves from danger, and that means that you can rightly expect to be refused entry or service in a shop or on public transport etc. because of your choice to not wear a mask.

Sounds like he is talking about public spaces to me.

Thats not strictly true. The US Federal gov may not have instituted a mask law, but a lot of states have. I personally am wearing a mask when out in public, but at this point I also dont have the "freedom" to make the shop keep kick me out or not. It's now a state punishable offense.

I know I was definitely inferring public spaces, even going so far as to state I wear them in public and to speak specifically of shop owners.

Colorado is indicated on that list, but Colorado only requires a mask in public spaces indoors. That's not the same as requiring you to wear a mask on all private property, or your own private property.

Oh, hey, look who finally actually brings up private property. If my goal posts shifted, its because they were hit by your bus.

It's your prerogative to consider my argument silly.

Yep, because everything after that is circular semantics.

What's not your prerogative is to demand that property which is not yours conform to your concept of "freedom".

By all means, let me know where I did just that.

It's not your property. Even public property is not solely your property.

Quite, and not an argument I was making

What you have to wear on not your property is not an infringement of your rights, it's not force. What you have to wear on property you share with the rest of the public is not an infringement of your rights unless it's arbitrary and discriminatory, which this is not.

call it whatever you want to call it. We had the right or freedom to not wear masks in public. Now we don't.

Edit:

Apparently I'm going to do another lap here.

please, don't strain yourself on my behalf, I'm about dont watching this snake eat itself.

The reason this strikes you as force is because the property owner is not requiring it, the government is. And you're right to think that it smells funny. Because basically the government is pretending that they are the property owner. The government is treating "private property" including licensed businesses and storefronts as if it owned and could set restrictions on that property as though they were the property owner. And I've already gone to great lengths to explain why they think they can do that... because they can and do all the time for all kinds of requirements, especially when it pertains to public health. So you're right to complain about it, but it's a much deeper and older issue and it's an issue between the property owner and the government, which is (at worst) co-opting the property owner's property rights.

Word. I mean, it strikes me as force because the governement being heavy handed. But I suppose that's just a less fancy way of saying everything you just did.

 

[mustafur]

On a side note, due to no major gatherings, Mass shootings seem to be down.

Got to think of the positives.

 

[Dotini]

Here is a report of the WHO mooting alternative origins to the mystery of where and when the novel virus began.
https://www.ibtimes.sg/wuhans-first...ly-point-its-origin-insists-who-further-49550

IMHO, there are at least two strains and six levels of severity and quality of the symptoms.

IMHO I contracted one of the early strains and suffered symptoms of level 1 novel coronavirus in November of 2019. At that time, I was in close contact with travelers from China, Japan, Canada, and Spain as well as travelers from multiple states including New York and California. These contacts all took place at my fencing academy where people did a lot of huffing and puffing and shaking hands in a confined space at very close quarters.

 

[Daz555]

On a side note, due to no major gatherings, Mass shootings seem to be down.

Got to think of the positives.

Of the UKs government ministers had the audacity to boast about burglary and shop-lifting being down over the last few months.

 

[Touring Mars]

Here is a report of the WHO mooting alternative origins to the mystery of where and when the novel virus began.
https://www.ibtimes.sg/wuhans-first...ly-point-its-origin-insists-who-further-49550

IMHO, there are at least two strains and six levels of severity and quality of the symptoms.

IMHO I contracted one of the early strains and suffered symptoms of level 1 novel coronavirus in November of 2019. At that time, I was in close contact with travelers from China, Japan, Canada, and Spain as well as travelers from multiple states including New York and California. These contacts all took place at my fencing academy where people did a lot of huffing and puffing and shaking hands in a confined space at very close quarters.

But at least you were wearing a mask...

There is some suggestion that the severity of illness could be down to the presence of antibodies from an earlier coronavirus infection resulting in a phenomenon called antibody dependent enhancement, or ADE.

This is pure speculation, but I wonder if the 'first wave' of infections worldwide this year could actually be a second wave, with the first wave having happened months earlier and either going undiagnosed or unnoticed, and leaving a good number of people with cross-reactive antibodies. That would also have given the virus an opportunity to mutate and for new strains to appear and spread.

If ADE is an issue, then those who had antibodies from a possible earlier first wave (let's call it the 'zeroth' wave) would potentially be at much higher risk from the new strain.... this could also explain some observations that SARS-CoV-2 was present in waste water samples from long before the first cases of COVID-19 were diagnosed...

-

Also, so much for more tests = more cases...

 

[Danoff]

I shifted it?

Yes.

Sounds like he is talking about public spaces to me.
I know I was definitely inferring public spaces, even going so far as to state I wear them in public and to speak specifically of shop owners.
Oh, hey, look who finally actually brings up private property. If my goal posts shifted, its because they were hit by your bus.

Yes, he was talking about you not being forced (or even allowed) to be there. Which is what I was talking about, and which is what you were arguing with.

Yep, because everything after that is circular semantics.
By all means, let me know where I did just that.

Let's see... you do it in this post. Right... here:

call it whatever you want to call it. We had the right or freedom to not wear masks in public. Now we don't.

No we didn't. We never did. You keep claiming that I'm just arguing semantics, or that it's pointless or circular, but then you make statements like this which misunderstand the way things were, and the way things are.

You never had the right to not wear a mask in public. And when it comes to freedom, that wasn't your freedom, but the property owner's freedom. You had permission to not wear a mask in public. And now you don't. The reason you needed permission, is because it wasn't your property.

 

[x3ra]

@x3ra, I'm still waiting on you.

That's easy to answer.

In the UK Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, forecast a death toll of 120,000 in a second coronavirus wave, especially if it coincided with a bad flu epidemic. This is the “reasonable worst-case scenario” on which Government policy is based. Just as ministers were driven by statistical modelling to lock down the economy, they are now pre-empting another wave of the virus, which may or may not happen.

And here's why all governments are doing it. Any government that refused to make mask-wearing mandatory, would be given a whole bunch of **** from everyone and their mother. On the other hand, if 120,000 deaths don't happen then the governments can say the decision was correct(similar with the lockdowns) and who could gainsay that? Perhaps mask wearing will work, the widespread wearing of masks might help avoid another calamitous lockdown(which can't ever happen, the economic disaster would then be closer to murder) – although if the worst case is then realised that would at least demonstrate masks don’t make any difference. Not something I'm routing for I hasten to add.

So it's got nothing to do with science, if it was then we wouldn't be wearing masks. Using Bill Nye isn't going to cut it.

Maybe you'd get better protection by taking up smoking.https://heart.bmj.com/content/early/2020/07/31/heartjnl-2020-317393

While I'm here, can someone tell me of a civilised society that puts the welfare of it's old people above the welfare of the young.

 

[Danoff]

We're in for an interesting flu season this year. Forecasts for flu suggest that it should be mitigated in part due to mask usage. It will be fascinating to see COVID and Flu interacting in the same social distancing environment. It will allow more of a direct comparison between these two illnesses. Though it still won't be apples to apples just down to the fact that we have so much familiarity with flu.

 

[Joey D]

So it's got nothing to do with science, if it was then we wouldn't be wearing masks. Using Bill Nye isn't going to cut it.

There are hundreds of studies regarding why masks work, I've actually posted a link that shows 70 of them in response to one of your posts.

Maybe you'd get better protection by taking up smoking.https://heart.bmj.com/content/early/2020/07/31/heartjnl-2020-317393

This study has nothing to do with smoking, it has to do with ACE-inhibitors and ARB's. They do make mention of smoking, but the paper also says this:

However, our data are consistent with very low rates of smoking seen in patients presenting with COVID-19 in Wuhan23 and similar data from the USA24 and with the findings of a more limited analysis of patients with COVID-19 in France.25 This may reflect a general immunomodulatory effect, a mechanism that is thought to explain the lower incidence of sarcoidosis, extrinsic allergic alveolitis and ulcerative colitis in current smokers.26 27 Alternatively, smoking may cause increased ACE2 mRNA expression in human lung much as ACE inhibitors or ARBs are believed to, suggesting a possible common protective mechanism for severe COVID-19 disease.28 Additional possible mechanisms include a direct protective effect of nicotinic receptor stimulation29 or an association of smoking with another protective factor. This finding arose when including smoking status as a confounder and should be interpreted cautiously. Further studies are required to verify the apparent protective association, determine whether it is independent of other risk factors, and investigate potential mechanisms.

Even the researchers are saying it should be taken with a grain of salt and that more study is needed before saying if smoking somehow negates a severe case of COVID-19.

While I'm here, can someone tell me of a civilised society that puts the welfare of it's old people above the welfare of the young.

I don't know, I love my parents and grandma and I don't want them to die. I'm sure the same can be said by a majority of people.

I'm guessing you're a teenager and I had that attitude when I was younger. As I got older, I realized that having my parents around was incredibly important.

 

[Danoff]

While I'm here, can someone tell me of a civilised society that puts the welfare of it's old people above the welfare of the young.

What are you arguing against here? Masks? Surely not. That's not putting the welfare of the old before the welfare of the young. Lockdowns? If you don't like lockdowns WEAR A MASK!

 

[PeterJB]

We're in for an interesting flu season this year. Forecasts for flu suggest that it should be mitigated in part due to mask usage. It will be fascinating to see COVID and Flu interacting in the same social distancing environment. It will allow more of a direct comparison between these two illnesses. Though it still won't be apples to apples just down to the fact that we have so much familiarity with flu.

It's not something I've really seen discussed, but it would interesting to see if there's any data on the effect of all the lock-down measures on all the viruses other than COVID-19, whether that be the common cold, or norovirus, or meningitis. You'd think viruses far less contagious than COVID-19 would be having a really hard time sustaining themselves.

 

[Dotini]

While I'm here, can someone tell me of a civilised society that puts the welfare of it's old people above the welfare of the young.

Since the 1930's Americans have received social security benefits. Medicare has been added to that. It used to be that many if not most received pensions, but that is kind of disappearing.

My cousin Karl refuses to wear a mask. Hell, he won't even wear underwear! However, at my insistence and with me giving it to him, he will grudgingly wear a bandana.