Coronavirus General Discussion

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by jalanlong » Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:41 am

doodle wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:52 am
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.
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by doodle » Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:42 am

jalanlong wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:20 am
doodle wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:50 am
vnatale wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:38 am
doodle wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:52 am
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:17 am
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.
I think I'm starting to see why KBG says he doesn't discuss things with libertarians anymore. I think libertarians share many similarities with communists in that both philosophies misunderstand the relationship between individuals and collective society.

I'd love to see a simulation of this utopia with multiple competing road and utility networks free from any centralized oversight or planning. A world where there is government protection for imagined collective corporate structures that will function solely for the betterment of humankind if solely left alone. You guys inhabit a fantasy world as to the nature of humans.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Cortopassi » Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:53 am

jalanlong wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:41 am
doodle wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:52 am
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.
I don't know if this is the same line, but Cook County, IL imposed a soda tax a while back. There was an uproar. It was eventually removed.

Isn't that the avenue for society to deal with rules? Enough people don't like some rule, they protest, vote people in with their views, get things changed, etc.

So if you live in a state or city that has imposed rules you don't like, you are 1) free to move 2) free to protest 3) free to mobilize people to get things changed.

We are talking a piece of cloth here. I know many of you are oh my God, slippery slope, but c'mon.

You want to live in that world where, hey, you weren't wearing a belt, and were ejected from your car and you are left bleeding on the street because, hey, that was your choice or you better have an insurance card in your pocket otherwise we ain't gonna try and save you? Ok.
User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by jalanlong » Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:05 am

Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:53 am
jalanlong wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:41 am
doodle wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:52 am
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.
I don't know if this is the same line, but Cook County, IL imposed a soda tax a while back. There was an uproar. It was eventually removed.

Isn't that the avenue for society to deal with rules? Enough people don't like some rule, they protest, vote people in with their views, get things changed, etc.
That makes even less sense. Then you are saying there are no standards other than what society deems they like or don't like. Because if the argument stands that we are all in this together, then certainly obesity is as big of a threat as any other health threat society is facing right now. Therefore following the logic you have put forth about societal responsibility then it stands to reason we should control what people eat. But now you are saying because people like their soda then that can stand regardless of its costs to society.
User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by jalanlong » Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:19 am

doodle wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:42 am
jalanlong wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:20 am
doodle wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:50 am
vnatale wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:38 am
doodle wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:52 am
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:17 am
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.
I think I'm starting to see why KBG says he doesn't discuss things with libertarians anymore. I think libertarians share many similarities with communists in that both philosophies misunderstand the relationship between individuals and collective society.

I'd love to see a simulation of this utopia with multiple competing road and utility networks free from any centralized oversight or planning. A world where there is government protection for imagined collective corporate structures that will function solely for the betterment of humankind if solely left alone. You guys inhabit a fantasy world as to the nature of humans.
I think the reason people have issues with Libertarians is that Libertarians are (or should be) logically consistent. Whereas most people live in a world of ever changing standards and rules that are based on really nothing but "society has decided" or "people want." Therefore there is no being able to have a concrete understanding of the role of government vs the individual because everything is at a whim.

Society has deemed masks are necessary because some people may catch a germ from someone else. However society has also decided to allow those same people that may be at risk from germs to go gorge themselves on soda and 3,000 calorie fast food meals because...well you really don't have a reason other than that is what society has decided. So I apologize if I get confused by the mixed messages society is sending me and a bit offended that my son has to wear a mask in PE class outside in 100 degree heat running laps away from any other kids while those same people he is "protecting" are free to have a Double Whopper at lunch that he will probably have to pay for in taxes later on down the line.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Cortopassi » Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:23 am

jalanlong wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:05 am
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:53 am
jalanlong wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:41 am
doodle wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:52 am
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.
I don't know if this is the same line, but Cook County, IL imposed a soda tax a while back. There was an uproar. It was eventually removed.

Isn't that the avenue for society to deal with rules? Enough people don't like some rule, they protest, vote people in with their views, get things changed, etc.
That makes even less sense. Then you are saying there are no standards other than what society deems they like or don't like. Because if the argument stands that we are all in this together, then certainly obesity is as big of a threat as any other health threat society is facing right now. Therefore following the logic you have put forth about societal responsibility then it stands to reason we should control what people eat. But now you are saying because people like their soda then that can stand regardless of its costs to society.
Isn't that how it's been forever? Society makes the rules. Certain countries have laws, punishable by death for drugs and being gay, for example. Abortion being legal or not.

I am not saying whether the tax is right or wrong. Or any of these other laws and rules are right or wrong. Just that if the society agrees to them, that's what needs to be followed, otherwise, there are usually penalties or workarounds you need to do to sidestep (like going to another county to buy your soda).

It's quite possible a society is run by some group that's been in power way too long and has control over the masses and implements rules that society really wouldn't want. Not sure how to deal with that, like China I guess.

pug, hey, maybe like seatbelts, wearing masks will become the norm, for example during flu season. Would be a great test this winter to see what happens.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Cortopassi » Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:30 am

MangoMan wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:18 am
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:17 am
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?
No, I don't think it is. People also die from other viruses. Why haven't we been wearing masks for those?

The seatbelt analogy is stupid. Pedestrians do get run over by idiots, and also other people die in collisions. To protect those others, cars should be banned.
People shoot themselves by accident and others all the time. Guns should be banned. :P

Most people are reasonable, and won't jump to going overboard on rules to start with. I think....

I don't know why Corona seems to be the exception this year.

My coworker who tested positive has returned. His wife and three girls also got it. One fever for 24 hours, 2 days of headaches and basically minimal symptoms for the girls.

So yeah, I go back and forth all the time in my head on why we have so over the top freaked out about this vs. trying to put together a logical plan to protect vulnerable people.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Kriegsspiel » Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:54 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:23 am
pug, hey, maybe like seatbelts, wearing masks will become the norm, for example during flu season. Would be a great test this winter to see what happens.
Does anyone else feel like that's not a good thing? I'd think it's beneficial to be exposed to germs and give your immune system a workout. We're all alive today because our ancestors immune systems were up to snuff.
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Cortopassi » Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:24 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:07 pm

Thus, such a plan would never be promoted by the "mainstream media", who are in the tank for the Democrats.
I can show you plenty of charts that the majority of people are watching and listening to conservative sources? That's without even delving into web stuff.

I think there's a better chance of the conservative side being hard set into specific positions than the left. My personal experience.

Anecdotally, masks generally prompt a "fuck 'em they're bullshit and taking my freedoms" level response from many conservatives, while most liberals would go "I know they aren't 100% effective but if they help even a little I'll wear them"

Image

Image
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Libertarian666 » Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:32 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:24 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:07 pm

Thus, such a plan would never be promoted by the "mainstream media", who are in the tank for the Democrats.
I can show you plenty of charts that the majority of people are watching and listening to conservative sources? That's without even delving into web stuff.
Ok, let's analyze the media.

Yes, talk radio is more conservative than leftist, except for NPR, which is extremely leftist.
Fox News is about 50-50 conservative/leftist.
All the TV networks, including all cable channels other than Fox: all extremely leftist.
And the biggest and most influential newspapers, NY Times and Wapo, which are extremely leftist.

So it's about 10% conservative and 90% leftist.

Hope that helps.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Tortoise » Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:01 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:24 pm
Anecdotally, masks generally prompt a "fuck 'em they're bullshit and taking my freedoms" level response from many conservatives, while most liberals would go "I know they aren't 100% effective but if they help even a little I'll wear them"
Maybe we need to clarify what we mean by "help". I happen to think that letting the virus spread unchecked among healthy younger people would help.

The longer we drag things out, the more trips that Grandma takes to the grocery store in which she'll potentially catch Covid-1984.

Letting the virus spread among healthy younger people helps in the sense that it builds herd immunity faster, thus reducing Grandma's number of potential exposure events at the grocery store.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Cortopassi » Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:17 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:32 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:24 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:07 pm

Thus, such a plan would never be promoted by the "mainstream media", who are in the tank for the Democrats.
I can show you plenty of charts that the majority of people are watching and listening to conservative sources? That's without even delving into web stuff.
Ok, let's analyze the media.

Yes, talk radio is more conservative than leftist, except for NPR, which is extremely leftist.
Fox News is about 50-50 conservative/leftist.
All the TV networks, including all cable channels other than Fox: all extremely leftist.
And the biggest and most influential newspapers, NY Times and Wapo, which are extremely leftist.

So it's about 10% conservative and 90% leftist.

Hope that helps.
Your 10/90 might be correct in terms of outlets, but that's not really what matters, it is eyeballs and ears, so I don't know how that totals.

Fox News has leftists? I don't watch, what do you consider leftist? Would that be like Chris Wallace? The definition of left vs right is probably also in question!
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Cortopassi » Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:20 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:01 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:24 pm
Anecdotally, masks generally prompt a "fuck 'em they're bullshit and taking my freedoms" level response from many conservatives, while most liberals would go "I know they aren't 100% effective but if they help even a little I'll wear them"
Maybe we need to clarify what we mean by "help". I happen to think that letting the virus spread unchecked among healthy younger people would help.

The longer we drag things out, the more trips that Grandma takes to the grocery store in which she'll potentially catch Covid-1984.

Letting the virus spread among healthy younger people helps in the sense that it builds herd immunity faster, thus reducing Grandma's number of potential exposure events at the grocery store.
Sure. But we are so far down this path, being realistic, that's not going to happen, IMO. Everyone is waiting for the magical vaccine. You will not be able to convince a majority of Americans to go with your strategy. You will always get the kids go back to their home where grandma lives argument.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Tortoise » Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:35 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:20 pm
Sure. But we are so far down this path, being realistic, that's not going to happen, IMO. Everyone is waiting for the magical vaccine. You will not be able to convince a majority of Americans to go with your strategy. You will always get the kids go back to their home where grandma lives argument.
That's why you protect Grandma during the one or two months in which herd immunity is being built up in the population.

Wear a mask around her and socially distance from her. Take a rapid Covid-1984 test each time you're about to meet with her, to make sure you're likely not contagious. For things where she needs closer face-to-face interaction with someone, use someone who has recovered from Covid-1984 or has tested positive for the antibodies so that they most likely won't infect her.

I think that would be easier, less expensive, and less disruptive to society than testing millions of people and making everyone wear masks and socially distance practically everywhere.
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by doodle » Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:07 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:35 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:20 pm
Sure. But we are so far down this path, being realistic, that's not going to happen, IMO. Everyone is waiting for the magical vaccine. You will not be able to convince a majority of Americans to go with your strategy. You will always get the kids go back to their home where grandma lives argument.
That's why you protect Grandma during the one or two months in which herd immunity is being built up in the population.

Wear a mask around her and socially distance from her. Take a rapid Covid-1984 test each time you're about to meet with her, to make sure you're likely not contagious. For things where she needs closer face-to-face interaction with someone, use someone who has recovered from Covid-1984 or has tested positive for the antibodies so that they most likely won't infect her.

I think that would be easier, less expensive, and less disruptive to society than testing millions of people and making everyone wear masks and socially distance practically everywhere.
In this case, maybe. But at what point will people listen to experts? How do we decide when to turn over our limited understanding to people who maybe know a bit more about this subject? What is the point of spending your life and time studying viruses and how to deal with them if when you do everyone just says, fuck off, I'll decide for myself? What's the point of anyone studying anything if all we listen to is our parties political leaders and what we read on the internet?
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Cortopassi » Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm

Operationally, what you are proposing would be frowned upon by I think almost everyone.

1) You'd have to infect 200+million, and...
2) How do you do that? Seriously? Come to the infection site so someone can cough on you? Are you culturing it and giving people shots? So basically that is a Covid shot, why would that be available in those kind of numbers in that short of a time when we can't even mass produce a vaccine that fast?
3) In 1-2 months?
4) What's the age cutoff?
5) Health cutoff?
6) Almost guaranteed to overwhelm hospitals, even if 99% are asymptomatic, that's 2,000,000 people needing hospitalization.

I'm interested in realistic scenarios. Right now, the only one that unfortunately seems viable is getting a vaccine.

Fun stuff man.
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by doodle » Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:17 pm

The hospital component is really what this is all about. Our health care system cannot deal with the effects of millions simultaneously requiring treatment.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by I Shrugged » Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:27 pm

Doodle, throwing up your hands about arguing with libertarians is a copout. You say that if government or society bears the costs of some personal choice, preference or habit, then the government is right to ban it. When obvious applications are pointed out, you cry foul. Come on.

Hey, I'm a libertarian, I'm used to that kind of eye rolling reaction. I just don't understand why people can't see obvious things like this. I'm not one to advocate private police forces and all that. There is enough realistic stuff that libertarians can explore. This is a real world thing that is happening because individual liberty gets no respect.

Once your suggestion is roundly accepted, there will be no legal limit to the government meddling with personal choices.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Tortoise » Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:28 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
Operationally, what you are proposing would be frowned upon by I think almost everyone.

1) You'd have to infect 200+million, and...
2) How do you do that? Seriously? Come to the infection site so someone can cough on you? Are you culturing it and giving people shots? So basically that is a Covid shot, why would that be available in those kind of numbers in that short of a time when we can't even mass produce a vaccine that fast?
No, just let the virus spread naturally among people who are interacting normally. Every big party, concert, dance, wedding, church service, etc. would be a "super-spreader" event, so it wouldn't take long for most people to be exposed.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
3) In 1-2 months?
Admittedly, 1-2 months is probably overoptimistic. Looking at Sweden's Covid-1984 death curve as an example, it looks like their deaths ramped up to a peak then dropped back to near-zero in about four months. Even NY, which locked down during the ramp-up, reached peak and tapered off to near-zero in about 3-4 months.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
4) What's the age cutoff?
5) Health cutoff?
Hard cutoffs don't make much sense, at least for age, since risk varies smoothly with age. So the government health officials could provide the estimated risk for various age/comorbidity groups, then individuals could make their own decisions based on their risk level and risk tolerance.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
6) Almost guaranteed to overwhelm hospitals, even if 99% are asymptomatic, that's 2,000,000 people needing hospitalization.
I'm wondering if you're fully aware of the huge fraction of Covid-1984 hospitalizations and deaths that have come from the extremely high-risk category (very old and/or very sick/frail). If most of those people are protected while the young and healthy build herd immunity, the hospitals won't be overwhelmed.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
I'm interested in realistic scenarios. Right now, the only one that unfortunately seems viable is getting a vaccine.
It's interesting that you consider my approach (which we could take starting today) to be less realistic than an effective vaccine that might materialize but definitely isn't a sure thing.
Last edited by Tortoise on Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Tortoise » Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:29 pm

MangoMan wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:46 pm
doodle wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:07 pm
But at what point will people listen to experts? How do we decide when to turn over our limited understanding to people who maybe know a bit more about this subject? What is the point of spending your life and time studying viruses and how to deal with them if when you do everyone just says, fuck off, I'll decide for myself? What's the point of anyone studying anything if all we listen to is our parties political leaders and what we read on the internet?
Who are the experts? No one seems to agree on much of anything, and even when they do, they keep flip flopping on policy recommendations. The WHO now says lockdowns were/are a mistake.
Bingo. There is no unified, monolithic front of experts. The experts disagree, so why would the general public be expected to agree?
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by doodle » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:19 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:27 pm
Doodle, throwing up your hands about arguing with libertarians is a copout. You say that if government or society bears the costs of some personal choice, preference or habit, then the government is right to ban it. When obvious applications are pointed out, you cry foul. Come on.

I'm sorry, I don't follow.
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by doodle » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:26 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:29 pm
MangoMan wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:46 pm
doodle wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:07 pm
But at what point will people listen to experts? How do we decide when to turn over our limited understanding to people who maybe know a bit more about this subject? What is the point of spending your life and time studying viruses and how to deal with them if when you do everyone just says, fuck off, I'll decide for myself? What's the point of anyone studying anything if all we listen to is our parties political leaders and what we read on the internet?
Who are the experts? No one seems to agree on much of anything, and even when they do, they keep flip flopping on policy recommendations. The WHO now says lockdowns were/are a mistake.
Bingo. There is no unified, monolithic front of experts. The experts disagree, so why would the general public be expected to agree?
The strategy to dealing with experts on any topic seems to insert an element of doubt or the appearance of disagreement where there really isn't one. The same strategy is always used whether it is tobacco, human induced climate change, or face masks. Fauci has been constantly quoted as flip flopping by the right wing media. I would argue that for those incensed about the disingenuous misinterpretations of Trump's words, should be equally annoyed by how the right has employed the same tactics with Fauci. Besides, as data changes so do responses..that is natural to unfolding and evolving situations. In his words:

"I don't regret anything I said then because in the context of the time in which I said it, it was correct. We were told in our task force meetings that we have a serious problem with the lack of PPEs and masks for the health providers who are putting themselves in harm's way every day to take care of sick people," Fauci told O'Donnell.


"When it became clear that the infection could be spread by asymptomatic carriers who don't know they're infected, that made it very clear that we had to strongly recommend masks," he said.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Cortopassi » Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:39 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:28 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
Operationally, what you are proposing would be frowned upon by I think almost everyone.

1) You'd have to infect 200+million, and...
2) How do you do that? Seriously? Come to the infection site so someone can cough on you? Are you culturing it and giving people shots? So basically that is a Covid shot, why would that be available in those kind of numbers in that short of a time when we can't even mass produce a vaccine that fast?
No, just let the virus spread naturally among people who are interacting normally. Every big party, concert, dance, wedding, church service, etc. would be a "super-spreader" event, so it wouldn't take long for most people to be exposed.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
3) In 1-2 months?
Admittedly, 1-2 months is probably overoptimistic. Looking at Sweden's Covid-1984 death curve as an example, it looks like their deaths ramped up to a peak then dropped back to near-zero in about four months. Even NY, which locked down during the ramp-up, reached peak and tapered off to near-zero in about 3-4 months.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
4) What's the age cutoff?
5) Health cutoff?
Hard cutoffs don't make much sense, at least for age, since risk varies smoothly with age. So the government health officials could provide the estimated risk for various age/comorbidity groups, then individuals could make their own decisions based on their risk level and risk tolerance.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
6) Almost guaranteed to overwhelm hospitals, even if 99% are asymptomatic, that's 2,000,000 people needing hospitalization.
I'm wondering if you're fully aware of the huge fraction of Covid-1984 hospitalizations and deaths that have come from the extremely high-risk category (very old and/or very sick/frail). If most of those people are protected while the young and healthy build herd immunity, the hospitals won't be overwhelmed.
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:10 pm
I'm interested in realistic scenarios. Right now, the only one that unfortunately seems viable is getting a vaccine.
It's interesting that you consider my approach (which we could take starting today) to be less realistic than an effective vaccine that might materialize but definitely isn't a sure thing.
You’ve got some good responses, for sure.

The realistic comment is in the US, in the current environment, regardless of Nov 3, makes your scenario less likely than an 18 year old dying of Covid. A vaccine is going to be rolled out even if it is only 50% effective. No way is herd immunity an option, unless we just get there naturally. Things may improve as things go on just because they are and people are tired, before a vaccine, but I see no other path.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Kriegsspiel » Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:30 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:17 pm
Fox News has leftists? I don't watch, what do you consider leftist? Would that be like Chris Wallace? The definition of left vs right is probably also in question!
IIRC, I saw several years ago that most Fox News employees were Democrats.
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by vnatale » Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:42 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:30 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 2:17 pm
Fox News has leftists? I don't watch, what do you consider leftist? Would that be like Chris Wallace? The definition of left vs right is probably also in question!
IIRC, I saw several years ago that most Fox News employees were Democrats.
Tried to confirm that but could not. However came across the following.

Vinny

5 facts about Fox News

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -fox-news/



3On an ideological scale, the average Fox News consumer is to the right of the average U.S. adult, but not as far to the right as the audiences of some other outlets. As part of the November survey, the Center grouped the audiences of 30 news outlets on a scale based on the self-described ideology and partisanship of those who said they had gotten political news from each outlet in the past week. (You can read more about this classification system in this Q&A.) Based on this scale, the average audience member for Fox News is more likely than the average U.S. adult to be conservative and Republican. But the average audiences for four other outlets in the study – the Daily Caller, Breitbart News, and the Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh radio shows – are to the right of the average Fox News viewer
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (50.69 KiB) Viewed 3584 times
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Post Reply