Covid-19

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

A set of cables from the U. S. State Department raised concerns about the Wuhan Institute of Virology Lab back in 2018, citing concerns over safety protocols and the research they were doing on coronaviruses as follow-up on SARS. The idea that it originated in that lab is no longer a fringe conspiracy theory even though there is still no hard proof. Deliberately released? No. Accidentally released through sloppiness and/or carelessness? Plausible.

That puts a new spin on the Party's response to the doctors who initially identified it and did initial research on it--they sure did map its genome sequence pretty quickly.

I heard something about this on the radio this morning. Same story from the WaPo for those predisposed against Fox News.

This is yet another case of, "if this is true...." That seems to be the news mantra of the last 10 years.

[TheFallen]

Your argument is a circular reasoning, logical fallacy. Pure feels.

This is how I know you're too bullheaded to reason. Nothing in my argument is circular. Since you haven't been paying attention, let me repeat myself again.

- The initial predictions were way off. I made an educated guess that was the case.

- "Social distancing" was called for. I never said a word against it. My position was misinterpreted several times, and I've clarified repeatedly that I take no issue with social distancing.

- The government began to infringe on our rights. I came out clearly and strongly that that was unacceptable, and that there would have to be a far more significant danger with a far more substantial death toll for me to be okay with those limitations in rights. Literally the opposite of "feels", as I'd rather have 10,000,000 Americans die from this rather than see the government take our rights away.

- As more and more data has come in, it has become apparent that social distancing is doing what it was meant to do, and that this virus was never going to kill as many people as initially thought.

Oh come on now... let's get real here.

Obi, you know that initially you were far too dismissive about the virus. You even admitted this after nigh on 4 weeks of maintaining that the virus was variously "an annoyance", "a non-event", "no worse than the regular flu" and "the sniffles" (all terms you used to describe the coronavirus and its impact, prior to April 3rd). Ergo your initial predictions were also "way off".

Let's nail down this "social distancing" thing, because the devil is as ever in the detail. Obi, you've repeatedly stated that you're not against "social distancing". By which I believe you mean and only mean self-quarantine for anyone showing flu-like symptoms (and presumably anyone living in the same household), self-isolation for the elderly and infirm and voluntary home working if possible.

What you rail against continually - on both ideological and economic grounds (but that's okay) - are additional government-imposed social distancing measures (e.g banning gatherings, closing businesses etc etc). Fair enough and tenable positions as I have repeatedly said... but then you go on to say this:-

As more and more data has come in, it has become apparent that social distancing is doing what it was meant to do

Hold on a second... if you mean "social distancing" as in "only those measures that you find acceptable", then you have absolutely zero evidence for this statement. It's necessarily a bullshit assertion - because yet again you're basing your argument on the assumed outcome of a route not taken. A thing which of course cannot be known.

What is becoming apparent is that all measures taken, including the ones you protest against, are doing what they were meant to do. That's all we can know or presume, because that's the only route that has been taken, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, or whether it's a good or bad idea.

Separately, my favourite idiots at the IHME are going to have their re-revised projection of cumulative Italian coronavirus deaths - just 48 hours ago ago they stated 21,130 by early August - smashed through for the second time in 2 days by tomorrow evening. Yeah, let's all stake our lives on their expert modelling, eh?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

No TF. Even the busllshit government mandates and illegal restrictions on liberties count as social distancing. I agree with some, disagree with others.

It's really a shame that you can't grasp the nuance of my position.

[TheFallen]

It's really a shame that you can't grasp the nuance of my position.

Are you sure I can't - and even in the face of your unclear and seemingly paradoxical statements? Regardless, if I am at all confused, I'd respectfully suggest that has more to do with how you express your position than my abilities to comprehend it. Case in point - and just looking at your last two posts:-

"Social distancing" was called for. I never said a word against it. My position was misinterpreted several times, and I've clarified repeatedly that I take no issue with social distancing.

...immediately followed by...

Even the bullshit government mandates and illegal restrictions on liberties count as social distancing.

First you state that you "take no issue" with social distancing... then in your very next post, you state that "bullshit" government measures form part of social distancing... ergo logic would state that you "take no issue" with "bullshit" government measures. Except I'm aware that is not your position. Paradox much?

So the first quoted statement is flatly incorrect - or at best hugely misleading, because you absolutely do take issue with some elements of current social distancing, as you have just clarified thus:

I agree with some, disagree with others.

You further muddied your position in stating as follows:-

As more and more data has come in, it has become apparent that social distancing is doing what it was meant to do, and that this virus was never going to kill as many people as initially thought.

So looking at the first bolded half of that quote immediately above, from your own words, it's only reasonable to presume that you consider "social distancing doing what it was meant to do" as a good thing. Presumably with the caveat that, despite this presumably desirable outcome, you violently object to a significant part of the measures used to achieve said presumably desirable outcome. Or perhaps you don't think the outcome of social distancing with sole respect to the suppression of infection rates is desirable?

Additionally, with regard to the second half of above quote, you fail to allow for its dependency on the first half of your statement, the possibility that the core reason for the reduced severity of this virus (in terms of growth rates of infection, current numbers of infection cases, current numbers of hospitalisations and current numbers of deaths, when viewed against initial predictions) is precisely because of social distancing... including those social distancing measures with which you so vehemently disagree.

It would be at least as reasonable for that last quoted statement to be reworded as follows:-

As more and more data has come in, it has become apparent that social distancing is doing what it was meant to do and therefore that this virus is not going to kill as many people as initially thought.

And before you start off looking to pick holes in that italicised revision, the central crux of my own position remains thus:-

Slower rate of infection = lower numbers requiring hospitalisation at any one time = adequate available resources and treatment for those hospitalised = lower overall deaths.

As I stated upthread (and as I'm sure you agree with), nobody can possibly know whether merely voluntary and thus non liberty-infringing social distancing would have produced the same alleviating effects - because that's just one potential outcome of a route that was simply not taken and thus inevitably a hypothetical.

So despite the unfortunate lack of clarity in how you express your position and its "nuance", I'm confident I've got my head around it. And as you know, I don't agree with it.

Completely separately, the suggestion now starting to be floated that COVID-19 was accidentally released into the community by a disease study lab in Hunan province is interesting. Of course, we're all aware of alluring nature of the conspiracy theories, we all should also be aware of the very human desire to identify both a cause and someone to blame, plus we're all (quite rightfully) hugely pissed at the CPC on a number of fronts.. not least because of the continuing dissimulation and disinformation its spouting about COVID-19 and its actual effects within the PRC.

Having said that, this suggested source seems at least as likely as the lso-called "wet markets" in Wuhan that Beijing was very quick to point the finger at...

I see Trump's taken a healthy swing at the WHO. I get why, but what with Trump being Trump, I hope he manages to lay out the case for doing so in rational, dispassionate, evidenced and easily followable manner.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

TF, I expect more from you.

Mandating that people shelter in place is social distancing. I'm not for that type. Suggesting that sick people self-quarantine, and that people suspend large gatherings for a short period of time is also social distancing, and I'm okay with that.

Surely you can see the difference? Or maybe not, as you clearly don't have your head around it no matter how hard you protest.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Completely separately, the suggestion now starting to be floated that COVID-19 was accidentally released into the community by a disease study lab in Hunan province is interesting. Of course, we're all aware of alluring nature of the conspiracy theories, we all should also be aware of the very human desire to identify both a cause and someone to blame, plus we're all (quite rightfully) hugely pissed at the CPC on a number of fronts.. not least because of the continuing dissimulation and disinformation its spouting about COVID-19 and its actual effects within the PRC.

Having said that, this suggested source seems at least as likely as the lso-called "wet markets" in Wuhan that Beijing was very quick to point the finger at...

At this time, both "accidental release from the lab" and "zootropic origin from the wet market" are both possible and plausible explanations for how it started. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to disprove either one and so they are equally valid.

[TheFallen]

Obi, you seriously don't see the paradox in what you said? Even though I laid it out with your quotes? Take another look - I'm really surprised that you're surprised.

Of course I see the difference - I'm the one who poked at your use of the term "social distancing" (which - don't forget - you said you took no issue with) and correctly drew the differentiation for clarity (namely, the type that Obi agrees with and the type that he doesn't). I actually categorically stated that I was ignoring your expressed paradox and presuming you meant that you only supported voluntary social distancing (rather than all-encompassing social distancing, including the more draconian mandatory measures). The devil was indeed in the detail as I said. Look... here's what I posted just upthread:

Let's nail down this "social distancing" thing, because the devil is as ever in the detail. Obi, you've repeatedly stated that you're not against "social distancing". By which I believe you mean and only mean self-quarantine for anyone showing flu-like symptoms (and presumably anyone living in the same household), self-isolation for the elderly and infirm and voluntary home working if possible.

I think you'd agree I've got that neatly, fairly and accurately expressed in a nutshell? So no surprise necessary or even appropriate on your part, because I am in fact more than sufficiently au fait with your position. As I stated a few posts back, you're supportive of suggested social distancing measures, but absolutely against any liberty-infringing mandated measures.

You're also still not providing clarification on a couple of important issues, so let me ask a couple of very simple questions..

You very recently stated this:

As more and more data has come in, it has become apparent that social distancing is doing what it was meant to do.

This statement begs two questions, namely:-

1. Do you think what social distancing - including as you've confimed the mandatory social distancing of which you disapprove - appears to be achieving is a good thing?

2. Are you suggesting that voluntary or suggested social distancing by itself - which you have confirmed that you take no issue with - would have achieved the same results?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Trump cut U. S. funding to the WHO. This is correct move--the WHO is just a Chinese puppet right now and they are part of the reason it became as bad it is with their parroting Beijing's lies--by the time they said there was no human-to-human transfer there were already hundreds, if not thousands, of cases in Wuhan.

There are two conditions which must be met, in my opinion, before we restore that funding. 1) the United States gets to hand-pick the next head of the WHO and 2) the WHO must once again officially recognize Taiwan.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

TF, I'm curious why you're so intent on confining Hashi and I into such a narrow lane. Nothing that either of us is saying is out of like considering our longstanding positions. Far more curious is the sudden about-face that Zara, SB, and other people that are generally in agreement with us.

I warned you about what you're doing. You're trying to fit my position into a narrow lane that has some sort of preconceived borders that you've arbitrarily placed. Until you stop doing that, you won't understand.

1. Do you think what social distancing - including as you've confimed the mandatory social distancing of which you disapprove - appears to be achieving is a good thing?

No. I'd rather have ten times the death toll than the abrogation of right and the economic costs.

2. Are you suggesting that voluntary or suggested social distancing by itself - which you have confirmed that you take no issue with - would have achieved the same results?

No.


Meanwhile, protesters have been arrested in North Carolina, and the local police have Tweeted that protesting is a "non-essential activity".

[Ur Dead]

1. Do you think what social distancing - including as you've confimed the mandatory social distancing of which you disapprove - appears to be achieving is a good thing?

No. I'd rather have ten times the death toll than the abrogation of right and the economic costs.

I find that disturbing..

So when does an individual rights begin to infringe on others right to life?
I see with that answer that , under these conditions we have, that it's
advocates a person to commit premeditated murder.
No less.

The mandates set by the Governors have been used in the past.
The Spanish flu of 1918 had many cities enforcing such distancing.
These were enacted at the city level.
Today the Governors learn from that and applied it to their state.
That is the rights of the States to mandate, not the Federal level.
Trump can not mandate the distancing on a country level.
The Governors will not enact Marshal Law because then they lose the
power to control the the state.
If left in place after the crisis has abated then the people have the power
to have the mandates removed thru federal action.
eg The Supreme Court or a recall/removal of the Govenor.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

So when does an individual rights begin to infringe on others right to life?

Luckily that's not the case here. Neither you nor the government has the right to tell me to stay home so that you might not get sick from a virus that's likely not to kill you.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Threader: A Thread Written by @jon_rauch

Week 6 of Covid-19 crisis: one citizen's assessment of where we stand. Spoiler: what needs to be happening isn't happening, and the president isn't even talking about it. We need a Lincoln but have a Buchanan. OK, here goes. (1/11) @BrookingsGov

Lockdown/isolation are temporarily effective but brutally costly and unsustainable. Lockdown costs trillions and causes huge human disruption. Must be lifted before long. Every day needs to be spent building for post-lockdown. (2/11)

Lifting lockdown with current testing and tracing capability would cause viral resurgence. Also costs trillions with potentially even huger human disruption. (3/11)

That leaves option No. 3. VASTLY increase testing capacity, by one or two orders of magnitude, and build MAJOR infrastructure for contact tracing. Do it now, before lockdown is lifted. (4/11)

Testing and tracing together can get ahead of the virus by shutting down asymptomatic spread. Nothing else works, and both are needed. (5/11)

NB, testing is a big job but tracing is even bigger. Requires major logistics and coordination. Build, test, deploy apps; decide privacy safeguards; coordinate state health services; get Cong'l authorizations; inform and prepare the public; etc. (6/11)

Important new study from Microsoft researchers shows that testing and tracing need to be an order of magnitude bigger than anyone is currently talking about... (7/11) Why We Must Test Millions a Day [PDF] ...

... but that is still one or two orders of magnitude cheaper than the status quo or an under-prepared reopening. ... (8/11)

In short: there's really only one thing to do, and we're not doing it. Or even really talking about doing it. POTUS should be leading a whole-of-government test/trace mobilization RIGHT NOW. Should be reporting every day on progress. Should be focused like a laser. (9/11)

Instead he's berating the press, claiming his brain is the strategy, and "hoping to God." It's the greatest presidential failure of leadership in my lifetime (and I lived through Vietnam). Maybe since Buchanan. (10/11)

Meanwhile, the rollout of testing is *slowing*. This is not good. See @bradstuartmd today. How the U.S. Could Win the Fight Against the Coronavirus ... (11/11)

[Hashi Lebwohl]

So when does an individual rights begin to infringe on others right to life?
I see with that answer that , under these conditions we have, that it's
advocates a person to commit premeditated murder.
No less.

The presumption being made is that any random person whom one might encounter is both infected and infectious; this premise is false--given the current infection numbers any person you meet has a less than 1% chance to be infectious.

[TheFallen]

I warned you about what you're doing. You're trying to fit my position into a narrow lane that has some sort of preconceived borders that you've arbitrarily placed. Until you stop doing that, you won't understand.

What I did... and in fact all I did was point out the obvious paradox in what you posted, which at face value nobody could reasonably understand.

In a single post you stated "I take no issue with social distancing" and then followed that in the next breath with "the bullshit government mandates and illegal restrictions on liberties count as social distancing". Err okay. Spotted the paradox yet?

If that's not a gob-smacking lack of clarity, I don't know what is. They're your words - own them, together with their utterly confusing nature.

Fortunately, I then went to the effort of providing the clarity that was lacking so entirely by pointing out that demonstrably, whenever you use the term "social distancing", you may actually mean either or both of two very separate things on any occasion. At one time, you may be referring to one set of actions that you agree with, at another you may be referring to a completely separate set of actions you object to and at another you may be referring to a combination of the two.

You're welcome. How is that trying to paint you into a pre-defined corner, FFS?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I warned you about what you're doing. You're trying to fit my position into a narrow lane that has some sort of preconceived borders that you've arbitrarily placed. Until you stop doing that, you won't understand.

What I did... and in fact all I did was point out the obvious paradox in what you posted, which at face value nobody could reasonably understand.

In a single post you stated "I take no issue with social distancing" and then followed that in the next breath with "the bullshit government mandates and illegal restrictions on liberties count as social distancing". Err okay. Spotted the paradox yet?

No, you're clearly not seeing the nuance. I love sex but hate rape. Get it? Both are sex, one is not acceptable.

[TheFallen]

It's hardly a nuance and as I've stated repeatedly (and am now bored doing so), I originally worked out what you must have meant. Which was not what you said.

But if you want to continue to wriggle so deliberately disingenuously, be my guest. There are after all larger issues in play...

Separately I note (because I am duty-bound to) that yesterday we had the second consecutive day of a lower than 5% rise in newly identified US coronavirus cases.

[Ur Dead]

So when does an individual rights begin to infringe on others right to life?

Luckily that's not the case here. Neither you nor the government has the right to tell me to stay home so that you might not get sick from a virus that's likely not to kill you.

Don't know what country your in, but in the US it's different.
A rabid dog is contained. Otherwise it infects others.
Under the 1st amendment there is a right to assemble, but this is under
normal circumstances. What is going on is not normal. This virus has a 20% world kill rate versus those who have recovered. In the US 32% have died
versus those who have recovered. It highly contagious.
I expect a general opening of social interactions but relapses can occur.
Until a vaccine can be produced and the general population inoculated, I see
some sort of restriction enforced for about a year.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

It's hardly a nuance and as I've stated repeatedly (and am now bored doing so), I originally worked out what you must have meant. Which was not what you said.

But if you want to continue to wriggle so deliberately disingenuously, be my guest. There are after all larger issues in play...

My friend, there is no wriggling. My position has not changed since the outset. People should social distance. The government shouldn't mandate the shutdown of the economy, nor should they devolve into a "papers please" police state.

For the life of me I can't understand why this is so difficult for you to grasp.

So when does an individual rights begin to infringe on others right to life?

Luckily that's not the case here. Neither you nor the government has the right to tell me to stay home so that you might not get sick from a virus that's likely not to kill you.

Don't know what country your in, but in the US it's different.

Florida. Even though many in the US would like us to not be, we're part of it.

A rabid dog is contained. Otherwise it infects others.

Dogs aren't people and don't enjoy human rights.

Under the 1st amendment there is a right to assemble, but this is under normal circumstances. What is going on is not normal. This virus has a 20% world kill rate versus those who have recovered. In the US 32% have died versus those who have recovered. It highly contagious.

As TF has tenaciously reported on a daily basis, those are not accurate numbers. Based on what's being reported, and the actual rate of infection, the mortality rate is likely less than .5%.

I expect a general opening of social interactions but relapses can occur. Until a vaccine can be produced and the general population inoculated, I see some sort of restriction enforced for about a year.

That's going to be the real question. Is it worth the economic cost to save people who are primarily 80 or older, and don't have that many life-years left? The math would be different if this virus primarily killed healthy 20-year-olds.

[Zarathustra]

This is how I know you're too bullheaded to reason.

Ad hominem bullshit.

- The initial predictions were way off.

Please demonstrate this. How far off were they? Whose predictions? The predictions of what? Deaths or infections? I'm talking about the latter, you're focusing on the former.

- "Social distancing" was called for. I never said a word against it. My position was misinterpreted several times, and I've clarified repeatedly that I take no issue with social distancing.

And if people refused to do it? If it's called for, what do we do when people don't answer the call? Furthermore, why was it called for, if the predictions were "way off?"

- The government began to infringe on our rights. I came out clearly and strongly that that was unacceptable, and that there would have to be a far more significant danger with a far more substantial death toll for me to be okay with those limitations in rights. Literally the opposite of "feels", as I'd rather have 10,000,000 Americans die from this rather than see the government take our rights away.

My "feels" criticism wasn't aimed at this point.

I'm against government infringing on our rights, too. However, I don't believe the Constitution guarantees we have the right to go to McDonalds or sports events. The right to peaceably assemble has limitations, even in mundane situations, like getting a permit for an event.

- As more and more data has come in, it has become apparent that social distancing is doing what it was meant to do, and that this virus was never going to kill as many people as initially thought.

This is where your logic is circular and/or questionable. I laid it all out neatly in the post above. You responded to that detailed argument by calling me a name and then talking about other stuff.

- My argument has been based on cold, hard numbers . . .

Which numbers? I haven't seen you list any.

you've said that it's acceptable that the government has abrogated these rights. That's not a caricature of your position, nor is it disconnected from reality. You staked out an - to me - indefensible position.

I have said that the government has the power to limit our rights in an emergency. You agreed. We only differ in our assessment of whether or not this is an emergency. It's an entirely defensible position. We just have a different assessment of the situation. You focus almost entirely on the death toll, and continue to ignore what it would be like if our health care system was overwhelmed. You also ignore the societal and economic impact that would ensue if the hospitals were to fill up and no one else in America could get health care. You are appalled at how quickly Americans can give up freedoms, but you do not sufficiently anticipate how quickly they could riot. You ridicule everyone as panicking (when they are calmly sitting in their homes), but you don't seem to take seriously the possibility of an actual, nationwide panic.

You hold the bizarre position that you haven't changed your life one bit, you're not wearing masks, you're interacting with the public, but.....this virus is so severe that we have to legally impose social distancing and the government's justified in imposing lockdowns.

I live in a rural state. Our infection numbers are low. I am open to the argument that government action should be dependent upon localized facts. Perhaps the same actions in New York shouldn't be done here (and to be fair, there are differences in government action across the country).

I've called you on it. You keep trying to wriggle out of it, and in the process have lashed out at me for pointing out the outrageousness of your position.

I never thought I'd hear you describe debate and disagreement as "lashing out." Given our recent history of a member being banned for calling people names and literally lashing out, I'm surprised to hear you take up this victimhood narrative.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I'm not claiming victimhood at all. I am pointing out that your typical position on such things has devolved into an uncharacteristically coarse and irrational series of rants.

I don't care that you disagree with me, though I'm surprised that you do. You've ignored my stated position on things like the infection rate (it doesn't matter if the virus doesn't make most people sick and symptomatic) in favor of.....I can't even tell what, as you're all over the place with your posts.

I don't think that this virus is a crisis. I've explained why I believe that. The numbers that continue to come in support that position. You disagree. I don't think that it's worth upending our economy and abrogating our rights. You disagree.

I'm not sure why this has set you off, but it clearly has. That was not my intention, as I value your posts with considerable weight.