I understanf that point, and it is valid concerning the overall Coronavirus impact on the population, World or individual area.
But I believe the ratio brtween those recovered (only those treated counted) and the succumbed is a good measure of how well the health-care system (again World or individual area) is coping, and that is also importnt.
The future is discussed at
lhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/22/1000315/podcast-post-coronavirus-pandemic-reality/?truid=95bb63d1e5ef40a
An excerpt:
daveklepper ~SNIP~ As of Wednesday evening, the number of coronavirus cases worldwide has topped 2.57 million, with some 178,500 deaths, 46,000 of which in the USA but no recovered data:? I
~SNIP~
As of Wednesday evening, the number of coronavirus cases worldwide has topped 2.57 million, with some 178,500 deaths, 46,000 of which in the USA
but no recovered data:?
BaltACDThe problem is where are they leading - normal or the cemetary.
I am forced to see it (through a jaundiced eye) as a positive.
Seems the two extremes are determined to control the narrative, on one side you've got the people pushing to reopen everything, just so they can chase the almighty dollar. They are convinced that shelter in place is a farce and an unfair imposition on their inner "harvey hustlebuck"
On the other extreme, you have the overtly cautious, who are willing to stay the course, prioritize saving everylast life that is possible, who feel that reopening the economy is suicide.
Neither extreme is going to budge, absent undeniable proof to the contrary.
In the middle you have people that can see good and bad in both extremes.
I think the Georgia experiment will finally silence the conflict, and eliminate the bickering.
Hopefully there will be checks and balances in place if things turn for the worse. I look forward to the outcome.
Georgia can be the canary in the coal mine.
EuclidGeorgia is raising eyebrows by deciding to reopen. Georgia may lead by example.
The problem is where are they leading - normal or the cemetary.
Kemp has never displayed sound judgement when making decisions. Making the wrong decision will erase anything that SIP accomplished and then deluge the health care system beyond any ability to care for the states population.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidGeorgia may lead by example.
And Georgia may lead by showng how many innocent people die!
I have been SIP since our governor stated that SIP should be done. I am fortunate as I am retired and have options on how to obtain food. I do NOT want to act recklessly and per chance, become infected and need health care in an overloaded system. Both my wife and daughter are nurses and TOO MANY health profesionals are DYING because of this virus. So lets stop argueing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and be concerned with the effect of our actions on others such as the medical profession.
243129 Even worse, as the doctor who warned about hydroxychlroquine, was removed from task force. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/coronavirus-treatment-vaccine-doctor-says-worry-about-trump-idea-led-to-ouster.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkU1ob_lHCw
Even worse, as the doctor who warned about hydroxychlroquine, was removed from task force. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/coronavirus-treatment-vaccine-doctor-says-worry-about-trump-idea-led-to-ouster.html
Even worse, as the doctor who warned about hydroxychlroquine, was removed from task force.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/coronavirus-treatment-vaccine-doctor-says-worry-about-trump-idea-led-to-ouster.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkU1ob_lHCw
Accurate.
charlie hebdo Overmod charlie hebdo He was even boasting on TV of how amazingly he "got it" and maybe should have been a virologist or physician of some sort. Please say he didn't do that ... oh, wait, it was in character, wasn't it. It would be nice if he'd actually get his own 'expert panel' together to advise him on what actually works, and then actually make statements every week about how the administration is watching things that should work. Including the usual sort of gentle disclaimer when 'well, we tried this and thought it would be good, but it seems to have dangerous side effects' ... I guess he thinks that bluster means strength but lack of full success means weakness. Even worse, as the doctor who warned about hydroxychlroquine, was removed from task force. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/coronavirus-treatment-vaccine-doctor-says-worry-about-trump-idea-led-to-ouster.html
Overmod charlie hebdo He was even boasting on TV of how amazingly he "got it" and maybe should have been a virologist or physician of some sort. Please say he didn't do that ... oh, wait, it was in character, wasn't it. It would be nice if he'd actually get his own 'expert panel' together to advise him on what actually works, and then actually make statements every week about how the administration is watching things that should work. Including the usual sort of gentle disclaimer when 'well, we tried this and thought it would be good, but it seems to have dangerous side effects' ... I guess he thinks that bluster means strength but lack of full success means weakness.
charlie hebdo He was even boasting on TV of how amazingly he "got it" and maybe should have been a virologist or physician of some sort.
Please say he didn't do that ... oh, wait, it was in character, wasn't it.
It would be nice if he'd actually get his own 'expert panel' together to advise him on what actually works, and then actually make statements every week about how the administration is watching things that should work. Including the usual sort of gentle disclaimer when 'well, we tried this and thought it would be good, but it seems to have dangerous side effects' ... I guess he thinks that bluster means strength but lack of full success means weakness.
Very condensed from the jpoft website:
charlie hebdo The US knew about the viral outbreak in Wuhan early in January, if not earlier. Yet only a quasi-ban on entry from China and later Europe and the UK were the inadequate responses. The negligence by this federal administration until late March is the largest factor in our partly avoidable disaster occuring.
The US knew about the viral outbreak in Wuhan early in January, if not earlier. Yet only a quasi-ban on entry from China and later Europe and the UK were the inadequate responses. The negligence by this federal administration until late March is the largest factor in our partly avoidable disaster occuring.
What you are saying is that the US should have followed Taiwan's lead and ignore the upper management of the WHO. With the recent announcement of the earliest COVID death occurring in Santa Clara county, the shutdown would have had to be put in place Jan 1 at the very latest, or requirement that everyone coming in from China be quarantined for two weeks after arrival - though the finding of viral transmission days before onset of symptoms didn't come for weeks afterward.
The biggest mess up in the Federal response was CDC's handling of the test kits coupled with the law that stated that the test kits could only come from the CDC.
I presume you are aware that Birx and Fauci gave a presentation to the Governors meeting in early February.
Conspiracy theory is a fascinating arena.
Just because a group of people works towards it's common best interest, does not prove a conspiracy. But a lack of proof does not prove that no conspiracy was in place either.
Personally, I find myself most likely to give groups or individuals who I see as highly intelligent credit for possibly having a second agenda. So in a way, it's complimentary.
Euclid has an agenda, as always. He and MKE probably agree with the dupes involved in the carefully orchestrated *demonstrations*
Euclid was Chinese governmernt that told us the virus originated at the wet market from bats being sold. Now it seems the wet market story was indeed a red herring to deflect attention away from the actual source of the virus spread.
You seem to have concluded that there has been an intentional strategy to deceive, and that the wet market is a key element in that strategy.
I'm not quite "there" yet.
I'm not attesting that something along those lines is impossible either, just not convinced one way or the other yet.
Convicted One Euclid Perhaps the wet market was just offered as a diversion from the actual origin being the lab. People tend to look for patterns when trying to understand an unknown. The wet market could have been a red herring.
Euclid Perhaps the wet market was just offered as a diversion from the actual origin being the lab.
People tend to look for patterns when trying to understand an unknown. The wet market could have been a red herring.
As I understand it, it was Chinese governmernt that told us the virus originated at the wet market from bats being sold. Now it seems the wet market story was indeed a red herring to deflect attention away from the actual source of the virus spread.
Georgia is raising eyebrows by deciding to reopen. Georgia may lead by example.
EuclidPerhaps the wet market was just offered as a diversion from the actual origin being the lab.
I guess as a footnote to all of that, I'd like to add that those "working for the common good" can be as delusional as the singleminded sociopaths who believe the rules only apply to everyone else.
CMStPnPMy two cents.... Freedom of movement by individuals is guaranteed under the UN Charter and there are no exceptions to it. So if the country is a UN member or has signed the Charter they cannot restrict an individuals movement legally. Pretty sure the Constitution has a similar provision somewhere. Under our Constitution the government can only legally suspend individual rights under a declaration of war. The current state of emergency falls short in that respect and regardless of any health emergency (never challenged but should be to SCOTUS), the government can only issue recommendations.
Freedom of movement by individuals is guaranteed under the UN Charter and there are no exceptions to it. So if the country is a UN member or has signed the Charter they cannot restrict an individuals movement legally.
Pretty sure the Constitution has a similar provision somewhere. Under our Constitution the government can only legally suspend individual rights under a declaration of war. The current state of emergency falls short in that respect and regardless of any health emergency (never challenged but should be to SCOTUS), the government can only issue recommendations.
Well, just putting it in perspective, when I asked David if the action was voluntary or mandatory, it was because I believe "voluntary" would be subject to rampant disregard.
People (in general) are accomplished at carving out exceptions to rules for themselves, even when the rules support common sense that only a fool would deviate from.
As far as the rest of your post specific to enforcement of a public mandate goes.... There are mulitple ways to skin a cat.
Think in terms of the way non-voluntary commitment to a mental institution is worked. The arrest is necessary to protect the individual from themselves as well as the rest of society. Arrest and quarantine violators, subject them to a battery of odious diagnostics to assure they are "safe" to release back into the public, and then release them with a future court date. Once word gets around about such goings on, it tends to deter independent thinking among the rest of the sheep.
Now, the charges might all very well be dropped at that "future court date" I mention above, but the arrests and subsequent ordeal will have a material impact on the behavior of the rest of the herd, over the duration.
And no, I am not advocating what a great idea that I think that would all be. I'm just outlining a scenario that could be used to suspend personal freedom
charlie hebdo Euclid At the least, it appears that China is negligent for withholding information about the onset of the virus and also for going ahead with their massive new year celebration which had many people traveling in and out of China. It remains to be seen if and how China will be held accountable for the international disaster. I suspect there will be new shoes to drop with this issue. The US knew about the viral outbreak in Wuhan early in January, if not earlier. Yet only a quasi-ban on entry from China and later Europe and the UK were the inadequate responses. The negligence by this federal administration until late March is the largest factor in our partly avoidable disaster occuring.
Euclid At the least, it appears that China is negligent for withholding information about the onset of the virus and also for going ahead with their massive new year celebration which had many people traveling in and out of China. It remains to be seen if and how China will be held accountable for the international disaster. I suspect there will be new shoes to drop with this issue.
daveklepper thanks. Possibly the Wuhan Market was involved in the original person-to-person contact.
thanks.
Possibly the Wuhan Market was involved in the original person-to-person contact.
EuclidAt the least, it appears that China is negligent for withholding information about the onset of the virus and also for going ahead with their massive new year celebration which had many people traveling in and out of China. It remains to be seen if and how China will be held accountable for the international disaster. I suspect there will be new shoes to drop with this issue.
CMStPnP Convicted One "Home Quarantine"?...is that a supervised and enforced sort of thing, or is that based upon some form of honor system? Freedom of movement by individuals is guaranteed under the UN Charter and there are no exceptions to it. So if the country is a UN member or has signed the Charter they cannot restrict an individuals movement legally. Pretty sure the Constitution has a similar provision somewhere.
Convicted One "Home Quarantine"?...is that a supervised and enforced sort of thing, or is that based upon some form of honor system?
Freedom of movement by individuals is guaranteed under the UN Charter and there are no exceptions to it. So if the country is a UN member or has signed the Charter they cannot restrict an individuals movement legally. Pretty sure the Constitution has a similar provision somewhere.
Sounds like you want to be a 'Free Inhabitant'. That was in the Articles of Confederation and plenty of lulus think they can say they're free inhabitants and so can go anywhere without observing any of the usual 'constraints' that go with American citizenship.
Didn't Russia sign the UN Charter? Seems to me internal travel in that country, in many of the years they were signatory, was not exactly open and not exactly unrestrained. And I suspect you'd have had a date with someone like Batitsky if you tried to prove your rights to free movement ... even before other conditions of local security came into play.
Under our Constitution the government can only legally suspend individual rights under a declaration of war. The current state of emergency falls short in that respect and regardless of any health emergency (never challenged but should be to SCOTUS), the government can only issue recommendations.
Under our Constitution many principles are reserved to the 'several States' and not subject to Federal override. Absent, as noted, a directed appeal to the Supreme Court and a precedent-establishing decision there, expansion into traditional state jurisdiction is not likely.
It's possible that, as with 'civil rights' against the long perversion of separate-but-equal laws in many places in America (not just in the South), if there's enough public reaction against 'principled' refusal to help reduce viral spread, Congress will enact (and override a veto if necessary) legislation that gives explicit authority in 'critical health emergencies'. I suspect, though, that there are already carefully-crafted weasel words (Carter's term, although I wish it were mine) in places like FEMA legislation that give agencies of that type 'enforcement powers' in emergency situations of carefully undefined nature.
As Dave initially pointed out, both the shelter-in-place and the social distancing are practically governed by an individual honor system. Whether you're sick or not, you distance based on precaution. Of course, there's practice that's effective, and there's practice that's feel-good or just plain wrong -- and I suspect that no law, enforceable or not, would have 100% effective procedure in it.
The big thing that is missing, and that is in itself even more problematic, is the part of social distancing that reduces talking. As soon as the "experts" got their heads out of their butts arguing about the gum vs. candy transmission of the common cold (and realized it's both methods together likely causing the bulk of infections) the control of talking 'at' people or surfaces, and subsequent contact transfer either through 'fomite contamination' or not, became a significant part of practical 'distancing' procedure ... assuming the idea is to distance yourself from potential viral infection, and not just 'six feet of separation' in some Talmudic-style interpretation of a natural phenomenon.
Of course you can't ban 'freedom to speak' especially when none of the classical Holmesian conditions (e.g., fire in the crowded theatre) are present. On the other hand, NYC and other places didn't hesitate to impose 'spitting' restrictions around the time of the 1918 influenza and those stayed in full effect many decades later, and unmuffled coughing/sneezing or other projectile emission (as from the vents in most practical N95 masks) could just as easily be understood as dangerous to the 'public weal' and made, well, as illegal as jaywalking. Nontrivial research indicates that actual infectious-droplet ejection can go as far as 21 feet horizontally in coughing or sneezing; I think it is likely that breath humidity (especially in early stages of COVID-19 symptomatology) may go considerable distance.
So -- for you take-home-message people -- don't talk in public and keep your mouth carefully shut as much as possible; if you talk to people keep your head down and ideally have something in the line of air coming out of your mouth to capture or absorb moisture. Don't face someone and converse back and forth, no matter how strange that may feel when you do it.
And when talking on your glass phone, sanitize it before you start punching buttons or controls on it. Better yet get a handsfree that works inside the right kind of over-mask bandanna... and keep sanitizing the glass when you go to push buttons.
The "orders" to wear a mask in public are probably legally problematic.
Especially when much of the actual 'effect' can be achieved by other means. Note that the specific form of the mask is important, and that a great many of the 'popular' mask solutions are no better than the beak type packed with sweet smellin' stuff that was supposed to help against 'malaria'. "Mandating" only that you have some damn thing over your face is ... well, it's sure proof you were using the compulsory power to Do Something, but that's more in the Stalinist/fascist sense, like requiring all the copper from indoor plumbing to facilitate rural electrification.
The "orders " against public protest if they exist and are worded as such are all illegal.
Of course, use of excess force by authorities to break up 'illegal' protests is a well-understood thing, too, as is an interpretation of statutory immunity against the kindly folks who brought that force to bear on you. If you wonder why so many of the civil-rights protests resulted in mass arrests, followed by some period of incarceration (and the associated 'accidents while in custody' that sometimes result) everyone got 'set free' ... well, now you get the idea, right?
... the fine cannot be so onerous in that it has the effect of prohibiting public protest vs deterring it.
The very easy answer to this is to ramp up the "court-cost" part of action against some easily-isolated facets of public protesting ... and then to offer convenient plea-bargains just before "trial" to settle without permanent-record charges -- 'for costs'.
Depends largely on whether voters care to run out civil-service-protected line and staff that set this system up and love inflicting it on people who are assumed guilty as soon as they appear in the line. Much like folks in the California welfare system ... but I digress.
Can't outlaw spontaneous protests either.
Ah, yes. I was going over amendments with my daughter yesterday in preparation for the AP exam. "Right to peaceably assemble ... shall not be infringed".
But at what point does a spontaneous 'demonstration' turn into a presumptive riot? Bet it depends on someone's expedient judgment call ... or on some clever agitation from one side or another that facilitates such a judgment call. And out come the blackshirt tactics...
... local governments have the right to close a business because it is licensed locally for operation and all they need to do is suspend the license to operate.
Gee, I guess they'd better give you back your license fee if they do that. And make themselves available for subrogation when the business-interruption insurance people come calling...
So the closing of any type of business within a city or state is legal and can be done via health department order, occupancy permit by FD, etc.
Of course, you'd have to prove the existence of actual health risk, fire risk, or other problem. And you'd have to provide some reasonable mechanism for the business to 'cure breach' and not just terminate them sine die. (I will add that to the extent any government possesses even the acting power to summarily close businesses, or even abuse strict scrutiny to 'screw' business the Government doesn't like, it's in my opinion overtly anti-American. But when did ethics truly regulate Jacksonian-style government?)
I believe if it is government order and no fault of the business the government has to compensate the business...
This gets rather quickly into the associated discussion of unfunded mandates. Government has no such obligation, and in many cases I'll bet there is statutory language that carefully (if arcanely) establishes a legally-sustainable basis for that. We're in the pickle we're in right now in no small part because government couldn't be bothered to build, staff, and maintain a system for rapid effective response in a pandemic, including one with the combination of spread, latency, and differential risk that COVID-19 poses. In my opinion the question we should be asking is 'what businesses do and don't need to be fully closed in order to have fair public safety' -- and, almost immediately, 'how do we make whole the people who had to sacrifice to give us that perceived safety'. But that involves giving money to people who might not have voted for you... not something most governments think they should have to do.
... I think that more than anything was why there is a reimbursement program of sorts......which is referred to as a stimulus.
There isn't enough 'money' effectively available in the government-accessible parts of the economy to 'reimburse' business for the losses in a global SIP order. Even before you get into discussions of the effect of 'velocity of money', including leverage on nominal tax receipts. In any case what you see is jiggered by various kinds of expedient agreement -- the PPP program is nominally much more for labor wages, and indirectly the interests of the property-renting 'class', than it is about either fair compensation or economic recovery.
"Stimulus" was a colossal failure after 2008, and it will almost certainly prove one again if 'tried in kind' after restrictions are eased. Considerations of debt forgiveness alone, even during the time it takes for a coherent 'economy' to redevelop and settle itself, are outside the ability of governments to mandate, and we've seen for many decades that 'bank-centric' economic policies don't favor any kind of small business, while enormous numbers of programs have assumed the ability to soak small businesses as though they were 'cash cows' without acknowledging the cumulative effect on the source -- much as government rules in trucking have effectively destroyed much of the ability to retain drivers, and government rules for employment have effectively destroyed participation by other than the politically expedient or temporary politically-correct in actual government employment.
Throwing money at restarting the economy is little different from forced orbits in other contexts, especially when the product of the effort is supposed to be noninflationary. We might as well have Bernie if we're going to provide 'trillions' in compensation ... especially if much of it disappears either as new private wealth or quickly into the hands and control of interests 'not particularly interested in middle-class recovery'.
It does remain to be seen what actions are taken to drive and shape 'recovery', but I have little hope that any agency in current government is capable of doing so in a workable, let alone fair, manner. That should change, and quickly, but not expediently.
daveklepper Are my conclusions correct? 1. Assuming the Coronavirus originated from bats, the bats were from elsewhere, not Wuhan. 2. Immunityi and/or cure for the present Coronavirus not mean the same wiould be applicable to another version that may be one the loose in the future. 3. The Wuhan market does have live creatures from many areas, not just the Wuhan area, so despite item 1, above, it still could have originatred in the Wuhan Market. 4. What is China itself going to do about such wet markets in its country in the future and/or about bats?
Are my conclusions correct?
1. Assuming the Coronavirus originated from bats, the bats were from elsewhere, not Wuhan.
2. Immunityi and/or cure for the present Coronavirus not mean the same wiould be applicable to another version that may be one the loose in the future.
3. The Wuhan market does have live creatures from many areas, not just the Wuhan area, so despite item 1, above, it still could have originatred in the Wuhan Market.
4. What is China itself going to do about such wet markets in its country in the future and/or about bats?
I do not know if your conclusions are correct. The news seems to have somewhat of a consensus that the virus came from a bat, but that the Wuhan wet market has never sold bats. So the wet market is no longer considered to be the source of the pandemic. Also, there is a theroy that the virus was accidentally released from the P4 lab near the wet market, and the release was accidental. This theory does not claim that the virus was created as a biological weapon. One report I saw claimed that China was researching the virus in the lab to find keys to developing a new vaccine.
Then there is another, less popular theory that after the virus was accidentally released in Wuhan, China intentionally facilitated the spread of the virus to the rest of the world to level the playing field for China to remain competitive in world manufacturing.
At the least, it appears that China is negligent for withholding information about the onset of the virus and also for going ahead with their massive new year celebration which had many people traveling in and out of China.
It remains to be seen if and how China will be held accountable for the international disaster. I suspect there will be new shoes to drop with this issue.
I am stil questioning my own conclusions from this research. Do others have a different take on what it means in practice?
The UN does not have the power of law. A good 2/3 of the member states violate UN rules on equal rights for women for one example. Even rules for which they voted in favor,
[quote user="Overmod"]
[quote user="charlie hebdo']On a more serious note:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2258702/[/quote]
It's always a joy to read well-thought-out science, with good premises and reasonable conclusions.
It also helps to note the authors and their affiliations, then note implicitly what was involved in getting this paper on the Internet.
(I'm sure there are some who will try to view this as a brick in some Chicom plot to wriggle out of 'responsibility' for engineering a bioweapon, but using well-written science is not the gerontocracy's MO.)
[/quote]
I figured you would appreciate the utility of real research. Sorry to be slow on the uptake, but the specific reference to the elderly escaped me.
Says our legal expert. Check on history. In earlier days, quarantines were not unusual in these United States. And not illegal. So were mass mandatory inoculations and mandatory physical exams at school.
Convicted One"Home Quarantine"?...is that a supervised and enforced sort of thing, or is that based upon some form of honor system?
My two cents....
The "orders " against public protest if they exist and are worded as such are all illegal. You can in cases of protest again via permit process fine an organization if they have an organized gathering above a specific number for a specific purpose but you cannot through those folks in jail and also the fine cannot be so onerous in that it has the effect of prohibiting public protest vs deterring it. Can't outlaw spontaneous protests either.
Now in regards to business, local governments have the right to close a business because it is licensed locally for operation and all they need to do is suspend the license to operate. So the closing of any type of business within a city or state is legal and can be done via health department order, occupancy permit by FD, etc. I believe if it is government order and no fault of the business the government has to compensate the business otherwise the court system views it negatively and I think that more than anything was why there is a reimbursement program of sorts......which is referred to as a stimulus.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.