Coronavirus. Not to be confused with Norcovirus.

Status
Not open for further replies.
pperrelle said:
I posted my plan earlier in the thread. It’s likely buried now. Can’t recall if you ever posted yours?
Click to expand...
Thank you. I did about 30 pages ago, but not super detailed. Just referring to opening up gradually with reasonable restrictions when we have the resources in place to test, prevent and treat the disease. A lot has progressed since then.

But I am not one of the many on this thread trying to equivocate this as just another thing in life. If you are going to minimize it and claim there is no more risk than anything else in life, despite what has actually happened and is continuing to happen, then you are compelled to explain what we should do instead. I happen to think that the measures that were taken prevented a repeat of NY in a thousand other locations. So now the logical fallacy is "see, it's not bad and we didn't need to do anything." So let's move forward. I think it's healthy to hear what people think we should do, rather than repeating the endless arguments about how it's a hoax or a big nothing burger.

I am also in favor of the face-mask bikini. That should be encouraged. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Runs with Scissors said:
The idea that the "state" has the ability to lock us down is abhorrent. Most of us aren't so stupid that we can't process the information being presented.
Click to expand...
I totally get that you don’t like it. That doesn’t make the state of California’s police power unreal. I pasted relevant excerpt and a link below:

In 1824, the Supreme Court observed in Gibbons v. Ogden that sovereign state authority includes the authority to enact “quarantine laws” and “health laws of every description.” Think of it like this: Just as the president and the federal government act at the peak of their powers when national security is threatened, America’s governors are often at the peak of their power when public health is at stake.

Thus, as AEI’s Jay Cost noted in an excellent Twitter thread on police power vs. enumerated power, a governor backed by a state legislature has “the sovereign power to make you go home if you are a menace to ‘public health.’” President Trump, he notes, does not have that power. Thus, governors have broad latitude to order curfews, close businesses, and limit public gatherings.

https://thedispatch.com/p/the-police-power-of-the-states-to

tons more good info at the link
 
tick said:
I totally get that you don’t like it. That doesn’t make the state of California’s police power unreal. I pasted relevant excerpt and a link below:

In 1824, the Supreme Court observed in Gibbons v. Ogden that sovereign state authority includes the authority to enact “quarantine laws” and “health laws of every description.” Think of it like this: Just as the president and the federal government act at the peak of their powers when national security is threatened, America’s governors are often at the peak of their power when public health is at stake.

Thus, as AEI’s Jay Cost noted in an excellent Twitter thread on police power vs. enumerated power, a governor backed by a state legislature has “the sovereign power to make you go home if you are a menace to ‘public health.’” President Trump, he notes, does not have that power. Thus, governors have broad latitude to order curfews, close businesses, and limit public gatherings.

https://thedispatch.com/p/the-police-power-of-the-states-to

tons more good info at the link
Click to expand...

Yeah, I knew that. And as much as it may bother you, the people have the ability to tell their government to go pound sand when it overreaches what we'll allow. Doesn't really matter what the courts, or the legislature, or anyone else has to say about it.

That's where you're headed with the above cites.
 
Runs with Scissors said:
Yeah, I knew that. And as much as it may bother you, the people have the ability to tell their government to go pound sand when it overreaches what we'll allow. Doesn't really matter what the courts, or the legislature, or anyone else has to say about it.

That's where you're headed with the above cites.
Click to expand...
As long as you’re cool with prison time, do whatever you like, my man...
 
tick said:
As long as you’re cool with prison time, do whatever you like, my man...
Click to expand...

See Louis XVI as an example. There are plenty of others, if you need them.

Just to be clear, if you haven't figured out what is worth dying for - what limits you will not accept, no matter what - then you have a long way to go as a free citizen of this country.

I would cite my enlistment oath but it would be lost on you.
 
Last edited:
The Glentis Family threshold is when mamas can take the kids and visit her mom, who is caring for her mom. Then the shuttle ride leash grows 2, maybe 3 inches.
 
Runs with Scissors said:
See Louis XIV as an example. There are plenty of others, if you need them.
Click to expand...
Waco, Jonestown
Runs with Scissors said:
See Louis XVI as an example. There are plenty of others, if you need them.

Just to be clear, if you haven't figured out what is worth dying for - what limits you will not accept, no matter what - then you have a long way to go as a free citizen of this country.

I would cite my enlistment oath but it would be lost on you.
Click to expand...
You might be surprised by that enlistment oath thing.

if you’re willing to die for your right to walk on the beach during a global pandemic, I don’t have any words that would convince you otherwise. I’m pretty sure I couldn’t even convince you of something obvious to the most casual observer—the Floop isn’t a real mountain bike trail, and everybody knows it...
 
The first couple of weeks I was a little afraid of what was going on and I was being about as careful as I could considering my job. Wearing a mask entering businesses and constantly washing and sanitizing hands. So much so that my hands were dry and raw at the end of each week. The second couple of weeks I wasn't as diligent and the fear factor was going away. Still wearing a mask in the businesses that required it but fewer hand washings and sanitizing. The last few weeks, aside from the extraordinary amount of work for this time of year, it's pretty much back to normal for me. No more fear factor, I've left my hand sanitizer at home and I'm not afraid of eating my apples without washing my hands. I think for the most part we have a handle on this and it's time to start opening things back up. Not sure exactly how to do that but it needs to happen soon.
 
I'm trying to do my part to contain the virus but I too have relaxed a bit. We are not wearing masks for our walks through the park but I/we always wear a mask(s) in contained areas. I was washing my hands like a crazy man in the beginning but not as much now although I do still wash them an awful lot. I wear a mask in all but one of my client's homes, and always at my business accounts. I have one client, a nurse, who says that I do not have to wear a mask or gloves as long as we keep distanced. With the exception of a few clients who are high risk, I do not wear gloves. It's difficult to work with them on.
 
At this point, even if we 100% opened everything tomorrow, there's enough of a curve and fear that nothing is going to be at 100%. It's already going to be a 'staged' opening by default. If they opened every dining room tomorrow, how many people are going to eat out? If the Angels played, how full would the stadium be?

If you're going to call out logical fallacies and try to hang your hat about full closures preventing outbreaks here, then to put it bluntly that's a bullshit argument as well. The reality is nobody will ever know. The 50 deaths in OC are statistically nothing. Even the measures we took we 'should' have had way more cases and deaths. Even though it was prudent to exercise some caution (IMO), we could have very well done nothing in OC and had the same results. Still waiting to hear how families choosing to go to the park or to the beach or bike or whatever else it may be infringes on other people's rights. You still have the right to stay home as you please. At this point in our society, you could never step foot outside of your house again if that's your comfort level. Amazon and Door Dash everything.
 
So elaborating a little on the caving, my wife invited her best friend over for dinner, I get home from a quick ride and they are in the back yard chatting, I hop in the shower, when I emerge I find her friend in our house! I’m like WTF!
My wife happens to have 8 auto immune diseases? They came out today and said we will continue to see new waves through the summer, I won’t be surprised because I’ll say it again, this can’t be done anymore. We did a good job in the beginning. It has always been survival of the fittest! We have to open up! People are going to make there own decisions, and are at this point.
 
Last edited:
We have already crossed the threshold of most people. People are visiting. Our neighborhood has plenty of cars on the weekends that aren’t here normally. People are starting to go about their daily business and not broadcast it. They just adhere to the ‘new social norms’ of masks and social distancing when required.
 
Capture (44).JPG


Lockdowns may not actually be that big of a factor. The populations age, health statis, frailty and vulnerability appear to be of greater importance.
Children under 15 almost no Covid19 deaths. 15 to 64 years of age, 1.1% normal mortality. 65+ years old account for 80% of the with Covid19 deaths, and almost half of those are 85 or older. Severe comorbidities, living in nursing homes where conditions might not be the best and I would like to add, living in heavily polluted areas contribute. Other factors could be added to the list.
 
tick said:
This is a very twisted understanding of liberty. You have many freedoms, but the freedom to infect me is not one of them.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. People infect each other all the time with diseases. Are you suggesting people should not be let out of their homes unless they can prove themselves free of all communicable pathogens? I think the issue here is knowingly present a risk to public safety. This is a unique situation where some people who carry this disease may be asymptomatic. There is no such thing as a real-time test, so we don't know (and people don't often know themselves) if they might be carrying the disease.

However there is a huge slippery slope here, because while we agree that the government has the power to curtail the rights of someone who IS a threat to public safety, the power to curtail the rights of someone who MIGHT BE a threat to public safety is much more nuanced and is usually determined on a case-by-case basis in a court of law with public oversight.

I can understand how, if someone has been sheltering in their home for four weeks, and then wants to go out to the grocery store to buy food, the government requirement to wear a mask in public might seem onerous, because in this case the individual KNOWS they don't have the illness... while the government cannot prove they represent a threat to public safety.

FWIW as of today, Costco requires you to wear a mask if you want to enter their stores. It is not to protect shoppers, it is to protect their employees. I don't have a problem with a private business requiring you to wear a mask, because I can chose whether or not I want to shop there.
 
Last edited:
BonsaiNut said:
Yes it is. People infect each other all the time with diseases. Are you suggesting people should not be let out of their homes unless they can prove themselves free of all communicable pathogens? I think the issue here is knowingly present a risk to public safety. This is a unique situation where some people who carry this disease may be asymptomatic. There is no such thing as a real-time test, so we don't know (and people don't often know themselves) if they might be carrying the disease.

However there is a huge slippery slope here, because while we agree that the government has the power to curtail the rights of someone who IS a threat to public safety, the power to curtail the rights of someone who MIGHT BE a threat to public safety is much more nuanced and is usually determined on a case-by-case basis in a court of law with public oversight.

I can understand how, if someone has been sheltering in their home for four weeks, and then wants to go out to the grocery store to buy food, the government requirement to wear a mask in public might seem onerous, because in this case the individual KNOWS they don't have the illness... while the government cannot prove they represent a threat to public safety.

FWIW as of today, Costco requires you to wear a mask if you want to enter their stores. It is not to protect shoppers, it is to protect their employees. I don't have a problem with a private business requiring you to wear a mask, because I can chose whether or not I want to shop there.
Click to expand...
If one person infected another person on purpose, it would be considered a crime. Remember the lady who was coughing and sneezing on the items in a grocery store way back in the beginning of all of this? She was eventually caught, arrested, and charged. Therefore, we do not have the freedom to infect another person, knowingly.
 
SnakeCharmer said:
If one person infected another person on purpose, it would be considered a crime. Remember the lady who was coughing and sneezing on the items in a grocery store way back in the beginning of all of this? She was eventually caught, arrested, and charged. Therefore, we do not have the freedom to infect another person, knowingly.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That is exactly my point. If someone knowingly gives someone else a disease. If you know you have AIDS, and then have unprotected sex, and your partner comes down with AIDS, you can be charged with a felony.

However is it fair for the government to imprison all homosexuals on the fear that they might have AIDS, and might therefore pass it on to someone else? I was responding to @tick 's comment suggesting that my freedoms can be curtailed any time the government thinks I might be sick... which, quite frankly, is ALL the time - unless I can somehow prove that I'm not sick.
 
According to this graph our collective behavior moving forward will have a big affect on the projected number of cases.
As long as we manage to maintain some social distancing in place we should be able to return to the "new normal" in the next few weeks without adversely effacing our health system.

I believe that most will adjust and refocus on the important thing in life (ourselves).

Screenshot (196).png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top