We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, April 24. 2020
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
To my estimation, America hasnot been well served by the CDC, Dr. Fauci and most importantly by the media.
If anything good comes of it, perhaps seeing the end of the WHO is an unexpected benefit.
Governors and mayors, galore, have shown their true colors as enemies of America and tyrants without any legitimate purpose.
"America has not been well served by the CDC" is a gross understatement. They are the arm of the government that is supposed to protect us from pandemics just like. The tests they were supposed to provide not only didn't work but they infected some people with Wuhan virus. They latched on to IHME models at the detriment of us all.
They probably do perform a useful service though...
My biggest concern over government entities botching their job is that likely not a single individual will be held accountable and they are more likely to get bonuses. Of course they will also need more useless new hires to enforce and expand the mission.
Some interesting news and good science on mask effectiveness coming out of Northeastern University
Assessment of Fabric Masks as Alternatives to Standard Surgical Masks in Terms of Particle Filtration Efficiency
That doesn't make him wrong, but it should give one pause. He is operating outside his area of expertise.
The focus on what percentage of people are dying is misguided. We do not apply that to other new problems. What percentage of Americans die in war? So, no problem then, right? What percentage of Americans was killed in 9/11? What percentage of people die in car accidents? Drug overdoses? Shootings? So no problem right? We can just ignore those. You will notice that we never quote those statistics because we know they are not the real issue. Therefore, trying to use them now to make a point
A new disease that kills 50,000 people and still going is a very big deal. It doesn't happen very often. Additionally, that is 50,000 even with dramatic precautions. That government officials have not covered themselves in glory is not surprising. However, it doesn't mean that it's a free-for-all, with everyone's opinion being equally valid.
Relaxing restrictions may indeed be a safe and wise thing to do. But articles like this don't provide evidence for that.
A couple of things. Diseases are here, and in many cases there is only so much that can be done period. Gutting the economy won't save these victims, even the UN is now suggesting that the deaths from poverty and starvation caused by the economic crash will greatly outnumber deaths from the disease.
[Side thought: that 50K or whatever may turn out to not be all additional deaths... these are the same categories that comprise most of the flu deaths.... these two diseases by wind up being in 'competition' for the same set of victims.]
The big issue is that we've learned that the virus is very widespread in the population (possibly over 30 million). Models were designed around a small number of infection sources where this level of isolation would slow the spread. Instead, at our current level the 'partial lockdown' is completely useless. You may encounter somewhat fewer infection sources numericaly, but still will encounter plenty. So this is NOT significantly reducing the chances of infection, 10 people can infect me just the same as 50. We are killing the country and likely saving almost no one
You are making AVI's case for him. For whatever reason many have chosen to downplay this disease and it's effects. Things like "A new study shows the death rate is so bad" or "A lot of these deaths may not be covid-19" or my favorite "Most of these deaths were old people and they were gonna die anyway". This is all so transparent. This disease is relentless. It kills a cupule thousand every day and the total deaths double every 8-9 days. And we get reports that the hospitalization rate has dropped 2%, whoop, whoop! Also it seems every time the NY Governor claims the number of deaths decline in NY City they hit a new high.
There have been an entire flu years worth of deaths from covid-19 in just the last 20 days and you will still hear people say "this isn't as bad as the yearly flu". This virus has been more or less kept to a few cities that were infected before the shutdown/quarantine began and that is great news. But once we open up again it will spread inexorably to the rest of the country. No place may record the deaths that NY City suffered but they will all get their share. This virus and the death it caused will NOT be stopped by desperately searching for some statistic or way to define it that minimizes it's effects. Before this is done it could well kill 250,000 Americans.
There is only so much that can be done? Really? Where does that idea come from?
BTW, note to all readers for future reference: whenever someone ends their sentence by saying "period" it very rarely turns out to be something that is unassailably true. More often, it is something they just think, can't find a logical argument for, and want to shut off debate with verbal intimidation.
In the poorest sections of the world, increased poverty and hunger may indeed kill as many people or more. But those are poverty and hunger at a different level. That has nothing to do with America. No one here is going to starve. It's amazing sometimes that the people worried about the disease are the ones called the fearmongers...
Not additional deaths...yes, but other deaths will later come to be ruled as C19. People dying at home are largely not being counted as C19, even in America where we do a better job of that. You are just trying to talk yourself into the idea that this isn't so bad by grasping at straws.
Your last paragraph: Viral load seems to matter a great deal. See NYC. See Mardi Gras. See hospital and nursing home staff. Partial lockdown absolutely does reduce chances of infection, and has. Whether that is worth it in view of the economic damage is a different calculation. But people in favor of opening up aren't going to convince anyone when their science and reasoning are this bad.
The focus on what percentage of people are dying is misguided. We do not apply that to other new problems.
Au contraire. I've been hearing the phrase, "if it only saves one life" my entire life. It is the go to phrase for any number of new laws: Why do we have seatbelt laws? Helmet laws? Bans on smoking cigarettes? We have to raise the drinking age, to save one life. And on and on. Nobble as it is to save all these lives, how many did we save? Is the loss of liberty no concern? The loss of economic security? Life has risks. Wuhan Flu poses an increased risk, for sure. I think it quickly became a political opportunity.
Modern government is incapable of honesty. Experts have a near god like presence for many on the left, especially those in the media. The State is their source of inspiration and hope. Therefor the experts, most being lefties themselves, fall into the trap of actin like gods. The actual truth is left in tatters. The science takes a beating; more lies and propaganda; experts like the limelight. What is left is confusion and low levels of trust.
The problem you describe does not support your conclusion. In our world there are a million people commenting on any particular issue. Companies have been sued because some 2nd level engineer wrote a memo and in court the lawyers make it appear that the company knew this or that when in fact it wasn't true. The thousand other memos which took an opposing view aren't even brought up. In politics, as with an human endeavor, different people differ. Some may be right some may be wrong often the person who is right is right for the wrong reasons and vice versa. But whenever someone wants to prop up their opinion OR to sue in court, they cherry pick what was said, who said it, when it was said, etc. but scrupulously and intentionally ignore and even cover up all those who differed.
Simply doing a data dredge for comments that agree with you is not proof, not science and not honest. It is the way of the world but it invites disagreement. IF you have a valid point use only valid data to make your point. Then you might well convince skeptics to see some value in what you say.
As for the virus, we are in the early days of this scourge. It will take 18 months before we know what is true. It is going to kill a lot of people and make these arguments that "it ain't so bad" seem incredibly stupid. It's going to change how we manage hospitals, conduct normal medical care, use nursing homes and cruise ships, and affect our lives in other ways we cannot know just yet. This virus is a game changer and it will change our lives forever in both subtle and important ways. Once the courts and public opinion is through with this people might go to jail (I'm thinking of the geniuses who forced nursing homes to take in people sick with covid-19). It is a mistake to make absolute decisions and pronouncements at this early date. Wait 18 months and this will all look different to everyone.
Wait. What? I'm arguing that there is no trust, and lots of confusion. You accuse me of doing a data dredge of comments, and being dishonest. What? So there is no confusion about what the experts, and politicians are telling us? Everyone of them is honest?
Is is dishonest to point out that the experts and their models told us that there would be hundreds of thousands of deaths, even with mass quarantine? These same experts told us about a shortage of ventilators? There never was a mass shortage of ventilators. There never was a shortage of hospital beds.
Talk about being dishonest: I specifically said the Wuhan Flu poses an increased risk. Maybe I should have said the politically correct term: COVID-19.
By the way, I am by no means trying to argue that we shouldn't take this virus seriously. I don't have any trust in what the media and politicians are telling me.
If the argument today was scientific and not power and politics his would be a good one.