Jump to content

The Coronavirus - a virus from eating bats, an accident or something sinister gone wrong?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

So your hypothetical takes place in the state of Illinois?

Ok. I would ignore such an order, depending on the situation at hand.  If I'm walking down an empty public sidewalk in say, Greenfield Illinois, I will not be wearing a mask.  However if my favorite watering hole has a "no masks, no service" sign on the door I may decide to wear one in order to give the proprietor my business.

 

Good to hear, but that’s not the question I asked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Says the guy who rarely types 140 characters of his own.

When you start your response with a dictatorial ultimatum, then it's no use trying to have a rational discussion with you.  The late Tim Adams would be so proud of you.  

We can agree on something (mark your calendars everyone - BO & SF agreed) However - The bigger story should be how these poor career politicians accumulate so much money.......#termlimits

Posted Images

17 hours ago, Irishman said:

So we are just completely ignoring the OBVIOUS major faux pas in the restroom urinal rules???? 

For those who don’t know.

Tricky Situations

xwww-brocode-org_13501620612.png.pagespe

All empty, as mentioned above you consider those who may enter after you, so you go for urinal 1 or 6.

xwww-brocode-org_1350162061.png.pagespee

Here you have 2 inconsiderate assholes taking 2 middle urinals, leaving you the only option of urinal 6.

xwww-brocode-org_13501620611.png.pagespe

Here you have a considerate Bro, ideally you want urinal 6, but urinal 5 is acceptable with good reason, like the urinal being next to the main door, or next to the sinks manned by an overly observational toilet attendant.

xwww-brocode-org_1350162062.png.pagespee

In this situation you have 3 guys nicely spaced out, urinal 2 is being inconsiderate, but you take urinal 1 and turn your back slightly to gain more privacy.

xwww-brocode-org_13501620621.png.pagespe

Some of you may look at this one and think "surely it's urinal 1", but you are mistaken. Urinal 1 and 3 couples you with the guy at urinal 2. You go for urinal 4 and stay with the pack.

xwww-brocode-org_13501620622.png.pagespe

In this situation, you wait or use a cubicle. If you need a piss that badly, you'll just have to man up and take the pain.

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Were COVID-19 Lockdowns Worth the Cost?

https://reason.com/2020/06/29/were-covid-19-lockdowns-worth-the-cost/

Quote

"More than four months into fighting the coronavirus in the United States," The New York Times says, "the shared sacrifice of millions of Americans suspending their lives—with jobs lost, businesses shuttered, daily routines upended—has not been enough to beat back a virus whose staying power around the world is only still being grasped." Most Americans, regardless of their views about the lockdowns that the vast majority of states imposed in response to the epidemic, probably would concur with that conclusion. But did the lockdowns fail because they were imposed too late and lifted too soon, or did they fail because they were fundamentally misconceived? On that question there is much disagreement.

Prior to last spring, the idea that the mass quarantine of overwhelmingly healthy, noninfectious people was an appropriate response to a viral epidemic would have struck most of us as highly implausible. During the "Spanish flu" epidemic of 1918, which was far more deadly than COVID-19 has proven to be, many American cities banned large public gatherings, closed schools, and shut down businesses, such as movie theaters and pool halls, where people gathered indoors in close proximity to each other. But the restrictions of that era were not nearly as pervasive or as broad as the measures implemented in response to COVID-19, which closed all but a select few businesses and confined hundreds of millions of people to their homes except for government-approved purposes.

Those orders, which entailed enormous economic and social costs, were clearly unsustainable over the long term. And once they were lifted, we were bound to face the challenge that confronts us now: how to deal with a virus that poses a negligible risk to most of the population but a serious risk to many people with preexisting medical conditions, a virus that people often carry without realizing it because it can be transmitted before symptoms appear, when symptoms are so mild that they cause little concern, or when symptoms never show up at all.

Lockdown advocates understood that the virus would still be with us after the sweeping restrictions on movement and economic activity were removed. But they argued that lockdowns would prevent local health systems from being overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients, which would endanger not only their lives but the lives of people with other illnesses. That was a scary prospect, although it was probably exaggerated even in places that were hit especially hard by the epidemic. New York City, for example, ended up with more ventilators and hospital capacity than it actually needed.

Even if lockdowns merely delayed COVID-19 cases rather than actually preventing them, supporters of the policy also said, the restrictions would buy time for treatments that could make the disease less deadly. If you knew that you were going to catch the virus at some point, Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary asked during a recent Soho Forum debate, wouldn't you rather get it later in the epidemic, after doctors had a chance to figure out which treatments worked best? That strikes me as a pretty good argument, although the benefit Makary imagines has to be balanced against the medical cost of restrictions that delayed potentially lifesaving diagnosis and treatment of other diseases.

Lockdown supporters also emphasized that slowing transmission of the virus would buy time to develop the testing capacity required to identify carriers, trace their contacts, and quarantine them. We missed that opportunity early in the epidemic, thanks largely to a government-engineered testing fiasco. Having learned from that mistake, it was thought, states could use the breathing space provided by lockdowns to expand their testing and tracing capabilities. But as the Times notes, even states that were relatively well-prepared on that score are doing a pretty pitiful job of testing and tracing, a mission that seems daunting given the enormous gap between total infections and confirmed cases.

All of these arguments assumed that lockdowns would have enough of an impact on virus transmission to justify the huge burdens they imposed. But it is by no means clear that they did.

...

The evidence suggests that Americans initially changed their behavior in striking ways, then recalibrated their reaction as it became clear that we would be living with this virus for a long time. Many people—especially those whose own risk of dying from COVID-19 is very low—probably would have become increasingly impatient with pandemic-inspired limits on their lives even if politicians had never deprived them of their livelihoods and ordered them to stay home. But the bitter experience with sweeping and frequently arbitrary government-imposed restrictions seems to have left many Americans less willing to take even relatively modest precautions.

"There was 'real hubris' on the part of public health officials at the very start," the Times says, quoting Vanderbilt University infectious disease specialist William Schaffner. Those officials, according to the Times, believed "the United States could lock down and contain the virus as China had," and "that futile hope helped create an unrealistic expectation that the shutdown, while intense, would not be for long, and that when it was lifted life would return to normal."

Now that we have emerged from lockdowns with no real confidence that they actually reduced the ultimate death toll, many people are understandably asking what the point was. "Many Americans started in the pandemic with a strong feeling of solidarity, not unlike the days after Sept. 11, 2001," the Times observes. "They closed their businesses, stayed inside, made masks and wiped down their groceries. In a country often riven by politics, polls showed broad agreement that shutting down was the right thing to do. But months of mixed messages have left many exhausted and wondering how much of what they did was worth it."

They are right to wonder.

I don't have to wonder about it.  IMO the lockdown was not worth it.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Were COVID-19 Lockdowns Worth the Cost?

https://reason.com/2020/06/29/were-covid-19-lockdowns-worth-the-cost/

I don't have to wonder about it.  IMO the lockdown was not worth it.

 

The lockdown definitely was not worth it. I stated in the early pages of this thread "Even if the coronavirus is here to stay, society will return to normal. It is inevitable and common sense".

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I will be interested to see what @DannEllenwood has to say on the subject. He’s the one to whom I posed the original question.

Against mandatory vaccines. Does that answer your question?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DannEllenwood said:

Against mandatory vaccines. Does that answer your question?

My question actually was whether you had kids that were vaccinated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Bobref said:

My question actually was whether you had kids that were vaccinated.

Gotcha

Link to post
Share on other sites

In case there is any question about the power of the government to order masking, that’s been settled for over a hundred years. The SCOTUS case upholding a Massachusetts compulsory vaccination law is Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905):

“The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.

It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh-oh.

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-travel-order-emergency-quarantine-update/6294458/

SHARE:

CHICAGO (WLS) -- Anyone traveling to Chicago from states that have seen a surge in COVID-19 cases will have to self-quarantine for two weeks, starting Monday.

The order takes effect on Monday, July 6, for travelers from the following states:
-Alabama
-Arkansas
-Arizona
-California
-Florida
-Georgia
-Idaho

-Louisiana
-Mississippi
-North Carolina
-Nevada
-South Carolina
-Tennessee
-Texas
-Utah

Chicago leaders announced the order on Thursday.

"These are states that are seeing new cases of COVID at the rate we were seeing here in Chicago and Illinois back when we were under our stay-at-home order," said Chicago Department of Public Health Commissioner Dr. Allison Arwady.

There are exceptions to the order, including essential work and medical travel.

WATCH: Chicago's top doctor discusses potential travel order 

Those traveling into Chicago from other states will not yet be required to quarantine themselves, Dr. Allison Arwady said Wednesday.

Speaking to ABC7 on Wednesday, Chicago's public health commissioner hinted this could be coming.

"We've been looking at other states that have done this," Dr. Allison Arwady said. "We definitely are considering it, I would say considering it strongly. It's important if we're thinking of doing this that we're doing this to do it in a way that's consistent as it can be I think with other places that have made that decision."

According to the Chicago Department of Public Health, the states designated in the travel order have a significant degree of community-wide spread of COVID-19. A state will be designated if it has a case rate greater than 15 new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 resident population, per day, over a 7-day rolling average.

Essential workers who must travel to Chicago must provide a certified note from their employer so that it can be reviewed by the health department and Chicago police. Essential workers will be subject to requirements that include limiting their activities to work-related activities and avoiding public spaces as much as possible.

Non-essential business travelers are also required to comply. Exceptions to the order for personal travel will be permitted for medical care and parental shared custody.

Back in May, Chicago health officials reported more than 1,000 cases and 50 deaths per day. Now the city is seeing well under 200 cases and about eight deaths per day.

For Aurora resident Kim Schulz, she said even though the order doesn't apply to her family's upcoming Florida trip, they plan to minimize their exposure when they come back for the safety of others.

"I think that we'll probably be a little bit more cautious, plus I have grand babies so you know, we got to be really careful around them too," Schulz said.

WATCH: Illinois COVID-19 cases flattening as other states see surges

To avoid an uptick like other states, Illinois and Chicago health officials warn that it's really a matter of personal responsibility, rather than policy, right now.


The president of the Illinois Restaurant Association is optimistic business won't immediately suffer.

"Our neighboring states are not on the list," said Sam Toia, president and CEO of the Illinois Restaurant Association. "If our neighboring states do get put on the list, it could make it a little tougher for the hospitality industry here in the city of Chicago."

If family and friends are coming to visit, family members who did not travel from a designated state are not required to self-quarantine.

"If people are coming to visit you from Chicago, you really want to make them aware of this," said Clint Henderson, a travel expert and senior news editor for The Points Guy. "The airlines and hotels have been very flexible in the age of coronavirus, so have them call their airline, have them call their hotel and ask them what their policies are. Most of the time they are able to get their money back if they have to cancel their trip."

The order will remain in effect until further notice. The city said that individuals found in violation of the quarantine order are subject to fines of $100 - $500 per day, up to $7,000.

You can read the full emergency travel order and find frequently asked questions about the order on the Chicago Department of Public Health website.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Uh-oh.

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-travel-order-emergency-quarantine-update/6294458/

SHARE:

CHICAGO (WLS) -- Anyone traveling to Chicago from states that have seen a surge in COVID-19 cases will have to self-quarantine for two weeks, starting Monday.

The order takes effect on Monday, July 6, for travelers from the following states:
-Alabama
-Arkansas
-Arizona
-California
-Florida
-Georgia
-Idaho

-Louisiana
-Mississippi
-North Carolina
-Nevada
-South Carolina
-Tennessee
-Texas
-Utah

Chicago leaders announced the order on Thursday.

"These are states that are seeing new cases of COVID at the rate we were seeing here in Chicago and Illinois back when we were under our stay-at-home order," said Chicago Department of Public Health Commissioner Dr. Allison Arwady.

There are exceptions to the order, including essential work and medical travel.

WATCH: Chicago's top doctor discusses potential travel order 

Those traveling into Chicago from other states will not yet be required to quarantine themselves, Dr. Allison Arwady said Wednesday.

Speaking to ABC7 on Wednesday, Chicago's public health commissioner hinted this could be coming.

"We've been looking at other states that have done this," Dr. Allison Arwady said. "We definitely are considering it, I would say considering it strongly. It's important if we're thinking of doing this that we're doing this to do it in a way that's consistent as it can be I think with other places that have made that decision."

According to the Chicago Department of Public Health, the states designated in the travel order have a significant degree of community-wide spread of COVID-19. A state will be designated if it has a case rate greater than 15 new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 resident population, per day, over a 7-day rolling average.

Essential workers who must travel to Chicago must provide a certified note from their employer so that it can be reviewed by the health department and Chicago police. Essential workers will be subject to requirements that include limiting their activities to work-related activities and avoiding public spaces as much as possible.

Non-essential business travelers are also required to comply. Exceptions to the order for personal travel will be permitted for medical care and parental shared custody.

Back in May, Chicago health officials reported more than 1,000 cases and 50 deaths per day. Now the city is seeing well under 200 cases and about eight deaths per day.

For Aurora resident Kim Schulz, she said even though the order doesn't apply to her family's upcoming Florida trip, they plan to minimize their exposure when they come back for the safety of others.

"I think that we'll probably be a little bit more cautious, plus I have grand babies so you know, we got to be really careful around them too," Schulz said.

WATCH: Illinois COVID-19 cases flattening as other states see surges

To avoid an uptick like other states, Illinois and Chicago health officials warn that it's really a matter of personal responsibility, rather than policy, right now.


The president of the Illinois Restaurant Association is optimistic business won't immediately suffer.

"Our neighboring states are not on the list," said Sam Toia, president and CEO of the Illinois Restaurant Association. "If our neighboring states do get put on the list, it could make it a little tougher for the hospitality industry here in the city of Chicago."

If family and friends are coming to visit, family members who did not travel from a designated state are not required to self-quarantine.

"If people are coming to visit you from Chicago, you really want to make them aware of this," said Clint Henderson, a travel expert and senior news editor for The Points Guy. "The airlines and hotels have been very flexible in the age of coronavirus, so have them call their airline, have them call their hotel and ask them what their policies are. Most of the time they are able to get their money back if they have to cancel their trip."

The order will remain in effect until further notice. The city said that individuals found in violation of the quarantine order are subject to fines of $100 - $500 per day, up to $7,000.

You can read the full emergency travel order and find frequently asked questions about the order on the Chicago Department of Public Health website.

Remember when the stay at home order was sold as a way to prevent overcrowding of hospitals?

I do, barely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Temptation said:

Remember when the stay at home order was sold as a way to prevent overcrowding of hospitals?

I do, barely.

That was a worthy objective. But it’s not the only one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bobref said:

That was a worthy objective. But it’s not the only one.

It should be.  Look at the data.  More testing = more cases.  More people in the under 50 age range being infected and recovering with no complications.  Death rate down 10 consecutive weeks.

Protect the elderly/vulnerable, be smart, spread it out.

Pretty simple honestly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bobref said:

That was a worthy objective. But it’s not the only one.

We know. The real objective is to destroy the economy for political gain. We also know you are in full support of the lockdowns.

Fifteen days to flatten the curve was always a hoax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...