Covid 19 Updates Part 2

[James Clark]

Or you could choose A.  The President gets to choose, like it or not, and I know you don’t like it.  Did you read that Politico article I posted?  It appears quite even handed.

I did and it is, and yes, you CAN choose A.  But why risk lives to do so?

[hogloff]

I'm just amazed no one has used the "will anyone think of the children" line yet. 

And yes, I'm calling it ratting out, because that is exactly what it is.  Especially when it has become blatantly obvious nobody, even the experts, knows their ass from a whole in the ground on this thing.  Fauci told us this week that you cant trust models, but then insisted that we need to lockdown because of the models.  LOL, that made sense. 

I have read too many articles today on experts doubting their own models, yet we are expected to continue to follow this horse shit? 

And your analogy is not an apples to apples comparison.  Immediate threat to life is very different then some invisible virus that well over 99% of which will survive and over 50% will not have any symptoms, especially when not a single person anywhere in the world can give us any straight answers.

So you really think all this stuff is just horse shit. It will go away by Easter or magically like the flu. Are you an educated man...and if so in what. You seem to not trust any science...so who do you trust? Let's open up the beaches, walley world and just spin the wheel and see where it all falls out.

This continuous bitching about the science is getting a bit tiring. Why don't you go down to a hospital in NY right now and tell the people there putting their lives on the line , and yes a lot of medical people have died trying to save people like you, and tell them this whole effort is for nothing. Let's open things up and get back to normal.

Bitching about what's proposed is easy...coming up with an alternative with some facts behind it...well that's another issue.

Joe, let's hear out your view of what needs to be done so you can come out looking like a hero when only 100,000 are lost.

[JoeKitchen]

Every once in a very rare while I agree with Joe on something. Americans shouldn't rat each other out.

Thanks John. 

[hogloff]

The US Constitution gives sole authority to the president to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces.  So yes, he would not have to go to the states to ask for any permission to order the country's defense.  However, an act of war requires Congressional approval.  The US Congress declares war for the entire country.  Individual states can neither make war or even make treaties with other countries.  That is reserved for the Federal Government.  Individual states can take action if they are attacked however.  The second amendment of the US Constitution allows each state to have a militia made up of its state's residents who are also constitutionally allowed to bear arms for private protection and to defend their state and country.  The militia today is each state's National Guard and Reserve Units. The president can call up these units in an emergency.

Here's a picture of of the state of Michigan's Air National Guard warthogs (A-10 Thunderbolts) getting reading for deployment to Afghanistan.  Notice the MI on the tail wing.  It stands for Michigan. 
https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/09/09/selfridge-airmen-prepare-for-afghanistan-deployment/

Well the USA is under attack like never before.

[hogloff]

His control is over Federal assets.  Not States assets. 

The internet has this amazing thing called “search”...it amazing what you can find there about Federal powers.

https://legal-planet.org/2020/03/18/presidential-power-in-a-pandemic/

https://reason.com/2020/03/18/police-powers-during-a-pandemic-constitutional-but-not-unlimited/

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-emergency-powers-and-their-use

So a lame duck then.

[JoeKitchen]

So you really think all this stuff is just horse shit. It will go away by Easter or magically like the flu. Are you an educated man...and if so in what. You seem to not trust any science...so who do you trust? Let's open up the beaches, walley world and just spin the wheel and see where it all falls out.

This continuous bitching about the science is getting a bit tiring. Why don't you go down to a hospital in NY right now and tell the people there putting their lives on the line , and yes a lot of medical people have died trying to save people like you, and tell them this whole effort is for nothing. Let's open things up and get back to normal.

Bitching about what's proposed is easy...coming up with an alternative with some facts behind it...well that's another issue.

Joe, let's hear out your view of what needs to be done so you can come out looking like a hero when only 100,000 are lost.

Like I said, it has become blatantly obvious we only know two things, people will die and more will if we go back to life as normal.  That's it. 

How many more will die if we go back to life as normal no one, not a single person anywhere in the world, has any clue on.  Is it 50K or 5M additional deaths?  No one knows.  If it was 5M I can see the argument for the lockdown.  50K and you lost me.

But I am not going to follow these draconian rules for much longer with such a large range of uncertainty, especially since over 99% will survive this.  I am not going to sit back and watch my bank account diminish, and I might add our liquidity is much better then most but still, with such a range of "what ifs" that no one can give concrete answers on. 

[Craig Lamson]

So a lame duck then.

Nope, just the President of The United States, not a king or a dictator and bound by rules based upon our constitution.

[JoeKitchen]

Finally, one that makes sense for me. 

As a business owner with my phone number out there in many places, I get so many scam calls. 

[Craig Lamson]

I did and it is, and yes, you CAN choose A.  But why risk lives to do so?

You don’t know you are risking lives.  Ever see the film Hacksaw Ridge?   Sometimes people you don’t expect to perform turn in an amazing performance.  They rise to the occasion. That’s the point.  Your best pick might turn out to have warts so to speak.

[armand]

Not going to lie, Alan Goldhammer may be on the direct opposite side of the spectrum political then I, but I would take his word on medical research over many others every day of the year, especially given his credentials and experience.

?

What I said it's not critique of what Alan said, but a call to have some more data before we take those numbers for real. From what I've seen they are based more on mathematical models than actual data.
Obviously I don't have the time to spend 5 hours per day to look at this info in particular, but the origin of the info seems to be this article: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/24/science.abb3221

It could be accurate but it could be another case of garbage in / garbage out scenario, if the the model is accurate to start with.
Let's say you apply that data to Italy for example, if 9 people have the virus for every symptomatic patient, will it explain the spread? Was it applied to other places outside of China?

Don't get me wrong, I would love for the info to be accurate (much lower mortality) but I'm skeptic by formation and I've seen way to many studies with great results turn sour later.

[hogloff]

Like I said, it has become blatantly obvious we only know two things, people will die and more will if we go back to life as normal.  That's it. 

How many more will die if we go back to life as normal no one, not a single person anywhere in the world, has any clue on.  Is it 50K or 5M additional deaths?  No one knows.  If it was 5M I can see the argument for the lockdown.  50K and you lost me.

But I am not going to follow these draconian rules for much longer with such a large range of uncertainty, especially since over 99% will survive this.  I am not going to sit back and watch my bank account diminish, and I might add our liquidity is much better then most but still, with such a range of "what ifs" that no one can give concrete answers on.

Without definitive numbers, you are ready to risk your life or more importantly risk infecting and killing others just because no one can tell you exactly how many will die. Tell me...did anyone tell all those young men how many will die in Vietnam when they were out rounding up the troops?

[JoeKitchen]

?

What I said it's not critique of what Alan said, but a call to have some more data before we take those numbers for real. From what I've seen they are based more on mathematical models than actual data.
Obviously I don't have the time to spend 5 hours per day to look at this info in particular, but the origin of the info seems to be this article: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/24/science.abb3221

It could be accurate but it could be another case of garbage in / garbage out scenario, if the the model is accurate to start with.
Let's say you apply that data to Italy for example, if 9 people have the virus for every symptomatic patient, will it explain the spread? Was it applied to other places outside of China?

Point taken, thanks. 

[JoeKitchen]

Without definitive numbers, you are ready to risk your life or more importantly risk infecting and killing others just because no one can tell you exactly how many will die. Tell me...did anyone tell all those young men how many will die in Vietnam when they were out rounding up the troops?

Man you really go out of your way looking for inaccurate analogies.  Comparing war to a virus with a sub 1% fatality is foolhardy.  I would not want to go to war, but what sane person does.  Even if you survive, the scars of war last for decades.  But we are not talking about war, we are talking about a virus with a very low death rate,  so I'm going to play your flawed game. 

If this was Ebola death rates, I would be taking it more seriously.  Yet a rate similar to the flu? 

Yes, I would be willing to risk my life with this virus, especially if they are predicting everyone will catch it anyway.  Like I said, with the extreme level of uncertainty the experts are putting out, I am not going to watch my business falter.  I will be scheduling shoots, going out and shooting those damn buildings with many less people I need to Photoshop out. 

Listen, I promise you I will engage in the best social distance possible.  I'll light up a double corona each time, giving me a three hour window where no one will want to come within 10 meters of me.   

[hogloff]

Man you really go out of your way looking for inaccurate analogies.  Comparing war to a virus with a sub 1% fatality is foolhardy.  I would not want to go to war, but what sane person does.  Even if you survive, the scars of war last for decades.  But we are not talking about war, we are talking about a virus with a very low death rate,  so I'm going to play your flawed game. 

If this was Ebola death rates, I would be taking it more seriously.  Yet a rate similar to the flu? 

Yes, I would be willing to risk my life with this virus, especially if they are predicting everyone will catch it anyway.  Like I said, with the extreme level of uncertainty the experts are putting out, I am not going to watch my business falter.  I will be scheduling shoots, going out and shoot those damn buildings.

Really a low death rate...1% is low? If you let it run rampant through the USA by just getting back to normal because you are bored sitting in your house and let's say only 1/2 of the population picks up thus extremely contagious virus...geez only 1,600,000 people will die and 8,500,000 people will be hospitalized with 3,200,000 people needing ICU care.

You can live with this?

[Alan Klein]

Alan, my God, you've said some things here that you really need to revise. Don't let the NRA hear you telling people that the National Guard is the militia, because there goes the Second Amendment, which only protects arms for the "well-regulated militia." You should also note that the U.S. Congress hasn't declared war on anyone since World War II...they apparently weren't paying attention during Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I & 2 and Afghanistan (which isn't really our longest war, because, you know it isn't technically a war.) Without revision, you could get your Tea Party card taken away.

Well, I'm a coffee drinker mainly.  In any case, I thought the National Guard did come from the original militias.  But I may be wrong. I wouldn't want to get into trouble with my gun-toting neighbors especially since I don't bear any arms.   

It's true that the cowardly congress hasn't done it's duty too well and has let the presidents "go to war" without direct authority.  But I believe the Supreme Court has gone along with it since Congress budgets money for these wars.  In essence giving approval for them since they agreed to finance them.  Not sure it's been tested yet.
Additionally they have given weaselly words of supporting armed action to defend the country.  I suppose those are solid enough for most presidents to send tanks and jets.  If they want to stop it, they just have to shut off funding.  That's what happened at the end in VietNam.  With no funding, the SOuth Vietnam srmy collapsed and the north conquered the south.

Interestingly, Trump is very much against these war.  Even before he became president, he opposed many of our adventures overseas like in Iraq.  He keeps griping how we spent 8 trillion dollars in the middle east and a lot of blood lost for little gain.  He's used our armed forces sparingly but effectively against ISIS and other terrorists, put a little clamp on Iran, but has mainly withdrawn many troops.  He talks big. But it's mainly bluff and bluster.  He really doesn't want us to fight.  He'd rather use economic leverage to get our way. 

All the accusations that he's a warmonger and dictator is just politics.  We'll have to wait for the history books in twenty years to get the true story about his presidency. 

[Alan Klein]

Well the USA is under attack like never before.

Well, I don't think the president can order the states to restrict movement.  Medical issues are not consider international war.  Maybe some other part of the constitution or federal law could be used like martial law.  If he did, it would be challenged in the Supreme Court and decided. 

In any case, Trump has said what he believes.  And he's leaving it to the individual states and their governors to decide how they want their state run.  States are very touchy about their rights.  Remember our CIvil War with 700,000 killed on both sides was fought over the state's rights issues. State vs. federal authority has been a sore point over and over again in our history.  Imagine if there was some central authority in Europe telling all the nations of Europe what to do regardless of local laws.  It's kind of like that. 

[Alan Klein]

Man you really go out of your way looking for inaccurate analogies.  Comparing war to a virus with a sub 1% fatality is foolhardy.  I would not want to go to war, but what sane person does.  Even if you survive, the scars of war last for decades.  But we are not talking about war, we are talking about a virus with a very low death rate,  so I'm going to play your flawed game. 

If this was Ebola death rates, I would be taking it more seriously.  Yet a rate similar to the flu? 

Yes, I would be willing to risk my life with this virus, especially if they are predicting everyone will catch it anyway.  Like I said, with the extreme level of uncertainty the experts are putting out, I am not going to watch my business falter.  I will be scheduling shoots, going out and shooting those damn buildings with many less people I need to Photoshop out. 

Listen, I promise you I will engage in the best social distance possible.  I'll light up a double corona each time, giving me a three hour window where no one will want to come within 10 meters of me.   

Try DiNobilis if they still make them.  No one will come near you for a week.

[BernardLanguillier]

You must be a bit under the weather tonight Bernard, your post reeks of fantasy.  Are you suffering from a fever?

Your point was crystal clear...let me referent your feverish mind...

You said
“If we ignore your advice and hear what Trump is saying then we listen to a president who didn’t deny the pandemic... but denied way too long (at least 2 weeks) it was a real threat and one whose resolution should take immediate precedence over the economy. Which should have meant immediate wide spread confinement.

Once again, if you have the capacity, Trump never denied the pandemic, his experts did not deny the pandemic and told the worldv of their findings and suggestions.  Every Governor had access the the information.    The law limits the Presidents actions. He did and is doing what he can.  The rest belongs to the States.  Welcome to the USA.

Now I know, given your possible condition, that this information might not be received by you in a coherent manner and for that You have my best wishes on a speedy recovery.

I guess it boils down to differences of perception about the value of human life and about the definition of what a competent leader is.

If there is one thing I always admired from past Republican is an ability to be decisive and to take the decisions that need to be taken timely. But I understand that you have had to lower you standards on that front.

Btw, please don’t put in my mouths words I did not pronounce. I have never said that Trump denied the epidemic. What he did deny is its severity and that resulted in delayed leadership.

I have already answered clearly about the role of States.

The obvious truth is that Trump had the choice to either encourage the populations and the States to take decisive actions early, he chose the exact opposite course of action. Using every opportunity to publicly downplay the severity of the pandemic and that has had a disastrous impact on the spread of the epidemic, resulting in many additional casualties and far worsened economic impacts.

All the will be studied by scolars in time, don’t worry.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

I can't help but feeling that China did this deliberately to rush history and put them at the forefront of economic power.  Of course, it may backfire if America and others don't buy their products because we're all broke.  But they may not care. Or they may have miscalculated how it would shut down the world.  What do you think?

[Craig Lamson]

I guess it boils down to differences of perception about the value of human life and about the definition of what a competent leader is.

If there is one thing I always admired from past Republican is an ability to be decisive and to take the decisions that need to be taken timely. But I understand that you have had to lower you standards on that front.

Btw, please don’t put in my mouths words I did not pronounce. I have never said that Trump denied the epidemic. What he did deny is its severity and that resulted in delayed leadership.

I have already answered clearly about the role of States.

The obvious truth is that Trump had the choice to either encourage the populations and the States to take decisive actions early, he chose the exact opposite course of action. Using every opportunity to publicly downplay the severity of the pandemic and that has had a disastrous impact on the spread of the epidemic, resulting in many additional casualties and far worsened economic impacts.

All the will be studied by scolars in time, don’t worry.

Cheers,
Bernard

I really feel sorry for you.  You think you have the ability to foresee the future but you can’t even deal directly with the past.  Or the rule of law...or actual facts on the ground.

Best of luck with your recovery. May it be swift and full and return to to a proper state of mind.

Added on edit:

The irony here is just delicious...

Virus spread in Japan prompts US to issue warning.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-in-japan-spread-draws-warning-us-embassy-americans-get-out-2020-04-03/


An explosive surge in infections is inevitable if Japan doesn't rapidly adopt tough restrictions like those in the U.S. and Europe, Hokkaido University Professor Hiroshi Nishiura has told Nikkei.

"Voluntary stay-home guidelines so far have only cut person-to-person contact on public transit by 20%, but contact needs to be cut by at least 80%," the forecasting expert said. Unless control measures are stepped-up, his modelling predicts new cases in Tokyo will peak at 6,000 per day.