Wuhan Coronavirus: Megathread - Got too big

[MediocreMilt]

Who, exactly, in the United States, (aside from people under the auspices of the criminal justice system) is literally under house arrest? Or even figuratively?

Can somebody please shed light on this?

We're being (somewhat) hyperbolic. That being said... well, the people under government-ordered quarantine who have tested positive, despite the fact that most people (80%+) who have the disease are thought to have gone undetected and have been therefore as free as the rest of us to move around.

 

[cuddle striker]

Does catching a cold / flu make you immune to the cold / flu?

We already know there are 3 "strains" of COVID19, with dozens of "subclusters." Read: We already know there are hundreds of strains of COVID19.

It's gonna be a miracle if we can make a vaccine for it.

this, good treatments are probably the best bet, or yearly vaccines like we have for flu.

if it had been controlled with quarantine and honesty from the start in every country, we could likely have vaccinated and finished it.

people are going to church today. every new infection is a chance for it to mutate further, and that eventually negates any vaccine. whether it makes it more or less deadly is a coin flip.

Also something doesn't feel right about these numbers. IMO, I think they're being significantly underreported for both cases and deaths (lack of true testing, asymptomatic transmission, and a lack of testing the dead and/or not counting those that die in nursing homes). Although that's everywhere, so it's a worldwide issue. Some significantly more underreporting than others either due to willful ignorance, incompetence, or just being too poor to test.

Yes the numbers are very wrong. We aren't testing. Too many little dictators don't like the bad numbers and yes, there's pressure to under report. My area is left leaning and there's still pressure to report less numbers. If we are getting that pressure, you can bet everyone is; and you can bet a lot are giving in to it.

People thinking "other causes of death are being reported as this!!!!" are fucking stupid. You wouldn't die of diabetes if you didn't get covid. that's a covid death. you died of pneumonia caused by the novel Coronavirus. if it wasn't for this shit you wouldn't be dead.

people aren't coming to the hospital for broken fingers, abscessed teeth, appendicitis. they're afraid of the hospital, afraid of getting sick from this, so they're hurting at home. minor car accidents used to waltz into the ER for a whiplash scan, regularly. they're not coming in because 1. people aren't driving as much and 2. why the fuck would you go to a possibly-infectious zone just to get a pat on the head?
of course admissions for anything but this have dropped. deaths IN THE HOSPITAL from other stuff has dropped. the same number of people still died of heart attacks as usual- they just didn't do it in the hospital. they did it at home. those bodies still roll into the ME and coroner's office in the usual number, they're just not going through the hospital system to die anymore.


There are people in every side of politics saying a thing that's correct;
we need to test as many people, symptoms or not, as possible, as fast as possible.

mass testing? that's the solution. lock it all the fuck down and test in waves, every single person. quarantine people who are positive, give them a little cash to shut in with, and set them aside until they're not contagious.

all this- testing only the sick, or people with a doctor's note, or people in hospital, etc etc it's just bullshit to put off the thing we need, which is testing everyone we can lay hands on.

 

[Flaming Carrot]

This was a letter to the editor in the Financial Times which I think hits the nail on the head in terms of policy discussions. We've gotten to the point where good people want lockdowns and bad people want herd immunity by not having lockdowns. So, you can only endorse lockdowns and increasingly harsh penalties lest you be accused of wanting to kill someone's grandma.

The problem is that we have no way of declaring victory. The whole rationale for the lockdowns was that we were going to spread the cases out over time so that the hospital system doesn't get overwhelmed. But aside from some hospitals in a a few cities, we're not getting a massive amount of cases. In my areas there have been nurses and doctors getting laid off and having their hours cut because they don't have enough to do. If we're laying off medical personnel in a middle of a pandemic, then we've flattened the curve haven't we? We've flattened it so much that now we're hurting the medical system that we're trying to keep from getting overwhelmed.

When this whole thing kicked off, people were convinced that California was going to be devastated by this. Seattle too. Not too long ago, Andrew Cuomo was asking for 30,000 ventilators and talking about having the national guard seizing them from upstate hospitals. Bill DiBlasio wanted to conscript doctors and send them around the country to wherever there were Coronavirus outbreaks. Now those two are arguing about about when they're going to open the schools in New York City. All things considered, aren't we doing than we thought we would be at this point?

Also, if this is occurring due to people's strict adherence to the lockdown, then what's with all the stories and pictures of people violating the lockdown rules? Shouldn't the numbers be going up if tons of people aren't paying attention to the rules? Italy has been under lockdown since early March. Why are people still dropping like flies? Shouldn't those strict lockdown rules be bringing the death rate down quicker?

At point do we ease up on the restrictions? When the Covid cases are at a certain level? When there's no Covid cases at all? Even we have massive amounts of testing and antibody testing, what are we going to do with everyone who's positive? Lock them in their houses and somehow keep them from leaving? Remove from their houses and put them somewhere, even if that person is a single parent and has no one to care for their kids? If we prevent people from moving around somehow, do we restrict them to their state? their city? Their neighborhood? How precisely are we going to do all of this without massively violating everyone's rights?

Just as the convention wisdom on masks changed, so will the wisdom on lockdowns. They'll get rid of them and pretend that no one even wanted to do them in the first place. I have no idea what we're going to do instead (I assume masks and social distancing as best as possible, but at least being able to go to stores and the park), but we need to figure it out fast.

 

[cuddle striker]

View attachment 1225581

This was a letter to the editor in the Financial Times which I think hits the nail on the head in terms of policy discussions. We've gotten to the point where good people want lockdowns and bad people want herd immunity by not having lockdowns. So, you can only endorse lockdowns and increasingly harsh penalties lest you be accused of wanting to kill someone's grandma.

The problem is that we have no way of declaring victory. The whole rationale for the lockdowns was that we were going to spread the cases out over time so that the hospital system doesn't get overwhelmed. But aside from some hospitals in a a few cities, we're not getting a massive amount of cases. In my areas there have been nurses and doctors getting laid off and having their hours cut because they don't have enough to do. If we're laying off medical personnel in a middle of a pandemic, then we've flattened the curve haven't we? We've flattened it so much that now we're hurting the medical system that we're trying to keep from getting overwhelmed.

When this whole thing kicked off, people were convinced that California was going to be devastated by this. Seattle too. Not too long ago, Andrew Cuomo was asking for 30,000 ventilators and talking about having the national guard seizing them from upstate hospitals. Bill DiBlasio wanted to conscript doctors and send them around the country to wherever there were Coronavirus outbreaks. Now those two are arguing about about when they're going to open the schools in New York City. All things considered, aren't we doing than we thought we would be at this point?

Also, if this is occurring due to people's strict adherence to the lockdown, then what's with all the stories and pictures of people violating the lockdown rules? Shouldn't the numbers be going up if tons of people aren't paying attention to the rules? Italy has been under lockdown since early March. Why are people still dropping like flies? Shouldn't those strict lockdown rules be bringing the death rate down quicker?

At point do we ease up on the restrictions? When the Covid cases are at a certain level? When there's no Covid cases at all? Even we have massive amounts of testing and antibody testing, what are we going to do with everyone who's positive? Lock them in their houses and somehow keep them from leaving? Remove from their houses and put them somewhere, even if that person is a single parent and has no one to care for their kids? If we prevent people from moving around somehow, do we restrict them to their state? their city? Their neighborhood? How precisely are we going to do all of this without massively violating everyone's rights?

Just as the convention wisdom on masks changed, so will the wisdom on lockdowns. They'll get rid of them and pretend that no one even wanted to do them in the first place. I have no idea what we're going to do instead (I assume masks and social distancing as best as possible, but at least being able to go to stores and the park), but we need to figure it out fast.

the other problem is that he's wrong. while there are "vulnerable" people, generally speaking, this thing is random as a monkey's shit flinging with who it kills. perfectly healthy 30 year old marathon runner. 19 year old CrossFit kid. 50 year old with no underlying conditions. all dead on the table.

and a heavy smoker with back fat just walks around coughing a little extra for a few days.
a 104 year old, he's sick for two weeks then back to forwarding email viruses to his buddies.
a lymphoma patient in active chemo, it's like they had a bad cold.

it's not just going to hit certain people and others are fine. it's just not what he's thinking it is.

rolling out testing on a massive scale and quarantining the positive tests- yes, that's exactly the solution. continuing to dump time into finding treatment and potential vaccines is the side bet for that. we won't know until we've got large-scale antibody testing, whether or not having had one strain can give you immunity to another.

 

[Allanon]

The problem is that governments are just issuing increasingly unhinged rules without any kind of oversight

The End Times on Twitter

“An ongoing thread cataloging excessively-harsh enforcement of lockdowns. 1.”

twitter.com

https://archive.li/uDNX6

The archive doesn't capture everything, but it gives you an idea. We're supposed to exercise, but if too many people go out and exercise, well then the government yells at us for crowding the parks. We've got cops yelling at people for sitting in the park and not walking in the park. We're supposed to stock up on food for two weeks., but then you get people on Twitter complaining about "Karens" hoarding food. Are we supposed to go to the store an buy items and risk spreading the disease, or are we supposed to buy things from Amazon which is putting the Amazon workers at risk for the disease.

The lockdowns were necessary because there were models showing that without the lockdowns the death rate would be horrific and we needed to flatten the curve. Now the death rates are lower than predicted even with the lockdowns, which is proof that the lockdowns are working and also that we need to make the lockdowns even harsher because no one is even following the rules of lockdown. When will we lift the lockdowns? Who knows? Who cares? Victory will be achiedved when there are no Coronovirus cases anywhere or when there's a vaccine, which may be here in 18 months or two years or never. You don't like the lockdowns? Surely you're not suggesting people go out and die for the Dow Jones, other than the ones that we're sending out to deliver our packages. Maybe you want someone's grandmother to die.

I'm all for discussing this, but the problem is that discussion is not forthcoming. Is anyone voting on these restrictions anywhere? Is anyone in power discussing whether a particular rule makes any sense? This was in the New York times recently -

Opinion | The United States Needs a ‘Smart Quarantine’ to Stop the Virus Spread Within Families

Evidence from around the world shows that stay-at-home orders take us only so far.

www.nytimes.com

https://archive.li/VB6K1

The army just closed up a field hospital in Seattle after three days without seeing any patients, but now we're discussing people removing people from their homes if they test positive for Coronavirus. The only thing more depressing than this is the comments from people suggesting this isn't harsh enough. I think the at this point the question is if there's any policy proposal that goes too far. Is there anything that would be completely unacceptable, and more importantly, would we get any say in it? If privacy is not an option anymore, then let's talk about it. If we need to monitor everyone's cellphone forever, let's at least put it to a vote. If I need my passport to go from Pennsylvania to New Jersey, then just tell me that. But we're not being treated like citizens of republic, we're being treated like disobedient children.

There is no plan beyond throwing millions of people out of work due to shuttering businesses and having people inform on each other for breaking whatever ridiculous rule our nation's governors have come up with on a particular day. Coronavirus is not killing the amount of people they said it would, and our rulers are too scared to back off on the lockdowns because then people might start getting upset that all the sacrifices were unnecessary. Here's what Andrew Cuomo said on Rudy Guliani's radio show a couple days ago -

New York Governor Cuomo tells Giuliani coronavirus modeling '100 percent wrong'

The exchange between the longtime New York pols was all 'mister' and 'thank you'

justthenews.com

https://archive.li/jcBPt

Cuomo's making noise about opening businesses and schools again too. Everyone knows they can't keep this going on forever. It's relying on the good will of the American public which is dwindling. Unless they give everyone a universal basic income starting yesterday or give some clear goals as to when we can all stop being under house arrest, expect riots and looting pretty goddamned soon.

Well that's unbelievably horrifying. There is no pandemic or emergency, much less this one, that such an authoritarian response is appropriate for. The only bright spot I see is that there's absolutely no way the general population - especially the US but hopefully the rest of the developed world as well - will put up with such totalitarian moves for long. If anything, I think the shock of it happening all at once is why it's gotten this far with only minor pushback so far. Most people don't know how bad it is, are in denial, or are still fooled by the fearmongering. That's not gonna last.

Courts are going to be slammed with liberty violations when they reopen.

Riots starting because a water park is closed? Somebody going to bomb Disneyland because their toddlers can't go this year? People en masse squatting in front of their favorite dive bar at midnight?

Granted when the summer heat begins to rise, people will get restless. Especially if they don't have air conditioning. People are allowed to leave their houses. They just can't go to restricted areas. Nobody's rights are being violated. We don't have a right to access our (my beloved) local pool if the state mandates it closed. I can't access the pool if it is closed for maintenance or a swim meet, etc.

Nobody is forcing us to stay locked in our houses either.

However we don't make the laws. If local, state or federal parks are closed, they are closed. You can scream, yell, piss yourself or even self-immolate in front of the scenic spot of your choice, but given that the purpose for these closures is to prevent the spread of a pandemic, people seem to get this.

I am not seeing a massive level of support, for us to exercise our God-given right to leave the house and get very sick, die, infect one of our loved ones, or live a shortened life-span with gimp organs.

Yes it is annoying to think of spending an LA summer locked in the house with restless kids, but no, I am not ready to strap dynamite to myself, go to the water-pad park in Santa Monica and pull the string, to express my disgust for state restricting our access to public spaces, in the face of a pandemic.

Everyone's rights are being violated. Didn't you declare you were flouncing out of the thread a week or two ago because no one was listening to your doom posting at the time? Or was that someone else.

 

[dreamworks face]

Who, exactly, in the United States, (aside from people under the auspices of the criminal justice system) is literally under house arrest? Or even figuratively?

Can somebody please shed light on this?

There are states with stay at home orders that will arrest people for gatherings (e.g. Maryland.) I've been working from home for the past few weeks because I'm subject to a stay at home order.

e.g.
‘We’re not playing around’: Maryland law enforcement prepared to arrest people who defy coronavirus shutdown
Five Ways Durham’s ‘Stay At Home’ Order Differs From Other Cities And States

 

[bippu_as_fuck_ls400]

Just as the convention wisdom on masks changed

That reminds me, I was going to post this video on the whole mask thing the other day and forgot about it:

Spoiler: Archive

 

[Non-Expert!]

We're being (somewhat) hyperbolic. That being said... well, the people under government-ordered quarantine who have tested positive, despite the fact that most people (80%+) who have the disease are thought to have gone undetected and have been therefore as free as the rest of us to move around.

Well for all I know, you guys could have information that I don't.

I really do "get" the concern about government overreach. Perhaps I have a different understanding of it, but aside from forcing the quarantine of a sick person, I don't see how any of this falls under that category.

For example, imagine that there were a credible terroristic threat, that something big was going to happen on a large scale at state or federal parks.

Of course govt will close them. Is that an overreach? Is anybody on house arrest?

Same goes with bars and restaurants. Govt could come up with such stringent health codes that even the slightest speck of e-coli, anywhere, would lead to permanent closure. Soon there would be no restaurants. How is that violating your right to eat in restaurants? Sure you have the right to eat in a restaurant, but all of them have been shuttered. That is government intrusion in the dining room and kitchen area, not in your life.

I am not advocating such draconian measures, but I think that when we are discussing government intrusion in our lives, we need to actually have a case, otherwise the argument falls apart.

There are states with stay at home orders that will arrest people for gatherings (e.g. Maryland.) I've been working from home for the past few weeks because I'm subject to a stay at home order.

e.g.
‘We’re not playing around’: Maryland law enforcement prepared to arrest people who defy coronavirus shutdown
Five Ways Durham’s ‘Stay At Home’ Order Differs From Other Cities And States

Where does it say that we outright have an unconditional right to gatherings? Building occupancy permits and neighborhood zoning and ordinances right there, indicate that we can't just gather 50 people and go to town, whenever and wherever.

 

[Sped Xing]

I think you will find that a very wide segment of the population yearns for an iron boot on their neck.

 

[Allanon]

Well for all I know, you guys could have information that I don't.

I really do "get" the concern about government overreach. Perhaps I have a different understanding of it, but aside from forcing the quarantine of a sick person, I don't see how any of this falls under that category.

For example, imagine that there were a credible terroristic threat, that something big was going to happen on a large scale at state or federal parks.

Of course govt will close them. Is that an overreach? Is anybody on house arrest?

Same goes with bars and restaurants. Govt could come up with such stringent health codes that even the slightest speck of e-coli, anywhere, would lead to permanent closure. Soon there would be no restaurants. How is that violating your right to eat in restaurants? Sure you have the right to eat in a restaurant, but all of them have been shuttered. That is government intrusion in the dining room and kitchen area, not in your life.

I am not advocating such draconian measures, but I think that when we are discussing government intrusion in our lives, we need to actually have a case, otherwise the argument falls apart.


Where does it say that we outright have an unconditional right to gatherings? Building occupancy permits and neighborhood zoning and ordinances right there, indicate that we can't just gather 50 people and go to town, whenever and wherever.

You're looking for the 1st amendment, the right to peaceably assemble. Also the right to protest, and petition the government, and the right to freely exercise religion, all of which are stomped on by that. With the closure of courts, we're also inhibiting the 6th amendment and the right to free trial, there's probably arguments for violations of 4th and 5th amendments with demanding justification for 'essential' travel. Also the 9th amendment that protects our unenumerated rights - that is, basic rights not already listed are still rights, and the lack of their presence in the constitution is NOT a lack of a right. The right to freely travel is one of those. So is the right to make your own decisions about personal health matters, which I'd argue these orders also infringe on.

So you know, it's violating only 3 amendments, 6 or 7 basic human rights at least. More like 10 if we're being generous.

 

[Non-Expert!]

Well that's unbelievably horrifying. There is no pandemic or emergency, much less this one, that such an authoritarian response is appropriate for. The only bright spot I see is that there's absolutely no way the general population - especially the US but hopefully the rest of the developed world as well - will put up with such totalitarian moves for long. If anything, I think the shock of it happening all at once is why it's gotten this far with only minor pushback so far. Most people don't know how bad it is, are in denial, or are still fooled by the fearmongering. That's not gonna last.

Courts are going to be slammed with liberty violations when they reopen.



Everyone's rights are being violated. Didn't you declare you were flouncing out of the thread a week or two ago because no one was listening to your doom posting at the time? Or was that someone else.

Can you actually come up with an argument about "everybody's rights" or are you just blowing off steam?

You are entitled to your beliefs but feelings do not make facts.

And no, you have me confused with somebody else. Especially regarding "doom posting." And "nobody listening." Sorry it ain't me.

 

[Allanon]

Can you actually come up with an argument about "everybody's rights" or are you just blowing off steam?

You are entitled to your beliefs but feelings do not make facts.

And no, you have me confused with somebody else. Especially regarding "doom posting." And "nobody listening." Sorry it ain't me.

I just listed off the amendments and basic rights the stay at home orders and measures taken to enforce those orders specifically violate, including the closure of courts and prevention of gathering peacefully in places, especially churches.

 

[Spoonge]

I think you will find that a very wide segment of the population yearns for an iron boot on their neck.

And just as many want to take that boot and stomp government officials to death with it. People I never heard talk about politics are turning on ScoMo and the quarantine down here, directly comparing it to China's bullshit. The parks are all closed, we've got restrictions on how much we can buy from stores, we're being herded around like cattle and cops are roaming around in record numbers in a city where you used to be lucky to see one a week.

Corona-chan has shown the true colours of a lot of people. The line has been drawn between the 'please daddy government save me' group and the 'I tolerate Canberra but I would gladly lynch every cunt in parliament' crowd. There's a lot more would be politician killers out there than I expected.

 

[Non-Expert!]

You're looking for the 1st amendment, the right to peaceably assemble. Also the right to protest, and petition the government, and the right to freely exercise religion, all of which are stomped on by that. With the closure of courts, we're also inhibiting the 6th amendment and the right to free trial, there's probably arguments for violations of 4th and 5th amendments with demanding justification for 'essential' travel. Also the 9th amendment that protects our unenumerated rights - that is, basic rights not already listed are still rights, and the lack of their presence in the constitution is NOT a lack of a right. The right to freely travel is one of those. So is the right to make your own decisions about personal health matters, which I'd argue these orders also infringe on.

So you know, it's violating only 3 amendments, 6 or 7 basic human rights at least. More like 10 if we're being generous.

Unfortunately all of these rights you have mentioned are not unconditional and they depend on interpretation.

Freedom of religion, for example, means freedom to believe as you wish. It means that there is no state religion. But that does not give you an inalienable right to gather at will. A violation of freedom of religion would be not allowing Baptists to assemble, but allowing Catholics.

You are allowed to freely travel. Catch is, they aren't making it easy for you.

You also have limited rights as far as making decisions about health matters. You don't technically have the right to off yourself. But how the hell do you enforce that?

Look, over my own lifetime I have stood there and watched as our rights and civil liberties, freedoms and priveliges erode before my very eyes. Although I don't have an Oracle, I am skeptical that this temporary shutdown will be a continuance of this general shitting-on-our-rights decay, simply due to how it is being implemented (by restricting areas and domains, not so much people).

 

[Rudy Russo]

It could be 2000 degrees out and I still wouldn't want to do any of that crap.

If your poor, hot, and in the city it aint that bad. Better than nothing. This summer it'll be hot and nothing. Adds to the pressure.

 

[MediocreMilt]

Freedom of religion, for example, means freedom to believe as you wish. It means that there is no state religion. But that does not give you an inalienable right to gather at will.

What does Freedom of Assembly(1st Amendment) grant you?

 

[feral cat #6385]

If your poor, hot, and in the city it aint that bad. Better than nothing. This summer it'll be hot and nothing. Adds to the pressure.

Implying blacks would adhere to sheltering in place or social distancing in the first place.

 

[Cosmos]

 

[Non-Expert!]

What does Freedom of Assembly(1st Amendment) grant you?

It is the freedom to gather and/or assemble to discuss political matters, even from a point of view that is not popular. It is the right for quakers to gather in their assembly room; it is the right for Muslims to gather in a mosque.

The purpose behind this right, however, is freedom of consciousness. It is not freedom to kick it with a bunch of buddies and shoot the shit. That is more of a civil liberty anyway.

In closing down ALL gatherings, they are not restricting the freedom of one side over another, like I said earlier, if the ordinance specifically targeted megachurches, but didn't apply to Catholics, Atheists annual picnic, or Muslims, then it would be a violation of freedom of assembly.

I don't think that the US govt has a vested interest in breaking apart houses of worship, or closing down food establishments or shopping malls. They also don't have any interest whatsoever in restricting travel long term. US govt wants the country to be wealthy, not poor. And it wants its people to behave themselves, and religion is a great touchstone for that.

 

[Slap47]

I think you will find that a very wide segment of the population yearns for an iron boot on their neck.

Looks like the compromise of having Home Owners Associations wasn't enough.