Coronavirus II

[Libertarian01]

This is how tyranny creeps into our democracy and why guns are so important to possibly fight against it if needed!

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coro...0200403-x54uffc44zagtoj3uadzcgxoze-story.html

In New York State Governor Cuomo has ordered the seizure of ventilators from private hospitals and others to be shifted to New York city. He says, "If they want to sue me for borrowing their excess ventilators to save lives, let them sue me.”

He was praised by the hospital association for doing this. Naturally, the national guard will be the ones going around to collect the equipment.

Thus begins the acceptance of tyranny and the voiding of private property rights because the fear and panic that has been induced by the media AND idiots on social media has overwhelmed the herds respect for liberty.

I am NOT saying this is the take over of our country by a tyrant, but I am saying this is exactly how it will start! There will be a real or perceived crisis, as there is now with the Coronavirus, and people will be terrified of the course they are on. So then a politician, probably the president, takes some extreme measures to alleviate the problem at the expense of liberty and constitutional protections. And all of a sudden a little freedom is gone. Temporarily, we're told...

The citizens of New York City are not more important than the rural citizens of New York State. They are not less important either. But the rural citizens may soon need those ventilators as well and will have none thanks to Tyrant Cuomo seizing them for the short sighted view of focusing on New York City.

I cannot imagine the NG showing up in rural New York to be greeted by about 100 armed citizens who say, "No, you cannot have our ventilators. Our children were born here, our grandparents and spouses are in there now and they may need the ventilators. Go away." I cannot perceive a national guard unit pushing the issue too much. Not today. But in future event? And when I say citizens, let us not imagine shop owners and farmers, but veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Men and women who have actual combat experience, who are familiar with asymmetrical warfare and urban combat. That is a measurable percentage of our population now.

This isn't the beginning here. But I do believe this is how it begins. It will be a food shortage, or another pandemic, or a crisis of some kind where the federal government moves to take some sort of action that strips away at liberty.

And we let them...

Regards,

Doug

 

[nonobaddog]

The % positive is defined as % positive of those tested and not % positive of everybody in the state. It is like a statistical sample.
They can't test everybody since they can barely handle testing those with symptoms (or connections).

 

[nonobaddog]

And before anyone says it, yes, I understand it is percent of those tested. My issue is what I stated. Indianapolis is the primary testing location for Indiana residents. Indianapolis is also where the virus will be most widespread in the state, so the % of tested to infected will naturally be higher. If you tested everyone in Spencer, I’m betting the % would be half or less.

You beat me to it.

 

[smokingman]

And before anyone says it, yes, I understand it is percent of those tested. My issue is what I stated. Indianapolis is the primary testing location for Indiana residents. Indianapolis is also where the virus will be most widespread in the state, so the % of tested to infected will naturally be higher. If you tested everyone in Spencer, I’m betting the % would be half or less.

I am not certain you are correct. Sure Indianapolis has the most population,but if you base it on population by county Marion is not going to be the highest. I think other counties might be higher than 20% of tested. Honestly their is no way to really know at this time with a lack of wide spread testing. I can tell you Columbus Indiana has 45 cases and a population of around 47,000 vs Indianapolis at 872,000 and 1760 cases.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

You beat me to it.

Lol ya I figured I’d clear it up first but didn’t wanna edit the original comment.

I am curious what the % would be if we tested everybody.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I am not certain you are correct. Sure Indianapolis has the most population,but if you base it on population by county Marion is not going to be the highest. I think other counties might be higher than 20% of tested. Honestly their is no way to really know at this time with a lack of wide spread testing. I can tell you Columbus Indiana has 45 cases and a population of around 47,000 vs Indianapolis at 872,000 and 1760 cases.

Yes, but that’s “of tested”. Im just saying the numbers are skewed because they’re only testing those with symptoms. Of course the % of those infected vs those tested will be high, especially when the highest numbers tested are in Indy, which has the higher population so more chance to spread to people.

If you tested 20,000 people in Spencer, the 20% overall infected vs tested number would likely drop, not the per capita %. Maybe I should have worded it better.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

In other words if your main testing area is the city, and you only test those with symptoms, then it’s hard to take a % seriously of infections vs test. I’m not saying in a town of 200 people testing 30 positive will show a lower percentage, I’m saying if you test all over the state and not just the populated areas of infected, the % would go down quite a bit, and the number of infected people in rural areas are going to be less than those in cities with more contact with others.

 

[Alpo]

Agree. Until there is a test (presence of antibodies?) available to the entire population, infection rates of likely candidates is semi-meaningless.

Let's test all athletes with painful ankles and determine the number of broken ankles vs sprains and extrapolate to the population at large, who are mostly couch potatoes and the likelihood of a broken ankle is limited to the amount of beer can clutter surrounding the couch.

About as meaningless.

[video=youtube_share;JJmqCKtJnxM]http://youtu.be/JJmqCKtJnxM[/video]

 

[smokingman]

In other words if your main testing area is the city, and you only test those with symptoms, then it’s hard to take a % seriously of infections vs test. I’m not saying in a town of 200 people testing 30 positive will show a lower percentage, I’m saying if you test all over the state and not just the populated areas of infected, the % would go down quite a bit, and the number of infected people in rural areas are going to be less than those in cities with more contact with others.

I hope you are right,but know it only takes one case to spread it and that many rural areas are not doing so well with social isolation and staying at home.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Agree. Until there is a test (presence of antibodies?) available to the entire population, infection rates of likely candidates is semi-meaningless.

Let's test all athletes with painful ankles and determine the number of broken ankles in the population vs sprains.

About as meaningless.

Exactly. You’re a lot better at analogies and wording things than I am. It took me 4 posts to make the point you made.

 

[nonobaddog]

In other words if your main testing area is the city, and you only test those with symptoms, then it’s hard to take a % seriously of infections vs test. I’m not saying in a town of 200 people testing 30 positive will show a lower percentage, I’m saying if you test all over the state and not just the populated areas of infected, the % would go down quite a bit, and the number of infected people in rural areas are going to be less than those in cities with more contact with others.

Yes. I definitely think population density plays a big role in the spread.

 

[Alpo]

Exactly. You’re a lot better at analogies and wording things than I am. It took me 4 posts to make the point you made.

I modified my post a bit.....I never seem to get it correct the first time.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I hope you are right,but know it only takes one case to spread it and that many rural areas are not doing so well with social isolation and staying at home.

People live in rural areas because they crave social isolation

But no I agree, I’m just saying it’s pointless to look at % without testing everyone. % only means something if you have a solid base for that % to be taken from, and only testing those with symptoms already makes that number meaningless.

IMO, it’s better to just look at the overall number of infected, and the trend of that. Even that is skewed, but at least it’s not a “comparison” number and we can study if it is increasing/decreasing/stabilizing.

 

[nonobaddog]

Agree. Until there is a test (presence of antibodies?) available to the entire population, infection rates of likely candidates is semi-meaningless.

Let's test all athletes with painful ankles and determine the number of broken ankles vs sprains and extrapolate to the population at large, who are mostly couch potatoes and the likelihood of a broken ankle is limited to the amount of beer can clutter surrounding the couch.

About as meaningless.

I'm an old couch potato now and my ankle hurts. While meaningless to most people it bugs me. Can I still be tested?

 

[Alpo]

Random sampling would work as well, methinks.

 

[Alpo]

I'm an old couch potato now and my ankle hurts. While meaningless to most people it bugs me. Can I still be tested?

We have you scheduled for a colonoscopy tomorrow at 9 a.m. We can look at your ankle then.

Please remember to prep for the exam.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In basic mathematics, if you only consider one side of the equation, you’ll rarely get the right (or best) answer. On one hand, I can’t really blame the early response to only considering one side of this situation’s “equation”. But that was when we were only talking about “15 Days To Flatten The Curve”. Now, we’re talking something like 45 days and if there’s still sizable rates of infections out there after that, there will be some that will likely push for even more. It’s past time to start balancing the equation to come up with the best, overall solution to this problem.

“Yet even more must be considered. Remember now that if the following seems radical, it is a worst case scenario. And if we can consider the worst case scenario on one side of the equation, we must for balance and perspective consider the worst case scenario on the other side as well.

What if locking down the nation means causing a great depression lasting a decade or more?

What if this economic disaster leads, as history teaches it can, to the rise of demagogues and loss of freedom?

What if there are consequently millions more deaths from other causes due to economic malaise and descent toward tyranny?

What if, in other words, we essentially destroy our civilization as we know it?

Will it have been worth it to ensure there’d be fewer Wuhan virus deaths — even two million, shocking though that number is? Civilizational destruction, something permanent, would be a steep price to pay to combat a pandemic, something temporary.”


https://www.americanthinker.com/art...r_than_a_national_lockdown.html#ixzz6IldKz4Gk

 

[nonobaddog]

People live in rural areas because they crave social isolation

But no I agree, I’m just saying it’s pointless to look at % without testing everyone. % only means something if you have a solid base for that % to be taken from, and only testing those with symptoms already makes that number meaningless.

IMO, it’s better to just look at the overall number of infected, and the trend of that. Even that is skewed, but at least it’s not a “comparison” number and we can study if it is increasing/decreasing/stabilizing.

I agree it would be nice but not realistic. You would have to test everybody again and again every time you wanted to update the numbers, which means daily most places. They would never spring for that even if it were possible.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Random sampling would work as well, methinks.

That would probably give some of the best % methods possible, vs the current way of doing it. At least being random you would get a more accurate percentage of infected vs tested.

 

[singlesix]

And when I say citizens, let us not imagine shop owners and farmers, but veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Men and women who have actual combat experience, who are familiar with asymmetrical warfare and urban combat.

I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Enough said.