Coronovirus IV

[dusty88]

How so? They track people's movements and do the whole papers please...

Did you read the entire article?

 

[Ingomike]

Did you read the entire article?

Nope, skimmed, just saw they were tracking and that was the end for me...

Also that source does not show in reader view, making it hard to read...

 

[dusty88]

A few weeks ago I said the US response was no better than a third world country. Here are some third world countries that did better than we did. A lot of it was about early testing and contact tracing.


I'm a libertarian and don't take insults to freedom lightly. Too many people are forgetting that defending life is also part of defending freedom. You can't go around randomly firing bullets into a crowd, (regardless of your good intentions) and similarly you don't have a right to fling germs past the end of your nose.


I get people mad at me for simply saying that personal rights conflict in a disease outbreak. I don't believe I've ever even taken a position on exactly what should be done, or what should be closed. I've just said I understand why we had some rapid, seemingly extreme reactions when we did not have testing in place.


Some of the people who didn't like closures denied we had a problem with lack of testing. They first said that not many people would die. Now they are suggesting the result will be the same deaths regardless of what we do or don't do.
I don't like closures
I don't like limiting people's activities and the potential lack of privacy that comes with thorough contact tracing
I also think government has a role in disease outbreaks where these personal rights truly conflict.
I think the economic effect is from the pandemic, not just from any government decisions.


Some deniers are going so far as to be angry about being asked to wear a mask in a business. That, to me, seems like people who just don't want to help at all and don't want to hear this is a serious problem.


What's the point of discussing any measures if the response is akin to "we should act like everything is normal".

 

[MindfulMan]

I like the way that you think, dusty88 !
It seems to me that you're taking the middle path, which is a stance (view) that [FONT=&amp]Gautama Buddha emphasized.......a pragmatic approach.[/FONT]

 

[dusty88]

I like the way that you think, dusty88 !
It seems to me that you're taking the middle path, which is a stance (view) that [FONT=&amp]Gautama Buddha emphasized.......a pragmatic approach.[/FONT]

Thank you. I should clarify that I don't typically see myself as a pragmatist. I just have concluded (and no one has been able to change my mind) that personal rights conflict during a disease outbreak. Admitting that is step one to a libertarian conversation on the issue.

I'm also starting to see deniers who change the basis of their argument as more information comes out, rather than changing their view in light of learning the new information.

 

[MindfulMan]

Thank you. I should clarify that I don't typically see myself as a pragmatist. I just have concluded (and no one has been able to change my mind) that personal rights conflict during a disease outbreak. Admitting that is step one to a libertarian conversation on the issue.

I'm also starting to see deniers who change the basis of their argument as more information comes out, rather than changing their view in light of learning the new information.

If there's one thing that my almost 70 years has taught me, it's that extremes​ of thought / action ....... rarely lead to a pleasing conclusion.

 

[MindfulMan]

And I realize, dusty, that we aren't exactly talking about the same thing. Your libertarian outlook on the situation seems sensible. I appreciate your viewpoint, within a thread that's often fraught with extremes.

 

[Route 45]

Washington quarantined his soldiers from the Boston public and also forced inoculation.

Tyrant!

 

[Ingomike]

A few weeks ago I said the US response was no better than a third world country. Here are some third world countries that did better than we did. A lot of it was about early testing and contact tracing.


I'm a libertarian and don't take insults to freedom lightly. Too many people are forgetting that defending life is also part of defending freedom. You can't go around randomly firing bullets into a crowd, (regardless of your good intentions) and similarly you don't have a right to fling germs past the end of your nose.

No libertarian in this paragraph. Just off the charts ridiculous to believe that normal human function of breathing is in any way analogous to a crime. I HAVE EVERY F******G RIGHT TO BREATHE! Now it is another thing to restrict known infected with probable cause.


I get people mad at me for simply saying that personal rights conflict in a disease outbreak. I don't believe I've ever even taken a position on exactly what should be done, or what should be closed. I've just said I understand why we had some rapid, seemingly extreme reactions when we did not have testing in place.


Some of the people who didn't like closures denied we had a problem with lack of testing. They first said that not many people would die. Now they are suggesting the result will be the same deaths regardless of what we do or don't do.
I don't like closures

Anyone science based knows the virus will run it course, testing or not. Testing is for determining medical treatment doesn't change who has it or not and will not stop spread.

I don't like limiting people's activities and the potential lack of privacy that comes with thorough contact tracing

If you truly are libertarian taking the right to be secure in private matters should be a non-starter...


I also think government has a role in disease outbreaks where these personal rights truly conflict.

There is nothing short of a cure or vaccine that will change the fact C-19 is here, most humans will have to deal with it in some way, it is futile to do anything more than the "flatten the curve" we did to not overwhelm healthcare facilities. Anything not voluntarily agreed is a usurpation of constitutional

I think the economic effect is from the pandemic, not just from any government decisions.


It is not JUST government decisions. Politics and their media bedfellows are in on it. Our reliance on mega corporations that are controlled by litigation averse legal departments. ( This is an under discussed point) Our dependence on imported goods. All had impact on our economy.


Some deniers are going so far as to be angry about being asked to wear a mask in a business. That, to me, seems like people who just don't want to help at all and don't want to hear this is a serious problem.

I do get angry at being required to wear a mask. Last I knew I was a free man, able to make the decisions for me and my family. There is a scholarly body of research that indicates that mask wear may be riskier than not, we know they are not being implemented properly, and they are from substandard material. In no other pandemic or epidemic has mask wear by the healthy been mandated, or even suggested to my knowledge. I am worn out with the trope of they wear them in surgery Menards and the meat counter are not an operating room. You are free to wear your mask as you wish...


What's the point of discussing any measures if the response is akin to "we should act like everything is normal".

Everything is normal. That this planet is filled with dangerous viruses and diseases is normal, as is humans deciding their pathetically short lives are something special and go into panic mode over the long term normal.

See above in red..

Can one really be libertarian and want to control and track their neighbors?

 

[Ingomike]

.
I'm also starting to see deniers who change the basis of their argument as more information comes out, rather than changing their view in light of learning the new information.

Enlighten on details of these deniers? What information is changing the basis of their arguments?

 

[dusty88]

Since there is no perfect outcome of each position (testing/isolate/tracking, restricting activities to mitigate etc) I'm not going to debate every point. I'll just add that the high rate of asymptomatic and presymptomatic carriers make these decisions more difficult than other disease outbreaks.

As far as "running its course" it's an incorrect assumption that things turn out the same from the medical standpoint regardless of how fast the virus spreads. Treatments are already improving.

 

[Ingomike]

Since there is no perfect outcome of each position (testing/isolate/tracking, restricting activities to mitigate etc) I'm not going to debate every point. I'll just add that the high rate of asymptomatic and presymptomatic carriers make these decisions more difficult than other disease outbreaks.

As far as "running its course" it's an incorrect assumption that things turn out the same from the medical standpoint regardless of how fast the virus spreads. Treatments are already improving.

Just more conflation, the virus is running its course, and nothing currently can stop it. Treatment is just that, treatment of the victims after the virus ran its course. Please explain what humans living an interconnected life can do to stop a virus?

 

[nonobaddog]

change the basis of their argument as more information comes out, rather than changing their view in light of learning the new information.

This is normal for many humans - or at least very, very common. They have a mental investment in their views that resists change while argument tactics are fleeting things and can change at will.

 

[nonobaddog]

I'm a libertarian and don't take insults to freedom lightly. Too many people are forgetting that defending life is also part of defending freedom. You can't go around randomly firing bullets into a crowd, (regardless of your good intentions) and similarly you don't have a right to fling germs past the end of your nose.

You got me with that one. I'm glad I was drinking diet Pepsi instead of the sugary stuff because this will be much easier to clean up.

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-spike-coronavirus-places-reopening-132442853.html
No spike in coronavirus in places reopening, U.S. health secretary says

 

[smokingman]

https://neurosciencenews.com/tmprss2-coronavirus-treatment-15873/

A clinically proven drug known to block an enzyme essential for the viral entry of Coronavirus into the lungs blocks the COVID 19 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The drug, Camostat mesilate, is a drug approved in Japan to treat pancreatic inflammation. Results suggest this drug may also protect against COVID 19. Researchers call for further clinical trials.


https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...eber/50e3eb9aae6886258437c5088942fa5cd769e466
[h=1]SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is Blocked by a Clinically Proven Protease Inhibitor[/h]

 

[sparky32]

https://neurosciencenews.com/tmprss2-coronavirus-treatment-15873/

A clinically proven drug known to block an enzyme essential for the viral entry of Coronavirus into the lungs blocks the COVID 19 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The drug, Camostat mesilate, is a drug approved in Japan to treat pancreatic inflammation. Results suggest this drug may also protect against COVID 19. Researchers call for further clinical trials.


https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...eber/50e3eb9aae6886258437c5088942fa5cd769e466
[h=1]SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is Blocked by a Clinically Proven Protease Inhibitor[/h]

Hopefully some sort of anti viral will be found or work soon. Im so tired of hearing about this crap. I do have a cousin that has Covid and is doing well. He is 50 and was smoker for 25 years. He went to the hospital for some treatment and is now home with no issues. Im interested to see what they gave him.

 

[nonobaddog]

Hopefully some sort of anti viral will be found or work soon. Im so tired of hearing about this crap. I do have a cousin that has Covid and is doing well. He is 50 and was smoker for 25 years. He went to the hospital for some treatment and is now home with no issues. Im interested to see what they gave him.

Yes, definitely. Please post back here if you will.

 

[chipbennett]

Washington quarantined his soldiers from the Boston public and also forced inoculation.

Only the symptomatic - i.e. the ones who actually had the disease - were quarantined. The healthy were not quarantined.

 

[chipbennett]

A few weeks ago I said the US response was no better than a third world country. Here are some third world countries that did better than we did. A lot of it was about early testing and contact tracing.

There are a lot of things that can be done by a government to help prevent certain bad outcomes. Just look at Singapore: almost no crime. Of course, if you dare speak publicly against the government or get caught with chewing gum, you get caned. One who claims to be a libertarian ought to understand that a line exists, and that being one one side of the line is right, and the other is wrong - regardless of the ostensibly good deeds the government could accomplish while on the wrong side of the line.

I'm a libertarian and don't take insults to freedom lightly. Too many people are forgetting that defending life is also part of defending freedom. You can't go around randomly firing bullets into a crowd, (regardless of your good intentions) and similarly you don't have a right to fling germs past the end of your nose.

Those who are actually positive can, under constitutional constraints on government and through due process, can be prevented by the government from "fling[ing] germs" around in public. Everyone else, however, enjoys the presumption of not being infected, thanks to that same, constitutionally protected due process. Thus, without some evidence constituting probable cause of posing a risk of infection, the government has no authority to constrain someone from "fling[ing] germs past their nose", even in public.

I get people mad at me for simply saying that personal rights conflict in a disease outbreak. I don't believe I've ever even taken a position on exactly what should be done, or what should be closed. I've just said I understand why we had some rapid, seemingly extreme reactions when we did not have testing in place.

Where some disagree is that your viewpoint seems to imply that the personal rights of some extend beyond their own noses, while the personal rights of others do not - that some people have personal rights to take themselves and their noses anywhere they please in public, free from the risk of exposure to harm, while other people do not have personal rights to take themselves and their noses those same places in public, merely on the chance, absent any evidence whatsoever, that they might pose some degree of risk to others.

Some of the people who didn't like closures denied we had a problem with lack of testing. They first said that not many people would die. Now they are suggesting the result will be the same deaths regardless of what we do or don't do.

Absence or presence of testing has nothing at all to do with the spread of, and harm caused by, this virus. Testing merely provides us with information about that spread.

And, again, "flatten the curve" was always about spreading the same number of cases, and deaths, across a greater length of time, so as not to overwhelm healthcare system capacity. The revision of history is coming from those who now claim that "flatten the curve" was/is intended to reduce overall infections and deaths.

I don't like closures
I don't like limiting people's activities and the potential lack of privacy that comes with thorough contact tracing
I also think government has a role in disease outbreaks where these personal rights truly conflict.
I think the economic effect is from the pandemic, not just from any government decisions.

Your error is in not properly bounding the extent/limits of personal rights. Where does one person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness end, and another's begin, in the context of a pandemic? It appears that you are taking the position that, if no one can safely go outside, then no one at all can go outside - if no one can work, buy groceries, or sit on the beach safely, then no one can work, buy groceries, or sit on the beach.

I contend that such a position is not one founded on the concept of individual liberty.

Some deniers are going so far as to be angry about being asked to wear a mask in a business. That, to me, seems like people who just don't want to help at all and don't want to hear this is a serious problem.

Use of a term such as "deniers" is ad hominem, intended to dismiss a viewpoint not on its merits but by associating its proponents with other forms of denial (the most insidious of which is Holocaust denial).

What's the point of discussing any measures if the response is akin to "we should act like everything is normal".

Who, exactly, is espousing such a view? Is that a legitimate view, much less a mainstream view? Or is it merely a straw man?