Coronovirus IV

[OurDee]

Now if a man was paid one lilly pad on the 1st day and every day after he was paid double the lilly pads he was paid on the previous day, and where as we will asume the pond in the first question started with one lilly pad on day one, and ended with 536,870,912 lilly pads on day 30, this man in the second question could have his pond 1 lilly pad shy of being covered on day 29, and 1 pad shy of being half covered on day 28.

 

[jamil]

I just discovered I have a rare symptom for Covid-19, so I need to run and get tested tomorrow.

I've had a red, annoying, itching "rash" on my toe next to my big toe on my right foot. I've had it for about two (2) weeks. It is annoying and hydrocortisone helps diminish the itching.

However, just as I was getting done doing some work I decided to check the news at the Associated Press website. I'll be darned but the cover story is on "Covid toes" which is a rare symptom of the virus. What I have on one (1) toe looks exactly like their picture.

So the calls have started. First to one of my managers to take off work tomorrow. Second to the VA (I'm covered through them) to go get my toe inspected at the nearest clinic. Third will be tomorrow to find the nearest Covid testing site and see if I can get tested.

I would have never considered an itchy foot rash to be linked to the virus but there it was. The toe symptom isn't listed on the CDC website.

Other than an annoying itching toe I feel fine. No fever, no significant cough (slight w/ allergy season), no big headaches, nada.

I've argued many of us could already have this thing and not even know it. We'll see if it hits home at a personal level.

Don't worry or concern yourselves about me. I feel just fine. I'm certain it will turn out well, come positive or negative.

Regards,

Doug

Best of luck, Doug.

 

[OurDee]

Doug, Please, Let us know how itchy toe turns out.

 

[jamil]

So I’ve been trying to get healthier. Been bike riding a lot. Over the weekend we biked along the Ohio river on both the Louisville and Jeffersonville/Clarksville/New Albany side. OMG was it crowded both days. Mostly no social distancing going on. Large groups of people walking on the Big Four bridge. A few people wearing masks, which outside, like I said, probably isn’t helping as much as it hurts.

Still I did not think that the density of the crowds were that problematic. I didn’t wear a mask outside while biking. And I didn’t feel like there was a big risk to me. There were a lot of people in some of the restaurants. So I did think those people's were a little retarded for putting themselves at risk. And generally most of the people in the areas we rode didn’t seem to give a flying **** about covid19. It was almost as crowded as a festival.







Along

 

[Libertarian01]

Best of luck, Doug.

Doug, Please, Let us know how itchy toe turns out.

Thanks.

I just got offline and scheduled a test at the New Haven Fire Dept tomorrow.

I'll head east to the Minute Clinic on Maplecrest around 1000 and from there south to New Haven.

It was fairly easy to schedule the appointment online. For those who should or need to here is their webpage: https://lhi.care/start

The clinic will be walk in so I am hoping that won't take too long. If it does, I'll just leave and come back later.

As much as we gripe about how slow things can be I must say that so far my limited experience has been damned fast!

Here is a little timeline:

Sunday 2045 - See the article on AP.
Sunday 2049 - after pondering for a minute or two call my manager.
Sunday 2116 - Call the VA to speak w/ a phone nurse.
Sunday 2207 - Call ends w/ VA. Care has been authorized offsite, my doctor informed, and information passed on to me.
Sunday 2255 - Begin online registration for testing.
Sunday 2310 - End registration and have appointment for Covid test.

In all I've also called friends whom I have visited and let them know my issue. So in about 150 minutes I have everything set for care tomorrow. I don't think that's too bad at all.

Makes me happy to NOT be in New York City!

Regards,

Doug

 

[bwframe]

90,000 / 331,000,000 = 0.02% of 2020 usa population


Is this what we have all be told to hide from?

Not to mention the counting method used that counts ANY death of a person with signs of virus as a covid death whether that is what killed them or not.

That just isn't true either. Certainly there are some deaths that fall into that category but the cause of death is determined by the physician or in some cases by the coroner. There are roughly 1 million physicians in the US. The vast majority are not in this conspiracy theory, they are putting down the real cause of death just like they have done for their entire careers. There are a few, of course, and there are some bureaucrats in various departments of health that are overriding the real cause of death so they can count them but that does not warrant such a blanket statement that ANY death is counted wrong. The crap about people eaten by crocodiles and then counted is also just that - crap.

You should be cautious about spreading your OPINION around as fact, my friend.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news...-death-counts-may-jump-later-week/5168118002/

...Indiana likely will see its coronavirus death count jump later this week when the state starts adding presumptive positive deaths to its tally.Until now the state has included in its official count only the deaths of people who tested positive for the virus known as SARS-CoV-2, Indiana State Health Commissioner Dr. Kris Box said.In some instances of death, however, the people never had a documented positive test, so the doctor listed COVID-19 only as an underlying cause. Now, the death count will be adjusted to include those individuals as well, Box said...

 

[Alpo]

That farmer's pond is awful large. About 19 sq. miles.

 

[jamil]

Now. C’mon. Just because they never tested positive doesn’t mean they didn’t die of covid. I mean. That’s a good way to judge cause of death. Right? If it could have been then it definitely was.

Sort of like, if it could have been your kid, it definitely was.

 

[JettaKnight]

Now. C’mon. Just because they never tested positive doesn’t mean they didn’t die of covid. I mean. That’s a good way to judge cause of death. Right? If it could have been then it definitely was.

Sort of like, if it could have been your kid, it definitely was.

Wilt Chamberlain?

 

[Tombs]

First, I'll agree it's a less than perfect analogy. Perhaps a better analogy is something like "what if guns really did occasionally go off on their own".

As far as all the time, some people having a problem etc... that's why I make the point that personal rights can conflict. This just isn't an issue where you can focus only on one side and say the other side doesn't have a point. The difference between usual times (of a tiny # of people being sensitive to normal microbes) vs a pandemic is magnified. The opportunity to see this one coming is not typical.

I'm not arguing AGAINST the right of commerce, travel etc. I'm saying both issues are real.

You can't say that normal biological functioning of human beings is a violation of another's rights. Simply breathing is enough to pass the virus onto someone else. Are we to say breathing is violating someone else's rights? If we do, then is that not a violation of the right to life?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We do not have the right to not feel scared, not become sick, and not incur any risk in our lives.

Now if people wish to take on altruistic goals for themselves, there's nothing wrong with that. When they try to force that on the rest of society, is where we have a serious problem.
Or, if you wish to apply due process to individuals who could potentially spread the illness, with a jury of their peers, then you could limit their rights. Doing so without due process is a constitutional violation.

Life is a series or risks, from cradle to grave. You can not call yourself a friend of freedom without accepting that it's up to the individual to decide what risks they are willing to take on, not society.

 

[CampingJosh]

If the number of lily pads in a pond double every day, and on the 30th day the pond will be completely covered, on what day will half the pond be covered?

Thursday. I'm pretty sure.

 

[Libertarian01]

If the number of lily pads in a pond double every day, and on the 30th day the pond will be completely covered, on what day will half the pond be covered?

That's easy, day 29.

The size of the pond doesn't matter, nor the number of starting lilies. I like lilies by the way.

On day 30 the pond is at 100%. Since the number of lilies are doubling each day 1/2 of 100% is 50%, or simply, the day before.

Regards,

Doug

 

[nonobaddog]

So Wednesday then.

 

[OurDee]

Your lilly pad pond must be growing in a virus model.

 

[chipbennett]

I have to call BS on this one. It was not always what you said.
Your version of history is based on your assumption that flattening the curve spreads the same number of cases and deaths.
That is not the same history as many others. Your assumption was never made by many others. You claim people are revising history but that is not the case. Perhaps you are just now becoming aware of the fact that others always knew flattening the curve would save lives.

I think it is quite obvious that flattening the curve has and will save lives.
First of it was always known that overwhelming the medical system would cost lives as some people would not even receive treatment - as in Italy and New York.
Secondly it gives time for treatment to be refined - people are not automatically being killed by ventilators anymore. The death rate is reducing with time even for people with severe symptoms.
Third it gives time for new or old drugs to be found that fight the infection - several gave been written up and some have been posted in this thread.
Fourth it gives time for new or old drugs to be found that may result in preventing infections in the first place.
Fifth it gives time for these drugs to be manufactured and distributed.

The whole idea that flattening the curve always meant the identical number of cases and deaths is preposterous to me. It just don't make sense.

The argument at the time was "two weeks to flatten the curve." Here, allow me to refresh your memory.

The only one of those five points (all of which I agree with, by the way, and always have) that "flattening the curve" would prevent was overwhelming healthcare system capacity, thereby preventing death by lack of medical care. And that was its sole purpose. Any attempt to tie "flattening the curve" to the other four was made after the fact - i.e. after the passing of the "two weeks to flatten the curve" - because none of them could be solved in two weeks.

 

[jamil]

You can't say that normal biological functioning of human beings is a violation of another's rights. Simply breathing is enough to pass the virus onto someone else. Are we to say breathing is violating someone else's rights? If we do, then is that not a violation of the right to life?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We do not have the right to not feel scared, not become sick, and not incur any risk in our lives.

Now if people wish to take on altruistic goals for themselves, there's nothing wrong with that. When they try to force that on the rest of society, is where we have a serious problem.
Or, if you wish to apply due process to individuals who could potentially spread the illness, with a jury of their peers, then you could limit their rights. Doing so without due process is a constitutional violation.

Life is a series or risks, from cradle to grave. You can not call yourself a friend of freedom without accepting that it's up to the individual to decide what risks they are willing to take on, not society.

Well, c'mon though. You're simplifying the situation down to a superficial level. It's not merely just breathing. No one's saying that you can't breathe at all.

I think the proper depth to evaluate this is to find the point of relevance. Okay, so I don't think you'd argue that you don't have a moral responsibility to take precautions not to breathe on people if you knew you had a communicable disease. The difference here is that we don't know who has it and who doesn't because of the long incubation period and the lack of widespread testing, etcetera, etcetera. Okay, so how relevant is the likelihood that you're spreading a disease that would harm people? That's the question, not whether simply breathing is no longer a right.

How each person thinks about that question depends on how likely one believes they are to pass it on to someone else, and how we think that disease might impact that other person's life. So if you're someone who thinks, "it ain't nuffin' but a little ol' flu. It ain't gonna hert ya" then you're probably not going to give a flying **** about mitigating your behavior at all. On the other hand, if you're pretty close to the thinking that "if it saves just one life" you might think everyone who doesn't wear a mask is committing literally murder. I'm just saying that there is a point between where the most truth lies. It's not that I think you hold the most extreme right position, but it's probably a bit too far right of that place where the most truth is. It may be that dusty88's is a bit too far left of that point.

 

[jamil]

That's easy, day 29.

The size of the pond doesn't matter, nor the number of starting lilies. I like lilies by the way.

On day 30 the pond is at 100%. Since the number of lilies are doubling each day 1/2 of 100% is 50%, or simply, the day before.

Regards,

Doug

I hate lily pads. When you're rowing through a swamp biome in your nicely crafted rowboat, they clog up your inventory as you run over them. And there's really nothing you can do with them. Unless you're on foot. They do help you be able to parkour across the water in the swamp. Or, I guess you could use them to craft structures on the surface of the water. Or, I guess you could use them to make a path to walk across water from one point to another. Okay. Nevermind. I just talked myself into liking lily pads. Kinda.

 

[chipbennett]

You can't say that normal biological functioning of human beings is a violation of another's rights. Simply breathing is enough to pass the virus onto someone else. Are we to say breathing is violating someone else's rights? If we do, then is that not a violation of the right to life?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We do not have the right to not feel scared, not become sick, and not incur any risk in our lives.

Now if people wish to take on altruistic goals for themselves, there's nothing wrong with that. When they try to force that on the rest of society, is where we have a serious problem.
Or, if you wish to apply due process to individuals who could potentially spread the illness, with a jury of their peers, then you could limit their rights. Doing so without due process is a constitutional violation.

Life is a series or risks, from cradle to grave. You can not call yourself a friend of freedom without accepting that it's up to the individual to decide what risks they are willing to take on, not society.

Rep inbound. This, exactly. I still am somewhat unsure what rights are conflicting here. Multiple people being generally out in public does not pose an inherent conflict of any actual, personal rights or individual liberties.

The right to pursue gainful employment, to participate in commerce, to maintain physical health through spending time outdoors and mental health through maintaining human connection - these are all extensions of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - and rights that we all share, and that do not inherently conflict because of the existence of a virus.

If the claim is that those rights "conflict" with other rights, such as the "right" to be in public without risking exposure to a virus - i.e. the right to be free from risk, or the fear of the consequences of that risk - then my response is that neither the freedom from risk nor the freedom from fear is a "right" in the first place, and therefore, no conflict of personal rights exists at all.

 

[jamil]

The argument at the time was "two weeks to flatten the curve." Here, allow me to refresh your memory.

The only one of those five points (all of which I agree with, by the way, and always have) that "flattening the curve" would prevent was overwhelming healthcare system capacity, thereby preventing death by lack of medical care. And that was its sole purpose. Any attempt to tie "flattening the curve" to the other four was made after the fact - i.e. after the passing of the "two weeks to flatten the curve" - because none of them could be solved in two weeks.

This is the way I remember it as well, however, people did start talking about it giving them more time to find new treatments pretty early on. But the primary focus of curve flattening was to avoid overwhelming the healthcare system. And at the time that made perfect sense to most people having heard what happened in Italy with people dying in their homes because there was no capacity to treat them. I think it would be hindsight at this point to say that we shouldn't have shut down as much as we did. In hindsight I think we could have shut things down more strategically. NY certainly should have taken things more seriously in the beginning rather than the petty bull**** they pulled to make the Trump administration look silly. But in most of the country I don't think it was not necessary.

 

[chipbennett]

Well, c'mon though. You're simplifying the situation down to a superficial level. It's not merely just breathing. No one's saying that you can't breathe at all.

Practically speaking, is there a difference between not breathing at all, and one's breath not being present because one's person is prohibited from being present?

Ultimately, though, the point I think you're trying to make is correct: there is a line somewhere. Obviously, intentionally trying to contaminate someone with what you reasonably believe to be infected bodily fluids (e.g. through intentionally coughing, sneezing, hard-breathing, etc. on that person with the knowledge and intent to effect said contamination) is a violation of that other person's rights.

The other end of that spectrum is someone who is not symptomatic, who has no reason to believe he is infected, not intentionally projecting his bodily fluids upon another person but is instead merely occupying proximal, public space with that person.

Whether it is their intent or not, some of the people decrying the end of stay-at-home orders come across as implying that the latter example is as heinous as the former. And it is that implication to which people are reacting.

I think the proper depth to evaluate this is to find the point of relevance. Okay, so I don't think you'd argue that you don't have a moral responsibility to take precautions not to breathe on people if you knew you had a communicable disease. The difference here is that we don't know who has it and who doesn't because of the long incubation period and the lack of widespread testing, etcetera, etcetera. Okay, so how relevant is the likelihood that you're spreading a disease that would harm people? That's the question, not whether simply breathing is no longer a right.

And it is important to remember that there is an already-established mechanism for dealing with people while respecting their right to due process: court-ordered quarantine. The CDC can go to court and get a federal quarantine order against specific persons, with specific evidence of infection. I believe the states have similar processes at the state level. I am not aware of anyone taking issue with such mechanisms while following due process.

How each person thinks about that question depends on how likely one believes they are to pass it on to someone else, and how we think that disease might impact that other person's life. So if you're someone who thinks, "it ain't nuffin' but a little ol' flu. It ain't gonna hert ya" then you're probably not going to give a flying **** about mitigating your behavior at all. On the other hand, if you're pretty close to the thinking that "if it saves just one life" you might think everyone who doesn't wear a mask is committing literally murder. I'm just saying that there is a point between where the most truth lies. It's not that I think you hold the most extreme right position, but it's probably a bit too far right of that place where the most truth is. It may be that dusty88's is a bit too far left of that point.

And that remaining ambiguity should indicate why it is critical that we err on the side of respecting due process rights, and the presumption of a) not being infected, and b) innocence with respect to intent to cause harm.

I do not understand how anyone who claims to espouse libertarian (dusty88 or anyone else) viewpoints could argue for state control taking precedence over due process rights in response to such ambiguity.