Hospitals don't need to be overrun with patients going through alcohol withdrawal, is why liquor stores are essential. Alcohol withdrawal can kill you. Worn out clothes can't kill you.

That said, I agree people should be able to decide what they're comfortable doing.

In liquor stores it's fairly easy to isolate customer flows. North Carolina ABC stores are taking orders outside, pulling product for the customers, and funneling the customers, one at a time, to the register to pay for their purchase. The products, the rails, the counters, etc. can all be sanitized quickly and easily.

You don't have to try on liquor; or wander around the store deciding on a style, fit, or color. Purchasing clothing, on the other hand, involves pulling product off the shelf, touching racks and hangers already touched by other customers. It involves trying clothing on - going into a changing room the door handles, hooks, hangers, etc. that have already been used by other customers - or implementing a complex operation of sanitizing the entire store between customers, not all of whom will make a purchase.

Eliot Rabin runs an upscale boutique called Peter Elliot

At those prices, I doubt too many customers walk into that store. They either call in and tell them what they want and the sizes needed, or send their personal shopper to do that icky business for them.

> You don't have to try on liquor

Well, no, Coney, you don't HAVE to… But I think you're missing something if you don't at some point in your life.

ABC stores are weird. They had those in Pennsylvania, and when visiting one it always felt like a Soviet meld of organized crime and Soviet hospitality, no matter how well-stocked the shelves.

ABC stores are weird. They had those in Pennsylvania, and when visiting one it always felt like a Soviet meld of organized crime and Soviet hospitality, no matter how well-stocked the shelves. ~ Crid at April 30, 2020 9:00 AM

Yep. There's no variety and any obscure liquor or liqueur you might want to try - say a small-batch craft-distilled liquor (e.g., Bluecoat Gin from Philadelphia) - is simply not available.

In California, I could purchase most of what I needed from the grocery store and purchase any unique or hard-to-find cocktail ingredients from a specialty liquor store (e.g., Beverages and More). Not so here, where the state controls what you can drink and handcuffs any potential competition.

ABC stores are weird. They had those in Pennsylvania

Ah. Pennsylvania is weird when it comes to booze.

NJ liquor stores apparently use a Walmart model, packing shelves, with 12 different kinds of saki, liter and even 2-liter and KEGS of some essential fluids; I wonder if they install piping to your house if your credit is good enough...

Walmart sells hard liquor in Indiana. Lower prices every day!

Walmart sells hard liquor in Indiana.

And Missouri.

While I agree governments are blundering left and right, the whole "adults deciding what personal risk they are comfortable with" is more complicated with infectious diseases.

A yoga instructor I know, for example, is posting on FB about how he's hooking up with strangers on dating apps, offering small-group classes in his apartment (during the shut-down) and will be going out in public as much as he possibly can starting tomorrow (when our state's shelter in place lift) sans mask. He, personally, is confident in his body's ability to fight off the virus and has signed that waiver that's floating around on social media about "waiving all hospital treatment for COVID-19, should he fall seriously ill)." He is #TeamHerdImmunity and wishes to acquire the virus asap. I know a few people who feel this way, to varying degrees, in my woo-woo city.

OK cool. But, by increasing his chances of being infected and deciding he's OK with the risk personally -- he's also making that decision for those who have less power over their personal-risk decisions (ie, those who work with the public).

I know we can't all stay inside forever. And it's possible I have already passed on the virus to others (my husband is an essential worker, interacts with dozens of people per day -- and I've been in grocery stores a few times). And everyone is making imperfect risk-based decisions about how much to go out into the world right now.

But this isn't like deciding you're OK with walking around in a bad neighborhood at night, scuba diving, or bungee jumping. In absence of perfect data about transmission and reliable knowledge of who has the disease at any given time, each decision could have ripple effects for strangers.

So the question I'm asking myself (in the short term) is not, "Do *I* feel safe doing this or am I comfortable with the level or risk to me?" but, "Can I do this in a way that will lessen the chance of me passing on the virus, if I do have it, to others?"

I know not everyone will ask that question (and I'm about making them do it), but, ethically, COVID-19 is not, for me, a question of personal safety.

You don't get to make "adult decisions" that could well kill some elderly person who never went to those stores.

If you want to try artisinal alcohol, I recommend Magpie Mead

http://magpiemead.com/

You beat me to it, solar. Glad you're back.

If even spoiled children can learn to accept mask-wearing, even when they know THEY aren't likely to get sick, well...

Good to "see" you too, Lenona!

Been lurking for a while.

And to correct my egregious typo in the last para of my post I meant "I'm NOT about making them do it," not "I'm about making them do it." I am about *encouraging* them to do it, though.

Not to mention kids can't go to playgrounds or play sports, which is likely making them and their parents angrier every day. But again...

Adults do make adult decisions, even when government says it's not allowed.

Hi Solar—

> In absence of perfect data about
> transmission and reliable knowledge
> of who has the disease at any given
> time, each decision could have
> ripple effects for strangers.

Yes, and it was ever thus We're all interdependent, and we always have been.

Listen— After the war, about seven powerful forces in human nature and another fifteen in government and industry conspired to give Americans the illusion that (A.) they personally were responsible for their outrageously comfortable lives and (B.) they personally had no responsibility to those less-blessed and (C.) they personally were impervious to the unpleasantness which pocked the lives of those less fortunate.

Well, these crises could put an end to that.

We put the planet on hold for six weeks, and no medical magic has appeared… No treatments, no insights, and no notable information by which we can make our choices. Additionally, those who asked us to suspend our lives and cripple our futures have shown no clarity about how to make things better… Not in the context of this virus or in any other way.

I too feel Solar's impulse to mumble something about 'perfect data,' but there's never any such thing in any walk of life. Not in finance, not in health, not in sexuality and romance, not in the work we each chose for our lives. Every human decision includes a risk which might be minimized but can't be eradicated. And specifically…

This is a PANDEMIC. This isn't a 'black swan,' it's merely a profoundly disturbing crisis. We've always been at risk for these. We can be disappointed that authorities around the globe didn't do more to protect us from the Wuhan virus, but we can't pretend to be surprised by them or by it.

If it's decided that we need to open things up, in big ways or small, I won't be too angry, whatever my personal outome.

Kent McManigal at April 30, 2020 1:11 PM ✔

What I mean is, yeah Lenona, we DO "get to make ADULT decisions" which will impel bad outcomes for the deeply senior and the fragile.

We can argue that China "didn't get to make the ADULT decision" to run an incompetently staffed research facility a few blocks from a 'wet market' in a culture of authoritarian stupidity and relative impoverishment.

But good luck getting them to listen to you. (To us.)

Guys— Life just got tougher.

Just so you know, it's sofar, not solar. I can't even expand the font.

So what people seem to be saying is that it's time for the elderly and unproductive - plus anyone not in the best of health - to die, like it or not.

I can't help but help but think of the play "Alcestis." Here's part of the plot, as told by Edith Hamilton:

...(Apollo) learned that the three Fates had spun all of Admetus' thread of life, and were on the point of cutting it. He obtained from them a respite. If someone would die in Admetus' stead, he could live. This news he took to Admetus, who at once set about finding a substitute for himself. He went first quite confidently to his father and mother. They were old and they were devoted to him. Certainly one or the other would consent to take his place in the world of the dead. But to his astonishment he found they would not. They told him, "God's daylight is sweet even to the old. We do not ask you to die for us. We will not die for you." And they were completely unmoved by his angry contempt: "You, standing palsied at the gate of death and yet afraid to die!"

He would not give up, however. He went to his friends begging one after another of them to die and let him live. He evidently thought his life was so valuable that someone would surely save it even at the cost of the supreme sacrifice. But he met with an invariable refusal. At last in despair he went back to his house and there he found a substitute. His wife Alcestis offered to die for him. No one who has read so far will need to be told that he accepted the offer. He felt exceedingly sorry for her and still more for himself in having to lose so good a wife, and he stood weeping beside her as she died. When she was gone he was overwhelmed with grief and decreed that she should have the most magnificent of funerals. It was at this point that Hercules arrived...

Yes, Crid, even our decisions (purchasing, eating, otherwise) "before all this" affected others (and still do). And many daily decisions are arguably "net bad" the way our society is set up (The show "The Good Place" does a remarkably good job illustrating that).

And that is precisely my problem with this invocation of "personal safety" and "personal risk" which is floating around everywhere as people start to venture out more. And that we can compare public behavior amid pre-vaccine/pre-herd immunity COVID-19 (a known risk with the ability to spread with minor/no symptoms) to the decision to jump off a bridge or whatever.

I'd respect people more if they said, "Well, our bus rides, funerals, church services and shopping trips are going to kill a lot of people before we get a vaccine -- if we get one -- or acheive some kind of herd immunity. Even though I'm healthy and at low risk (or really comfortable with dying if it's my time), I recognize I can still spread the virus to others. So, I'm going to wear my mask at the grocery store, utilize curbside food delivery and tip copiously, and not throw a rager at my house to avoid contributing more than I have to to the spread of this thing."

I may know a lot of super odd ducks, but I have had the "masks are to keep your spittle to yourself" talk with various people who insist that contracting COVID is an exciting chance for them to test their own immune systems and something they are comfortable with the "personal risk" of.

Yes, life just got tougher. And we shouldn't be soothing ourselves with this idea that we can make peace with our personal risk.

... If we get a vaccine, then people who can should get vaccinated (again, not just for their personal safety, but for the protection of others).

It is not just that the governments are making these risks decision for people; it is that they are so damn arbitrary!

It is illegal for ME to go for a walk in the nearby park by myself. But, not illegal for cops and firefighters to all stand shoulder to shoulder without any masks and clap for "hero" healthcare workers. So who is the greater danger to the public?

It is illegal for a dad to play catch with his 3-year old daughter in the park; but, it is okay for the cops, again without masks or gloves, to arrest him and put him in the back of their police car; which for all we know could have had a COVID-19 infected criminal just minutes earlier. Who is creating the greater danger to spreading disease?

It is illegal in some states for construction workers to work unless they are under government contracts! Just how does a government contract prevent the workers from catching/spreading disease?

This list of inconsistencies seems endless!

We've had pandemics like this in the past and the government didn't throw millions out of work! So, why do so now? It makes no sense.

I swear if one more person says it is to keep "granny" safe; I will tell them that MY grandparents were made of tougher stuff than your pansy-ass kin. None of my grandparents, who lived through the great depression and world wars, would be willing to sacrifice their kids and grand kids financial well being and future just so they wouldn't die from a pandemic.

I see this as nothing more than a naked power grab. The "bad orange man" brought the US economy back to life from the Obamanation dead and now so many want to take him and and those who voted for him down.

Lenona: So what people seem to be saying is that it's time for the elderly and unproductive - plus anyone not in the best of health - to die, like it or not.

Is that what you've been saying for the past decades about vulnerable people dying from influenza, pneumonia (45,000 deaths a year) and all the other contagious diseases that wreak havoc on the elderly and frail?

Since long before there was covid-19 there have been millions of elderly people, and people of all ages, with serious chronic diseases and immunodeficiency disorders, to whom common infectious diseases, things that healthy people barely notice, are life threatening. Every year thousands of them die, mostly at an old age, and millions of them live.

How do you think those millions survive and live satisfying lives, often into their 70's and 80's, with life threatening, contagious diseases all around, without shutting down the country and isolating the entire population?

Instead of imposing the medieval strategies that probably don't work much better now than they did in the dark ages, it would make more sense to invest a couple of $trillion and more effort in modern, evidence based standards of practice that are widely used and known to work.

Instead of shutting down the entire economy and isolating a few hundred million people who have no risk for serious harm, the $2+trillion could have been spent on identifying the smaller number with high risk and creating individual plans based on individual risks and needs, and let everyone else carry on as usual.

Poverty kills too, and makes every disease more deadly. The collapse in oil prices threatens the lives of millions of people. How many of the tens of millions unemployed lost medical insurance?

Every day during normal times thousands of life threatening diseases are detected early enough to be treated effectively. The screening, diagnostic and other related medical procedures are now deemed non-essential.

Emergency rooms that usually see two to three hundred people a day are now seeing a hundred. Where are all the rest?

The massive lock down doesn't make sense. More people are starting to suspect it's not about science and safety, it's about politics and control.

A headline on a satire website says:
Democratic governors warn that lock down could last until ‘we get a Democratic president’

I find it hard to imagine we'd have anyone left over 40 in the entire state of New York if it hadn't been for the lockdown. The deaths have slowed down a bit since April 9, but in the entire nation, over 2,000 lives have been lost every day since then. Also, in a regular flu season, you don't hear of doctors committing suicide or morgue trucks that are stinking up the neighborhood because they can't unload.

Maybe we should just let the elderly and those youngish people with health conditions do the voting? How many would be willing to say they'd die tomorrow, for,the country?

Especially when, for many, that would mean leaving children behind with no guardians? (Plenty of youngish parents have diabetes, and plenty of otherwise healthy people are raising their grandchildren right now. Not to mention foster parents.)

> So what people seem to be saying
> is that it's time for the elderly
> and unproductive - plus anyone not
> in the best of health - to die,
> like it or not.

No one is saying anything of the kind, and they don't even 'seem' to.

Lockdown objectors want to return to the public sphere to defend their families and protect their (dwindling) interests, even at risk to themselves.

(For a couple hundred thousand years, that was the definition of parenthood, certainly of masculinity, and there's nothing new under the sun.)

If you, as a policy enthusiast, are 'saying' they're forbidden to do so, exactly who is the aggressor demanding sacrificial death of others?

If the elderly and those who care for them were issuing checks — and I mean personal checks represented genuinely accrued wealth, not this TrumpBux foolishness — to those less medically threatened by the nature of this disease, their posture might seem less haughty.

But I've never heard anyone suggest anything of the kind. Hell, *I* have family seniors at risk, and have heretofore not uttered such a word.


> that is precisely my problem with
> this invocation of "personal safety"
> and "personal risk"

I've never heard any serious commenter use such precious or highfalutin' language.


Guys, consider this quotation from a book by O'Rourke:

The chief virtue of a capitalist mode of production is its ability to create wealth. Wealth is created when assets are moved from lower to higher valued uses.

-- Luke Froeb

Lockdown fans say that Trump & Sanders are clever enough that we don't have to worry about such things— It's a new day! There are new truths!

I doubt it.

Whether Trump's name's on the checks or not, keen observers have acknowledged that the money's not coming from *his* account.

> Just so you know, it's
> sofar, not solar.

I was blinded by his sunny disposition!

(Sorry, was on a miniature submicro laptop.)

Oh, I've defintely heard people say it is time for the elderly and weak to die. They didn't seem to say it...they said it.

Lenona: I find it hard to imagine we'd have anyone left over 40 in the entire state of New York if it hadn't been for the lockdown. The deaths have slowed down a bit since April 9, but in the entire nation, over 2,000 lives have been lost every day since then.

And yet, according to the CDC, the total number of deaths from all causes during the first 16 weeks of 2020, including tens of thousands of deaths from covid-19, is about 40,000 (4.3%) less than the average of the first 16 weeks of the last three years. They are exaggerating the official death count. Thousands of people who died of other things but tested positive for covid-19 were included in the death count. They've added thousands of deaths of people who were not tested but had symptoms similar to covid-19 (and every other viral respiratory infection). Does that make sense when only 8% of tests on people with symptoms are positive? Unlike other countries that's the official policy in the US.

Why do you think there wouldn't be anyone left over 40? 92% of deaths from covid-19 in the US are people over 65. Of people 80 and older with confirmed covid-19, almost all have other serious medical conditions - heart disease, kidney disease, cancer, COPD, CHF - yet 86% recover. Ten children have died from covid-19. All had other complicating conditions. The flu has killed 100 children this year.

Based on several studies using antibody testing on samples of the general public, it's estimated that the number of people who've been infected with covid-19 is up to 50 times higher than the number of confirmed cases (1,095,304 confirmed as of 30Apr) A couple of studies say as much as 85 and 100 times higher. That would indicate as many as 50-100 million people have already been infected in the US. Researchers using other methods in early April estimated that only 1.6% of cases were being detected. One study done a couple weeks ago found that 21% of people in NYC had antibodies, showing that about 1.7 million people in New York City have been infected. Around half of all people infected with covid-19 never have any symptoms, that is, they don't get sick and never know they had it. Around 80-90% of the other half have mild symptoms like a cold.

Before covid-19 you didn't hear of doctors committing suicide because very few of the 45,000 suicides every year are reported in the news unless they're connected with some other sensationalized event. Over the last 25 years I've heard of a few doctors attempting suicide because I work in mental health and when they did that they got sent my way.

How do you protect the grandmas and grandpas raising grandchildren, and youngish parents with diabetes, and people with immune system disorders or heart disease or severe asthma? An effective strategy would be focused on them and not on everyone else. Each one has different risks based on the type and severity of their illness, their living arrangements, the things they need to do, the things they want to do, who they live with, who they socialize with, etc. You realize that if they get covid-19 the risk is different for each one, and it isn't a death sentence. You create a plan specifically designed for each one. This isn't something new. Most if not all of them probably already have some kind of strategy to protect themselves from the infectious diseases and other things in their environment that are a threat to them. When there's a new or more serious threat you update their plan accordingly. They'll be a lot safer with a plan that addresses their own personal needs than they are with a mass strategy focused on everyone else and controlled by government officials who aren't even aware of their existence.

Mass nationwide lock downs - shutting down business, massive unemployment, travel bans, bans on gatherings, universal house arrest, mandatory silly improvised face coverings, isolating healthy people, suppression of civil and human rights, all backed up with threats of fines, arrest and violence - didn't work in the middle ages, and that's probably why they stopped doing it for the few hundred years until March 2020.

The mass lock down isn't working. Tens of millions still got infected. Thirty million people are unemployed. That means 120 million are still out there doing what they do along with spreading the virus. You can't stop a highly contagious virus that way. It doesn't make sense.

Ken R says:

"The mass lock down isn't working. Tens of millions still got infected."

I think you are engaging in black and white thinking here.

No one expected the lock down to prevent all infections. Instead the lock down was intended to slow the spread of infections.

The effect of the lock down is clearly demonstrated in the data. This is what people were talking about with regard to flattening the curve.

What do you suppose "working" would have looked like exactly?

Your argument seems to be analogous to saying that seat belts don't work because people still die in car crashes when they wear them.

The lock down was never going to be some miracle measure that eliminated the virus in a few weeks. It could only ever slow the spread and give us more time to build ventilators and reduce impact on the medical community by spreading out the rate of hospital admission.

If we go back to business as usual many people will die.

This happened in 1918 when the second wave of deaths from the Spanish flu was much worse than the initial wave.

In times of crisis our actions need to be driven by responsibility and not rights.

The responsible way to get back to normal is to distribute antibody tests and identify who has the highest probability of already being immune, to continue to aggressively test for infection and isolate people who are a risk to others, and to ensure folks continue to socially distance and use ppe.

Without taking these precautions we are going to make things worse.

> I've defintely heard people say
> it is time for the elderly and
> weak to die. They didn't seem
> to say it...they said it.

Okay, just a few sincere questions:

Was anyone asking them as a serious consideration of policy? There are people who say gays just haven't met the right boy/girl yet, that blacks should go back to Africa and Asians should go back to Asia and there should be no wheelchair-accessible ramps in any public buildings and all landlords should lose their property and all children should lose their tricycles. Those who say such things are often clumsy spirits, and wouldn't have so much steam to blow off if they handled their interior lives with a little more tidiness… But until they do actually form some new habits, do we have to worry about them every time they get cranky? Were they the kind of people who were going to be saying wretched things even if the last three months had been the most agreeable in a century?

Lenona, speaking casually and perhaps not to be held to the letter of her offhand remark, began with the the phrase: "So what people seem to be saying is that it's time for..." etc.

Which kinda stacks the deck, doesn't it? Do we think there's some broad new enthusiasm for destructive cruelty in the springtime breezes?

I don't think so. A lot of people are terribly frustrated, as well as stoned to the gills on manipulative media both social and mainstream. But I don't think we're dealing with a caustic new bloodlust for the flesh of seniors.


Put another way: Did you have the experience —maybe in your 20's (as I did)— of meeting or working with a person who wasn't just going through a pattern of dark pessimism for a year or two, as some of us do in school or whatever, but who had really adopted a grim and angry outlook as the emotional foundation for the rest of their life, as might alcoholic failures in their late sixties?

I met one when I was twenty-five, and will never forget that girl... Her bitterness was a baseless distraction from a promising life with rich friendships and opportunities. (As our paths diverged, she was pregnant, and there was no evidence she was trying to fly at a new altitude.)

And there have been one or two like that in each decade since.

Plus, some people are just dim & frightened. Plus, some people are just assholes.

But I don't any of these types describe a new direction in American character.

_Oh, I've defintely heard people say it is time for the elderly and weak to die. They didn't seem to say it...they said it._

Yep. My state's Lt. Governor literally said it. My parents (65+) have also said it, but they don't count themselves among the "weak and elderly."

_Especially when, for many, that would mean leaving children behind with no guardians?_

I think things are going to get more real for those in less-affected areas quickly. It's inevitable because we can't all stay inside forever. At least it will put an end to the insufferable, "I've taken care of myself and my health, I'm going to be fine" talk. Part of me would love every health nut and chiropractor on my facebook feed posting about how "someone else, not me will suffer" to get a nasty case. But I also don't want that because those dummies will no doubt be out and about spreading it.

The lock down was never going to be some miracle measure that eliminated the virus in a few weeks. It could only ever slow the spread and give us more time to build ventilators and reduce impact on the medical community by spreading out the rate of hospital admission.

If we go back to business as usual many people will die.}}}

There is a disconnect between the national conversation regarding current lockdown policies, and the scientific facts of what an epidemic does. I think the above comment shows some of this disconnect. First paragraph is factual and virtually all of us understood and cooperated with the strategy to flatten the curve because it would buy us time to get prepared. That's completely reasonable.
But the second part--"If we go back to business as usual many people will die" ignores the whole point established in the first paragraph. The virus has NOT gone away and WILL work its way through the populace until herd immunity is achieved. Many people will die, period. No one wants to talk about that. What we CAN control is supporting people who are especially vulnerable so they can continue to take extreme precautions. This will also bring down the death rate dramatically, because the vulnerable population is small enough that the non-vulnerable can establish herd immunity with fewer casualties. The progression of the virus is a Bell curve regardless of whether its steep and quick, or flatter over time. Same number of people ultimately infected either way. So what exactly is the point of continuing a lockdown now that we are medically prepared? The national conversation and political leaders keep avoiding this point, but it IS the entire point at this time!

RigelDog Says:

"The virus has NOT gone away and WILL work its way through the populace until herd immunity is achieved. Many people will die, period. No one wants to talk about that."

I'm pretty sure you missed the relevant content and skipped several important points before you went to this place.

The point is *minimizing* deaths.

This is achieved by slowing the rate of progression.

This allows us not to flood the medical system an to push ourselves into a position where the number of people needing hospital care exceeds the number of hospital beds available, or the number of ventilators available, or exceeds the physical and mental capacity of doctors and nurses to keep up.

"So what exactly is the point of continuing a lockdown now that we are medically prepared?"

Because we aren't actually medically prepared for the outcome of return to business as usual.

If we return to the exponential growth curve we were on 1 month ago we will very quickly exceed capacity.

As it stands the death toll and the rate of infection have only started to stabilize... we haven't actually identified a decline yet.

We are in reduction of the first and second derivative territory here. We have reduced the rate of increase and reduced the rate of the rate of increase.

To use a car as an analogy again. All we have done is taken our foot off of the gas pedal. We haven't really started to hit the break yet.

That is progress, but it isn't enough to just pretend everything is normal.

RigelDog Says:

"The progression of the virus is a Bell curve regardless of whether its steep and quick, or flatter over time."

This isn't a correct description of the distribution you are looking for.

The progression follows an exponential curve in the early phases (not a normal distribution).

Over the entire course of the pandemic it will follow what is known as a logistic curve, which looks like an exponential early on and then has an inflection point when things start to improve.

If you hit the inflection point and then stop doing all of the things that got you there... you'll go right back onto an exponential trajectory.

If you hit the inflection point and then stop doing all of the things that got you there... you'll go right back onto an exponential trajectory.

Artemis at May 1, 2020 9:56 AM

Assuming facts not in evidence. Winter in northern Italy, Wuhan, New York City and Detroit; verses spring summer heat in both northern and southern cities, and rural areas.
Apples and tennis balls.

These “trajectories” you talk of are crap and they will continue to be total crap. You don’t want recognize that Covid, and the flu are acquired primarily indoors from prolonged contact with others which is why they thrive in cold weather.

The so called “lockdowns” have been totally ineffective because they all targeted the wrong behaviors, and the wrong people.

Artemis said: The point is *minimizing* deaths.

This is achieved by slowing the rate of progression.

This allows us not to flood the medical system an to push ourselves into a position where the number of people needing hospital care exceeds the number of hospital beds available, or the number of ventilators available, or exceeds the physical and mental capacity of doctors and nurses to keep up.}}}

I think your reply is in agreement with one of my points, which is that the infection is ultimately going to reach out to virtually everyone. Did I infer that correctly? My issue with this is a huge one, because the average person is definitely being convinced that we will STOP the infection if we simply lock down for long enough. It seems that he average person is not expecting new infections and new deaths.

"So what exactly is the point of continuing a lockdown now that we are medically prepared?"

Artemis said: Because we aren't actually medically prepared for the outcome of return to business as usual.}}}

I appreciate your direct and clear response, Artemis. What I have not personally seen are the stats that show that we would not be prepared medically. I agree that it's of utmost importance to not overwhelm the medical system and that this is a reason for calibratred lockdown, especially if it's targeted carefully to areas where medical capacity is in question.
Here's my question: Since we would no longer be surprised by this virus, vulnerable people would be sequestered, field hospitals and ships are available, ventilators have been produced, and medical supplies are up to speed, how are we so sure that we would be overwhelmed?

RigelDog said: "The progression of the virus is a Bell curve regardless of whether its steep and quick, or flatter over time."

Artemis replied: This isn't a correct description of the distribution you are looking for.

The progression follows an exponential curve in the early phases (not a normal distribution).

Over the entire course of the pandemic it will follow what is known as a logistic curve, which looks like an exponential early on and then has an inflection point when things start to improve. }}}

You are right, I did not use the correct term for the shape of the curve. It's not a Bell curve, which I think has a symmetrical shape. My intended point was that an epidemic will follow an iron law of sorts, where the ultimate number of people under the umbrella of the curve (regardless of its shape) who will become infected is the same over time. We can minimize deaths by lengthening the curve to give us time to be prepared, but that is the only proven reason to lengthen the process. The virus doesn't "go away" until there is herd immunity. Since the US isn't a tiny hermetically sealed nation, I also assume that visitors from other areas can and will cause new infections, although when we have herd immunity/vaccine those cases won't trigger an epidemic.

Isab Says:

"Assuming facts not in evidence. Winter in northern Italy, Wuhan, New York City and Detroit; verses spring summer heat in both northern and southern cities, and rural areas."

Actually I'm not assuming anything here Isab.

Please show us evidence that COVID19 actually has shows a dramatically reduced infection rate due to summer heat.

You are the one assuming facts not in evidence.

We do not actually know if summer heat will do anything significant in this case.

"These “trajectories” you talk of are crap and they will continue to be total crap. You don’t want recognize that Covid, and the flu are acquired primarily indoors from prolonged contact with others which is why they thrive in cold weather."

The flu and Covid are not the same.

Covid19 is *much* more contagious than the flu.

That is what the data and evidence show.

RigelDog Says:

"I think your reply is in agreement with one of my points, which is that the infection is ultimately going to reach out to virtually everyone. Did I infer that correctly?"

This is a fair statement to make. I do not know if it will reach saturation within the population, but there is a good chance overtime everyone will be exposed at some point in the future.

"My issue with this is a huge one, because the average person is definitely being convinced that we will STOP the infection if we simply lock down for long enough. It seems that he average person is not expecting new infections and new deaths."

I cannot speak to what the average person knows, but whenever I talk to people I try and make certain they understand that we are just spreading things out and buying time for development of treatments, vaccines, generation of medical equipment, and ensuring we do not overload existing medical resources.

If the average person does not understand this I am not sure how to fix this.

This is something that should be made clear at each and every press briefing. Repeat it as much as it takes to get the point across.

"What I have not personally seen are the stats that show that we would not be prepared medically. I agree that it's of utmost importance to not overwhelm the medical system and that this is a reason for calibratred lockdown, especially if it's targeted carefully to areas where medical capacity is in question."

All I am suggesting is that however we get things moving again we need to be smart and targeted.

That includes things like you suggest, selecting certain low risk areas to start, getting lots of testing available so we can track new infections and test people for potential immunity.

I don't want to stay locked down for any longer than I have to either, which is why I want us to do things right.

The price for doing things wrong is to end up back where we were 1 month ago.

I really want this to be handled by the scientists and medical professionals who specialize in this kind of thing. This isn't the time for anyone to me making decisions based on expedient politics.

"My intended point was that an epidemic will follow an iron law of sorts, where the ultimate number of people under the umbrella of the curve (regardless of its shape) who will become infected is the same over time. We can minimize deaths by lengthening the curve to give us time to be prepared, but that is the only proven reason to lengthen the process. The virus doesn't "go away" until there is herd immunity."

I agree with pretty much everything you've said here.

In principle one can limit the total number of infections as well... but in practice that is very unlikely to happen.

Isab,

FYI, here is an article that indicates that summer heat is unlikely to do much with regard to the spread of COVID19:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/experts-covid-19-pandemic-unlikely-ebb-weather-warms

Here is the actual scientific publication if you want to read that as well:

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25771/rapid-expert-consultation-on-sars-cov-2-survival-in-relation-to-temperature-and-humidity-and-potential-for-seasonality-for-the-covid-19-pandemic-april-7-2020

So not only are you wrong about me assuming things not in evidence... the actual evidence suggests that your claim that summer heat will have some kind of significant beneficial impact is wrong.

Where exactly did you get that claim from in the first place?

...but they don't count themselves among the "weak and elderly." ~ sofar at May 1, 2020 8:24 AM

Folks calling for the death or arrest of inconvenient people rarely do. They always think they'll be in a position of power or honor come the revolution.

> My state's Lt. Governor
> literally said it.

Which state, and where was he/she when he said it?

Re: Weather, things are not great in equatorial Oceania:

In terms of death numbers, Indonesia ranks fifth in Asia with 800 deaths.[4] Its fatality rate is also one of the highest in the world at around 8 percent.

And speaking of our 4th most-populous nation, have a glass of milk whydoncha.

Artemis: FYI, here is an article that indicates that summer heat is unlikely to do much with regard to the spread of COVID19

That is an interesting article. It makes some good points. In a dismissive tone it acknowledges that scientific studies do show that both increases and decreases in temperature and humidity beyond the optimum range that covid-19 thrives in significantly decrease its R0 - its ability to spread.

It also says correctly that there are many other variables besides temperature and humidity that affect how many people will get it, one being that the human immune system has no previous experience with covid-19; that the virus is spreading in countries in the southern hemisphere, so even though higher temperature and humidity lower its ability to spread, we can't assume that it won't still spread during spring and summer in the northern hemisphere.

Which is all true. The same thing is true of the seasonal flu. It spreads all year round. Because of various changes in human behaviors (people stay isolated indoors more) and environmental conditions (colder and dryer) a lot more people get it in fall and winter than in spring and summer.

Here's one of the studies mentioned in the article.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3551767

I wasn't able to read the other article you linked because I can't log in to their website. The title and description describe it not as a scientific study, but as a sort of survey of opinions of experts.

Can heat, sunlight slow spread of COVID-19? Health expert weighs in ---- Recent laboratory studies by the U.S. Army high-level biosecurity lab suggest that heat and sunlight can potentially slow the spread of COVID-19.

https://abc7.com/does-heat-kill-coronavirus-covid-19-warm-weather-hot/6136339/

Department of Homeland Security Study: Heat and Humidity Kill the Coronavirus

Could warm weather bring a reprieve?

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/department-homeland-security-study-heat-and-humidity-kill-coronavirus-147806

This is interesting:

http://covid19-report.com/#/r-value

What do you suppose "working" would have looked like exactly?

It would have looked like a lot fewer people with high risk for serious complications being hospitalized and dying.

I think -- A large effort focused on identifying those people and creating individualized strategies for protecting them would have "worked".

Ken R,

The R-value data is interesting and something valuable to keep in mind.

That being said, what is critically important is that neither heat nor humidity reduce R0 below the critical value of 1.

Anything above a value of 1 means exponential growth.

The range of values presented on your map are from ~1.6 to ~2.5.

While reduction in R0 is great, the point is we cannot expect heat and humidity to stop the spread of COVID-19.

Just for reference the estimated R0 for the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic that killed millions of people across the globe was between ~1.4 and ~2.8 (which is precisely the range we are talking about for COVID-19).

For heat and humidity to actually be effective in preventing exponential growth the R0 would need to at least be in the .9 range. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to be the case.

Based on the available data is it wishful thinking that everything will just disappear because of the heat.

It is unwise to engage in wishful thinking in an attempt to squash a viral outbreak.

Ken R,

Just for additional reference the R0 value for the seasonal flu is ~1.3.

This is the fundamental reason why comparisons with the flu are invalid.

Coronavirus is *much* more contagious.

> They always think they'll be
> in a position of power or honor
> come the revolution.

That presumption, and its inevitable denouement, should be baked into children's diversions... Even the shitty stuff — whatever the current media equivalent to Hanna-Barbera cartoons is — for today's youngins. We should be cooking some savvy right into their doughy little hearts! This is what happens if you think you're going to be a leader when the shit hits the fan: You'll be strung up with piano wire, and you'll deserve it.

Because people aren't getting the message, no matter how often the theme appears in history.

From Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:

"“We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

In the meantime, re what I said:

Maybe we should just let the elderly and those youngish people with health conditions do the voting? How many would be willing to say they'd die tomorrow, for,the country?

Especially when, for many, that would mean leaving children behind with no guardians? (Plenty of youngish parents have diabetes, and plenty of otherwise healthy people are raising their grandchildren right now. Not to mention foster parents.)
__________________________________

We might add, to those hypothetical voters, those essential blue-collar workers (grocery workers, for one) who are risking their lives every day, but, according to a recent Atlantic article, don't feel like heroes - they feel like victims. It's not as though most of them can quit and switch to a work-at-home job, after all.

Plus maybe those who are out of work but are NOT about to take jobs at supermarkets, maybe because, again, they're caring for children or parents or both and know that if they die, their dependents just might starve.

One thing I wonder is, how many of the more vocal protestors are thinking "I consider bankruptcy to be a fate worse than death, so why doesn't everybody else?"

> One thing I wonder is, how many
> of the more vocal protestors
> are thinking "I consider
> bankruptcy to be a fate worse
> than death, so why doesn't
> everybody else?"

The ironic sarcasm is so deep I can't tell what point you're making. Raddy does that sometimes.

Raddy does it a LOT.

Do you think you know how others should consider bankruptcy?

Deaths per 100,000 people in the US:

Covid-19 (so far)--- 19
Car accidents --- 12.4
Alcohol --- 26.9
Pneumonia --- 15.3
Medical errors --- 78
Cancer --- 183.5
Diabetes --- 24.5
Unintentional poisoning --- 19.9
All unintentional injuries --- 52.2
Alzheimer disease --- 37.1

Deaths per 100,000 people in the US ~ Ken R at May 2, 2020 5:23 AM

Very interesting statistics, KenR.

It begs the question, however, over what periods of time? COVID-19 has been around for what? Six months at most.

Are we comparing apples-to-apples here?

Artemis said, regarding decisions on how and when to relax the lockdown: I really want this to be handled by the scientists and medical professionals who specialize in this kind of thing. This isn't the time for anyone to me making decisions based on expedient politics.}}}

First, I would like to thank you for the careful and reasonable dialogue that we have been having here on this thread.

I 100% acknowledge that we need every bit of info that we can get on this question, and that the info will come from various experts. We are at a point, though, where not only are people with expertise disagreeing on exactly how to proceed, but the powers that be are still crafting a simplistic and incomplete message, which is inappropriate now that the issue is more nuanced. My expertise is legal, and I'd like to think that I've developed skills in issue-spotting and precise communication as a result.

I think that, by definition, experts can't "handle" our response. They can only provide facts and advice that have to be translated into action, mostly through political entities. I could not agree more that partisan politics should have no place here but that's not going to happen, sadly. Ultimately, though, whether we are experts or not, we will have to decide as a people what level of risk is acceptable. Once we know that we have the medical capacity (and again, it seems to me that we do, albeit potentially spotty in areas) then the real reason to continue any lockdown goes out the window.

We are in agreement that the correct message isn't getting out there, and so should be a routine part of every official statement. IMO, the correct messaging would always acknowledge that "we are facing a force of nature that is going to cause a certain amount of damage and that we have to live with that fact. But here are the facts and figures that show that we can't deal with that inevitable damage unless we allow for a controlled release of the virus back into the population."

Deaths per 100,000 people in the US ~ Ken R at May 2, 2020 5:23 AM
Very interesting statistics, KenR.

It begs the question, however, over what periods of time? COVID-19 has been around for what? Six months at most.

Are we comparing apples-to-apples here?

Conan the Grammarian at May 2, 2020 6:57 AM

The numbers of deaths *from* corona virus as opposed to *with* corona virus have been politicized and would have remained largely unknown anyway. Cause of death is often, a judgement call when Multiple morbidities exist.

I agree that these comparisons are meaningless.

The only correct way to measure the impact is to take the number of real deaths caused by Corona virus (hard to tell) and compare it to the death rates for the same time period over the last several years, (excluding accidents) to see how many excess deaths there were.

I’m with Rigeldog here. The ability to *issue spot* is a rare skill. One that seems to be lacking in a lot of people who have tunnel vision induced by a very narrow field of expertise, or by their own irrational panic. Usually a combination of both.

Politicians gain by deferring to experts mostly because they find it a weasely way to escape accountability at the ballot box.

Federalism has exposed a lot of gutless and/or power mad governors. My own included.

Ken R,

While I certainly appreciate that there are a variety of ways in which people die, what the statistics you offer doesn't capture is that most of them are not communicable.

For example, none of the following items in your list transfer from person to person via contact:

Car accidents --- 12.4
Alcohol --- 26.9
Medical errors --- 78
Cancer --- 183.5
Diabetes --- 24.5
Unintentional poisoning --- 19.9
All unintentional injuries --- 52.2
Alzheimer disease --- 37.1

No amount of social isolation will prevent these numbers from growing on an exponential curve.

The only items on your list that are infectious are as follows:

Covid-19 (so far)--- 19
Pneumonia --- 15.3

When it comes to these numbers it is also important to remember that our current COVID-19 epidemic has only been going on for the last ~4 months (the precise timing is so far unclear so I'm not looking to quibble over a month here or there, the point is that we are not looking at a full year).

So even with dramatic action by the populace at large and COVID-19 only impacting us for a fraction of the year we have already blown past Pneumonia deaths.

This should hopefully suggest to you what we would be dealing with if we had done nothing.

Countries like Spain, Italy, France, and the UK are already in the ~40 range for deaths per 100k population.

The issue with things that grow exponentially is that they very rapidly get out of hand.

Here is an example I find helpful for visualizing how exponential growth works:

Imagine that you had a beaker filled with some transparent cell growth medium and you know the following facts:

1 - A couple of cells have been added to the growth medium with a well characterized doubling time of 10 minutes

2 - When the cellular medium has been fully consumed by the rapidly growing and dividing cells it turns foggy and opaque

3 - The cellular medium first appears foggy and opaque after exactly 24 hours

Now here is what I want you to try and imagine... when during that 24 hour period would you first start to notice any optical difference in the translucency of the cell media?

Well you wouldn't notice anything really after the first 12 hours because you still have 720 doubling times left.

What about after 23 hours?... well now you have 6 doubling times left, which means that the medium still has about 98.5% of its original translucency, which is something you wouldn't really notice by eye.

It is only at the 23.5 hour mark that the translucency has been reduced to 87.5%, which maybe you will notice if you are paying very close attention and have keen eyes.

The point is that you can watch the cells grow all day long, all the while they will be growing in number exponentially, and you won't notice anything at all until the very last half hour when pretty much all of a sudden the media goes murky.

The transition comes pretty much out of nowhere.

That is why for things like viral pandemics one must be very careful. Things can seem fine or like nothing much is happening and then rapidly spin out of control if you get things wrong.

RigelDog,

I also appreciate the sober and thoughtful nature of our discussion.

Ultimately I think we are in overall agreement.

I would like to clarify that by "handle" what I am getting at is providing the matter of fact guidance and information needed to make informed decisions.

I am concerned that certain medical experts and scientists are being instructed not to issue information that is deemed to be "off message".

Incidentally, this is the original meaning of being politically correct... to issue information consistent with what those in positions of political authority *want* to be true.

This is the last thing we need right now because it ends up confusing people.

I encourage you to look at my visualization example for exponential growth I put in my previous post because it is relevant to my response to your following statement:

"Ultimately, though, whether we are experts or not, we will have to decide as a people what level of risk is acceptable."

While I agree with you that often times risk assessment needs to be done on a personal level, what is at stake at the moment is going to rely heavily upon our populations true understanding of what exponential growth implies in terms of future risk.

Bear in mind that the 2008 housing bubble was largely the result of many people not truly understanding the financial risks associated with compounding interest on loans. That is also an assessment of risk associated with the consequences of exponential growth.

I am deeply worried that our ability to respond properly to this will depend largely on our populations knowledge and understanding of high school mathematics.

If someone is unable to extrapolate a rough estimate of what the principal portion of their mortgage payment is going to be 5, 10, 15 years down the road they may not have a great handle on the risks associated with the exponential growth of a viral pandemic.

Isab Says:

"Cause of death is often, a judgement call when Multiple morbidities exist."

Sure, but that same judgment call is made for most of the items in Ken's list.

Did a patient die "from" cancer, or "with" cancer?... "from" diabetes, or "with" diabetes?, etc...

At the end of the day it is the medical professionals who determine the ultimate cause of death in any particular situation.

This is not always clear cut when multiple morbidities exists.

We are forced by necessity to bucket things into groups that do not always capture the full picture of what is going on.

If a hemophiliac is involved in a car accident that results in an injury severe enough for them to die of blood loss... did they die from the accident or as a result of their hemophilia?

At the end of the day if medical professionals determine that a particular death would not have occurred if not but for the coronavirus infection it is fair to place that into the coronavirus bucket... even if they were a lifetime smoker suffering from diminished lung capacity prior to the infection.

It is a judgment call and the people whose judgment matters are the medical professionals making the determinations of the ultimate cause of death.

I'll rephrase that, Crid. (I'm always trying to simplify what I want to say, so maybe I overdo that, once in a while.)

Armed protestor:

"I consider MY bankruptcy to be a fate worse than the death of OTHER people, so why doesn't everybody else see MY bankruptcy that way?"

If we weren't talking about a highly infectious disease, things would be completely different, of course.

Even so, I'm reminded of would-be rape victims who know their attackers have knives but still insist on fighting to the death because they've been raised to believe that rape is somehow a fate worse than death. (That sentiment even shows up in Victorian literature, word for word.) As Ann Landers once said: "Women can and do recover from rape. Death is permanent."

Armed protestor:

"I consider MY bankruptcy to be a fate worse than the death of OTHER people, so why doesn't everybody else see MY bankruptcy that way?"

I’m in no danger of bankruptcy, but support the protesters (armed or not) There is far less danger of them transmitting anything in the open air, than locked in their homes with other people who may be carrying the virus.

Furthermore, studies also seem to show that the virus may be asymptomatic in fifty percent or more of the people that have it.
Studies also seem to indicate that it is generally acquired through long contact with an infected person in an enclosed space,

The only thing that will stop a virus where fifty percent or more of the carriers are asymptomatic, is isolating yourself for a long period of time until herd immunity develops or getting it, and acquiring antibodies.

And yes, as a libertarian, I believe that the burden of protecting the vulnerable falls on those vulnerable people, and of course their caregivers if they are not competent to either care for or make decisions themselves.

I do not prefer a system where we lock up productive citizens under color of law, or forbid them from making a living to give the illusion of safety to the sick, elderly, and the immune compromised, because that is all it is, an illusion.

Government is mostly in the business of waving their hands about aimlessly, making nonsensical rules, and then blaming you and me when human nature overrides their totalitarian control fantasies.

> Even so

That's true enough!

But in the spirit of other comments recently, a warning from Shakespeare came to mind this morning: "A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once."

I have admiration for women who'd prefer the memory of a badly-lost fight.

> and then blaming you and me
> when human nature overrides
> their totalitarian control
> fantasies.

And rather than blaming this wretched virus, which is after all an entirely foreseeable an unremarkable product of the same natural world as our own weak souls.

(Later, we'll have time — well, some of us will have time — to also condemn the abominable Chinese, whose corrupt culture nourished a global catastrophe and suffering for millions, on top of the death.)

This thing *is* going to kill people. It's not just a policy problem, and it's not just a compliance problem.

RigelDog said: "Ultimately, though, whether we are experts or not, we will have to decide as a people what level of risk is acceptable."

Artemis replied: While I agree with you that often times risk assessment needs to be done on a personal level, what is at stake at the moment is going to rely heavily upon our populations true understanding of what exponential growth implies in terms of future risk.}}}

I appreciated your example of exponential growth. I wouldn't be unhappy if officials kept us up to date on what that potential looks like as we progress. I'm not sure, though, where to place that mathematical reality as opposed to the epidemic curve. An epidemic won't grow exponentially forever; the rate will descend after a peak. Do we know that the exponential growth that we can expect with, say, zero lockdown efforts at this point would likely overwhelm our medical capacity at its peak? What should we do when we determine that an initial exponential growth in infections will NOT overwhelm our systems? That's where the decisions and trade-offs occur. We simply cannot survive if the world economy falls off a cliff and we are supposed to let that keep happening.

RigelDog Says:

"An epidemic won't grow exponentially forever; the rate will descend after a peak."

This is of course correct.

True exponential growth does not really exist in the natural world.

Instead what we have are pseudo-exponentials that are in fact just the initial stages of a logistic curve (we were talking about this a little earlier).

The problem is that one is never reliably certain where one is on that logistic curve until it begins to turn over.

As a result we can end up on the portion that is well approximated by an exponential for quite a while before we find ourselves saturating.

"Do we know that the exponential growth that we can expect with, say, zero lockdown efforts at this point would likely overwhelm our medical capacity at its peak? What should we do when we determine that an initial exponential growth in infections will NOT overwhelm our systems?"

I do not believe we have concrete answers here, just the best estimates based on models and the experience if infectious disease experts.

This is why what I am suggesting is that we be cautious.

Kind of like if you happened to see a bubbling body of water out in nature. It could simply be some outgassing phenomenon, or perhaps the water is incredibly hot due to being associated with some geothermal activity.

I certainly wouldn't just go jumping into that water if the possibility existed that it was near boiling. If anything I would test the waters first using some method that reduced my risk. For example I might probe it with a nearby stick and then see if the end I put in was very hot or just wet.

If we ramp up enough testing capacity we can arguably safely open things back up because we have the ability to quickly track and contain issues. The same is true for large antibody testing capacity because we can identify people who are very low risk for exposure.

If we properly invest our time and energy into building these kinds of resources we can be very smart about what we are doing and respond accordingly as we gather information.

A significant part of our problem thus far is we have been operating in the dark.

Isab Says:

"I’m in no danger of bankruptcy, but support the protesters (armed or not) There is far less danger of them transmitting anything in the open air, than locked in their homes with other people who may be carrying the virus."

The armed protesters in Michigan were not all in open air. They swarmed the interior of the capitol building, some of these folks were outfitted with rifles and bullet proof jackets.

Complying with social norms in public used to be called good manners.

Complying with social norms in public used to be called good manners.

Artemis at May 2, 2020 5:41 PM

Maybe Michigan shouldn’t have been so quick to stomp all over their constitutional rights.

If democrats actually respected *good mannered* opposition, Donald Trump would never have been elected President.

For example, none of the following items in your list transfer from person to person via contact:

Very interesting statistics, KenR... It begs the question, however, over what periods of time?... COVID-19 has been around for what? Six months at most... Are we comparing apples-to-apples here?

They're ways that hundreds of thousands of people die every year without the whole population advocating and willingly submitting to severe, destructive restrictions on freedom that make little sense and endanger thousands of lives - hundreds of millions outside the US - with the pretexts of "saving lives" and "protecting the people".

Car accidents kill about 40,000 a year. How many thousands of lives could be saved by reducing non-essential driving by, say, 90%, and having government experts decide what's essential and non-essential? Should we give up the freedom to drive cars to save thousands of lives? How much non-essential driving have you done in the past six weeks?

Alcohol consumption and its sequelae kill 89,000. It's also a factor in many of the deaths of the hundreds of thousands who died from heart, lung, brain, kidney, liver, endocrine and GI diseases, violence, car wrecks and other accidents. The scientists and experts at the WHO say alcohol lowers immunity, makes it easier to get covid-19, makes the disease worse, increases the chance of dying from it; and recommend restricting or prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcohol during the pandemic. How many tens of thousands of lives could be saved if the government, based on the recommendations of scientists and experts, restricted or prohibited the sale and consumption of alcohol?

Diabetes, mostly type 2 caused by poor diet, kills 83,500 a year. How many tens of thousands of lives could be saved if the government, based on the recommendations of scientists and experts, determined what would be the most healthy diet for all Americans, and imposed it by law, backed up with threats of fines, arrest, force and violence?

Cancer kills 600,000 a year. According to scientists much of it is caused by man-made carcinogens in the things we we eat, drink, breathe and consume on a daily basis. Based on recommendations of experts California requires warning labels on products containing substances scientists and experts have determined to be carcinogenic. How many hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved every year if the government banned or restricted all the things the scientists say are carcinogenic? How about a small 10% surtax on incomes over $40,000 to invest in grants for the cancer research government experts decide will be the most beneficial? Don't be a science denier and don't be selfish. 10% more to save thousands of lives won't bankrupt you, and if it does, does your financial security outweigh the lives that could be saved?

About 65,000 people a year die from unintentional poisoning - like the fish-tank-cleaner-man killed by Trump's explicit instructions to eat fish tank cleaner, although the man's wife is now under investigation for murder. How many thousands of lives could be saved if the government, based on the recommendations of experts, restricted or banned access to all the things, like fish tank cleaner, bleach, ammonia, aspirin, mushrooms, pesticides, button batteries, that people accidentally poison themselves with? Does your access to bleach, button batteries and aspirin outweigh someone else's life when you can easily get edible, non-toxic Amway products?

Alzheimer disease kills 120,000 every year, not to mention the misery it causes before it kills. How about a 5% additional sales tax to invest in government grants for expert, scientific research to find a way to prevent it? 5% surely won't bankrupt anyone, and even if it does, saving thousands of lives is surely more important than saving someone from bankruptcy.

If covid-19 kills 100,000 people a year it would be a horrible thing. Is it any more horrible than all of the above? Does it justify several $trillions of government spending (ultimately higher taxes), and dictatorial restrictions on freedom resulting in massive poverty? If so, why doesn't saving a few hundred thousand more lives justify all of the loss of freedom suggested above?

Some 30,000,000 previously employed workers are out of work - out of ability to pay for food, shelter, clothing, medical care. The other 120,000,000 are still out there, doing what they do, at supermarkets, Walmart, Costco, Target, gas stations, delivering food at the curbside, processing food, handling produce, packing meat, exhaling, wiping their noses, adjusting their cute little masks, touching things other people touch, spreading the virus to people around them who take it home where it spreads more easily.

There's little reason to believe that the government experts guiding this quarantine theater are any more all-knowing and capable than the government experts guiding the TSA's airport security theater. Scientists and experts don't know as much as most people think they do, and the characteristics of integrity and unselfishness are no more prevalent among them than any other government officials or the general population. The biggest thing the lock down does is provide a precedent. Imagine what government officials and politicians will do in the name of saving all life on earth from the scientifically settled, impending horror of global warming.

Fill in the blanks (I'll provide the first letters): It's not about s__________; it's about c__________.

Isab Says:

"Maybe Michigan shouldn’t have been so quick to stomp all over their constitutional rights."

No ones rights are being stomped all over.

All constitutional rights have recognized limitations based on possible detrimental impact to society at large.

Just as it has been adjudicated that your freedom of speech does not permit you to yell fire in a crowded theatre, so too it is reasonable to conclude that ones freedom of assembly does not necessarily admit large social gatherings during a viral pandemic.

I am always amused when self-identified libertarians go beyond the axiom that your right to swing your fists ends at someone else's face... and start arguing that they have the right to swing their arms wherever they feel like it and everyone else should just stay out of their way.

"If democrats actually respected *good mannered* opposition, Donald Trump would never have been elected President."

You have things backwards Isab.

You are the one who called Colin Kaepernick a jerk for kneeling quietly in protest and accused a native American girl of having bad manners for sitting quietly during the pledge of allegiance.

It is interesting how you oppose silent unobtrusive protests by minorities... and support aggressive gun toting protests that involve storming the capitol building during a pandemic.

It's almost like you have two completely different standards when it comes to protestors.

It is interesting how you oppose silent unobtrusive protests by minorities... and support aggressive gun toting protests that involve storming the capitol building during a pandemic.

It's almost like you have two completely different standards when it comes to protestors.

Artemis at May 2, 2020 7:06 PM

What I think of someone’s *manners*is entirely separate from what I recognize as their constitutional rights.

I fully support Colin Kirkpatrick’s constitutional right to be a jerk. No double standards there at all.

You are only aggressive if you shoot or hit someone. Merely carrying a legal weapon in a legal open carry manner is not evidence of violence no matter how *scary* you may personally find guns, (or viruses).

Isab,

The approach one takes to talking about issues matters.

When you defend the rights of gun toting folks to storm the capitol building and criticize silent unobtrusive protestors for being jerks and behaving without manners you aren't approaching the events even handedly.

Here are your direct quotes for reference:

"Complying with social norms in public is the opposite of virtue signalling *because it does not call attention to yourself*

It used to be called *good manners*" - Isab at September 17, 2016 7:59 PM

"Like other adult Americans, this jerk needs to realize that his work place is not the appropriate venue for either political experssions or political opinions." - Isab at August 29, 2016 6:48 AM

Here is what you have to say about people storming the capitol with weapons:

"I’m in no danger of bankruptcy, but support the protesters (armed or not)" - Isab at May 2, 2020 2:02 PM

These are all very different statements. You *support* people storming a building with guns... but you call a guy quietly kneeling a jerk and you accuse a girl silently sitting of failing to have proper manners.

That is a stark double standard.

I don't see how the US can survive this crisis.

I'm a bit of a pessimist, but I think the conversation lately on these boards, which HAS gotten more hostile,is reflective of the greater problems.

There are people storming government buildings with guns.

The federal government steals shipments of medical equipment from the states saying they are "for us" (who the fuck is "us"), and the states have to send private planes to fly out and get more, and have local national guardsmen unload so that the feds don't seize it again.

Meanwhile the way everyone talks to each other has gotten so awful... both left and right let's not kid ourselves. The right have been assholes (Palin and Trump's meanie acts are reminiscent of Limbaugh) since
I was a kid, but the left have surpassed them these past few years with call out culture and defaulting to screeching about privilege when they don't have a counter argument.

I don'tknow if it is the internet or Russian trolls orwhat but something is not functioning properly.

And I don't see a fix.I don't see how it can be fixed.

And everyone uses rape as a chess piece. If I get raped in the future,if it's by a democrat I hope the judge is republiucan and vice versa because no one gives a shit unless they can use it to hurt theopposition.

OK, I don't like what NicoleK said, but I'm kind of agreeing with it.

NicoleK,

What you are noticing isn't surprising.

The exact same phenomenon in terms of people increasing in hostility occurred 4 years ago in the lead up to the 2016 election.

"I don'tknow if it is the internet or Russian trolls orwhat but something is not functioning properly."

We have a government that is not responsive to the will of the people and those to whom it is responsive would prefer to scapegoat other groups as a distraction.

Scapegoating isn't a new strategy, it is just more easy to weaponize in the modern age than ever before.

When folks become convinced that the political opposition as an evil enemy to be defeated/crushed this is the natural result.

Ken R,

The examples you provide of what the government could do to prevent deaths are not analogous to what we are contending with at the moment.

I'm not going to go through them point by point, but I will select out the first 2 to explain what I mean.

"Car accidents kill about 40,000 a year. How many thousands of lives could be saved by reducing non-essential driving by, say, 90%, and having government experts decide what's essential and non-essential? Should we give up the freedom to drive cars to save thousands of lives? How much non-essential driving have you done in the past six weeks?"

Car accidents are not an infectious communicable disease.

Furthermore, we already police driving for activity deemed too dangerous for someone to be on the road. People are fined and/or have their driving privilege revoked if they violate safe driving standards.

Furthermore, one needs to be licensed to even drive in the first place and we require proof of insurance in order for a vehicle to be deemed legal to drive.

In other words, we already take reasonable precautions to ensure we have safe drivers on the road. There is no need to be draconian and do something like require a permit for every time someone leaves their home.

Get a license maintain your vehicle, and follow the rules of the road and that is sufficient.

If car accidents were contagious we might have to consider doing things differently. If for example your car was in a fender bender and it meant that all the cars nearby were now at an increased risk of having an accident within the next two weeks we might need to be more careful.

"Diabetes, mostly type 2 caused by poor diet, kills 83,500 a year. How many tens of thousands of lives could be saved if the government, based on the recommendations of scientists and experts, determined what would be the most healthy diet for all Americans, and imposed it by law, backed up with threats of fines, arrest, force and violence? "

That is a personal risk. If a diabetic person decides to continue to consume large amounts of sugar they are the ones who will deal with things like amputation and death.

We might handle things differently if every time a diabetic person failed to control their sugar levels the person closest to them was at an increased risk of foot amputation.

This is not a communicable disease. The person directly impacted by risky behavior is the same person taking that risky behavior.

The remainder of your examples fall into similar buckets.

People should be very free to do things that risk their own life and health. They should be less free to do things that risk the life and health of other people.

A public health crisis is not primarily an issue of individual rights... it is an issue of competing individual rights.

Your "right" to go out and purchase gardening soil for your spring vegetables infringes upon someone else's "right" not to be exposed to a potentially life threatening illness.

In the case of infectious diseases your personal actions directly impact other people in a way that doesn't exist for diabetes... and when it comes to driving, if you are seen to drive irresponsibly you can get your legal ability to drive revoked.

I doubt you would prefer a system where we all get a license to leave our homes after taking responsible citizen classes... and if you are observed to be walking around in public with a clear illness then you lose your "privilege" to leave your home.

Out of curiosity, would you feel differently if this was an Ebola pandemic as opposed to a COVID-19 pandemic? If so, why?... if not, why not?

No, it's worse now Artemis.

And I guess it's become more obvious on the left to me... reading the alumnae forums of my undergrad, or various groups, it's awful. It's horrible. And the kids I grew up with in the nice liberal suburb of Boston... the amount of hate, the lack of compassion, the rage, the narrow vision...

I didn't see it on the left before. Maybe it was there and I didn't notice. But seems to me it's gotten 100% worse.

I would want way stricter measures if it were Ebola because of the higher death toll, especially kids.

Nicole K,

It is a subjective perception so I cannot tell you what you saw or didn't see.

As for my perception, it seems remarkably similar.

I distinctly recall people arguing constantly in the lead up to 2016... folks were *very* polarized.

People remain polarized on this very forum from 2016.

"I would want way stricter measures if it were Ebola because of the higher death toll, especially kids."

We don't actually know that the death toll would be higher... only that the death rate would be higher.

Ebola is more likely to kill you once you have it, but it is less likely to infect as many people, so the calculus here gets murky.

That being said what you are demonstrating is a rational way of looking at a problem. You want a response that is proportionate to the threat.

In your view Ebola is a greater threat so you would want greater measures.

The only point I am trying to make is that Coronavirus presents some level of threat (folks can debate what that level is, but it is certainly greater than zero), and yet people are upset that we have taken any measures at all.

Rationally we should be willing to accept some level of sacrifice to counteract a pandemic that results in significant loss of life. That sacrifice should be proportional to the threat imposed by whatever disease we are talking about.

NickoleK,

Out of curiosity, what kinds of things specifically have you observed that have you so rattled as compared to previous years?

I am specifically curious about this part:

"the amount of hate, the lack of compassion, the rage, the narrow vision"

Who is being hated?... what is the demonstration of the lack of compassion?... what is the demonstration of rage?... what is the narrow vision?

The reason I ask is that I could provide numerous examples of these kinds of things from years past, so what is so different now in your view?

"You don't get to make "adult decisions" that could well kill some elderly person who never went to those stores."

Sad.

Yes, I/we DO, and we do something like this every day, because the vectors of disease and accident are many and obscure.

If you are so terrified that something you do may kill a theoretical elderly person, YOU must remain at home no matter what is going on outside.

Radwaste,

It is abundantly clear that Lenona is talking about a duty to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances.

She is essentially discussing concepts of negligent behavior and the behavior amongst reasonable people during a crisis.

You are the one misinterpreting this to generate a strawman argument that implies people should never leave their home because there is always some theoretical risk to other people.

Art: BS. You are eclipsing Crid in presenting your own ideas as those of others.

You waste your posts.