T
Theo520
Guest
broad lockdowns are effectively quarantining EVERYONE, healthy or sick.
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Step one: redefine quarantine to mean a broad lockdown.LeafByNiggle:
broad lockdowns are effectively quarantining EVERYONE, healthy or sick.
Step two: redefine broad lockdown to mean any partial lockdown.
Step three: redefine a partial lockdown to mean a mandate to wear masks.
Best not to redefine anything.
T
Theo520
Guest
No need, stop evading basic facts.
Broad lockdowns where you can’t leave home but to solo shop for essentials, no group outings, etc. That’s equivalent to what is possible to quarantine a large community. I mean you gotta let them buy food but that’s all that’s available.
Or you fill in the details. What extra would you do to quarantine a city/community?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
OK, if you want to talk about broad lockdowns, let’s use the term broad lockdowns. (Why not?).LeafByNiggle:
No need, stop evading basic facts.
Broad lockdowns where you can’t leave home but to solo shop for essentials, no group outings, etc. That’s equivalent to what is possible to quarantine a large community. I mean you gotta let them buy food but that’s all that’s available.
Or you fill in the details. What extra would you do to quarantine a city/community?
If you want to characterize restrictions on group gatherings as broad lockdowns, then to address Cathoholic’s claim, there is a scientific basis for restrictions on group gatherings. This is not a comment on whether such restrictions are called for at the present time. It is just an observation that the policy does have a scientific basis.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Which is WHY (if you hold to your own principles here) the shenanigans
will need to be made PERMANENT.
As illustrated by LeafByNiggle. (Thanks for making my point Leaf.)
Because there will be no way to be “assured” a person is healthy 20 years from now either. Just like there wasn’t last year b.c. (before corona).
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Cathoholic has confused the possibility of someone being infected with the probability of their being infected. The restrictions on group gatherings are based on probability, not possibility. When the probability is low enough, the restrictions could be lifted. There is no reason to assume that they would have to be permanent, as Cathoholic suggests.LeafByNiggle:
Which is WHY (if you hold to your own principles here) the shenanigans
will need to be made PERMANENT.
As illustrated by LeafByNiggle. (Thanks for making my point Leaf.)
Because there will be no way to be “assured” a person is healthy 20 years from now either. Just like there wasn’t last year b.c. (before corona).
What precedent is there in history for a permanent response to a plague?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
The probability is already “low enough”.
Where is this mysterious “probability quotient” laid out for you by people with POWER over you Leaf?
Where are you getting this stuff?
How 'bout zero out of three hundred?
Is that “low enough”?
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Motherwit. You’ll just have to go back and re-read my posts.
By the way. Zero out of about 1200 close contacts.
How much lower than zero, before you would agree that quarantining HEALTHY individuals makes no sense?
To everybody else: This is a partial truth from Motherwit. Motherwit’s reply has a built-in presupposition that this permanence has only to do with a “response to a plague”.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Maybe, maybe not. That is what public health experts are best at calculating.LeafByNiggle:
The probability is already “low enough”.
But I can tell you from Minnesota, it is definitely not low enough.
Last edited:
I’ve read the whole thread but you haven’t mentioned any precedent for assuming a permanent lockdown, masking etc. Viruses have been eliminated in the past and we’ve never had to have permanent lockdown.Motherwit:
Motherwit. You’ll just have to go back and re-read my posts.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
But I didn’t ask if you thought it would be low enough.
I asked for the probability quotient laid out for you by people with POWER over you.
After all. You were the one who posited . . .
So how much lower than zero do you want to go? At least for asymptomatic people?
Once you affirm this study, the national leftists will just begin to ignore it based upon the old leftist playbook.
Treating people like beasts.
They will just say: “Well this guy SAYS he is asymptomatic. But I don’t believe he is being honest” (and some will lie).
So the next step to the national leftist mind will be peeping into the window of your medical records. At least to some degree. And we are already seeing some of that paradigm. At least in part.
The control-factor never ends with those people. Never.
I asked for the probability quotient laid out for you by people with POWER over you.
After all. You were the one who posited . . .
This whole thread is based on at least this study that shows a probability of contagion at zero.
So how much lower than zero do you want to go? At least for asymptomatic people?
Once you affirm this study, the national leftists will just begin to ignore it based upon the old leftist playbook.
Treating people like beasts.
They will just say: “Well this guy SAYS he is asymptomatic. But I don’t believe he is being honest” (and some will lie).
So the next step to the national leftist mind will be peeping into the window of your medical records. At least to some degree. And we are already seeing some of that paradigm. At least in part.
The control-factor never ends with those people. Never.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
The leftist lockdowns will just keep being extended.
After Thanksgiving, these guys will go after Christmas.
So either you just don’t put up with illegal executive feelings-based orders, or you just get so used to it, being told if you can leave your home, becomes a way of life.
Even some of the leftists in California are apparently getting executive order lockdown fatigue and joining conservatives on this issue.
After Thanksgiving, these guys will go after Christmas.
So either you just don’t put up with illegal executive feelings-based orders, or you just get so used to it, being told if you can leave your home, becomes a way of life.
Even some of the leftists in California are apparently getting executive order lockdown fatigue and joining conservatives on this issue.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
I read an article today that a vaccine may be released for the US on Dec. 11th. Assuming medical workers are in the first group, next would be elderly and immuno compromised. Without knowing how much vaccine will be available and how long it will take these groups to get vaccinated, it will be just guessing…
Say about six months to get the majority of those two groups vaccinated (some won’t be, of course). It will then be possible for the rest of the US to begin vaccination.
I’m thinking that the crowd limits and travel restrictions could then be lifted and masking needed for those that can’t/don’t take the vaccine. Physical distancing will probably just naturally drift away as fewer outbreaks occur.
I’m optimistic that a year from now any restrictions will be lifted except in areas with a local break out where masking and distancing will be recommended again.
I got an “Amber” type alert today on our phones that our county is on red alert for Covid. The infection rate has soared here. So far, no additional restrictions have been mandated nor suggested…yet.
Say about six months to get the majority of those two groups vaccinated (some won’t be, of course). It will then be possible for the rest of the US to begin vaccination.
I’m thinking that the crowd limits and travel restrictions could then be lifted and masking needed for those that can’t/don’t take the vaccine. Physical distancing will probably just naturally drift away as fewer outbreaks occur.
I’m optimistic that a year from now any restrictions will be lifted except in areas with a local break out where masking and distancing will be recommended again.
I got an “Amber” type alert today on our phones that our county is on red alert for Covid. The infection rate has soared here. So far, no additional restrictions have been mandated nor suggested…yet.
H
humilityseeker
Guest
If these researchers flagged it, there will be references in their published research. I do not have the luxury of time to read through the extensive reference list in the paper. Opinion never stands up in the published statistical, mathematical or scientific literature. A researcher would not have anything published without the statistics and data to back his or her conclusions and recommendations.
Last edited:
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Is this something you signed up for PattyIt?
It seems a bit invasive to me and I’m wondering how it was authorized.
Thanks,
jt
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Why give a vaccine to (at least some) immune compromised people when they cannot mount an uncompromised response to the vaccine?
It would be subjecting them to risks, but lowered or no benefit.
P
Pattylt
Guest
I signed up for it. The latest OS on iPhones and Android have a permissions page in the settings. I will be notified if I’ve been the vicinity of anyone, also signed up, that becomes Covid positive. It’s anonymous…I won’t know who the person is, just that we were in the vicinity of each other.
But! I don’t think this was part of that program. It was a general alert like an Amber alert. It may be that Colorado gave the alert as part of their emergency broadcast?
How was this invasive? It’s no different in my mind than a tornado alert. All it stated was that our county was on red alert due to Covid. It was just a public broadcast to all as far as I’m aware.
H
humilityseeker
Guest
There are absolutely no conclusions to be drawn in the manner you suggest. If a scientist or statistician wanted to form a hypothesis similar to yours,that person would then have to go about proving or disproving it in a valid manner.
The data presented in it does not indicate your premise in either the negative or the positive,
The researchers themselves have listed two limitations of this study. These are significant.
‘drawing a conclusion’ as you have quintescentily suggested.
Research is not about personal opinion and unsubstantiated conclusions.
Research is about facts and data that is robust enough to tell us a dog is infact a dog. A myth is infact a myth.
I suggest finding some research more in line with your premise. The research chosen here is not. Look at a few countries that have long term testing of asymptomatic populations, and any correlation with quarantine and lockdown measures.
There is a global mink population with a significant incidence of Covid. That would be a great place to begin trawling for published publically available research.
One of the great downfalls of the internet and making research publically available is exempliefied in the way you are attempting to use this research to promote an unsubstantiated personal opinion.
Yes you have asked an irrelevant question in regard to this research.
The data presented in it does not indicate your premise in either the negative or the positive,
The researchers themselves have listed two limitations of this study. These are significant.
Any trained mathematician, statistician or scientist would read the research presented and would not be
‘drawing a conclusion’ as you have quintescentily suggested.
Research is not about personal opinion and unsubstantiated conclusions.
Research is about facts and data that is robust enough to tell us a dog is infact a dog. A myth is infact a myth.
I suggest finding some research more in line with your premise. The research chosen here is not. Look at a few countries that have long term testing of asymptomatic populations, and any correlation with quarantine and lockdown measures.
There is a global mink population with a significant incidence of Covid. That would be a great place to begin trawling for published publically available research.
One of the great downfalls of the internet and making research publically available is exempliefied in the way you are attempting to use this research to promote an unsubstantiated personal opinion.
Last edited:
J
jeannetherese
Guest
I think of my phone as private property. If I receive unwanted calls, I can have them blocked. In this case, I would consider the call unwanted.
The notion that a public official can push calls on me, whether I want them or not, seems an overreach of it’s authority to me.
The notion that a public official can push calls on me, whether I want them or not, seems an overreach of it’s authority to me.
Last edited:
- Status