WALSH: Rioters Violate Social Distancing. Media Doesn’t Care. But Here’s What They Said About Conservative Protesters

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yet, when it comes to everything else, they mysteriously care about those things.
Well, yes. The number of people in the country who are not involved in protests vastly outnumber the protesters. So as far as disease spread is concerned, it is that vast majority who will have the biggest impact on the overall spread of the virus. It is not that mysterious.
Now, as the fall school session approaches, the leftists are demanding that schools remain closed.
President Trump also suggested that some schools may have to remain closed for a few more weeks. Nice to see Trump is on the same page as the leftists.
Several countries have conducted studies that have not found material child-to-adult transmission:
The studies may have been scientific, but the summary, interpretation, and spin are definitely pure Breitbart.
 
Last edited:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
No, it is dangerous everywhere
And shutdowns are more dangerous.
There are no shutdowns. There are selective restrictions. A very partial shutdown in places. No shutdown at all in others.
More youth are dying of suicide, overdose than COVID-19 during pandemic: CDC director.
These suicides were not all caused by restrictions on wearing a mask or other reasonable social distancing measures. Citing deaths that have nothing to do with Covid-19 is irrelevant to decisions made about Covid-19.
 

A New Jersey gym owner who reopened his business in defiance of Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy’s stay-at-home order told “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that he and his partner were arrested Monday after they were held in contempt of court.
And the gym has had testing and ZERO COVID infections.


Governor Phil Murphy has not given a date for when the gyms will open. Gym owners, who have been closed since businesses were shut down in March, say it is affecting them financially.
“If a date is not provided extremely soon, it’s financially impossible to operate in this manner,” said Kevin Johnson, a former NFL player and owner of Team 85 Fitness and Wellness in Bordentown.
1.7 million New Jersey residents are members of fitness clubs. Many of them are continuously asking for the clubs to reopen so they can resume their fitness routines.

You would think that exercise would be encouraged, as obesity is a higher risk of COVID-19 deaths.
Citing deaths that have nothing to do with Covid-19 is irrelevant to decisions made about Covid-19.
The fearmongering by the media scaring kids into doing nothing is tremendously irresponsible when the kids have a higher chance of getting struck by lightning than dying of COVID.
 
Last edited:
You would think that exercise would be encouraged, as obesity is a higher risk of COVID-19 deaths.
All things being equal, of course we would want to encourage exercise. But all things are not equal in this decision. So this observation is meaningless when applied to gyms closing for covid-19.
The fearmongering by the media scaring kids into doing nothing is tremendously irresponsible when the kids have a higher chance of getting struck by lightning than dying of COVID.
That it is fearmongering is your opinion. It is by no means a universally held opinion.
 
So this observation is meaningless when applied to gyms closing for covid-19.
Defending his decision to reopen, Smith claimed that he kept a record of every person who visited the gym, a figure well into the thousands, and said "not a single [coronavirus] case has been reported so far and we kept detailed records of that all the way through.
That it is fearmongering is your opinion
Closing the schools: yeah, I’d say that reaches the level of fearmongering.
 
Defending his decision to reopen, Smith claimed that he kept a record of every person who visited the gym, a figure well into the thousands, and said "not a single [coronavirus] case has been reported so far and we kept detailed records of that all the way through.
I don’t know if you know anything about piloting, but there is a rule that a pilot who does not have an instrument rating is not allowed to fly deliberately through clouds because of the danger of disorientation and a crash. However some unqualified pilots do fly through clouds and manage to avoid crashing. Nevertheless, if a pilot is cited by the FAA for breaking the rules, the fact that the pilot did not crash but came through it just fine will not be a valid defense with the FAA.

Similarly, the fact that “not a single case has been reported so far” at that gym is no defense against breaking the rules.
 
Last edited:
@LeafByNiggle So you still speak up for shutting down healthy people from making a living. I said before this was never done by government in the past; history proves this stop the healthy people stance to be very wrong.

The government didn’t do this in 1968; they didn’t do this in 1957; they didn’t even do it in 1918. The economy went down some in those years, but nowhere near close to what we did to ourselves this year. Not in all of recorded history were some part of the healthy were banned by government from making a legal living.

You stated a few days ago that it was “immoral” to isolate the sick and the vulnerable. After I pointed out to you that this was the normal conduct during epidemics going back many millennia, you haven’t taken that tack again since. Which is good because history does not support your stance and it never has. So maybe you rethought that.

Governments need to keep one eye on their tax revenues. They didn’t do that this year so there are going to be nasty cutbacks at the state and local levels all across the country. Including funds that support the health care industry. What you wanted to see has never been close to realistic. Ever in history.

The current paradigm was originated in 2006 by two scientists with none of the epidemiological experience that you are so fond of referencing. It became policy in 2013 after surviving opposition from epidemiologists among others during the policy making deliberations that took place during the Bush and Obama administrations. There’s a link that describes that process somewhere; it will take me some time to fish it out, but this story is out there.

We should have done as we did before: isolate the sick and the vulnerable. Along with that, tell everyone else how to care for them at home. Made liberal use of delivery services. Wash hands, social distance and wear masks as necessary, but above all, as was done before, everyone is responsible for evaluating their own risks. Large gatherings could still be banned as was done in 1918, but otherwise healthy people need to be allowed to pursue a living, not be forced out of it by often arbitrary government decrees. The economy would still go down like it did in 1968, 1957 and 1918, but the drop would have been closer to Sweden’s drop than to what actually happened here. The coronavirus was/is bad, but not that much worse than 1968 and 1957 and certainly not 1918 level bad. But government made it far worse than it had to be and has proven to be the greater danger to us than the virus itself.

What you do not understand at all is the kind of business environment that exists in the midst of these decrees. They make going into business or continuing business a much riskier endeavor than it has to be and in the long run, that hurts all of us. Including the vaunted health care system you have spent so much time building up in the wake of the ACA.
 
Last edited:
Zzyzx_Road to @LeafByNiggle . . .
You stated a few days ago that it was “immoral” to isolate the sick and the vulnerable.
Leaf. Your “answer” seems to be to isolate the healthy, low-risk AND the sick and the vulnerable.

Your solution still is “immoral” against the sick and vulnerable in YOUR paradigm, but now it merely spreads the misery of lonliness to others.

Frankly I think people should be forewarned (with REAL information and ALL of it), then let them make their own decisions.
 
Looks like they started to tick up
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
@Cathoholic, @Zzyzx_Road, your analysis ignores the communal implications of the actions people take in response to this virus. It is not morally valid to say that each person should consider only his own risks and not be bound by the implications of his actions on others. Steps that you take to prevent infection of yourself are not enough. You must take steps to protect your whole community. That is why the simplistic “Let everyone decide for himself” is not a valid policy.

Regarding closing businesses:
The government didn’t do this in 1968; they didn’t do this in 1957; they didn’t even do it in 1918.
About 100,000 deaths were recorded in the 1968/1969 flu year. We are already at 163,000 after only about 5 months. Wait until winter hits and kids are in school. It will likely dwarf the 1968 level. Even adjusting for population differences, we are way above the track of the 1968 pandemic. It had an R0 number of 1.3-1.7. In Wuhan China, the covid-19 virus R0 was between 2 and 4. But various limitations on businesses and activities can drive that number below 1.0 at which point the virus starts dying out. This is most evident in New York where the limitations enacted have brought it down well below 1.0 for a long time. Covid worse than 1968 and 1957, and it is not even a variant of the flu like those are. It is a completely novel virus with very different symptoms from the flu. Citing actions taken (or not taken) with respect to those earlier outbreaks say very little about the wisdom of present actions. The 1918 flu is also not a good example because it could be argued that they should have placed limitations on businesses and activities more than they did. This is most clearly illustrated by the difference between St. Louis and Philadelphia in 1918. (Look it up.)
The current paradigm was originated in 2006 by two scientists with none of the epidemiological experience… There’s a link that describes that process somewhere; it will take me some time to fish it out, but this story is out there.
I will look at it when you find that link.
but the drop would have been closer to Sweden’s drop than to what actually happened here.
There are too many other differences between Sweden and the US to make a side-by-side comparison of their strategies.
You stated a few days ago that it was “immoral” to isolate the sick and the vulnerable.
That is not what I was objecting to. I was objecting to using isolation of the vulnerable as an excuse not to be aggressive in blocking the spread among the strong, and in so doing, sentence the vulnerable to an even longer and more severe isolation from their families. Yes, when the virus is raging, do isolate the vulnerable. But don’t stop there.
 
LeafByNiggle . . . .
It is not morally valid to say that each person should consider only his own risks . . .
What makes you so sure that if someone is making their own decisions, they are NOT taking into consideration of other people’s risks?

Your idea has a built-in false presupposition that only someone else can make such a determination for a person.

And I suspect from reading your other posts, what you REALLY mean is
that “someone” is . . . Government.

.

To the other readers: Aren’t you at least a little surprised that people (not necessarily Leaf here by the way) that MOST oppose President Trump
are often the SAME people calling for MORE . . . . Government?
(More power for the same “Trump” they so often express contempt over.)
 
Last edited:
What makes you so sure that if someone is making their own decisions, they are NOT taking into consideration of other people’s risks?

Your idea has a built-in false presupposition that only someone else can make such a determination for a person.

And I suspect from reading your other posts, what you REALLY mean is that “someone” is . . . Government .
Consider London during the Blitz. Was it proper for government to order people to turn out their lights? Or should they have instead just suggested it and leave it up to each individual citizen to decide what he thinks is best for his city? This is the prime example of when it is proper for society / government to make a decision that everyone is ordered to follow.
 
So I was right? You DO mean Government.

London did not have “essential workers” keeping their lights on.

There is many exceptions here.

Your example was not congruent here.
 
@LeafByNiggle I find your comparison of our Covid environment to a war zone to be rather ignorant of the reality of life in war zones. One who lives in a war zone has problems much bigger than we are experiencing today. Like obtaining water, food and medical care. I pray every day that we in the US never find ourselves in a war zone anywhere on our soil, but if one ever finds themselves living in that hell, they’re going to wish for the halcyon days of summer 2020 when you and I had the freedom to dicker with each other at CAF.

You cited the numbers of deaths for 1968. Okay, but you were playing fast and loose. A fairer comparison is per capita. Something you use when it helps your case but will not use when it doesn’t help your case. Here, the per capita doesn’t help your case that much. The US population in 1968 was about 205m so deaths in 1968 extrapolated to today’s US population of 330m gives about 161,000 deaths. Then remember the flu death toll in 1968 cut across all age groups. But 44% of Covid deaths are in long term care facilities. Which leaves about 92,000 deaths for the rest of us not in an LTCF. Hence per capita for the rest of us does not yet match 1968. Granted we may still get there, but for the rest of us so far, this is not much worse than a bad flu year. Yet your insistence that the healthy not be permitted to make a living persists.

You called this coronavirus a “novel” coronavirus. Fair enough. By that logic, those flu strains that hit hard before flu vaccination was common were technically “novel” influenza viruses because like this coronavirus, we didn’t have anything to counter it. There was no vaccination around the corner in 1968; widespread vaccination for influenza would not begin until 1976.

About 1918, I looked up Philadelphia and St Louis. St Louis banned large gatherings so their death toll was much smaller than Philadelphia. Many schools and other entities engaged in voluntary quarantines across the country. But nowhere did I see St Louis banning the healthy from attempting to make a living otherwise. That was never done. They didn’t even shut down the baseball season.

My take isn’t complete totally open, no precautions necessary. My take is sure, ban the large gatherings, but also issue guidelines for caring for the sick and vulnerable at home. These are readily available; we already have guidelines for cancer victims at home when treatments have ravaged their immune systems and these can be adapted for the coronavirus. Now I never said stop there, do not put that in my mouth. I don’t think highly of masks, but I am big on washing hands everywhere and not touching one’s face in public. All test results should be available within hours, not days. Allow full access to beaches and parks. But above all, do not ban healthy people from attempting to make a living. That way lies the certain destruction of the economy beyond what the Fed and Congress can fix.
 
Thank you for your thoughtful response. (must be a characteristic of us Minnesotans, eh?)
@LeafByNiggle I find your comparison of our Covid environment to a war zone to be rather ignorant of the reality of life in war zones.
Like all analogies, this one does not pretend to copy every aspect of the present issue - just the one aspect being explained. In this case it is simply that fact that when there is threat to the community, people must following what society decides to do about it.
You cited the numbers of deaths for 1968. Okay, but you were playing fast and loose. A fairer comparison is per capita. Something you use when it helps your case but will not use when it doesn’t help your case. Here, the per capita doesn’t help your case that much. The US population in 1968 was about 205m so deaths in 1968 extrapolated to today’s US population of 330m gives about 161,000 deaths.
…which we are already at after only 5 months. The worst may be yet to come, unless we get a vaccine.
Then remember the flu death toll in 1968 cut across all age groups. But 44% of Covid deaths are in long term care facilities. Which leaves about 92,000 deaths for the rest of us not in an LTCF. Hence per capita for the rest of us does not yet match 1968.
I fail to see how this segregating of the stats by age has any moral bearing. The life of a 70 year old is just as precious as the life of an 18 year old.
Yet your insistence that the healthy not be permitted to make a living persists.
Not all the healthy. Just those whose jobs cannot be adapted to the precautions required for slowing the spread of covid-19. The rules may be arbitrary right now. That’s because they were fashioned in a hurry. Even the guy with the gym may be able to open soon if he can modify his business to ensure no spread between customers. I am actually at a rented cabin on the North Shore right now. It is amazing the lengths they have gone to to accommodate the needs of today. You bring your own pillows and blankets. They provide only sheets, and they thoroughly disinfect between each guest. Automatic check-in means we never had to go into an office.

continued…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top