Covid-19

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xubrew

I feel different about this every day.

Today, I feel like they should just infect 85 percent of us, let us develop the herd immunity, and let us get back to normal. Protect the most at risk, and let the rest of us try and tough it out. I volunteer. Inject it in me today. But PLEASE can we get this over with!

Now, tomorrow I will probably feel differently.

---

Are you thinking body aches, a cough and fever? You may be right! :-)

Don't forget an inability to breathe well due to pneumonia!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xu82

Are you thinking body aches, a cough and fever? You may be right! :-)

---

All I can say is....BRAVO!

Very well played!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juice

Weren't the original models assuming full social distancing? And let's be honest, that didn't happen. So the models assumed us being fully compliant, reality is that we weren't full compliant, and yet the models still completely overestimated the seriousness of it all.

I think this was serious but I think the measures taken (shutting down businesses, locking people in their homes, suspending civil liberties, etc.) were overly burdensome and downright unconstitutional. I think we are both at the point that we hold our certain views on this and no back and forth will change them.

---

In your first sentence, you asked what the assumptions made in modeling were. In your next one you claimed that they did. Do you know the assumptions? And do you know if the models assumed full compliance if full social distancing was the policy? Dr. Acton has suggested that the flattening has been better than expected because compliance has been better than expected. Is she lying? Unless you know the answers to these questions, you are not in any position to assess the quality of the modeling. And one more thing...DeWine's policies are constitutional. On what basis are you saying that they are not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X-man

In your first sentence, you asked what the assumptions made in modeling were. In your next one you claimed that they did. Do you know the assumptions? And do you know if the models assumed full compliance if full social distancing was the policy? Dr. Acton has suggested that the flattening has been better than expected because compliance has been better than expected. Is she lying? Unless you know the answers to these questions, you are not in any position to assess the quality of the modeling. And one more thing...DeWine's policies are constitutional. On what basis are you saying that they are not?

---

They were more rhetorical.Dr. Birx said we weren't social distancing enough. Who is right?

He has suspended our abilities to go to work, where we travel, where we eat, where we congregate, speedy trial rights, etc.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3701.13 -> This one section of the Ohio Constitution has "allowed" the Department of Health to suspend civil liberties in our state and neither the legislature or the judiciary has challenged them on this. If you're ok with an unelected governmental body making these decisions over your life, then we have problems in this state and this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juice

They were more rhetorical.Dr. Birx said we weren't social distancing enough. Who is right?

He has suspended our abilities to go to work, where we travel, where we eat, where we congregate, speedy trial rights, etc.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3701.13 -> This one section of the Ohio Constitution has "allowed" the Department of Health to suspend civil liberties in our state and neither the legislature or the judiciary has challenged them on this. If you're ok with an unelected governmental body making these decisions over your life, then we have problems in this state and this country.

---

When did Birx say that, and was she speaking of the country a whole or the parts of it where social distancing wasn't (yet) in place? And I guess you answered your own question on the constitutionality of the policies to insure social distancing...it is, as the code you link makes abundantly clear in paragraph 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X-man

When did Birx say that, and was she speaking of the country a whole or the parts of it where social distancing wasn't (yet) in place? And I guess you answered your own question on the constitutionality of the policies to insure social distancing...it is, as the code you link makes abundantly clear in paragraph 1.

---

No shit, but I have concerns about suspending constitutional rights for a non-elected body with no structure, no deadline, no guidelines other than one paragraph. You may not believe this but our state's legislature is awful at writing/editing our revised code. New criminal laws have been added recently that Judges have immediately declared unconstitutinal (i.e. Reagan Tokes law). Again, if you want to sit in your homes for months obeying Master Dewine, that's fine. But I think his and Acton's models and decisions should be questioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X-man

When did Birx say that, and was she speaking of the country a whole or the parts of it where social distancing wasn't (yet) in place? And I guess you answered your own question on the constitutionality of the policies to insure social distancing...it is, as the code you link makes abundantly clear in paragraph 1.

---

Quote:

---

Dr. Deborah Birx said she can tell by looking at the US curve of coronavirus cases that not every American is following the guidelines set out by the administration for people to stay home and be vigilant about washing their hands.

"I know you've seen the slope on the US versus the slope in Italy, and we have to change that slope," Birx said. "What it means in the US is not everyone is doing it."
"So we're only as strong as every community, every county, every state, every American following the guidelines to a T," Birx said. "And I can tell by the curve ... that not every American is following it."

---

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/02/polit...ead/index.html

Juice, I like you worry about giving up rights so easily. I have no background in law at all, but, taught history. It worries me to see people seem to be eager to follow all the advisories. I’m sure what we have done as a nation has helped, I’m all for caution, but like you I think the situation should be looked at, questioned, and adaptations made when warranted. At some point in time risk vs. reward has to be taken into account. I’m glad I’m not making those decisions.

I don't see anyone going back to work without a test. Could take a long while since 130 million tests aren't available. Also, some people on unemployment will be getting up to a grand a week so where will the incentive be to go back to their $600 a week job? Listened to Kudlow taking these questions on TV. He has no clue about anything. Kept saying he would have to check with somebody about the details of every question asked.