U.S. to close..

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

Would that hold water with a virus with over a 99% survival rate?

"According to MADD's drunk driving statistics, people drive drunk more than 300,000 times each day. Only about 1 percent of them are arrested."
"Every day, 29 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This is one death every 50 minutes."

So drunk driving is associated with about a 99.993% survival rate. Perhaps if we import all the laws of rural Somalia we can start getting somewere here.

The $$ cited above are for >15 day hospitalizations, and the numbers go north of 8-900k in the extreme. As is ordinary, 'my body, my choice' arguments are coupled with 'but I can't pay for my choices.'

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

Would that hold water with a virus with over a 99% survival rate?

Some of these gov overreactions also get me into gee wonder why they don’t really teach nullification in government run schools, but that’s another topic

As a matter of law I can't answer that -- a court would have to answer that. The standard for masks would be the "rational basis test", which holds that restriction of non-fundamental individual rights is ok if it bears a "rational relationship" to a legitimate societal interest. I can hardly imagine any court ruling that a masking requirement during a pandemic would fail that test. 99% survival means 1% die -- 1% of U.S. population is 3.3 million people. Protecting 3.3 million people is most certainly a "legitimate societal interest". Freedom to not wear a mask is certainly not a fundamental right like freedom of speech.

Restriction of movement, like in a stay-at-home order, might fall under a stricter test, perhaps "strict scrutiny" (in my opinion SHOULD fall under this test). Note that in the Nordic countries lockdowns are considered to be impossible -- constitutionally prohibited in peacetime. They have more individual liberties than we do. One reason why they never did them.

Under "strict scrutiny", there are three criteria for constitutionality: (a) compelling societal interest; (b) the law in question is narrowly tailored to fulfill this interest; and (c) the law in question is the least restrictive measure available.

Quite possibly lockdowns would fail this test in U.S. courts, but you wouldn't know for sure until after years of litigation.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

As a matter of law I can't answer that -- a court would have to answer that. The standard for masks would be the "rational basis test", which holds that restriction of non-fundamental individual rights is ok if it bears a "rational relationship" to a legitimate societal interest. I can hardly imagine any court ruling that a masking requirement during a pandemic would fail that test. 99% survival means 1% die -- 1% of U.S. population is 3.3 million people. Protecting 3.3 million people is most certainly a "legitimate societal interest". Freedom to not wear a mask is certainly not a fundamental right like freedom of speech.

Restriction of movement, like in a stay-at-home order, might fall under a stricter test, perhaps "strict scrutiny" (in my opinion SHOULD fall under this test). Note that in the Nordic countries lockdowns are considered to be impossible -- constitutionally prohibited in peacetime. They have more individual liberties than we do. One reason why they never did them.

Under "strict scrutiny", there are three criteria for constitutionality: (a) compelling societal interest; (b) the law in question is narrowly tailored to fulfill this interest; and (c) the law in question is the least restrictive measure available.

Quite possibly lockdowns would fail this test in U.S. courts, but you wouldn't know for sure until after years of litigation.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Norway had and had home quarantining with severe fines , plus mandatory stay at home orders described as the most severe measures outside wartime , it shut businesses etc.

I don’t believe there is any constitutional issues


Equally Denmark has just announced its considering a severe lockdown and was one of the first European countries to have a “ lockdown”

“Denmark was one of the first European countries to announce a lockdown on March 11, restricting public gatherings and closing schools, restaurants and bars, but imposing less strict limits on daily life than in Italy or France.”

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

As a matter of law I can't answer that -- a court would have to answer that. The standard for masks would be the "rational basis test", which holds that restriction of non-fundamental individual rights is ok if it bears a "rational relationship" to a legitimate societal interest. I can hardly imagine any court ruling that a masking requirement during a pandemic would fail that test. 99% survival means 1% die -- 1% of U.S. population is 3.3 million people. Protecting 3.3 million people is most certainly a "legitimate societal interest". Freedom to not wear a mask is certainly not a fundamental right like freedom of speech.

Restriction of movement, like in a stay-at-home order, might fall under a stricter test, perhaps "strict scrutiny" (in my opinion SHOULD fall under this test). Note that in the Nordic countries lockdowns are considered to be impossible -- constitutionally prohibited in peacetime. They have more individual liberties than we do. One reason why they never did them.

Under "strict scrutiny", there are three criteria for constitutionality: (a) compelling societal interest; (b) the law in question is narrowly tailored to fulfill this interest; and (c) the law in question is the least restrictive measure available.

Quite possibly lockdowns would fail this test in U.S. courts, but you wouldn't know for sure until after years of litigation.

Which is why many of us have been trying to remind all of us that this is NOT a BINARY issue.

What is so hard about wearing a mask?
What is so hard about social distancing?
What is so hard about washing your hands often?
What is so hard about NOT having superspreader events like weddings?
What is so hard about keeping non-essential travel down?

I just talked to a cousin of mine in FL. One of her kid's daughters is insisting on a wedding, and has culled it down from 200 to 80 people. That's still 70 too many!!! Get married if you must to live with the guy of your dreams. Have the f-ing party later when it's f-ing SAFE to do so?

What is so hard????????

Too many of you are conflating a worldwide HEALTH crisis and the EXTREMELY LIMITED things we KNOW that can help, not cure anything with personal freedom. NOTHING is different about the transmission of this virus since last January.

My "thing" about personal freedom is staying alive.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Which is why many of us have been trying to remind all of us that this is NOT a BINARY issue.

What is so hard about wearing a mask?
What is so hard about social distancing?
What is so hard about washing your hands often?
What is so hard about NOT having superspreader events like weddings?
What is so hard about keeping non-essential travel down?

I just talked to a cousin of mine in FL. One of her kid's daughters is insisting on a wedding, and has culled it down from 200 to 80 people. That's still 70 too many!!! Get married if you must to live with the guy of your dreams. Have the f-ing party later when it's f-ing SAFE to do so?

What is so hard????????

Too many of you are conflating a worldwide HEALTH crisis and the EXTREMELY LIMITED things we KNOW that can help, not cure anything with personal freedom. NOTHING is different about the transmission of this virus since last January.

My "thing" about personal freedom is staying alive.

Good post

We have countries instituted severe lockdowns largely because people simply couldn’t be bothered to follow the less severe restrictions or just flouted the processes. Cases rose and authorities were forced to implement greater and greater restrictions.

No right minded nation “ wants “ lockdowns and most countries have agonised over them, leaving aside the countries that just had completely ineffective and bumbling policies all along

Inane debates over “ freedoms “ miss the whole point of trying collectively to suppress outbreaks, or to reduce the risk of over whelming health systems.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

... Some of these gov overreactions also get me into gee wonder why they don’t really teach nullification in government run schools, but that’s another topic

If they did, they'd have to include in their teaching that the courts have determined that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Inane debates over “ freedoms “ miss the whole point of trying collectively to suppress outbreaks, or to reduce the risk of over whelming health systems.

Yup. As I've been saying, I think one of the most significant factors in how nations or regions responds and fares is how able the people are to work collectively together toward a greater good. This is all wrapped up in levels of societal trust and social capital.

This somewhat amorphous, but still very real factor has been studied and measured. The OECD has a whole special project quantifying this concept.

I bet most of us could come up with the developed nations that measure high on this list, and also those that measure low. Now, compare that list to the countries that have done well with Covid-19, and those who have not.

Interesting?

[Wotname]

Just wondering aloud for a moment...

Regarding the mask wearing thing and whether the state has the right to mandate masks etc, don't most states already mandate minimum clothing requirements for everyone in public spaces. If so, why isn't anyone taking umbrage at those laws?

Perhaps SalingSue could comment.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yup. As I've been saying, I think one of the most significant factors in how nations or regions responds and fares is how able the people are to work collectively together toward a greater good. This is all wrapped up in levels of societal trust and social capital.

This somewhat amorphous, but still very real factor has been studied and measured. The OECD has a whole special project quantifying this concept.

I bet most of us could come up with the developed nations that measure high on this list, and also those that measure low. Now, compare that list to the countries that have done well with Covid-19, and those who have not.

Interesting?

My undergrad degree is in polisci, focused on intl relations.
If I wanted to drive a wedge in the American population I'd promote the idea online that basically any collectivist effort was akin nebulous evil communism, and that anyone promoting such effort was a Stalin wannabe. At least that's the kind of thing US intel did during the Cold War to destabilize our foes and help get people friendly to the US elected in the third world. The consequence to the local population always subservient to US best long-term interests, which shouldn't be so surprising.

Indeed tremendous difference (historically anyway) of Eastern and Western politics. To an American raised democracy being related to individualism is so engrained it was hard to envision a large group of people not particularly caring per se who was in charge, where to a degree being in charge isn't something that people aspire to....sort of because everyone sees everyone being part of something larger, everyone having their part, none per se more important than the other.

In the US many people nowadays is a president-in-waiting, where collectivism only occurs after some bombing (abroad or at home) occurs. Pandemic? Meh, bill of rights talk. Years of work for lawyers to determine if doing what works makes sense....making arguments that collectivism is akin to communism...promoting the wedge. Drawing wedges has always been profitable, always will be.

[UFO]

So here is a link to a tender for the UK health Regulatory Authority MRHA


https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NO...:EN:HTML&src=0


If the vaccines are so safe, just why is it that they are expecting to need an AI system to deal with the volume of adverse reactions from it?


Description of the procurement:
The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) and ensure that no details from the ADRs’ reaction text are missed.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

What didn’t work. Social distancing and yes partial lockdowns have indeed reduced the infection rate that’s undeniable

No you desire it to be undeniable.
I love how you guys continue to deny what Dockhead has said several times, that several different countries with identical measures being taken have had very different results in infection rates.
It’s not as simple as you want it to be, people want to believe they can control things, that if they do X, then their desired outcome will happen, but that’s it always the case. One city may become a hot spot, that doesn’t mean they weren’t following the rules while another remains fairly clear shows they follow the rules.

Some have even said if we just stayed home and locked down for a few weeks, then we would solve this virus thing, well it doesn’t work that way, most any Pandemic comes in waves, and often for years.
So honestly, how many years do you think businesses should close? Or even months for that matter.

But the US, never closed, darn near everything was open for business, a few had restrictions like how many customers were allowed in, single directions traffic in grocery stores and maybe a plastic panel between you and the check out clerk, but not much other than being able to go out and sit down to a dinner, get your hair cut, or go to a bar and major sporting events I guess, but everything else remained open pretty much.

So you guys think the Government should mandate everything close? What do you eat? Who fixes your car? How do you get pieces parts to keep things operating? House catches in fire, sorry the firemen are locked down?

There has been a lot of talk about what the Federal government did or don’t do, without any understanding that it doesn’t have the authority you guys think it does.
Now that’s changed more and more, and personally I don’t like it that it has, used to be Congress had to declare war to send me overseas to kill my fellow man, but not anymore, not for far longer than I have been alive.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Singularity

...In the US many people nowadays is a president-in-waiting, where collectivism only occurs after some bombing (abroad or at home) occurs. Pandemic? Meh, bill of rights talk. Years of work for lawyers to determine if doing what works makes sense....making arguments that collectivism is akin to communism...promoting the wedge. Drawing wedges has always been profitable, always will be.

Indeed. In a society which has such a small political spectrum, and has this divided into only two flavours, it's easy, but still sad, to see how wedge politics would play an essential role.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I love how you guys continue to deny what Dockhead has said several times, that several different countries with identical measures being taken have had very different results in infection rates.

It’s not as simple as you want it to be, people want to believe they can control things, that if they do X, then their desired outcome will happen, but that’s it always the case. One city may become a hot spot, that doesn’t mean they weren’t following the rules while another remains fairly clear shows they follow the rules.

I respect DH and value his opinion, but I don't think he has made (or intended to make) the case that it's all random and unstoppable. The worldwide breakouts this spring of course had an element of chance, but also a significant amount of poor starts and screwups. It's 9 months later; flare-ups are less the result of chance, and more the anticipated result of relaxation of restrictions in the summer, perhaps too much. And also the people's level of compliance with voluntary or mandated restrictions. So in the face of a surge, stricter measures are re-imposed... and the numbers hopefully head back down again (eg Germany), with less economic damage than the spring lockdowns, if it's done carefully.

We still don't have a great understanding yet, but we know much more than in the spring, and there's a lot of data to show what's worked in the past and what's working now.

Some have even said if we just stayed home and locked down for a few weeks, then we would solve this virus thing, well it doesn’t work that way, most any Pandemic comes in waves, and often for years.

You can sharply limit and reduce a wave with a short period of greater restrictions (see Germany link above, and more countries will report some reductions of infection rate by December). Job #1 was, and remains to keep healthcare from being overwhelmed, which if it happens would sharply increase the death rate both from COVID-19 and from other illnesses that end up going untreated.

And - with the good news coming on the vaccination front, it's just a matter of maintaining some control on spread by other means for the next 4 to 6 months or so. Not years.

So you guys think the Government should mandate everything close? What do you eat? Who fixes your car? How do you get pieces parts to keep things operating? House catches in fire, sorry the firemen are locked down?

Nobody's asking for or expecting such an absolute lockdown. And we know full well that many people, Americans included, wouldn't stand for it. So, not gonna happen. You can relax.

There has been a lot of talk about what the Federal government did or don’t do, without any understanding that it doesn’t have the authority you guys think it does.

Those comments had more to do with US federal planning, guidance and leadership, not federal legislating. Anyway, that's water (almost) under the bridge.

[Yihang]

Originally Posted by SalingSue

Can you post some info on this?

Many of the states with the most draconian “rules” had the highest infection rates.

NY went as far as to round up the Jews (big gov loves to do that for some reason) and they still were one of the death epicenters.

Damn, you need to reset your computer. I'd hate to see your social media feed.

There's a difference between breaking up a gathering (happens to be a gathering of jewish people) then 'rounding them up'. That language is obviously designed to inflame.

I hate to think how many people in the US wake up in the morning look at their social media feed and believe what they see is the truth. I think it has been proven people only read headlines. Heck a few people here posts videos without watching the content and just read the click bait title.

[SalingSue]

Originally Posted by Singularity

"According to MADD's drunk driving statistics, people drive drunk more than 300,000 times each day. Only about 1 percent of them are arrested."
"Every day, 29 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This is one death every 50 minutes."

So drunk driving is associated with about a 99.993% survival rate. Perhaps if we import all the laws of rural Somalia we can start getting somewere here.

The $$ cited above are for >15 day hospitalizations, and the numbers go north of 8-900k in the extreme. As is ordinary, 'my body, my choice' arguments are coupled with 'but I can't pay for my choices.'

I think the DUI marketing is very much the new neo puritanical resurgence we are seeing now. Driving drunk is bad, but our approach to it these days, compared to like 30 years ago, is just off the deep end.

It is my body and my choice, and if I choose to not buy insurance, fall on others charity and they say no, well that’s the bed I made.

I chose to buy some insurance, I chose to not buy other insurance, personal choice where I will enjoy the rewards of good choices and take my chances at the damage from poor choices.

Freedom be like it be.