Post your Contentious Virus Posts Here

[mhosea]

I have often pondered the constitutionality of shut down and stay-at-home orders in light of the unprecedented damage they have done to citizens. What we have seen in Massachusetts with gun control is that the state can do what it wants if it carefully navigates the backlash, resolving individual cases that could result in a slap down by the SCOTUS and generally hiding behind the difficulty getting a challenge to the Supreme Court in any case.

I’m not too worried about the US turning into a surveillance state. What worries me is destruction of small businesses essentially by decree. The justification for it is “saving lives” but unlike many tribulations, we can’t soothe our consciences by claiming that it has been a sacrifice made for the benefit of future generations. If the shutdowns only last as long as necessary to avoid overwhelming the system and to learn how to sustainably avoid overwhelming it in the future, then that is one thing. Extending them indefinitely so that we can supposedly get to containment is the biggest gamble ever.

[dneal]

Perspective. Gratuitously stolen from somewhere else on the interwebz...

“ For a small amount of perspective at this moment, imagine you were born in 1900. When you are 14, World War I starts, and ends on your 18th birthday with 22 million people killed. Later in the year, a Spanish Flu epidemic hits the planet and runs until you are 20. Fifty million people die from it in those two years. Yes, 50 million. When you're 29, the Great Depression begins. Unemployment hits 25%, global GDP drops 27%. That runs until you are 33. The country nearly collapses along with the world economy. When you turn 39, World War II starts. You aren’t even over the hill yet. When you're 41, the United States is fully pulled into WWII. Between your 39th and 45th birthday, 75 million people perish in the war and the Holocaust kills six million. At 52, the Korean War starts and five million perish. At 64 the Vietnam War begins, and it doesn’t end for many years. Four million people die in that conflict. Approaching your 62nd birthday you have the Cuban Missile Crisis, a tipping point in the Cold War. Life on our planet, as we know it, could well have ended. Great leaders prevented that from happening. As you turn 75, the Vietnam War finally ends. Think of everyone on the planet born in 1900. How do you survive all of that? A kid in 1985 didn’t think their 85 year old grandparent understood how hard school was. Yet those grandparents (and now great grandparents) survived through everything listed above.

Perspective is an amazing art. Let’s try and keep things in perspective. Let’s be smart, help each other out, and we will get through all of this. In the history of the world, there has never been a storm that lasted. This too, shall pass.”

[dneal]

UNICEF SAYS THE GLOBAL RISK POISED BY SHUTDOWNS “FAR OUTWEIGHS ANY THREAT PRESENTED BY THE CORONAVIRUS”
by Kevin Ryan

Dr. Stefan Peterson, chief of health at UNICEF, the U.N. agency responsible for providing humanitarian aid to children, said the consequences of “stay-at-home” restrictions could kill more than a million children worldwide and be more dangerous than the virus itself. He points to:

• Resources being diverted away from other serious health problems to focus on the coronavirus.

• Shutdowns taking a heavy economic toll, leading to an increase in poverty and malnutrition.

• Food supply chains being disrupted.

• Vaccination campaigns against diseases like the measles being disrupted - at least 117 million children worldwide are likely to miss routine immunizations this year.

• People avoiding hospitals out of fear.

“We need to lift our eyes and look at the total picture of public health,” Dr. Peterson said. The risk to children in developing countries is spiraling due to shutdown-related factors and “far outweighs any threat presented by the coronavirus”.

According to a dire report published by researchers from Johns Hopkins University on Wednesday, up to 1.2 million children could die in the next six months due to the disruption to health services and food supplies caused by coronavirus restrictions. It found that child mortality rates could rise by as much as 45% due to coronavirus-related disruptions, while maternal deaths could increase by almost 39%.

The research looks at the consequences of disruption in 118 middle and low income countries:

Best-case scenario: Access to health services drops by 15% and child malnourishment rises by 10%, leading to the deaths of 253,500 children and 12,200 mothers.

Worst-case scenario: Access to health services drops by 45% and child malnourishment rises by 50%, resulting in 1.16 million additional child fatalities and 57,000 maternal deaths in just six months.

“That’s not from COVID - COVID is not a children's disease. Yes there are rare instances and we see them publicized across the media. But pneumonia, diarrhea, measles, death in childbirth, these are the reasons we will see deaths rise,” he said. In low and middle income areas “These threats far outweighs any threat presented by the coronavirus.”

Dr. Peterson urged governments not to impose draconian lockdowns, but to focus on identifying hotspots so that regional restrictions less damaging for public health can be introduced.

“We cannot allow almost a decade of progress on ending preventable child deaths to become undone on our watch.”

SOURCES: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...l-predicts-12/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3576549
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...uk-government/

[mhosea]

I don't want to put too much emphasis on it, because I frankly don't think there has been enough random antibody testing with reliable tests to know, but recently in Massachusetts they conducted some antibody testing and concluded that about 10% of those tested were positive for antibodies. Now, in Boston, they took that to mean that they should be afraid to open up, insofar as the vast majority of the people, they think, have not yet been exposed. Another way of looking at it is that, supposing 10% of the people in Massachusetts have already had it, that means that the actual case count is more than 80 times the confirmed case count. The current confirmed case hospitalization and case fatality ratios in Massachusetts are

Ages 0-19 Hospitalized at any point = 1.66% Died = 0.00%
Ages 20-29 Hospitalized at any point = 1.78% Died = 0.07%
Ages 30-39 Hospitalized at any point = 3.10% Died = 0.13%
Ages 40-49 Hospitalized at any point = 5.02% Died = 0.42%
Ages 50-59 Hospitalized at any point = 8.45% Died = 1.46%
Ages 60-69 Hospitalized at any point = 14.01% Died = 4.97%
Ages 70-79 Hospitalized at any point = 22.91% Died = 16.13%
Ages 80+ Hospitalized at any point = 20.64% Died = 27.88%

Hospitalizations are falling, so I think these are asymptotically near to their correct magnitudes. If you like, fudge them a bit higher. The hospitalization rates might be overstated, anyway, as I have divided by the confirmed case count in each age bracket, and I think the hospitalization counts include suspected cases, whereas the confirmed case counts do not. Anyway, if the denominators in these percentage calculations are supposed to be 80x larger, then we can easily see that the overall hospitalization and fatality rates are brought into a range where we most likely would never have conceived of a comprehensive lock down.

[TSherbs]

How many hospitals could handle a 1000% increase in hospitalizations? (Assuming 10% was increased to 100%)? The overall mortality rate is not the only concern. Secondly, there are deaths and medical consequences that are the result of hospital beds being needed for quarantined patients. A wider spread of the disease would further complicate this. This all is much more complicated than these fractional reductions because this virus is more lethal to the compromised than the flu. And, further note, we still don't know if prior exposure protects one through immunity.

I live you in a small town, and many of the businesses are open. Not all but many. Every restaurant is open for curbside pickup. Every grocery store. The doctor's offices. The pharmacy. The schools (remotely). The banks. The naval yard. The gas stations. The garden center. The local butcher is selling curbside from his farm. Maybe it's the advantage of living in a small town (<9000): lots of places can be run by the owners and a couple of staff. But yeah, the bigger places are in much more trouble, and all the mass entertainment venues are shut, and many places have reduced their staff. But it is not a "shutdown" and never was. It seems, in retrospect, exactly the right thing to have done in the circumstances when public safety is threatened by an unknown contagion, particularly when we got a late start in policymaking and decision-making. In a year from now, we may develop a different strategic plan, but if the next pandemic as another novel virus form, I would expect a similar set of concerns and safeguards. I think that there should be a new cabinet-level department for bio-environmental threats. We need to learn something about preparedness from this.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[mhosea]

The key word was “comprehensive”, and it’s a very important word. You have basically responded with a false dichotomy. I must choose between doing nothing and doing exactly what we have done. This is ridiculous. Furthermore, there is always this implicit suggestion that people who are vulnerable would change nothing, and hence be exposed, nor would anyone who can stay home and do their work just as well. I’m not suggesting to have done NOTHING. I’m suggesting that, if it turns out that 10% of the population has been infected and we had known what we know now, we would have chosen a more targeted response.

[TSherbs]

I didn't mean that choice at all. I didn't ask you to choose anything. And I know what you were suggesting.

I asked a question to introduce an issue that you weren't addressing: hospital capacity and collateral "damage" to health care and emergency services. We closed things down in part to not overwhelm hospitals. The fatality rate is not the only consideration. I am not sure what you are calling "ridiculous," but it seemed like an unwarranted reply.

I'll spare everyone my inside hospital stories (I have 2) about hospital services that were denied to family members because of COVID overloads. Besides, argument is not strong from anecdote (nor from thin statistics). My only point was to say that the issue is far more complicated than any of us is able to understand or convey in this thread, and, personally, I disagree with you (Mike) that if we were to again confront a novel (hitherto not encountered) corona virus, our current understanding does not indicate to me that in the first two months (where we are now) we should do anything different from what we have (given the same lack of preparation and planning). We were f**d. And we are a democracy, where every citizen counts equally (in theory). To suggest a policy that likely would increase the number of hospitalizations and deaths of the more elderly or immune compromised for the financial gain of others is, usually, anathema and political suicide. (Our current president is trying to suggest it and not suggest it at the same time). If you are saying that we know enough--at this point--to show that a different approach would not overwhelm hospitals or increase deaths, then I also disagree with this. I don't think that we know this in any certain way at all. I suggest that we don't know jack squat yet. It's only been two months of restrictions. And as of today, the news is that Germany is beginning to tighten restrictions again because of an uptick in cases since loosening up a bit. We are still neophytes in this situation, I would suggest.

So, again, I simply disagree with conclusion that given the same conditions, what we know now would change our approach. And again, I will restate, what this needs is a Cabinet level priority and task force permanently in place to study and plan and prepare for future "novel" viruses and other biological or natural threats.

[dneal]

We have a department (and cabinet level secretary) of health and human services, and a center for disease control. Isn't that already a cabinet level position and task force permanently in place?

If they haven't been studying, planning and preparing for future and novel viruses, I doubt building a bigger bureaucracy will help.

[mhosea]

I didn't mean that choice at all. I didn't ask you to choose anything. And I know what you were suggesting.

I asked a question to introduce an issue that you weren't addressing: hospital capacity and collateral "damage" to health care and emergency services. We closed things down in part to not overwhelm hospitals. The fatality rate is not the only consideration. I am not sure what you are calling "ridiculous," but it seemed like an unwarranted reply.

These are things that I have addressed at other times, in other posts, and I quite agree that hospital capacity is and should be the driving issue where public policy is concerned. If you will observe, my post contained case hospitalization ratios which clearly indicate that, at face value, the hospitalization rate of COVID-19 is high, even in the lower age brackets. I have never intended to second guess the initial response, as a 15 day "lock down" seemed quite prudent to me at the time. But in case you hadn't noticed, officials are no longer speaking of hospital capacity as the driving factor in their decisions. Even with all the measures taken, the cases in Massachusetts keep coming. The same people who were tested for antibodies in Massachusetts were also given antigen tests, which yielded a 2.6% positive rate, this after nearly two months of what we are currently doing. Tests in general are biased towards positives because they are not delivered randomly, but the rate of positives has been relatively flat for two weeks, generally wandering in the 10-14% range, occasionally with a spike to a higher percentage. It seems reasonable to ask what is the true magnitude of the effect our extreme efforts are actually having. Naturally, if effective therapeutics are weeks away, and a vaccine merely months, the optimal strategy might involve some extreme measures, but it's rather looking like the keel of our leaking boat could be resting on the epidemiological bottom before a vaccine arrives.

It was your 1000% remark that implied a false dichotomy. I think you overreacted to the "this is ridiculous" remark because I think we agree that doing nothing would be ridiculous, even setting aside that it could not achieve a full 10-fold effect on hospitalizations. There are entire industries that transitioned relatively quickly and easily to WFH with little or no loss of productivity or revenue. I work in one of them. This is a switch we can throw almost at will. My place of work did it prior to being required to by the governor. Clearly those who are vulnerable should isolate if possible. Anybody who can self-isolate and is willing to do so for their own benefit and as a public service should do so. Social distancing needs to be baked into some industries like meat packing, which apparently puts workers far too close together. But of what benefit was closing retailers deemed "nonessential" for more than a few weeks? Of what benefit was it that people could not visit a Bass Pro Shop for fishing tackle, for example? Much has been made about social distancing outdoors, but my understanding is that the fraction of transmissions that have been traced back to outdoor exposure is negligible. Might we have overreacted where parks and beaches are concerned? Of necessity we have explored the alternatives to shutting retailers down in our essential businesses. I posit that it never should have been a question of being "essential". I can understand that restaurants, theaters, and classrooms would be impacted. Meetings and conventions would get canceled. The bottom would fall out of the travel industry. I do not think the government could even have prevented that. But retail shopping? Why would we go as far as we did for as long as we did knowing what we know now?

Be all that as it may, in Massachusetts the curve flattened far more than anticipated based on mathematical modeling, and we never came close to running out of hospital capacity. While some would be content to pat themselves on the back for a job well done, to use this as justification for all the actions we took ignores the possibility that the curves were a lot flatter than we thought to begin with. I cannot speak to your locale, which apparently had some issue with hospital capacity, but here we could easily have accommodated a moderate increase if healthy younger people had gone about their lives in a more normal fashion. Again, extrapolating from the hypothetical 10% penetration rate, if hospitalizations for those who are under 50 were to have increased 6-fold or so, Massachusetts would not have run out of suitable COVID-19 beds if the more vulnerable people, principally the elderly, were isolated from these more mobile people.

You mentioned that

And, further note, we still don't know if prior exposure protects one through immunity.

Well "exposure" per se would not. That would be extraordinary, but it would also be extraordinary if contracting the infection and clearing it did not. I refer you to an interview with Dr. Fauci which can be found here.

Dr. Varshavski: There's been some talk about the possibility of reinfection with COVID-19. Now do you think that this is a more an issue with testing, that the test remains positive, or are they truly being infected for a second time with the virus?

Dr. Fauci: You know, I don't know the answer to that 100%, but I would be willing to bet on my experience, and I'll bet your experience, that any virus that you have, if you do well, recover, and clear the virus, if it acts like any other virus, you're going to have lasting immunity. You're not going to get reinfected, you're just not.

Dr. Varshavski: The way that I've thought about it is, there's certain illnesses where you get lifelong immunity, chicken pox, measles with your two vaccinations, so maybe this won't be lifelong immunity, but to say there's none, where you can get reinfected in two weeks, something seems off.

Dr. Fauci: No, that's inconceivable to me that that's the case. I mean, you're going to have some degree of durable immunity. You're right, it may not be 50 years, but it's certainly going to be a matter of a few years.

Note that there's some wiggle room there about "clearing" the virus, but I think the tone of the conversation there is probably a good indication of how much weight we should be giving to the concern.

[TSherbs]

So, if our isolation methods have worked, why second guess them now with such limited data?

Here is just one large unknown: how many people of the elderly (lets say 70+ years old) and everyone else in chemotherapy or otherwise compromised immune or respiratory systems still live in homes outside of professional residences for aging in place? What percent of that age group? I have no idea, but I would wager that it is the majority of the less-fortunate (less wealthy) of that cohort. How many of them live in homes with younger generations, who, with a more relaxed policy, would be more likely to bring the virus into their home? I don't know how many of these people there are living in multigenerational homes in America, but my guess is many many. It is my opinion that a relaxing of our approach after just 15 days (your suggestion) or even after just one month would put those people in direct and predictable jeopardy. I think the Mass numbers are showing that something like 20% of the positive cases of those 80+ years of age have died. In my father's facility, the fatality rate has been 50% of positive test cases. Is that every actual positive case? Probably not (although they have tested everyone twice over 8 weeks). But still, with these kind of high mortality rates, who is willing--BY POLICY--to sacrifice a higher number of these persons for the expediency of some aspects of commerce and industry? If the virus spreads into more homes holding these elderly persons or compromised persons, it will kill more of them. There is no doubt about this. And the impact will be felt disproportionately by the poor and underclasses who do not have access to high quality residential care and protection. I'll make this clear: I am opposed to all aspects of this that would have the predictable effect of killing more elderly or vulnerable (of any class). I have a bias: death is the worst outcome of any civic policy. If we can't find a way to do something different that will NOT result in more death, then we should change nothing at all from this extreme approach. And right now, no data is comprehensive enough to suggest a loosening up would protect those vulnerable in family dwellings in communities where people might go back to work or children to school, etc. If you wish to sacrifice more human lives for commerce, than just say so straight up. At least our disagreement will be clear.

[mhosea]

So, if our isolation methods have worked, why second guess them now with such limited data?

I'm not convinced that they are working so very well that we cannot afford to look at our circumstances holistically. I think we're sprinting. I sense that you would have me believe that we can sprint all day and into the night because there's some place we need to be and we're making good time. Looking forward, resource availability for all of the government's activities, including welfare programs, and overall system stability are my principal concerns.

If you wish to sacrifice more human lives for commerce, than just say so straight up. At least our disagreement will be clear.

I consider it, rather, an obscenity. I am disheartened that you would request clarification on such a thing.

[TSherbs]

It's only been 8 weeks, Mike. That's a sprint against the virus.

I never suggested that we should do this for two years (or whatever).

My point repeatedly has been that I don't think we know anything AT THIS POINT that makes me think that we should have responded over the first 8 weeks any differently.

And I asked the humans versus money question not to insult you but simply to keep the human cost clear.

Of course things are not at this point holistically balanced. It's a crisis.

Did you understand my point about households and elderly vulnerability? I was trying to be specific about how difficult these decisions are for governors and city leaders when changes can mean, say, thousands of more deaths. What civic leader would want, after 8 weeks, that on his/her head? I was declaring that I would not to make my position clear.

Ask me 6 months from now, when more data is clearer, and I may have a different sense of risk/benefit. We are all also worried about national stability and economic stability. I am worried about depression, suicide, other health problems being neglected, undetected, or untreated. The problem is complex, but we don't even know (confirmed) about immunity yet (I know that it is expected). It's just too early to say that we should have initially responded differently. It's only been 8 weeks, and we had our priorities right.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[dneal]

I spent a career literally calculating the cost of human life. How many lives would be lost, how many would be wounded, severity of wound, and how to mitigate it. How many would die due to not being able to evacuate them quickly enough, and how many would die because of not enough medical capacity. How many body bags would be needed and how to store the corpses. What to do with the corpses that exceeded capacity or were contaminated with persistent nerve agent. There's more, but that's enough; so I'll be the bad guy and say what needs to be said. If the argument is a variation of "if it saves one life", it's not realistic. The hard truth is that lives are lost from all sorts of causes. This virus is merely one new cause.

The vulnerable were already vulnerable to many other potential causes of death. People with compromised immune systems are not solely vulnerable to coronavirus. We didn't shut down the economy for them pre-coronavirus. They took measures to mitigate their risk. They still bear that responsibility primarily. There are many common sense measures that others can employ that will help with that, particularly in the context of this virus.

The emotional argument is an accusation of selfishness. People are selfish for valuing the money above the aged or otherwise vulnerable. It's also an argument of false choice. Here's the opposite, just as emotional and invalid, also presenting a false choice: people are selfish for sacrificing the future of the young out of their own fear.

There are incredibly serious consequences to the economic damage we're inflicting on ourselves, and those consequences include diminished quality of life and loss of life. That cannot be dismissed out of hand if there is to be a rational discussion about how to deal with this issue, and the issue should be how to most effectively and efficiently mitigate risk. That's not just risk to the elderly or vulnerable. It's also risk to the economy.

[TSherbs]

That's not just risk to the elderly or vulnerable. It's also risk to the economy.

Of course, but I put life before economy. We are not ethically or Constitutionally guaranteed work. We are not promised nor guaranteed easy or comfortable living. We are not guaranteed success. We desire these things, but we have no rational or ethical or religious claim to them. If we did, the poor of the world would rise up in rebellion and claim what was rightfully theirs.

We do have several valid claims to life,and we are under no expectation legally, religiously, or ethically to give this claim up for the comfort or ease of others. That one group by the nature of their health has been vulnerable in the past is no ethical requirement that they bear the majority of the burden for the next bio threat. Even in war it is considered a moral wrong to prey upon the most vulnerable of a society (it can be tried as a war crime and punished with execution). This is not an "emotional" argument. It is from commonly shared ethics of humanity. I have to delay my retirement plans now because of what has happened to the economy and the market. I feel this; it is real (yes, others are suffering more, for sure). I may not have a job next year (I only have a job through June 30, presently). It effects me and my family. But I can't imagine ever claiming that, say, 10,000 more Americans need die for my retirement, whenever it comes, to be more comfortable or secure. I was never guaranteed this, nor did I ever presume it (I do want it, real bad).

This, too, is not an "emotional" claim: I consider it true that a country that does not protect its elders has lost its soul. In times of crisis, sometimes we have to work hard not to lose our souls.

That you did these calculations for matters of war or battle is not surprising (it is expected of the military). And as I said, I want more time than 8 weeks to do the real numbers analysis for this war on COVID. But military war is an act of volition with, mostly, a group of volunteers engaged in their own acts of volition. The equivalent would be to have a volunteer army of the elderly and otherwise health-compromised lead the calculus and decision-making of this war on COVID.

[TSherbs]

And Mike, don't get me wrong. I respect your contributions and presence on this site. We can disagree, I hope, and show some others that a quality debate on some fundamental principles can occur without devolving into personal animosities. I have none toward you. I am only engaging in the topichere. It's actually a debate over principles that we should all be asked to think hard and deep about. We in America tend too often to be shallow consumers of shallow news and satisfy ourselves with shallow thinking, knee-jerk reactions, and bingeing Netflix (I sure do, sometimes). And in some of these threads personal pique has ended up poisoning the exchanges. This one, I hope, can be salvaged.

[dneal]

We are not Constitutionally guaranteed life. In fact, the word only appears four times. Once, in regard to treason, and three other times in regards that you can't be deprived of life without due process. But that, like not being Constitutionally guaranteed work, is a reductio ad absurdum.

If we want to look at another founding document, one that expresses the ideas behind liberty rather than specifying the makeup of government and a non-comprehensive enumeration of certain rights; we would look at the Declaration. All men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Work, or the earning of a living, is a key component of the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

We do have several valid claims to life,and we are under no expectation legally, religiously, or ethically to give this claim up for the comfort or ease of others.

Indeed, and people are not obligated to sacrifice their and their family's livelihood for people who should and could take precautions or avoid contact because of their vulnerabilities. People are not obligated to suffer the additional pressure that causes or results in depression, alcohol and drug abuse, spousal and child abuse, malnutrition, poverty, etc... to ensure the minority of the vulnerable find it easier to avoid the possibility of infection. Your argument would take the boy out of the bubble and put everyone else in it. The economy is integral to life.

[TSherbs]

The economy is integral to life.

What does this mean? The collection of manufacturing and service industries has not been erased or removed or cancelled. It has not been excised or killed. The "economy" is not even an entity except in the vaguest of terms.

And what does "integral" mean?

Commerce and industry have been weakened. The market is down, after one of its longest bull runs in history. All sorts of political and military decisions occasionally contract the markets, sometimes precipitously. What is your point about "life" and these contractions? That those decisions are all in error because they cause some pain to workers or holders of capital?

Are you arguing that governments should not assist in protecting the welfare of its elderly or sick in times of crisis if it costs too much? Or do you mean we should never do it at all?

The right to one's life is a premise running through all of our legal code and the parts of the Bill of Rights having to do with protection of the self (body and liberty). A word search for "life" isn't the best way to go on that route. It is a fundamental of ethics and religion around the world. I really don't want to be sidetracked by a question over the ethics or legal right to the protection of one's life. It is of course not a guarantee from illness or from death (these are inevitable). But, I would argue, it should protect one from the purposeful sacrifice of the elderly for the financial comfort of others. Especially over as short a time as these 8 weeks. Again, this to me is still a short time in the big picture (which had also been my point repeatedly here).


Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[dneal]

What does this mean? The collection of manufacturing and service industries has not been erased or removed or cancelled. It has not been excised or killed. The "economy" is not even an entity except in the vaguest of terms.

And what does "integral" mean?

What is livelihood? What does it mean to earn one? Why is there an etymological relationship between that word and "life"? Is that relationship integral - essential or necessary for completeness; constituent?

Are you arguing that governments should not assist in protecting the welfare of its elderly or sick in times of crisis if it costs too much? Or do you mean we should never do it at all?

Of course not. Why do you persist in these false dichotomies?

The right to one's life is a premise running through all of our legal code and the parts of the Bill of Rights having to do with protection of the self (body and liberty). A word search for "life" isn't the best way to go on that route.

I agree with the first sentence. You're the one who asserted what Constitutional rights there are and aren't. To argue that there's no right to work in the Constitution is, again, a reductio ad absurdum. How would you demonstrate that it's not there other than pointing out it's not in the text. I'm just pointing out that there is also no explicit right to life either, and I believe I'm the one that pointed out to you that the notions you are now addressing are in the Declaration (not the bill of rights). Work, or earning a living, or attempting to secure the requisite means for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

It is a fundamental of ethics and religion around the world. I really don't want to be sidetracked by a question over the ethics or legal right to the protection of one's life. It is of course not a guarantee from illness or from death (these are inevitable). But, I would argue, it should protect one from the purposeful sacrifice of the elderly for the financial comfort of others. Especially over as short a time as these 8 weeks. Again, this to me is still a short time in the big picture (which had also been my point repeatedly here).

You address ethics to bolster your argument, declare you don't want to get sidetracked by a question of ethics, and then argue an ethical issue. Asking one to sacrifice in some form for another is precisely an ethical question.

From 1984: DOUBLETHINK: "...to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, ...to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself."

[TSherbs]

What? Orwell? Really, dneal?

Look, why don't you just state how we should have done anything different for the first 8 weeks, even knowing exactly what we know today.

That is mhoseas topic that brought me into this. I say we did things exactly right in the circumstances of our lack of knowledge and lack of supplies and lack of preparedness. If you believe otherwise, what policy would you have done differently and why? I think governors and mayors did exactly what they should have. You?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[dneal]

Yes, Orwell.

Anyway, I think the initial social distancing / stay at home policy was prudent. The justification was to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed, and "flatten the curve" while we acquired more resources (masks, ventilators, etc...). We did that. We took the economic hit for the benefit of society at large, particularly for the vulnerable. I couldn't care less whether or not that was the right choice or wrong one. Again, it seemed prudent given the lack of information.

Some politicians, and people, want to extend that policy. They aren't able to articulate a clear reason, nor a rational one, IMHO. They're already deciding to not send children back to school this fall. They're already determining that we need to remain shut down for another 6 months or more. I have a problem with that. It doesn't seem prudent, since we are learning that the prevalence of the virus is much greater than we knew and the risk to the majority of the population is much less than we believed. The models were wrong.

Now we're being told that we're doing this to prevent a second wave, but previously we were told that there would be one - one that we would be prepared for because of the initial actions implemented. The goal posts continue to move, and now some are saying we need to stay separated until there's a vaccine. Of course we don't know when that will be or how effective it will be (if at all).

The proposed "cure" is more harmful than the disease, one of many examples noted above in post #83.