Coronavirus pandemic

[tradephoric]

Nice try.  The fact is our national response has been a disaster.  Explaining away these number is ridiculous.

What we do know is there was massive amounts of deaths in New York.  That state was a disaster zone in April.  But compare that to LA County which has seen declining daily deaths over the past two months even as the test positivity rate has been on the rise.  These numbers seem to defy logic but whatever LA County is doing seems to be working (especially when compared to what happened in NYC).

[webny99]

If you labeled this "World War III,"  people's attitudes would have been completely different. This is a war against a virus that barely existed outside of one Chinese city last Christmas. 570,000 people have died worldwide in barely over 6 months.

That's more people than living in the entire metro areas of Lexington KY, Lansing MI, Chattanooga, and Spokane WA. In 6 months.

News flash: around 40 million people died within past 6 months from reasons not related to pandemic.
That's more people than living in the entire metro areas of NYC and LA combined. In 6 months.

How many were traffic accidents?
How many were expiring from old age?
How many were Darwin candidates?

The bolded one could also apply to people that died from COVID-19.

[kphoger]

An interesting risk estimation:

Good.  Only religious services with more than 500 in attendance pose any risk.    

[US 41]

I eat inside restaurants everyday which is a 7 on the risk chart. I'm a truck driver and quite frankly if there are mass shutdowns again this winter and I can't dine in a restaurant I'm turning in my keys. Most restaurants just shut down the last time if they couldn't have dine in, even in the truck stops. I'm not eating fast food again everyday.

[Brandon]

Nice try.  The fact is our national response has been a disaster.  Explaining away these number is ridiculous.

When one considers that each state is responsible for the response, it will never actually be a "national" response.

[Roadgeekteen]

Nice try.  The fact is our national response has been a disaster.  Explaining away these number is ridiculous.

When one considers that each state is responsible for the response, it will never actually be a "national" response.

We should have had a national response, not every state for themselves.

[kphoger]

We should have had a national response, not every state for themselves.

Yeah, 'cause that would have been effective.   

[Brandon]

Nice try.  The fact is our national response has been a disaster.  Explaining away these number is ridiculous.

When one considers that each state is responsible for the response, it will never actually be a "national" response.

We should have had a national response, not every state for themselves.

Name the federal law or relevant clause in the constitution and amendments that allows for it.

[formulanone]

If you labeled this “World War III,” people’s attitudes would have been completely different. This is a war against a virus that barely existed outside of one Chinese city last Christmas. 570,000 people have died worldwide in barely over 6 months.

That’s more people than living in the entire metro areas of Lexington KY, Lansing MI, Chattanooga, and Spokane WA. In 6 months.

News flash: around 40 million people died within past 6 months from reasons not related to pandemic.
That’s more people than living in the entire metro areas of NYC and LA combined. In 6 months.

Except that's now one more reason people are dying. Might as well say, "yeah, but lawn dart accidents are zero".

Look at like this: chose your favorite passenger vehicle, and load it to capacity. Everyone gets a seat belt. Then, add one more passenger...what's one more, after all? But they don't get a seat nor a seat belt. Chances are, the conveyance departs, goes somewhere, and arrives, with no accidents, and nobody gets hurt. But what happens if there is an accident? Someone is going get hurt or die, with an impact on the health of others.

So it's too cavalier to say, "more people die from X than Y", and then do nothing about it...so why bother? Perhaps some people can make room, make seats, increase demand, find ways to reduce capacity, but really everyone just wants things to get back to normal as quickly as possible without thought of the consequences. Basically, take the path of least resistance because that make people who aren't ill to feel better.

Nice try.  The fact is our national response has been a disaster.  Explaining away these number is ridiculous.

When one considers that each state is responsible for the response, it will never actually be a "national" response.

We should have had a national response, not every state for themselves.

Name the federal law or relevant clause in the constitution and amendments that allows for it.

Sure, that'll fix it. Except this really could have been a signature moment for national leadership to make stand and do something about it. Or at least, actually make some sense of it for the populace and deferred it to individuals who knew what they were doing.

We can't have each state making their own rules for things while subsequently allowing anyone to walk in and out of those rules. Works fine for most situations, but less so when the enemy is microscopic and virtually undetectable.

It's amazing how the tiniest thing becomes the elephant in the room.

[Scott5114]

Nice try.  The fact is our national response has been a disaster.  Explaining away these number is ridiculous.

When one considers that each state is responsible for the response, it will never actually be a "national" response.

We should have had a national response, not every state for themselves.

Name the federal law or relevant clause in the constitution and amendments that allows for it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare,

[kphoger]

Might as well say, "yeah, but lawn dart accidents are zero".

I miss Jarts.  Best game ever for church youth group camping trips.

Look at like this: chose your favorite passenger vehicle, and load it to capacity. Everyone gets a seat belt. Then, add one more passenger...what's one more, after all? But they don't get a seat nor a seat belt. Chances are, the conveyance departs, goes somewhere, and arrives, with no accidents, and nobody gets hurt. But what happens if there is an accident? Someone is going get hurt or die, with an impact on the health of others.

People should be allowed to make their own decision to buckle up or not.  If I climb into the back of a pickup truck, then let me assume my own risk in doing so.

[kphoger]

Nice try.  The fact is our national response has been a disaster.  Explaining away these number is ridiculous.

When one considers that each state is responsible for the response, it will never actually be a "national" response.

We should have had a national response, not every state for themselves.

Name the federal law or relevant clause in the constitution and amendments that allows for it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare,

The Preamble to the Constitution is neither (a) a federal law, (b) a clause of the Constitution, nor (c) an Amendment.

Try again.

[SEWIGuy]

Nice try.  The fact is our national response has been a disaster.  Explaining away these number is ridiculous.

When one considers that each state is responsible for the response, it will never actually be a "national" response.

Of course there can be.  First of all, the CARES Act was a national response to the economic circumstances of the pandemic.

But anyway, yes, the federal government cannot mandate business closings, etc.  But it can certainly issue guidance, funding and moral thought leadership to how we approach this.  All of that is lacking right now. 

[kphoger]

But anyway, yes, the federal government cannot mandate business closings, etc.  But it can certainly issue guidance, funding and moral thought leadership to how we approach this.  All of that is lacking right now. 

What is the CDC, if not an entity of the federal government?  The CDC has issued guidance, no?

[Brandon]

Nice try.  The fact is our national response has been a disaster.  Explaining away these number is ridiculous.

When one considers that each state is responsible for the response, it will never actually be a "national" response.

We should have had a national response, not every state for themselves.

Name the federal law or relevant clause in the constitution and amendments that allows for it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare,

Again, name the federal law or section of the constitution that allows the president to dictate anything.

I'll help you a bit here with the only section that allows anything in the constitution to be suspended by the federal government:

Article 1, Section 9: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Only in those cases, and then, only by Congress (emphasis mine).

Here's Article 2 for your reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution

[Brandon]

But anyway, yes, the federal government cannot mandate business closings, etc.  But it can certainly issue guidance, funding and moral thought leadership to how we approach this.  All of that is lacking right now. 

What is the CDC, if not an entity of the federal government?  The CDC has issued guidance, no?

Guidance yes, but they cannot issue mandates.  That's either for Congress or for the individual states.

[SectorZ]

Nice try.  The fact is our national response has been a disaster.  Explaining away these number is ridiculous.

When one considers that each state is responsible for the response, it will never actually be a "national" response.

Of course there can be.  First of all, the CARES Act was a national response to the economic circumstances of the pandemic.

But anyway, yes, the federal government cannot mandate business closings, etc.  But it can certainly issue guidance, funding and moral thought leadership to how we approach this.  All of that is lacking right now.

Telling me there is no guidance or funding? No guidance? The CDC literally has thousands of links on their page along about how to handle almost every situation, at our fingertips in an instant. No funding? We're planning on spending an annual budget's worth of money on fighting this. Would you like us to just spend so much that the US dollar just becomes meaningless. Worked great for Germany, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela.

The morals stuff, I don't care, my governor is quite 'moral' and we've got the third worst unemployment in the nation now, all caused by him, and that feels a tad immoral to me.

[kphoger]

But anyway, yes, the federal government cannot mandate business closings, etc.  But it can certainly issue guidance, funding and moral thought leadership to how we approach this.  All of that is lacking right now. 

What is the CDC, if not an entity of the federal government?  The CDC has issued guidance, no?

Guidance yes, but they cannot issue mandates.  That's either for Congress or for the individual states.

Right, exactly.

It is not within the powers of the federal government to legislate a national mandate in response to a pandemic.

The CDC, an institution of the federal government, has issued guidance.  Therefore it is not lacking.

Congress and the President passed the $300 billion CARES Act.  Therefore funding is not lacking.

Moral thought leadership?  What does that even mean?

[kalvado]

But anyway, yes, the federal government cannot mandate business closings, etc.  But it can certainly issue guidance, funding and moral thought leadership to how we approach this.  All of that is lacking right now. 

What is the CDC, if not an entity of the federal government?  The CDC has issued guidance, no?

Guidance yes, but they cannot issue mandates.  That's either for Congress or for the individual states.

Like with drinking age - funding can be dependent on certain provisions. Not sure how that would work in general, though. Mandatory masks if certain conditions are met may be the only reasonable one. A lot of things, especially during early NYC spike, were limited by availability of supplies - for example, testing mandate would be meaningless as there was limited testing capacity.

[GaryV]

Look at like this: chose your favorite passenger vehicle, and load it to capacity. Everyone gets a seat belt. Then, add one more passenger...what's one more, after all? But they don't get a seat nor a seat belt. Chances are, the conveyance departs, goes somewhere, and arrives, with no accidents, and nobody gets hurt. But what happens if there is an accident? Someone is going get hurt or die, with an impact on the health of others.

People should be allowed to make their own decision to buckle up or not.  If I climb into the back of a pickup truck, then let me assume my own risk in doing so.

Are you willing to take the entire financial risk, to absolve insurance companies for paying any of your bills?  And to absolve the rest of us taxpayers from paying SS, SSI or Medicaid for your kids should you be disabled or killed?

[jeffandnicole]

Look at like this: chose your favorite passenger vehicle, and load it to capacity. Everyone gets a seat belt. Then, add one more passenger...what's one more, after all? But they don't get a seat nor a seat belt. Chances are, the conveyance departs, goes somewhere, and arrives, with no accidents, and nobody gets hurt. But what happens if there is an accident? Someone is going get hurt or die, with an impact on the health of others.

People should be allowed to make their own decision to buckle up or not.  If I climb into the back of a pickup truck, then let me assume my own risk in doing so.

There isn't a single dead person that ever complained about their right not to wear a seatbelt.  The reason why we have those laws now is because their friends and loved ones fought to get it.

In how politics work, the dead person probably fought their own family on wearing a seatbelt.  Now that the dead person ain't there to fight their family, the family can now say that if there was a law, or more stringent penalties, their loved one would be alive today, full well knowing that they would still drive around without that seatbelt on.

BTW, if you decide to sit in the bed of a pickup, that's your doing.  However, the penalty wouldn't be solely against you, it'll be against the driver.  You're simply contributing to the issue.  If you managed to fall out of the truck and someone else hits you, or swerves to miss you and crashes, the penalty will go against the driver.   Also, how much personal insurance do you carry?  Can that other person that crashed trying to miss you go against some personal insurance policy you have?  If you feel you can ride around in a bed of a pickup, it's doubtful you carry some sort of personal insurance policy, so that other person would need to go after the driver's insurance policy.

[kphoger]

Are you willing to take the entire financial risk, to absolve insurance companies for paying any of your bills?  And to absolve the rest of us taxpayers from paying SS, SSI or Medicaid for your kids should you be disabled or killed?

Do you only want to know those answers as they relate to seat belts?  What about riding a bicycle without a helmet?  Smoking cigarettes?  Should people be disallowed to engage in those behaviors unless they're willing to take the entire financial risk of all that jazz?  I don't believe so.

But this was only a side response to formulanone's example of seat belt use or mandates being analogous to...  actually, I'm not entirely clear on that point.  I'm unsure how it's supposed to relate to something.

[kphoger]

BTW, if you decide to sit in the bed of a pickup, that's your doing.  However, the penalty wouldn't be solely against you, it'll be against the driver.  You're simply contributing to the issue.  If you managed to fall out of the truck and someone else hits you, or swerves to miss you and crashes, the penalty will go against the driver.   Also, how much personal insurance do you carry?  Can that other person that crashed trying to miss you go against some personal insurance policy you have?  If you feel you can ride around in a bed of a pickup, it's doubtful you carry some sort of personal insurance policy, so that other person would need to go after the driver's insurance policy.

Yeah, I knew while I was typing it that other issues were at play when it comes to the bed of a pickup.  Unless it has a topper, that is.

If I, as a driver, want to reduce my liability for a passenger's injury while not buckled up, then I should make them buckle up before riding in my car.  Seems reasonable.

[SEWIGuy]

Nice try.  The fact is our national response has been a disaster.  Explaining away these number is ridiculous.

When one considers that each state is responsible for the response, it will never actually be a "national" response.

Of course there can be.  First of all, the CARES Act was a national response to the economic circumstances of the pandemic.

But anyway, yes, the federal government cannot mandate business closings, etc.  But it can certainly issue guidance, funding and moral thought leadership to how we approach this.  All of that is lacking right now.

Telling me there is no guidance or funding? No guidance? The CDC literally has thousands of links on their page along about how to handle almost every situation, at our fingertips in an instant. No funding? We're planning on spending an annual budget's worth of money on fighting this. Would you like us to just spend so much that the US dollar just becomes meaningless. Worked great for Germany, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela.

The morals stuff, I don't care, my governor is quite 'moral' and we've got the third worst unemployment in the nation now, all caused by him, and that feels a tad immoral to me.

Nope. The unemployment is being caused by the pandemic.  Not your governor.

And I never claimed the CDC wasn't issuing guidance.  I was simply stating that was part of the federal response.

[kphoger]

Of course there can be.  First of all, the CARES Act was a national response to the economic circumstances of the pandemic.

But anyway, yes, the federal government cannot mandate business closings, etc.  But it can certainly issue guidance, funding and moral thought leadership to how we approach this.  All of that is lacking right now. 

I never claimed the CDC wasn't issuing guidance.

Yes you did.

Nope. The unemployment is being caused by the pandemic.  Not your governor.

If a business that would otherwise have stayed open is forced to close by governor's order, and then the owner lays the employees off, then how can you claim their unemployment wasn't caused by the governor?