OT: Coronavirus (COVID-19): Part VI (NO RIOT/PROTEST DISCUSSION)
- Thread starter Fugazy
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
NYSPORTS
back afta dis. . .
- Jun 17, 2019
- 7,993
- 4,459
you didn’t read it then b/c i said these people are nuts and a bomb is likely going to go off in the autumn.
I saw that. My question remains what is wrong with mandating the wearing of masks in public spaces during a pandemic?
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
Because the private entity has the right to set the rules for their establishment. If I don't like it I can go to an establishment that doesn't have those rules (not that I would). Allowing the government to do that isn't even a slippery slope, it is a cliff overlooking the grand canyon.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,926
- 2,336
The government doesn't set rules for establishments?
Allowing the government to govern isn't a slippery slope, its literally the purpose of the government.
Do you drive a car?
Do you have a license, registration, and insurance in order to drive a car? Government mandates these things.
Have you ever gotten a license to do anything? Government mandates these things.
There are lots of other similar examples.
What distinguishes the wearing of masks from these things?
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
He asked why I think it is okay for private establishments to set the rules but not the government. I am well aware the government doesn't set rules for the establishments.
With regards to your second point... no. Mandating that citizens wear masks is borderline Orwellian. I find it interesting that despite the overwhelming criticism in these threads about the current administrations handling of COVID-19, they trust it roll out more regulation.
ponytrekker
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2013
- 1,316
- 293
ponytrekker
Registered User
- Mar 28, 2013
- 1,316
- 293
Wait are you telling me that I can't walk into a store naked?
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,926
- 2,336
The government sets rules for everything. You can't even build a private establishment, let alone operate one, without following thousands and thousands of rules. So how would this be any different?
I assumed this would be done, just like everything else, at the state or local level.
I'm sure some people will see this as a power grab. If the government can mandate people to cover their lips with fabric, what cant they do? They are probably the same people who thought this virus was a hoax. A government should not govern in accordance with the law because it might upset someone who is almost certainly going to be upset anyway?
You are entitled to you opinion but personally I think the idea that mandating mask wearing during a viral pandemic will lead to tyranny is closer to something in an unfilmed Idiocracy prequel than anything Orwell wrote.
Gardner McKay
RIP, Jimmy.
Just to name a few...
1. If I don't want to drive a car, I can walk to the grocery store. I can ride a bike. I can jog. Take a bus.
2. Am I going to have to wear a mask in a park in 95 degree Atlanta heat? What about while I am waiting in line to get in to the the grocery store in the middle of August when its 100 degrees? How am I going to wear a mask at a restaurant while eating and drinking?
You and I simply have polar opposite philosophies on this. We aren't in disagreement that everyone should wear masks. I wear one everywhere I go. Gloves too. Government makes far too many mistakes for me to want them to have their hand in another part of my life, especially one that has as many logistical hurdles as this. Simple as that.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
Pretty much every private business has to follow various codes and ordinances. Usually they have to do with public and employee safety.
If masks become parts of those codes or ordinances, what makes that any different than the health codes already needing to be followed?
Even if one owns their own private property with only a private residence on it they have to follow certain government implemented rules. Those could relate to building, fire, health codes, or even just ordinances about requiring permits.
How would the government, (fed, state or local) adding in rules pertaining to masks be any different?
Every rule they make could be perceived as taking away freedom or liberty.
What I guess I find strange, I feel my individual freedom is more taken away by things like needing to pay for a permit to have a licensed professional cut down a dead tree, or to replace a water heater, than I would if they mandated mask wearing at indoor, private or public places.
I mean I get why they require permits and have codes, people would end up falling trees on their neighbors houses, building fire pits under their water heaters, and whatnot, yet those same people would probably, even if they are symptomatic sick, go mask-less to a crowded place.
If masks become parts of those codes or ordinances, what makes that any different than the health codes already needing to be followed?
Even if one owns their own private property with only a private residence on it they have to follow certain government implemented rules. Those could relate to building, fire, health codes, or even just ordinances about requiring permits.
How would the government, (fed, state or local) adding in rules pertaining to masks be any different?
Every rule they make could be perceived as taking away freedom or liberty.
What I guess I find strange, I feel my individual freedom is more taken away by things like needing to pay for a permit to have a licensed professional cut down a dead tree, or to replace a water heater, than I would if they mandated mask wearing at indoor, private or public places.
I mean I get why they require permits and have codes, people would end up falling trees on their neighbors houses, building fire pits under their water heaters, and whatnot, yet those same people would probably, even if they are symptomatic sick, go mask-less to a crowded place.
Last edited:
The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 29,203
- 38,878
No because it is their building, they can make the rules. Just like a private business can make rules to enter their building.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
It depends on if the private business serves the public or not, but if they do, there are still laws they have to follow when making their rules about entering the building.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
I agree, however if they do not provide a reasonable amount of safety precautions, they will be open to negligence litigation.
So the question I believe comes down to what is a reasonable degree of safety precautions, and who gets to set that threshold?
Which I can not answer, likely the courts will have to make the judgement calls there.
Yet if it were my building, in this environment, I'd be overly cautious. So to me at least it would not matter if government mandated it or not, and in a way the government mandating it would provide at least a certain level of protection against negligence litigation as they'd have to write actual rules to follow. If those rules were followed it would be difficult to say the business was negligent.
Even if the government decides to set certain rules for their own building, I'd be following whatever they are doing, mostly again to make it difficult for anyone to claim I was negligent without also having to claim the government was also negligent.
Which is partially why I think we see some in the federal government trying to do away with any negligence concerning opening up, they do not likely want to be the ones setting the rules which could in the future be deemed to be negligent.
NYSPORTS
back afta dis. . .
- Jun 17, 2019
- 7,993
- 4,459
must be why you asked the following then
“Do you really believe the virus will not come back like every virologist tells us?
The only ones saying it won't come back during the fall are those saying it will magically disappear. Haven't we all learned that lesson, yet?”
not going to answer it b/c you probably won’t read it and ask the same question again.
GL
I had to stop after your first point. You can choose to not drive a car, but if you want to drive a car, the government mandates quite a few things.
Do you drive?
If so, do you do the things that government mandates? If so, why is it okay for government to require you to do those things but not wear a mask? What exactly is different about that situation?
On your second point, if you are not walking among strangers, you don't have to wear a mask. If you are walking among strangers, yes you should wear one. What would be wrong with that?
A restaurant is a private establishment so that doesn't even apply to the discussion.
Yes, government makes lots of mistakes. I would argue that the private sector makes just as many, plus they often do many things to skirt the law.
And, when regulations are removed from businesses, they pollute and do other things which harm the health of people. This is not even an arguable point. That is why almost every business that consciously harms the environment does so in poor areas.
If they did it to rich people the uproar would be unbelievable.
Why are so many people crazed about government doing bad things yet say virtually nothing when the private sector damages us.
Anyway, your argument about choosing not to drive has nothing to do with government mandating anything.
Last edited:
IronBloodedLion
Registered User
A lot of countries that have adopted masks have seen a dramatic decrease in the spread of the virus. I don’t know how I feel about the government mandating it, but anyone refusing to wear one is being unnecessarily difficult.
I didn't realize Cuomo was also governor of Minnesota. Anyway do you have a link? Deaths in nursing homes in NYS was under 5k and aren't all attributed to the state's decision.
Glen Sathers Cigar
Sather 4 Ever
Idk if you guys remember but my wife had Covid in late March-early April. Thankfully it was a relatively mild case and she recovered and got back to normal after a couple weeks. I went this past week for antibody testing because we just assumed I had it and was asymptomatic. My antibody test was negative. I have no idea how I didn't get it. This thing is supposed to be insanely contagious and I lived in a 1br apartment with someone who had it, being careful and washing hands a lot and stuff but still sharing a bed and spending all day within a few feet of each other mostly. I was pretty shocked.
From an anti-body study done on a whole county in Germany (the one with most cases early on), it was found that actually the chance to contract Covid-19 when a member of your household is affected was only 25% - compared to 15% overall infection rate in that county.
I think this is the essence of why so many early models were completely ridiculous.
Its described in this report:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20081893v1.full.pdf
Many persons are just not susceptible to a virus. You beat it at the door step so to speak. As people get infected and subsequently immune, it simultaneously reduce the virus ability to reproduce itself. With a voluntary vaccination program, if you vaccinate 10% you can count on that the virus R0 value is reduced 10%. You will have vaccinated both people susceptible to the virus as well as people that are not susceptible to the virus, so the effect is just 10%.
With disease-induced immunity, you get a positive benefit from the natural selection. The persons most likely to get the virus will become immune first on average of course.
So to calculate on the true impact of disease-induced immunity you must multiply it with a coefficient. They don't know what that is yet, but the best comparables they can find indicates a coefficient of 2 to 4.
At the bottom line this has a huuuge impact. If 10% of a population have disease-induced immunity -- a coefficient of 4 gives you a direct reduction of the R factor of 40%. With limited restrictions you should surely be able to bring down the R value to a range where 40% effective immunity brings the R0 value below 1, meaning that cases cannot grow.
If the Liverpool study is correct, it basically means that all places can have cases that goes up towards 10% of the population, but after that it will start to drop pretty rapidly with just limited social distancing efforts. It will be a huge positive factor when NYC opens up again...
The oft referred to Gomes Liverpool preprint has been updated by 12 May 2020 and the results are pretty explosive:
Individual variation in susceptibility or exposure to SARS-CoV-2 lowers the herd immunity threshold
We have all heard reports of someone living in a 1 bed apartment with a really sick partner for weeks, and they test negative for antibodies. A hospital starts treating Covid patients and one nurse is infected after a few days while another nurse working shoulder to shoulder with the first goes on for 8 weeks with substandard/no equipment -- but still never get infected. Some are just susceptible to the virus and some are not.
If you run a voluntary vaccination program and have 10% of the population take a shot, the effect on the R0 value will be 10%. Some susceptible to the virus will be vaccinated, and the vaccine will be vasted on others not susceptible to the virus.
But with disease-induced immunity, you get the benefit of natural selection on your side. The ones immune will be the ones most susceptible to the virus.
Hence when applying established immunity to the R factor, you need to multiply that with a coefficient reflecting this impact. This study has now included a review of the curve in Oregon and found support of a CV of at least 2. Their "best bet" is 3 as I understand it. Seurogoly test show 10% immunite, the effect would be a 30% reduction of the R0 factor. Combined with just limited social distancing measures -- that gives you a very positive effect.
Individual variation in susceptibility or exposure to SARS-CoV-2 lowers the herd immunity threshold
We have all heard reports of someone living in a 1 bed apartment with a really sick partner for weeks, and they test negative for antibodies. A hospital starts treating Covid patients and one nurse is infected after a few days while another nurse working shoulder to shoulder with the first goes on for 8 weeks with substandard/no equipment -- but still never get infected. Some are just susceptible to the virus and some are not.
If you run a voluntary vaccination program and have 10% of the population take a shot, the effect on the R0 value will be 10%. Some susceptible to the virus will be vaccinated, and the vaccine will be vasted on others not susceptible to the virus.
But with disease-induced immunity, you get the benefit of natural selection on your side. The ones immune will be the ones most susceptible to the virus.
Hence when applying established immunity to the R factor, you need to multiply that with a coefficient reflecting this impact. This study has now included a review of the curve in Oregon and found support of a CV of at least 2. Their "best bet" is 3 as I understand it. Seurogoly test show 10% immunite, the effect would be a 30% reduction of the R0 factor. Combined with just limited social distancing measures -- that gives you a very positive effect.
- Status
