Some data on Covid-19 and why we're not over reacting...

Antibody study suggests coronavirus is far more widespread than previously thought
Non-peer reviewed study from Stanford found rate of virus may be 50 to 85 times higher than official figures


A new study in California has found the number of people infected with coronavirus may be tens of times higher than previously thought.

The study from Stanford University, which was released Friday and has yet to be peer reviewed, tested samples from 3,330 people in Santa Clara county and found the virus was 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicated.

To ease the sprawling lockdowns currently in place to stop the spread of Covid-19, health officials must first determine how many people have been infected. Large studies of the prevalence of the virus within a region could play a key role, researchers say.

“This has implications for learning how far we are in the course of the epidemic,” said Eran Bendavid, the associate professor of medicine at Stanford University who led the study. “It has implications for epidemic models that are being used to design policies and estimate what it means for our healthcare system.”

The study marks the first large-scale study of its kind in the US, researchers said. The study was conducted by identifying antibodies in healthy individuals through a finger prick test, which indicated whether they had already contracted and recovered from the virus. Volunteers for the study were recruited through Facebook ads, which researchers say were targeted to capture a representative sample of the county’s demographics and geography.

At the time of the study, Santa Clara county had 1,094 confirmed cases of Covid-19, resulting in 50 deaths. But based on the rate of participants who have antibodies, the study estimates it is likely that between 48,000 and 81,000 people had been infected in Santa Clara county by early April.

That also means coronavirus is potentially much less deadly to the overall population than initially thought. As of Tuesday, the US’s coronavirus death rate was 4.1% and Stanford researchers said their findings show a death rate of just 0.12% to 0.2%.

The study has been interpreted by some to mean we are closer to herd immunity – the concept that if enough people in a population have developed antibodies to a disease that population becomes immune – than expected. This would allow some to more quickly get back to work, a strategy currently being deployed in Sweden. But researchers behind the study said not to jump to conclusions or make policy choices until more research has been done.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Are shelter in place orders constitutional?
Click to expand...
Yes.

”The U.S. Supreme Court has long agreed that the states have police powers of this sort. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Chief Justice John Marshall observed that the police powers, that "immense mass of legislation," as he put it, "which embraces every thing within the territory of a State, not surrendered to the federal government," includes "quarantine laws" and "health laws of every description."
 
APRIL 19TH, 2020FED UP: California County That Went For Clinton Protests Lockdown
By Amanda PrestigiacomoDailyWire.com
Demonstrators protest during a Freedom Rally against Stay-At-Home Directives on April 18, 2020 in San Diego, California.

Facebook
Twitter
Mail










On Saturday, California residents took to the streets of San Diego County, which went for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clintonin 2016, to protest strict social distancing guidelines, demanding the economy be opened back up.

The protesters held up signs and lined the street as fist-pumping cyclists and honking drivers showed their support as they passed by. Some of the spotted signs included, “open California now,” “all business is essential,” “liberate San Diego,” “no more lockdowns,” “I am so totally over this,” and “a womens [sic] place is in the house or the governor’s house.” There were also American flags and some “Trump 2020” flags in sight.

The protest is one of the many popping up across the nation. In Michigan, for example, thousands of cars hit the state Capitol on Wednesday, beeping and causing gridlock to protest the strict and inconsistent lockdown from Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer. In North Carolina, folks called for the lockdown to be ended, too, where one of the protesters was even arrested for supposedly not maintaining proper “social distancing.” In Texas, we saw folks demanding their county reopen. And a handful of other states have seen anti-lockdown protests, including Minnesota and parts of upstate New York.
California is just the latest in the trend. And it’s easy to see why.
 
Ricky Fandango said:
We are all entitled to the Bill of Rights as citizens, rat-spola.
Click to expand...
The law is clear: the government has broad power in a public health emergency to take the steps needed to stop the spread of a communicable disease. In 1905, the Supreme Court declared: “Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”

This is not a new principle. A few years after the end of the Revolutionary War, Philadelphia was isolated to control the spread of yellow fever. By the time the Constitution was drafted and approved, quarantine was already a well-established form of public health regulation. States, as part of their police power, were deemed to have the authority to order quarantines to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. In 1926, the Supreme Court wrote: “it is well settled that a state, in the exercise of its police power, may establish quarantines against human beings, or animals, or plants.”

 
Imtired said:
Yes.

”The U.S. Supreme Court has long agreed that the states have police powers of this sort. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Chief Justice John Marshall observed that the police powers, that "immense mass of legislation," as he put it, "which embraces every thing within the territory of a State, not surrendered to the federal government," includes "quarantine laws" and "health laws of every description."
Click to expand...
Really? You sure? That case is about commerce and taxation...
Here's the entire paragraph you gleaned your information from...read carefully.

The acts of Congress, passed in 1796 and 1799,[a] empowering and directing the officers of the general government to conform to, and assist in the execution of the quarantine and health laws of a State, proceed, it is said, upon the idea that these laws are constitutional. It is undoubtedly true, that they do proceed upon that idea; and the constitutionality of such laws has never, so far as we are informed, been denied. But they do not imply an acknowledgment that a State may rightfully regulate commerce with foreign nations, or among the States; for they do not imply that such laws are an exercise of that power, or enacted with a view to it. On the contrary, they are treated as quarantine and health laws, are so denominated in the acts of Congress, and are considered as flowing from the acknowledged power of a State, to provide for the health of its citizens. But, as it was apparent that some of the provisions made for this purpose, and in virtue of this power, might 206*206 interfere with, and be affected by the laws of the United States, made for the regulation of commerce, Congress, in that spirit of harmony and conciliation, which ought always to characterize the conduct of governments standing in the relation which that of the Union and those of the States bear to each other, has directed its officers to aid in the execution of these laws; and has, in some measure, adapted its own legislation to this object, by making provisions in aid of those of the States. But, in making these provisions, the opinion is unequivocally manifested, that Congress may control the State laws, so far as it may be necessary to control them, for the regulation of commerce.

The act passed in 1803,[a] prohibiting the importation of slaves into any State which shall itself prohibit their importation, implies, it is said, an admission that the States possessed the power to exclude or admit them; from which it is inferred, that they possess the same power with respect to other articles.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Really? You sure? That case is about commerce and taxation...
Here's the entire paragraph you gleaned your information from...read carefully.

The acts of Congress, passed in 1796 and 1799,[a] empowering and directing the officers of the general government to conform to, and assist in the execution of the quarantine and health laws of a State, proceed, it is said, upon the idea that these laws are constitutional. It is undoubtedly true, that they do proceed upon that idea; and the constitutionality of such laws has never, so far as we are informed, been denied. But they do not imply an acknowledgment that a State may rightfully regulate commerce with foreign nations, or among the States; for they do not imply that such laws are an exercise of that power, or enacted with a view to it. On the contrary, they are treated as quarantine and health laws, are so denominated in the acts of Congress, and are considered as flowing from the acknowledged power of a State, to provide for the health of its citizens. But, as it was apparent that some of the provisions made for this purpose, and in virtue of this power, might 206*206 interfere with, and be affected by the laws of the United States, made for the regulation of commerce, Congress, in that spirit of harmony and conciliation, which ought always to characterize the conduct of governments standing in the relation which that of the Union and those of the States bear to each other, has directed its officers to aid in the execution of these laws; and has, in some measure, adapted its own legislation to this object, by making provisions in aid of those of the States. But, in making these provisions, the opinion is unequivocally manifested, that Congress may control the State laws, so far as it may be necessary to control them, for the regulation of commerce.

The act passed in 1803,[a] prohibiting the importation of slaves into any State which shall itself prohibit their importation, implies, it is said, an admission that the States possessed the power to exclude or admit them; from which it is inferred, that they possess the same power with respect to other articles.
Click to expand...
Hey look, it's LE, the slowest guy in the class. We will all wait while you catch up . . .
 
Lion Eyes said:
Really? You sure? That case is about commerce and taxation...
Here's the entire paragraph you gleaned your information from...read carefully.

The acts of Congress, passed in 1796 and 1799,[a] empowering and directing the officers of the general government to conform to, and assist in the execution of the quarantine and health laws of a State, proceed, it is said, upon the idea that these laws are constitutional. It is undoubtedly true, that they do proceed upon that idea; and the constitutionality of such laws has never, so far as we are informed, been denied. But they do not imply an acknowledgment that a State may rightfully regulate commerce with foreign nations, or among the States; for they do not imply that such laws are an exercise of that power, or enacted with a view to it. On the contrary, they are treated as quarantine and health laws, are so denominated in the acts of Congress, and are considered as flowing from the acknowledged power of a State, to provide for the health of its citizens. But, as it was apparent that some of the provisions made for this purpose, and in virtue of this power, might 206*206 interfere with, and be affected by the laws of the United States, made for the regulation of commerce, Congress, in that spirit of harmony and conciliation, which ought always to characterize the conduct of governments standing in the relation which that of the Union and those of the States bear to each other, has directed its officers to aid in the execution of these laws; and has, in some measure, adapted its own legislation to this object, by making provisions in aid of those of the States. But, in making these provisions, the opinion is unequivocally manifested, that Congress may control the State laws, so far as it may be necessary to control them, for the regulation of commerce.

The act passed in 1803,[a] prohibiting the importation of slaves into any State which shall itself prohibit their importation, implies, it is said, an admission that the States possessed the power to exclude or admit them; from which it is inferred, that they possess the same power with respect to other articles.
Click to expand...

Who told you about that paragraph? Haven't you learned by now not to test that source?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top