Bad News Thread

watfly said:
My biggest concern though is the ramifications to our society from the educational interruption. Particularly for the underprivileged.
Click to expand...
They got SCREWED.

Let me give you one example.

Last spring I went north to play some golf at my CC in Flagstaff. It was April I believe. 2 high schoolers played in our group. I asked them about school. They said school was done. NO internet classes, etc. They said you could take your grade as is, OR do extra work. The extra work could only help and not hurt. I asked why there wasn't any online classes. They stated that a large portion of the student population lived on the Navajo Reservation and had little to no internet connection. So those kids were out of luck.

Flagstaff didn't open much this year for school. Guess which kids still lacked internet access?
 
Stumbled across this one from New England Journal of Medicine:


They said it better than anyone on Team Virus could (well actually they just have more credibility):

Despite the breadth and allure of travel bans and mandatory quarantine, an effective response to Covid-19 requires newer, more creative legal tools. With Covid-19 in our communities, the time has come to imagine and implement public health laws that emphasize support rather than restriction.
 
Grace T. said:
Incidentally the rules in Nevada right now are even less sciency than California. No masks, bars and indoor dining open, no elevator capacity limits and players tables in the casino open, but night clubs still shut. No valet service, no room service except in select hotels, plastic barriers still up, relentless cleaning of surfaces still up. We know why: They care more about the appearance of safety to sell the casinos to people.
Click to expand...
Yeah I have been to Vegas and Laughlin in the past month. A lot of safety theatre going on there. Playing poker is interesting. Everyone is in their cubicle.
 
watfly said:
Here is an interesting article about interstate travel restrictions. I don't think it's cut and dried as either of us think, but the way I read it (if its correct) is that you can't restrict travel of or quarantine otherwise non-exposed and healthy people. You really have to err on the side of freedom, not fear.

The Right to Travel and National Quarantines: Coronavirus Tests the Limits

www.law.georgetown.edu www.law.georgetown.edu
.
Click to expand...

Yup with the states having power to restrict travel in and out themselves (so long as it applies to their citizens and citizens of other states alike)> federal government restricting international travel> the federal government restricting travel between the states.
 
watfly said:
Here is an interesting article about interstate travel restrictions. I don't think it's cut and dried as either of us think, but the way I read it (if its correct) is that you can't restrict travel of or quarantine otherwise non-exposed and healthy people. You really have to err on the side of freedom, not fear.

The Right to Travel and National Quarantines: Coronavirus Tests the Limits

www.law.georgetown.edu www.law.georgetown.edu
.
Click to expand...
The “only quarantine the sick” standard doesn’t work very well for a disease with significant ore-symptomatic transmission. Nor is it even possible to meaningfully define the “least restrictive measure” when you are early in the pandemic. You just do not have the information needed to make that calculation.

This is the basic problem with lawyers playing junior epidemiologist. They simply are not qualified to understand the solutions they propose. Most of them have not taken a college level biology class, let alone completed the coursework necessary to understand epidemic growth. It would take years to bring them up to speed, even if they were willing to try.
 
dad4 said:
The “only quarantine the sick” standard doesn’t work very well for a disease with significant ore-symptomatic transmission. Nor is it even possible to meaningfully define the “least restrictive measure” when you are early in the pandemic. You just do not have the information needed to make that calculation.

This is the basic problem with lawyers playing junior epidemiologist. They simply are not qualified to understand the solutions they propose. Most of them have not taken a college level biology class, let alone completed the coursework necessary to understand epidemic growth. It would take years to bring them up to speed, even if they were willing to try.
Click to expand...

You're expert rallying again. That's what leads to the disastrous results like 2008 and the pandemic response. The experts are horrible at weighing all the factors. What's more is that they can't weigh all the interests at stake here....that requires not just epidemiologists but field doctors, nurses, business organizations, teachers, PTA (yeah I know...it's supposed to act for the students but has been captured by the teachers unions), economists, pediatricians, psychologists, engineers, the pharmaceutical industry, and yes lawyers (because the lawyers care about our rights). In the end you need the guy who mixes his metaphors to make the right call (but we usually got the self-interested politicians like Trump and Biden, DeSantis and Newsom making those calls). We don't want to rely solely on epidemiologist because the experts only know 1 aspect of the problem and are more often wrong than right because of a variety of factors (institutionalism, tunnel vision, self-preservation, hubris),.
 
Grace T. said:
You're expert rallying again. That's what leads to the disastrous results like 2008 and the pandemic response. The experts are horrible at weighing all the factors. What's more is that they can't weigh all the interests at stake here....that requires not just epidemiologists but field doctors, nurses, business organizations, teachers, PTA (yeah I know...it's supposed to act for the students but has been captured by the teachers unions), economists, pediatricians, psychologists, engineers, the pharmaceutical industry, and yes lawyers (because the lawyers care about our rights). In the end you need the guy who mixes his metaphors to make the right call (but we usually got the self-interested politicians like Trump and Biden, DeSantis and Newsom making those calls). We don't want to rely solely on epidemiologist because the experts only know 1 aspect of the problem and are more often wrong than right because of a variety of factors (institutionalism, tunnel vision, self-preservation, hubris),.
Click to expand...
Oh and it would be nice if we had a media that actually functioned to act as a check on these actors. But we don't. Instead we have the propaganda arm of the 2 political parties, which leaves us with the scrappy outsiders and the internet as the great leveller (which is why the censorship moves of the big tech companies are very scary).
 
Grace T. said:
Oh and it would be nice if we had a media that actually functioned to act as a check on these actors. But we don't. Instead we have the propaganda arm of the 2 political parties, which leaves us with the scrappy outsiders and the internet as the great leveller (which is why the censorship moves of the big tech companies are very scary).
Click to expand...
Crush is always here to help where I can. I'm for non violence btw. I have no party affiliation, just American and just me, myself and my constitution. I have no weapons except my mouth, my words and my opinion. My wife and kids can speak for themselves. Man I tell you Grace, some people, when they get caught cheating, they get really defensive or are just flat out living a lie and living in denial.
 
dad4 said:
The “only quarantine the sick” standard doesn’t work very well for a disease with significant ore-symptomatic transmission. Nor is it even possible to meaningfully define the “least restrictive measure” when you are early in the pandemic. You just do not have the information needed to make that calculation.

This is the basic problem with lawyers playing junior epidemiologist. They simply are not qualified to understand the solutions they propose. Most of them have not taken a college level biology class, let alone completed the coursework necessary to understand epidemic growth. It would take years to bring them up to speed, even if they were willing to try.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the laws of this country are fairly irrelevant when it comes to a pandemic, WTF. Are we talking about the same pandemic that 99.8% of our population survived and 99.5% were never hospitalized for?

I think your response probably illustrates even better than I could have put it, why we will never agree.
 
Grace T. said:
You're expert rallying again. That's what leads to the disastrous results like 2008 and the pandemic response. The experts are horrible at weighing all the factors. What's more is that they can't weigh all the interests at stake here....that requires not just epidemiologists but field doctors, nurses, business organizations, teachers, PTA (yeah I know...it's supposed to act for the students but has been captured by the teachers unions), economists, pediatricians, psychologists, engineers, the pharmaceutical industry, and yes lawyers (because the lawyers care about our rights). In the end you need the guy who mixes his metaphors to make the right call (but we usually got the self-interested politicians like Trump and Biden, DeSantis and Newsom making those calls). We don't want to rely solely on epidemiologist because the experts only know 1 aspect of the problem and are more often wrong than right because of a variety of factors (institutionalism, tunnel vision, self-preservation, hubris),.
Click to expand...
Just pointing out that the judges making up these rules couldn't pass the biology GREs if you allowed them double time and an open book.

They don't know jack, but they think they do. It's a dangerous combination.
 
dad4 said:
Just pointing out that the judges making up these rules couldn't pass the biology GREs if you allowed them double time and an open book.

They don't know jack, but they think they do. It's a dangerous combination.
Click to expand...

That's why there's expert testimony allowed in courts. But they don't want the health experts making the legal decisions because the health experts don't know the rights and don't balance the competing interests. And there are checks on the judge in the form of the court of appeals and the Supreme Court, so the arguments can be better vetted over time, which is why the wheels of justice move slowly. It's positively Lockeian in its construction.

What's dangerous is having an expert like Fauci make all the decisions, when he only knows his 1 narrow field, is primed to protect his institution, and is subject to hubris. That's the recipe not only for disaster (given all the mistakes he's made along the way) but also for totalitarianism.
 
dad4 said:
Just pointing out that the judges making up these rules couldn't pass the biology GREs if you allowed them double time and an open book.

They don't know jack, but they think they do. It's a dangerous combination.
Click to expand...
Just FYI, judges don't determine public health policy, or even the effectiveness of public health policy. They only determine the legality of policies when requested by another party.
 
espola said:
Bragging?

You haven't answered my question about Fauci's emails, so I will assume the answer is "no". Therefore you are relying on someone else's opinions about them. Is it fair to ask who that is? Is t Ben Shapiro?
Click to expand...
I love when you nail them and they start squirming like exposed worms.
 
dad4 said:
The “only quarantine the sick” standard doesn’t work very well for a disease with significant ore-symptomatic transmission. Nor is it even possible to meaningfully define the “least restrictive measure” when you are early in the pandemic. You just do not have the information needed to make that calculation.

This is the basic problem with lawyers playing junior epidemiologist. They simply are not qualified to understand the solutions they propose. Most of them have not taken a college level biology class, let alone completed the coursework necessary to understand epidemic growth. It would take years to bring them up to speed, even if they were willing to try.
Click to expand...

Those who predict the pandemic is going away will eventually be right, and they will hope we forget how many died after they first predicted it.
 
espola said:
Those who predict the pandemic is going away will eventually be right, and they will hope we forget how many died after they first predicted it.
Click to expand...

Nah....we've just been honest with people that once China did this, a certain amount of death was unavoidable and was always baked in. We've just been arguing about the margins, both in terms of lives and economics.
 
Grace T. said:
Nah....we've just been honest with people that once China did this, a certain amount of death was unavoidable and was always baked in. We've just been arguing about the margins, both in terms of lives and economics.
Click to expand...

Why did you think I was referring to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top