Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I didn't know a virus was a living thing. It may mutate and become stronger. It could also mutate and become weaker. But I never heard of a virus adapting in order to survive because, as far as I know, they aren't.

---

Whether a virus is a living thing or not, depends upon your definition of life. Arguments over the life/not life status of viruses are often rooted in evolutionary biology and theories of the origins of life. While a virion is biologically inert and may be considered 'dead' in the same way that a bacterial spore or a seed is, once delivered to the appropriate environment, I believe that viruses are very much alive. I therefore ask why would a virus adapt but for to survive?

---

Then it would adapt to be less harmful if its sole purpose is to survive.

Civil Bear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I didn't know a virus was a living thing. It may mutate and become stronger. It could also mutate and become weaker. But I never heard of a virus adapting in order to survive because, as far as I know, they aren't.

---

Whether a virus is a living thing or not, depends upon your definition of life. Arguments over the life/not life status of viruses are often rooted in evolutionary biology and theories of the origins of life. While a virion is biologically inert and may be considered 'dead' in the same way that a bacterial spore or a seed is, once delivered to the appropriate environment, I believe that viruses are very much alive. I therefore ask why would a virus adapt but for to survive?

---

Then it would adapt to be less harmful if its sole purpose is to survive.

---

i have heard experts say that viruses like this, over time, actually DO evolve in the direction of not killing off their hosts. What I have heard about the current mutation they're talking about is that it SPREADS better, not that it is more deadly. There was an "expert" doctor in Italy that was claiming the COVID-19 they were seeing after April was less deadly.

With the cases and the hospitalizations surging, we're about to find out first hand.

Civil Bear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I didn't know a virus was a living thing. It may mutate and become stronger. It could also mutate and become weaker. But I never heard of a virus adapting in order to survive because, as far as I know, they aren't.

---

Whether a virus is a living thing or not, depends upon your definition of life. Arguments over the life/not life status of viruses are often rooted in evolutionary biology and theories of the origins of life. While a virion is biologically inert and may be considered 'dead' in the same way that a bacterial spore or a seed is, once delivered to the appropriate environment, I believe that viruses are very much alive. I therefore ask why would a virus adapt but for to survive?

---

Then it would adapt to be less harmful if its sole purpose is to survive.

---

Presumedly yes...remember we are talking about a new COVID-19 virus, so who knows what its "sole" purpose is or if it has another purpose beside mere proliferation ...this virus may prove to be "less harmful" (that is, lethal), but it is very difficult to make the pronouncement that you do because its hosts' (that is, us or even the animal ones) environments differ greatly, that is, not the same health or biochemical status which may lead to other lingering health problems that are"harmful."

burritos said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

burritos said:

---

The problem is that we are just metabolically unhealthy. We've been eating primarily processed foods for the last 80 years and that makes us not only susceptible to the long long lists of chronic medical conditions that we americans already suffer from, but guess what? It makes us susceptible to novel infections. Western nations whose populations have been raised and addicted to processed foods makes us sick. The chickens are coming home to roost regardless of what people think, do, or think they can do. Put your seat belts on cause we're in for a ride.

---

Total baloney! You've been watching too much Bill Maher! He's a food Nazi and fat shamer extraordinaire! I love him for everything else, but his absurd stance on food. It's actually a religion for him. He's completely irrational and unscientific when it comes to this.

Did you say this when AIDS hit the world? SARS? The 1918 flu? Will Americans succumb to Ebola because they're fat? (Conversely, Africans are pretty damn thin, so by your argument, Ebola shouldn't be a problem. Absurd.)

No. It's a novel virus. Viruses do this. And they will continue to do this.

Sure, we could and should be healthier. But we go to war with the army we have, not the one we WISH we had.

Plus, if you make this argument without discussing the underlying causes (which is mainly corporate greed, lack of regulation, wealth concentration and unbridled love of a supposed free market), you're wasting your and our time.

Cheap food from places like MacDonalds and no access to quality food in poor communities is just ONE example.

Our schools serving absolute JUNK in cafeterias is another. (Profit motive means sell crap food en masse to school systems. Make money, feed developing kids junk. Wow, great!)

Lack of universal health coverage.

Lack of economic opportunity.

Lack of proper retirement plans for 2/3 of Americans.

Flat wages (minimum wage flat since 1960).

American Dream evaporating.

All in this NY Times piece:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/opinion/income-wealth-inequality-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-opinion-inequality-series&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_2&context=storylines_related_links


All this leads to poor health outcomes.

Or we could just take reasonable precautions, shut down when necessary and develop a vaccine ASAP. We'll do this WAY SOONER than address the systemic problems in American society.

---

If you think we're collectively healthy, then we should keep doing what we're doing. As someone who tries to advocate for health through food, I understand that the message often is not received or welcomed. I admit that can certainly be the messenger's fault. And I apologize if it comes off as food shaming. But for those who receive the message, it can be beneficial.

---

I never said we are a healthy population. I agree with that. But solving the Coronavirus problem isn't about addressing our overall general health. That will take decades to fix. So that solution I consider baloney. We don't have the luxury of decades when it comes to a global pandemic. If that is our approach (much like "turd immunity" as I call it), then we simply aren't doing anything about it.

We CAN take sensible steps to address the problem until a vaccine or treatment becomes available:
-Social distancing
-Wear masks
-Good hygiene
-Limit exposure
-Shelter in place when things go sideways

We should have stopped all incoming flights from abroad when this became known. THIS is how Coronavirus came to the US. Yes, it would have involved stranding thousands of Americans abroad. But we could have dealt with it. Stop all flights. Then figure out a way to safely quarantine all Americans who needed to return. Would it have sucked? Sure. But it would have sucked FAR LESS than exposing the entire US population to the pandemic. Now we have a huge problem.

But could we have shut our borders in time? Maybe if we hadn't disbanded the pandemic team, especially the one in China. Or perhaps if we had BOLSTERED our pandemic preparedness so we could have anticipated this eventuality and had a plan in place to prevent it.

Will we NOW know how to prevent this happening again and prepare accordingly? Probably not. Too many decades will probably elapse before the next one. "Institutional" or generational memory will fade. Costs of preparation will be questioned until they're cut to nothing. And we'll find ourselves in the exact same situation. Probably unavoidable.

BTW, did anyone catch this morning's KQED 10am Forum program? They discussed the fall college term. A Cal student or two called in or was on the show. I didn't catch the whole show, so will listen to the podcast.

I really don't see how schools will be able to handle the dorm living situation. Just a few super spreaders within the dorm environment would, it seems to me, be all that's needed to infect hundreds and hundreds. Three to a room in the Units? Insane.

My daughter signed a year lease starting August 1. We were seriously on the fence about doing this. I assumed if classes ended up online in the fall, the place will be a ghost town and my kid won't want to move in. But alternatively, she will probably want to move in with her college buddies regardless of if classes are online or not. She doesn't want to hang around with US much longer! That said, we were still really worried about being on the hook for an apartment lease if everyone bails. "Equally and severably liable" is found in most leases, so we could potentially be on the hook for the ENTIRE apartment's monthly rent - for a year! Probably not, but still possible. (Most bay area courts won't hold renters responsible for a year's rent, given the current housing situation, from what I understand.)

Then it occurred to me that if the school reduces dorm student density, we may have the opposite problem: too little housing! So when I assumed we might be stuck with an apartment we don't want, we may have actually lucked into getting housing when it will be in very short supply. We may be really lucky to have gotten a place when things were so uncertain. But who knows. It's all up in the air at this point and only time will tell.

I sure feel for all the kids whose high school graduations and celebrations were scuttled. And now the "typical freshman college experience" looks to be in peril. One Cal friend and former roommate of mine decided to delay his HS graduate's freshman school year. Nope, not this year. But I understand deferments aren't necessarily given. Plus, how's a college or university going to absorb TWO (or one and a half, or just 110%) incoming freshman classes in Fall 2021? I can't imagine they can.

All that said, I can't imagine, given the current spike in infections, that we're going to have a football season.

TandemBear said:

---

burritos said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

burritos said:

---

The problem is that we are just metabolically unhealthy. We've been eating primarily processed foods for the last 80 years and that makes us not only susceptible to the long long lists of chronic medical conditions that we americans already suffer from, but guess what? It makes us susceptible to novel infections. Western nations whose populations have been raised and addicted to processed foods makes us sick. The chickens are coming home to roost regardless of what people think, do, or think they can do. Put your seat belts on cause we're in for a ride.

---

Total baloney! You've been watching too much Bill Maher! He's a food Nazi and fat shamer extraordinaire! I love him for everything else, but his absurd stance on food. It's actually a religion for him. He's completely irrational and unscientific when it comes to this.

Did you say this when AIDS hit the world? SARS? The 1918 flu? Will Americans succumb to Ebola because they're fat? (Conversely, Africans are pretty damn thin, so by your argument, Ebola shouldn't be a problem. Absurd.)

No. It's a novel virus. Viruses do this. And they will continue to do this.

Sure, we could and should be healthier. But we go to war with the army we have, not the one we WISH we had.

Plus, if you make this argument without discussing the underlying causes (which is mainly corporate greed, lack of regulation, wealth concentration and unbridled love of a supposed free market), you're wasting your and our time.

Cheap food from places like MacDonalds and no access to quality food in poor communities is just ONE example.

Our schools serving absolute JUNK in cafeterias is another. (Profit motive means sell crap food en masse to school systems. Make money, feed developing kids junk. Wow, great!)

Lack of universal health coverage.

Lack of economic opportunity.

Lack of proper retirement plans for 2/3 of Americans.

Flat wages (minimum wage flat since 1960).

American Dream evaporating.

All in this NY Times piece:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/opinion/income-wealth-inequality-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-opinion-inequality-series&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_2&context=storylines_related_links


All this leads to poor health outcomes.

Or we could just take reasonable precautions, shut down when necessary and develop a vaccine ASAP. We'll do this WAY SOONER than address the systemic problems in American society.

---

If you think we're collectively healthy, then we should keep doing what we're doing. As someone who tries to advocate for health through food, I understand that the message often is not received or welcomed. I admit that can certainly be the messenger's fault. And I apologize if it comes off as food shaming. But for those who receive the message, it can be beneficial.

---

I never said we are a healthy population. I agree with that. But solving the Coronavirus problem isn't about addressing our overall general health. That will take decades to fix. So that solution I consider baloney. We don't have the luxury of decades when it comes to a global pandemic. If that is our approach (much like "turd immunity" as I call it), then we simply aren't doing anything about it.

We CAN take sensible steps to address the problem until a vaccine or treatment becomes available:
-Social distancing
-Wear masks
-Good hygiene
-Limit exposure
-Shelter in place when things go sideways

We should have stopped all incoming flights from abroad when this became known. THIS is how Coronavirus came to the US. Yes, it would have involved stranding thousands of Americans abroad. But we could have dealt with it. Stop all flights. Then figure out a way to safely quarantine all Americans who needed to return. Would it have sucked? Sure. But it would have sucked FAR LESS than exposing the entire US population to the pandemic. Now we have a huge problem.

But could we have shut our borders in time? Maybe if we hadn't disbanded the pandemic team, especially the one in China. Or perhaps if we had BOLSTERED our pandemic preparedness so we could have anticipated this eventuality and had a plan in place to prevent it.

Will we NOW know how to prevent this happening again and prepare accordingly? Probably not. Too many decades will probably elapse before the next one. "Institutional" or generational memory will fade. Costs of preparation will be questioned until they're cut to nothing. And we'll find ourselves in the exact same situation. Probably unavoidable.

---

Sure in hindsight an all state isolation would have been effective. We don't live in an authoritarian state where we could just stop everything. Not gonna happen no matter how loudly one shouts that.

Also masking, SIP, SD all good effective measures to reduce spread.

At the individual level one can improve their glucose, insulin, oxidized cholesterol levels, and lower their baseline inflammation by avoiding processed sugar/carbs/seed oils(exercise, reduced stress, and fasting also does this btw). Eating these things 3-5 times a day for decades deranges metabolism and makes you susceptible to infections. Switching to whole vegetables/meats(including red)(bill maher is a vegetarian or pescatarian if I recall correctly) could get your metabolism on track in a few weeks, much shorter than the time we've been locked up. This could be the difference between dying from COVID or just having a bad case of it. Getting this message out to the masses is problematic though. People don't want to stop eating processed foods, they're addicted to it and they don't want to be told to stop eating it. News can't report it, they depend on ad revenue from the food companies. Medicine doesn't want to say it, cause they don't believe in its importance and they want to be the savior. But lining up at costco and loading up on comfort foods, SIP with no sun/exercise, and spiking your cortisol(which spikes your glucose and makes you more insulin resistant) watching news and blm protests and whining about water under the bridge is just making you more of a target for COVID, that's for sure.

burritos said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I didn't know a virus was a living thing. It may mutate and become stronger. It could also mutate and become weaker. But I never heard of a virus adapting in order to survive because, as far as I know, they aren't.

---

Whether a virus is a living thing or not, depends upon your definition of life. Arguments over the life/not life status of viruses are often rooted in evolutionary biology and theories of the origins of life. While a virion is biologically inert and may be considered 'dead' in the same way that a bacterial spore or a seed is, once delivered to the appropriate environment, I believe that viruses are very much alive. I therefore ask why would a virus adapt but for to survive?

---

Okay.
But maybe we should focus on our own evolution rather than the viruses. We are infinitely more powerful than these viruses, unless of course we weaken ourselves. Maybe the virus is our friend, helping us to make better decisions about our health. Clearly we can live quite successfully alongside these viruses. We probably already have hundreds of these in our bodies. Irradiation and vaccination may be the wrong approach for many of us, even vaccines are safe and effective.

---

https://www.cshl.edu/the-non-human-living-inside-of-you/#:~:text=The%20human%20genome%20contains%20billions,to%20have%20a%20viral%20origin.

Quote:

---

Eight percent of our DNA consists of remnants of ancient viruses, and another 40 percent is made up of repetitive strings of genetic letters that is also thought to have a viral origin.

---

---

Thanks for the support!

Civil Bear said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I didn't know a virus was a living thing. It may mutate and become stronger. It could also mutate and become weaker. But I never heard of a virus adapting in order to survive because, as far as I know, they aren't.

---

Whether a virus is a living thing or not, depends upon your definition of life. Arguments over the life/not life status of viruses are often rooted in evolutionary biology and theories of the origins of life. While a virion is biologically inert and may be considered 'dead' in the same way that a bacterial spore or a seed is, once delivered to the appropriate environment, I believe that viruses are very much alive. I therefore ask why would a virus adapt but for to survive?

---

Then it would adapt to be less harmful if its sole purpose is to survive.

---

I don't believe that viruses exist to kill mammals. To kill the host is to kill their opportunity to procreate and successfully spread. Ketosis/low carb is the 'normal' metabolic state at which people are supposed to function. I think evolutionarily, the virus is meant to be taken in by oronasalpharyngeal mucosal cells. Very little if any symptoms of cough and nasal discharge is created to permit aerosolized transmission for a short period of time. High autophagic/xenophagic(recycling of virus) flux prevents extensive/overwhelming viral replication. COVID patients getting myocarditis, pneumonitis and enteritis, exist with a metabolism that is not evolutionarily optimal. Low insulin states promote effective immune function which permits active/specific/quick identification virally labeled/infected cells. Perhaps in good times when mammals/primates had access to abundant fruit/honey in nature, the insulin levels might be a bit higher thus permitting the immune system to allow the host to have more symptoms allowing for more viral spread. This would make sense because more more nutrients would allow more animals to exist allowing the virus to take advantage of the 'good times' and spread itself even more. But never in the time of primate history have we consumed such high density carb food that maintain a constantly high insulin level. This deranges this fine tuned symbiotic process.(symbiotic in the sense that we get viral dna from them and they get access cellular machinery.

burritos said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

burritos said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

burritos said:

---

The problem is that we are just metabolically unhealthy. We've been eating primarily processed foods for the last 80 years and that makes us not only susceptible to the long long lists of chronic medical conditions that we americans already suffer from, but guess what? It makes us susceptible to novel infections. Western nations whose populations have been raised and addicted to processed foods makes us sick. The chickens are coming home to roost regardless of what people think, do, or think they can do. Put your seat belts on cause we're in for a ride.

---

Total baloney! You've been watching too much Bill Maher! He's a food Nazi and fat shamer extraordinaire! I love him for everything else, but his absurd stance on food. It's actually a religion for him. He's completely irrational and unscientific when it comes to this.

Did you say this when AIDS hit the world? SARS? The 1918 flu? Will Americans succumb to Ebola because they're fat? (Conversely, Africans are pretty damn thin, so by your argument, Ebola shouldn't be a problem. Absurd.)

No. It's a novel virus. Viruses do this. And they will continue to do this.

Sure, we could and should be healthier. But we go to war with the army we have, not the one we WISH we had.

Plus, if you make this argument without discussing the underlying causes (which is mainly corporate greed, lack of regulation, wealth concentration and unbridled love of a supposed free market), you're wasting your and our time.

Cheap food from places like MacDonalds and no access to quality food in poor communities is just ONE example.

Our schools serving absolute JUNK in cafeterias is another. (Profit motive means sell crap food en masse to school systems. Make money, feed developing kids junk. Wow, great!)

Lack of universal health coverage.

Lack of economic opportunity.

Lack of proper retirement plans for 2/3 of Americans.

Flat wages (minimum wage flat since 1960).

American Dream evaporating.

All in this NY Times piece:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/opinion/income-wealth-inequality-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-opinion-inequality-series&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_2&context=storylines_related_links


All this leads to poor health outcomes.

Or we could just take reasonable precautions, shut down when necessary and develop a vaccine ASAP. We'll do this WAY SOONER than address the systemic problems in American society.

---

If you think we're collectively healthy, then we should keep doing what we're doing. As someone who tries to advocate for health through food, I understand that the message often is not received or welcomed. I admit that can certainly be the messenger's fault. And I apologize if it comes off as food shaming. But for those who receive the message, it can be beneficial.

---

I never said we are a healthy population. I agree with that. But solving the Coronavirus problem isn't about addressing our overall general health. That will take decades to fix. So that solution I consider baloney. We don't have the luxury of decades when it comes to a global pandemic. If that is our approach (much like "turd immunity" as I call it), then we simply aren't doing anything about it.

We CAN take sensible steps to address the problem until a vaccine or treatment becomes available:
-Social distancing
-Wear masks
-Good hygiene
-Limit exposure
-Shelter in place when things go sideways

We should have stopped all incoming flights from abroad when this became known. THIS is how Coronavirus came to the US. Yes, it would have involved stranding thousands of Americans abroad. But we could have dealt with it. Stop all flights. Then figure out a way to safely quarantine all Americans who needed to return. Would it have sucked? Sure. But it would have sucked FAR LESS than exposing the entire US population to the pandemic. Now we have a huge problem.

But could we have shut our borders in time? Maybe if we hadn't disbanded the pandemic team, especially the one in China. Or perhaps if we had BOLSTERED our pandemic preparedness so we could have anticipated this eventuality and had a plan in place to prevent it.

Will we NOW know how to prevent this happening again and prepare accordingly? Probably not. Too many decades will probably elapse before the next one. "Institutional" or generational memory will fade. Costs of preparation will be questioned until they're cut to nothing. And we'll find ourselves in the exact same situation. Probably unavoidable.

---

Sure in hindsight an all state isolation would have been effective. We don't live in an authoritarian state where we could just stop everything. Not gonna happen no matter how loudly one shouts that.

Also masking, SIP, SD all good effective measures to reduce spread.

At the individual level one can improve their glucose, insulin, oxidized cholesterol levels, and lower their baseline inflammation by avoiding processed sugar/carbs/seed oils(exercise, reduced stress, and fasting also does this btw). Eating these things 3-5 times a day for decades deranges metabolism and makes you susceptible to infections. Switching to whole vegetables/meats(including red)(bill maher is a vegetarian or pescatarian if I recall correctly) could get your metabolism on track in a few weeks, much shorter than the time we've been locked up. This could be the difference between dying from COVID or just having a bad case of it. Getting this message out to the masses is problematic though. People don't want to stop eating processed foods, they're addicted to it and they don't want to be told to stop eating it. News can't report it, they depend on ad revenue from the food companies. Medicine doesn't want to say it, cause they don't believe in its importance and they want to be the savior. But lining up at costco and loading up on comfort foods, SIP with no sun/exercise, and spiking your cortisol(which spikes your glucose and makes you more insulin resistant) watching news and blm protests and whining about water under the bridge is just making you more of a target for COVID, that's for sure.

---

Look, burritos, all this is well and good, but I don't want the government to tell me how to eat or that I need to exercise or anything like that. And they DAMN well better not tell me I need to wear some sissy mask!

All I want from the government is a good vaccine and another stimulus check. Other than that, they can get outta my life!

burritos said:

---

Sure in hindsight an all state isolation would have been effective. We don't live in an authoritarian state where we could just stop everything. Not gonna happen no matter how loudly one shouts that.

Also masking, SIP, SD all good effective measures to reduce spread.

At the individual level one can improve their glucose, insulin, oxidized cholesterol levels, and lower their baseline inflammation by avoiding processed sugar/carbs/seed oils(exercise, reduced stress, and fasting also does this btw). Eating these things 3-5 times a day for decades deranges metabolism and makes you susceptible to infections. Switching to whole vegetables/meats(including red)(bill maher is a vegetarian or pescatarian if I recall correctly) could get your metabolism on track in a few weeks, much shorter than the time we've been locked up. This could be the difference between dying from COVID or just having a bad case of it. Getting this message out to the masses is problematic though. People don't want to stop eating processed foods, they're addicted to it and they don't want to be told to stop eating it. News can't report it, they depend on ad revenue from the food companies. Medicine doesn't want to say it, cause they don't believe in its importance and they want to be the savior. But lining up at costco and loading up on comfort foods, SIP with no sun/exercise, and spiking your cortisol(which spikes your glucose and makes you more insulin resistant) watching news and blm protests and whining about water under the bridge is just making you more of a target for COVID, that's for sure.

---

Thanks Burritos, but a bit deep for this fool. But to the bolded bit up top, gives cause to wonder if our way of life *deserves* to survive in a brave new world. The ultimate judge and jury is Darwin's "Survival Of The Fittest", no?
# win the game or know the reason why

PS to BigC. very clever, cards kept really close to the chest, hey hey. with dark shades of Earl Butz. i forget stuff, but something like a drunk kitten, loose shoes, and a warm place to sit.

71Bear said:

---

burritos said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

burritos said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

burritos said:

---

The problem is that we are just metabolically unhealthy. We've been eating primarily processed foods for the last 80 years and that makes us not only susceptible to the long long lists of chronic medical conditions that we americans already suffer from, but guess what? It makes us susceptible to novel infections. Western nations whose populations have been raised and addicted to processed foods makes us sick. The chickens are coming home to roost regardless of what people think, do, or think they can do. Put your seat belts on cause we're in for a ride.

---

Total baloney! You've been watching too much Bill Maher! He's a food Nazi and fat shamer extraordinaire! I love him for everything else, but his absurd stance on food. It's actually a religion for him. He's completely irrational and unscientific when it comes to this.

Did you say this when AIDS hit the world? SARS? The 1918 flu? Will Americans succumb to Ebola because they're fat? (Conversely, Africans are pretty damn thin, so by your argument, Ebola shouldn't be a problem. Absurd.)

No. It's a novel virus. Viruses do this. And they will continue to do this.

Sure, we could and should be healthier. But we go to war with the army we have, not the one we WISH we had.

Plus, if you make this argument without discussing the underlying causes (which is mainly corporate greed, lack of regulation, wealth concentration and unbridled love of a supposed free market), you're wasting your and our time.

Cheap food from places like MacDonalds and no access to quality food in poor communities is just ONE example.

Our schools serving absolute JUNK in cafeterias is another. (Profit motive means sell crap food en masse to school systems. Make money, feed developing kids junk. Wow, great!)

Lack of universal health coverage.

Lack of economic opportunity.

Lack of proper retirement plans for 2/3 of Americans.

Flat wages (minimum wage flat since 1960).

American Dream evaporating.

All in this NY Times piece:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/opinion/income-wealth-inequality-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-opinion-inequality-series&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_2&context=storylines_related_links


All this leads to poor health outcomes.

Or we could just take reasonable precautions, shut down when necessary and develop a vaccine ASAP. We'll do this WAY SOONER than address the systemic problems in American society.

---

If you think we're collectively healthy, then we should keep doing what we're doing. As someone who tries to advocate for health through food, I understand that the message often is not received or welcomed. I admit that can certainly be the messenger's fault. And I apologize if it comes off as food shaming. But for those who receive the message, it can be beneficial.

---

I never said we are a healthy population. I agree with that. But solving the Coronavirus problem isn't about addressing our overall general health. That will take decades to fix. So that solution I consider baloney. We don't have the luxury of decades when it comes to a global pandemic. If that is our approach (much like "turd immunity" as I call it), then we simply aren't doing anything about it.

We CAN take sensible steps to address the problem until a vaccine or treatment becomes available:
-Social distancing
-Wear masks
-Good hygiene
-Limit exposure
-Shelter in place when things go sideways

We should have stopped all incoming flights from abroad when this became known. THIS is how Coronavirus came to the US. Yes, it would have involved stranding thousands of Americans abroad. But we could have dealt with it. Stop all flights. Then figure out a way to safely quarantine all Americans who needed to return. Would it have sucked? Sure. But it would have sucked FAR LESS than exposing the entire US population to the pandemic. Now we have a huge problem.

But could we have shut our borders in time? Maybe if we hadn't disbanded the pandemic team, especially the one in China. Or perhaps if we had BOLSTERED our pandemic preparedness so we could have anticipated this eventuality and had a plan in place to prevent it.

Will we NOW know how to prevent this happening again and prepare accordingly? Probably not. Too many decades will probably elapse before the next one. "Institutional" or generational memory will fade. Costs of preparation will be questioned until they're cut to nothing. And we'll find ourselves in the exact same situation. Probably unavoidable.

---

Sure in hindsight an all state isolation would have been effective. We don't live in an authoritarian state where we could just stop everything. Not gonna happen no matter how loudly one shouts that.

Also masking, SIP, SD all good effective measures to reduce spread.

At the individual level one can improve their glucose, insulin, oxidized cholesterol levels, and lower their baseline inflammation by avoiding processed sugar/carbs/seed oils(exercise, reduced stress, and fasting also does this btw). Eating these things 3-5 times a day for decades deranges metabolism and makes you susceptible to infections. Switching to whole vegetables/meats(including red)(bill maher is a vegetarian or pescatarian if I recall correctly) could get your metabolism on track in a few weeks, much shorter than the time we've been locked up. This could be the difference between dying from COVID or just having a bad case of it. Getting this message out to the masses is problematic though. People don't want to stop eating processed foods, they're addicted to it and they don't want to be told to stop eating it. News can't report it, they depend on ad revenue from the food companies. Medicine doesn't want to say it, cause they don't believe in its importance and they want to be the savior. But lining up at costco and loading up on comfort foods, SIP with no sun/exercise, and spiking your cortisol(which spikes your glucose and makes you more insulin resistant) watching news and blm protests and whining about water under the bridge is just making you more of a target for COVID, that's for sure.

---

Uh... Quite a few non-authoritarian countries were able to successfully "stop everything".

---

That has a population of over 300 million people?

Big C said:

---

burritos said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

burritos said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

burritos said:

---

The problem is that we are just metabolically unhealthy. We've been eating primarily processed foods for the last 80 years and that makes us not only susceptible to the long long lists of chronic medical conditions that we americans already suffer from, but guess what? It makes us susceptible to novel infections. Western nations whose populations have been raised and addicted to processed foods makes us sick. The chickens are coming home to roost regardless of what people think, do, or think they can do. Put your seat belts on cause we're in for a ride.

---

Total baloney! You've been watching too much Bill Maher! He's a food Nazi and fat shamer extraordinaire! I love him for everything else, but his absurd stance on food. It's actually a religion for him. He's completely irrational and unscientific when it comes to this.

Did you say this when AIDS hit the world? SARS? The 1918 flu? Will Americans succumb to Ebola because they're fat? (Conversely, Africans are pretty damn thin, so by your argument, Ebola shouldn't be a problem. Absurd.)

No. It's a novel virus. Viruses do this. And they will continue to do this.

Sure, we could and should be healthier. But we go to war with the army we have, not the one we WISH we had.

Plus, if you make this argument without discussing the underlying causes (which is mainly corporate greed, lack of regulation, wealth concentration and unbridled love of a supposed free market), you're wasting your and our time.

Cheap food from places like MacDonalds and no access to quality food in poor communities is just ONE example.

Our schools serving absolute JUNK in cafeterias is another. (Profit motive means sell crap food en masse to school systems. Make money, feed developing kids junk. Wow, great!)

Lack of universal health coverage.

Lack of economic opportunity.

Lack of proper retirement plans for 2/3 of Americans.

Flat wages (minimum wage flat since 1960).

American Dream evaporating.

All in this NY Times piece:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/opinion/income-wealth-inequality-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-opinion-inequality-series&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_2&context=storylines_related_links


All this leads to poor health outcomes.

Or we could just take reasonable precautions, shut down when necessary and develop a vaccine ASAP. We'll do this WAY SOONER than address the systemic problems in American society.

---

If you think we're collectively healthy, then we should keep doing what we're doing. As someone who tries to advocate for health through food, I understand that the message often is not received or welcomed. I admit that can certainly be the messenger's fault. And I apologize if it comes off as food shaming. But for those who receive the message, it can be beneficial.

---

I never said we are a healthy population. I agree with that. But solving the Coronavirus problem isn't about addressing our overall general health. That will take decades to fix. So that solution I consider baloney. We don't have the luxury of decades when it comes to a global pandemic. If that is our approach (much like "turd immunity" as I call it), then we simply aren't doing anything about it.

We CAN take sensible steps to address the problem until a vaccine or treatment becomes available:
-Social distancing
-Wear masks
-Good hygiene
-Limit exposure
-Shelter in place when things go sideways

We should have stopped all incoming flights from abroad when this became known. THIS is how Coronavirus came to the US. Yes, it would have involved stranding thousands of Americans abroad. But we could have dealt with it. Stop all flights. Then figure out a way to safely quarantine all Americans who needed to return. Would it have sucked? Sure. But it would have sucked FAR LESS than exposing the entire US population to the pandemic. Now we have a huge problem.

But could we have shut our borders in time? Maybe if we hadn't disbanded the pandemic team, especially the one in China. Or perhaps if we had BOLSTERED our pandemic preparedness so we could have anticipated this eventuality and had a plan in place to prevent it.

Will we NOW know how to prevent this happening again and prepare accordingly? Probably not. Too many decades will probably elapse before the next one. "Institutional" or generational memory will fade. Costs of preparation will be questioned until they're cut to nothing. And we'll find ourselves in the exact same situation. Probably unavoidable.

---

Sure in hindsight an all state isolation would have been effective. We don't live in an authoritarian state where we could just stop everything. Not gonna happen no matter how loudly one shouts that.

Also masking, SIP, SD all good effective measures to reduce spread.

At the individual level one can improve their glucose, insulin, oxidized cholesterol levels, and lower their baseline inflammation by avoiding processed sugar/carbs/seed oils(exercise, reduced stress, and fasting also does this btw). Eating these things 3-5 times a day for decades deranges metabolism and makes you susceptible to infections. Switching to whole vegetables/meats(including red)(bill maher is a vegetarian or pescatarian if I recall correctly) could get your metabolism on track in a few weeks, much shorter than the time we've been locked up. This could be the difference between dying from COVID or just having a bad case of it. Getting this message out to the masses is problematic though. People don't want to stop eating processed foods, they're addicted to it and they don't want to be told to stop eating it. News can't report it, they depend on ad revenue from the food companies. Medicine doesn't want to say it, cause they don't believe in its importance and they want to be the savior. But lining up at costco and loading up on comfort foods, SIP with no sun/exercise, and spiking your cortisol(which spikes your glucose and makes you more insulin resistant) watching news and blm protests and whining about water under the bridge is just making you more of a target for COVID, that's for sure.

---

Look, burritos, all this is well and good, but I don't want the government to tell me how to eat or that I need to exercise or anything like that. And they DAMN well better not tell me I need to wear some sissy mask!

All I want from the government is a good vaccine and another stimulus check. Other than that, they can get outta my life!

---

That is like letting everyone build their homes however they please not up to code, when when a small earthquake or tropical storm comes along an destroys the homes, THEN you want the gubment to come and save u and pay for everything. That is why medicare is going bankrupt, people live unheathily and then when their health crashes they blame the hospital, the doctors, the government, everything and everyone else except themselves. Now we have to bend backwards and immolate the economy and people's lives cause we all want to eat what we want.

burritos said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

burritos said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

burritos said:

---

The problem is that we are just metabolically unhealthy. We've been eating primarily processed foods for the last 80 years and that makes us not only susceptible to the long long lists of chronic medical conditions that we americans already suffer from, but guess what? It makes us susceptible to novel infections. Western nations whose populations have been raised and addicted to processed foods makes us sick. The chickens are coming home to roost regardless of what people think, do, or think they can do. Put your seat belts on cause we're in for a ride.

---

Total baloney! You've been watching too much Bill Maher! He's a food Nazi and fat shamer extraordinaire! I love him for everything else, but his absurd stance on food. It's actually a religion for him. He's completely irrational and unscientific when it comes to this.

Did you say this when AIDS hit the world? SARS? The 1918 flu? Will Americans succumb to Ebola because they're fat? (Conversely, Africans are pretty damn thin, so by your argument, Ebola shouldn't be a problem. Absurd.)

No. It's a novel virus. Viruses do this. And they will continue to do this.

Sure, we could and should be healthier. But we go to war with the army we have, not the one we WISH we had.

Plus, if you make this argument without discussing the underlying causes (which is mainly corporate greed, lack of regulation, wealth concentration and unbridled love of a supposed free market), you're wasting your and our time.

Cheap food from places like MacDonalds and no access to quality food in poor communities is just ONE example.

Our schools serving absolute JUNK in cafeterias is another. (Profit motive means sell crap food en masse to school systems. Make money, feed developing kids junk. Wow, great!)

Lack of universal health coverage.

Lack of economic opportunity.

Lack of proper retirement plans for 2/3 of Americans.

Flat wages (minimum wage flat since 1960).

American Dream evaporating.

All in this NY Times piece:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/opinion/income-wealth-inequality-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-opinion-inequality-series&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_2&context=storylines_related_links


All this leads to poor health outcomes.

Or we could just take reasonable precautions, shut down when necessary and develop a vaccine ASAP. We'll do this WAY SOONER than address the systemic problems in American society.

---

If you think we're collectively healthy, then we should keep doing what we're doing. As someone who tries to advocate for health through food, I understand that the message often is not received or welcomed. I admit that can certainly be the messenger's fault. And I apologize if it comes off as food shaming. But for those who receive the message, it can be beneficial.

---

I never said we are a healthy population. I agree with that. But solving the Coronavirus problem isn't about addressing our overall general health. That will take decades to fix. So that solution I consider baloney. We don't have the luxury of decades when it comes to a global pandemic. If that is our approach (much like "turd immunity" as I call it), then we simply aren't doing anything about it.

We CAN take sensible steps to address the problem until a vaccine or treatment becomes available:
-Social distancing
-Wear masks
-Good hygiene
-Limit exposure
-Shelter in place when things go sideways

We should have stopped all incoming flights from abroad when this became known. THIS is how Coronavirus came to the US. Yes, it would have involved stranding thousands of Americans abroad. But we could have dealt with it. Stop all flights. Then figure out a way to safely quarantine all Americans who needed to return. Would it have sucked? Sure. But it would have sucked FAR LESS than exposing the entire US population to the pandemic. Now we have a huge problem.

But could we have shut our borders in time? Maybe if we hadn't disbanded the pandemic team, especially the one in China. Or perhaps if we had BOLSTERED our pandemic preparedness so we could have anticipated this eventuality and had a plan in place to prevent it.

Will we NOW know how to prevent this happening again and prepare accordingly? Probably not. Too many decades will probably elapse before the next one. "Institutional" or generational memory will fade. Costs of preparation will be questioned until they're cut to nothing. And we'll find ourselves in the exact same situation. Probably unavoidable.

---

Sure in hindsight an all state isolation would have been effective. We don't live in an authoritarian state where we could just stop everything. Not gonna happen no matter how loudly one shouts that.

Also masking, SIP, SD all good effective measures to reduce spread.

At the individual level one can improve their glucose, insulin, oxidized cholesterol levels, and lower their baseline inflammation by avoiding processed sugar/carbs/seed oils(exercise, reduced stress, and fasting also does this btw). Eating these things 3-5 times a day for decades deranges metabolism and makes you susceptible to infections. Switching to whole vegetables/meats(including red)(bill maher is a vegetarian or pescatarian if I recall correctly) could get your metabolism on track in a few weeks, much shorter than the time we've been locked up. This could be the difference between dying from COVID or just having a bad case of it. Getting this message out to the masses is problematic though. People don't want to stop eating processed foods, they're addicted to it and they don't want to be told to stop eating it. News can't report it, they depend on ad revenue from the food companies. Medicine doesn't want to say it, cause they don't believe in its importance and they want to be the savior. But lining up at costco and loading up on comfort foods, SIP with no sun/exercise, and spiking your cortisol(which spikes your glucose and makes you more insulin resistant) watching news and blm protests and whining about water under the bridge is just making you more of a target for COVID, that's for sure.

---

Good luck to the kids. I just hope they don't get their healthcare from the Tang Center (or whatever the current equivalent is).

I was literally bedridden for a week (as in I never got out of bed--didn't even get up to use the restroom*) my first semester at Cal. On my first day of being bedridden, I went to the Tang Center, where a nurse diagnosed me with a virus and said there was nothing that could be done for me. This despite the fact I was spitting up dayglow orange phlegm, running a fever, fatigued, could barely breathe, and could barely walk** to my Chem 1A midterm study session (yeah, I was forced to take the exam feeling like crap later that day). Many years later, when I recounted this story to a doctor friend, he stated I probably had pneumonia.

*Fortunately, I actually did not need to use the restroom. I neither pooped the bed nor wet it.

**This despite the fact that I'd been spending about 10 hours a week taking martial arts classes at the RSF and also okaying pickup basketball regularly. If anything, prior to falling ill, I was in phenomenal cardiovascular shape.

Cal Strong! said:

---

burritos said:

---

Easier said than done. Should we have shut down for SARS, MERS, west nile virus, ebola, every flu season which creeps up over average? That is a big ask for people who "want liberty" and don't want to be told what is good for them. And we aren't Taiwan singapore or New Zealand. We are a continent of multiple different countries and peoples who pretend to be a single united country.

---

Australia is a continent of multiple cultures, governed by confederate states that do not cooperate with each other, and many different people groups.


----


Australia (right wing fed. government) = 25 million people, 104 Covid deaths.

New Zealand (left wing fed. government) = 5 million people, 22 Covid deaths

Michigan (democrat gov.) = 10 million people, 5951 Covid deaths.

Massachusetts (democrat gov.) = 7 million people, 8,054 Covid deaths.

Florida (rep. gov) = 21 million people, 3550 covid deaths.

----

This no about left vs. right. This not about politics. It is about competence vs. incompetence.

Competent right wing governments all over the world are solving this problem. Incompetent right wing governments are failing to solve the problem.

Competent left wing governments all over the world are solving this problem. Incompetent left wing governments are failing to solve the problem.

---

"Democratic". Cal Strong grammar weak. No star for you.

heartofthebear said:

---

Okay.
But maybe we should focus on our own evolution rather than the viruses. We are infinitely more powerful than these viruses, unless of course we weaken ourselves. Maybe the virus is our friend, helping us to make better decisions about our health. Clearly we can live quite successfully alongside these viruses. We probably already have hundreds of these in our bodies. Eradication and vaccination may be the wrong approach for many of us, even vaccines are safe and effective.

---

Sorry, I didn't see this post until now.

I find it confusing for me to answer (my problem not yours) as viruses are not only many but differt from one another. Thus,I agree with you in certain circumstances as well as disagree. Specifically, I was confused by your anthropocentric use of "powerful" and your reference to "wrong" with respect to "eradication and vaccination."

Blueblood said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Okay.
But maybe we should focus on our own evolution rather than the viruses. We are infinitely more powerful than these viruses, unless of course we weaken ourselves. Maybe the virus is our friend, helping us to make better decisions about our health. Clearly we can live quite successfully alongside these viruses. We probably already have hundreds of these in our bodies. Eradication and vaccination may be the wrong approach for many of us, even vaccines are safe and effective.

---

Sorry, I didn't see this post until now.

I find it confusing for me to answer (my problem not yours) as viruses are not only many but differt from one another. Thus,I agree with you in certain circumstances as well as disagree. Specifically, I was confused by your anthropocentric use of "powerful" and your reference to "wrong" with respect to "eradication and vaccination."

---

I don't think it is anthropocentric to say that we are more powerful than a particular virus and I don't know how I would even have parameters to discuss and debate that with you. It is simply stating an obvious fact. But maybe I can clarify. We have everything within our own makeup as humans, without additional biochemical/medical assistance to live successfully alongside these viruses. FYI, the viruses are never what kill us, anyway. They are simply catalytic mechanisms to trigger are own pre-existing imbalances. Nobody has ever died of Covid 19. Cause of death is always something else. As for the viruses, they have a short lifespan, and, unlike us, are dependent on a biological host, for survival and replication. That is what I meant by us being more powerful.

The reason why I used the term "wrong" in reference to eradication and vaccination is that it fails to understand the nature of the problem. We do not need to add additional foreign biochemical elements to our bodies to successfully deal with a viral problem. We need to strengthen the existing natural biochemical elements our bodies need to be healthy.

I suggest, to get a more complete understanding of what I am talking about, that you watch this hour long video by Dr. Zach Bush Link here. It is well worth the time.

Finally, I think it is more anthropocentric to view viruses as enemies that need to be eradicated then it is to have my point of view that we are more powerful. But that's just me.

71Bear said:

---

???

There are only three countries on earth with a population of 300 million+

China
India
US

Total population has no relevance to the point of instituting a mandate to "stop everything".

---

Unless you threaten people with fines and incarcerations, a mandate would not be effective. Instituting this would not have gone over well with us spoiled entitled Americans. Imagine if authorities arrested all the protesters for violating SIP orders. That would have been a disaster. I think that larger countries are logistically more difficult to shut down.

heartofthebear said:

---

I don't think it is anthropocentric to say that we are more powerful than a particular virus and I don't know how I would even have parameters to discuss and debate that with you. It is simply stating an obvious fact. But maybe I can clarify. We have everything within our own makeup as humans, without additional biochemical/medical assistance to live successfully alongside these viruses. FYI, the viruses are never what kill us, anyway. They are simply catalytic mechanisms to trigger are own pre-existing imbalances. Nobody has ever died of Covid 19. Cause of death is always something else. As for the viruses, they have a short lifespan, and, unlike us, are dependent on a biological host, for survival and replication. That is what I meant by us being more powerful.

The reason why I used the term "wrong" in reference to eradication and vaccination is that it fails to understand the nature of the problem. We do not need to add additional foreign biochemical elements to our bodies to successfully deal with a viral problem. We need to strengthen the existing natural biochemical elements our bodies need to be healthy.

I suggest, to get a more complete understanding of what I am talking about, that you watch this hour long video by Dr. Zach Bush Link here. It is well worth the time.

Finally, I think it is more anthropocentric to view viruses as enemies that need to be eradicated then it is to have my point of view that we are more powerful. But that's just me.

---

So, in any event, you can now see how viruses can be viewed as living entities.


"Yep, it looks like a live virus.
Hey! It just flipped me off!"

71Bear said:

---

burritos said:

---

71Bear said:

---

???

There are only three countries on earth with a population of 300 million+

China
India
US

Total population has no relevance to the point of instituting a mandate to "stop everything".

---

Unless you threaten people with fines and incarcerations, a mandate would not be effective. Instituting this would not have gone over well with us spoiled entitled Americans. Imagine if authorities arrested all the protesters for violating SIP orders. That would have been a disaster. I think that larger countries are logistically more difficult to shut down.

---

I would disagree. It all starts at the top...

If the President and leadership of every state framed the issue as a "patriotic responsibility", US citizens would have jumped at the opportunity to "stop everything". Americans love anything and everything associated with patriotism.

---

I gave up expecting any leadership abilities as soon as soon as 2016 election was over.

burritos said:

---

71Bear said:

---

burritos said:

---

71Bear said:

---

???

There are only three countries on earth with a population of 300 million+

China
India
US

Total population has no relevance to the point of instituting a mandate to "stop everything".

---

Unless you threaten people with fines and incarcerations, a mandate would not be effective. Instituting this would not have gone over well with us spoiled entitled Americans. Imagine if authorities arrested all the protesters for violating SIP orders. That would have been a disaster. I think that larger countries are logistically more difficult to shut down.

---

I would disagree. It all starts at the top...

If the President and leadership of every state framed the issue as a "patriotic responsibility", US citizens would have jumped at the opportunity to "stop everything". Americans love anything and everything associated with patriotism.

---

I gave up expecting any leadership abilities as soon as soon as 2016 election was over.

---

We certainly agree on that comment. To borrow a quote (with a change or two) made by a former Michigan footballer, "Our national nightmare will soon be over".....

Big C said:

---

Go!Bears said:

---

burritos said:

---

That has a population of over 300 million people?

---

The EU is a good referent. Essentially a very weak federal system - similar to the way this played out in the US given the absence of national leadership. The difference is cultural. We have a toxic political culture and an underlying problematic social culture (extraordinary individualism). The combination has been disastrous. Our population size was not the problem. It's us.

---

"Hey, we TRIED that social distancing stuff for over TWO MONTHS! If that's not enough, then screw it."

---

Gonna be a lot of Darwin awards handed out this year plus friendly fire casualties.

Go!Bears said:

---

Tongue in cheek, I know, but we didn't and that is the problem. Some places did, some didn't and because our states can't close their borders to each other (as EU states did) it was essentially the same as not doing it. If the entire country had shut down for two months at the same time, we could be where the EU is.

---

B....12.....BINGO!


"See, he had a fever so I knew social distancing wouldn't work!"

college kids testing positive is not a horrible thing, Most of them don't show symptoms and almost all young people recover. Might even build immunity in society.

Go!Bears said:

---

burritos said:

---

That has a population of over 300 million people?

---

The EU is a good referent. Essentially a very weak federal system - similar to the way this played out in the US given the absence of national leadership. The difference is cultural. We have a toxic political culture and an underlying problematic social culture (extraordinary individualism). The combination has been disastrous. Our population size was not the problem. It's us.

---

It's not just cultural and political. But yeah, it is us. Mostly. The other "us" aspect is that economically, the US economy is more heavily leveraged (higher debt levels) than in Europe and Asia (sans Japan). And when you carry heavy debt loads, you have significantly less ability to shut down for extended periods of time. This is true for all three sectors of the economy: government, business and consumer. The inconvenient fact is that US economic outperformance relative to Europe in the last two decades is almost wholy attributable to higher population growth and stimulus from higher debt levels.

BearPatrol said:

---

college kids testing positive is not a horrible thing [Depends upon one's perspective, doesn't it? That is, that "college kid" could infect an older vulnerable person.], Most of them don't show symptoms [This is the problem, e.g., like typhoid Mary.] and almost all young people recover. [Heck with the one's that don't?...give the virus a little time, the age of those infected will drop...remember, the virus is competing for resources....] Might even build immunity in society. [Possibly, if the virus doesn't mutate... but, even if it doesn't, how many victims before such can be declared?]

---