bearister said:

---

---

Misinformation like this is one reason why people ignore the media. And simply repeating a source which doesn't show actual statistics is dangerous, like the stupid April 17 CNN article. Quotes from people are not actually reported stats. Citing BS rates like Trip here doesn't help either.

Google Arkansas COVID statistics and you will see an amazing graph that shows actually the number of cases has gone down in the last week from just over 100 cases a day to around 40 per day. The total number of cases of 1,498 (as of 2 hours ago) for Arkansas with a population a little over 3 million, is less than many counties in California.

Same thing with Oklahoma, numbers are down this last week. Nebraska and South Dakota they are up and Iowa spiked down and then up, but we are not talking a huge change in the number of cases, given the small number of cases in these states.

One problem with using short term numbers and then making political judgments, is that you are using results with reporting bias (and in this case the numbers were just bullshyte), such as when test results reach State reporting agencies. In all states, there is no precise curves, but ups and downs, and usually you have to look at the direction over a period of a couple weeks. Go Google the numbers and see the graphs - don't rely on bullsyte artists like Trip. But even the concept of using a short term period like old Trip here to draw such a conclusion is utter BS.

wifeisafurd said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

Misinformation like this is one reason why people ignore the media. And simply repeating a source which doesn't show actual statistics is dangerous, like the stupid April 17 CNN article. Quotes from people are not actually reported stats. Citing BS rates like Trip here doesn't help either.

Google Arkansas COVID statistics and you will see an amazing graph that shows actually the number of cases has gone down in the last week from just over 100 cases a day to around 40 per day. The total number of cases of 1,498 (as of 2 hours ago) for Arkansas with a population a little over 3 million, is less than many counties in California.

Same thing with Oklahoma, numbers are down this last week. Nebraska and South Dakota they are up and Iowa spiked down and then up, but we are not talking a huge change in the number of cases, given the small number of cases in these states.

One problem with using short term numbers and then making political judgments, is that you are using results with reporting bias (and in this case the numbers were just bullshyte), such as when test results reach State reporting agencies. In all states, there is no precise curves, but ups and downs, and usually you have to look at the direction over a period of a couple weeks. Go Google the numbers and see the graphs - don't rely on bullsyte artists like Trip. But even the concept of using a short term period like old Trip here to draw such a conclusion is utter BS.

---

The article quoted the Johns Hopkins Stats, the same ones used by MSNBC; they are showing higher numbers than other data sources. One reason is that they are including deaths based on Covid-19 symptoms for states that are not testing. You cannot record deaths due to a positive Covid-19 test if tests aren't performed. About a week ago Johns Hopkins revised their statistical reporting to include probable Covid-19 deaths where the states were not testing. CNN on air has not been using the JH stats while MSNBC has been using them for awhile now. Not having a definitive cause of death (due to incomplete testing) is an easy way to minimize the scope of a problem.

I was working at Long Beach Naval Shipyard when local public health officials 'discovered' asbestosis and mesothelioma in veteran shipyard employees. The Navy immediately declared the problem was confined only to Long Beach and for several years refused to test employees at other Naval bases and shipyards. At the same time the Navy occupational health inspectors were telling the brass that the problem was worse everywhere else and rated LBNSY safety program the best at any shipyard. The NAVSEA IG visited, never did an on site validation and rated the LBNSY safety program as UNSAT and the Shipyard was slated for closure. By refusing to test their employees outside of Long Beach the Navy avoided disclosing the extent of asbestos related illnesses among sailors and employees. Nowadays I see adds for law firms looking for asbestos victims every hour of the day.

Any state with inadequate testing, will succeed in undereporting Covid-19 statistics, and look better than they should. The only question is should John Hopkins researchers adjust the statistics for the under-reporting due to inadequate testing. Or just let the 'cheaters' get away with their deception.

OTOH, when your POTUS sets a bunch of criteria out and then ignores same and starts telling everyone to "LIBERATE", nothing really seems to matter. UFB.

sp4149 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

Misinformation like this is one reason why people ignore the media. And simply repeating a source which doesn't show actual statistics is dangerous, like the stupid April 17 CNN article. Quotes from people are not actually reported stats. Citing BS rates like Trip here doesn't help either.

Google Arkansas COVID statistics and you will see an amazing graph that shows actually the number of cases has gone down in the last week from just over 100 cases a day to around 40 per day. The total number of cases of 1,498 (as of 2 hours ago) for Arkansas with a population a little over 3 million, is less than many counties in California.

Same thing with Oklahoma, numbers are down this last week. Nebraska and South Dakota they are up and Iowa spiked down and then up, but we are not talking a huge change in the number of cases, given the small number of cases in these states.

One problem with using short term numbers and then making political judgments, is that you are using results with reporting bias (and in this case the numbers were just bullshyte), such as when test results reach State reporting agencies. In all states, there is no precise curves, but ups and downs, and usually you have to look at the direction over a period of a couple weeks. Go Google the numbers and see the graphs - don't rely on bullsyte artists like Trip. But even the concept of using a short term period like old Trip here to draw such a conclusion is utter BS.

---

The article quoted the Johns Hopkins Stats, the same ones used by MSNBC; they are showing higher numbers than other data sources. One reason is that they are including deaths based on Covid-19 symptoms for states that are not testing. You cannot record deaths due to a positive Covid-19 test if tests aren't performed. About a week ago Johns Hopkins revised their statistical reporting to include probable Covid-19 deaths where the states were not testing. CNN on air has not been using the JH stats while MSNBC has been using them for awhile now. Not having a definitive cause of death (due to incomplete testing) is an easy way to minimize the scope of a problem.

I was working at Long Beach Naval Shipyard when local public health officials 'discovered' asbestosis and mesothelioma in veteran shipyard employees. The Navy immediately declared the problem was confined only to Long Beach and for several years refused to test employees at other Naval bases and shipyards. At the same time the Navy occupational health inspectors were telling the brass that the problem was worse everywhere else and rated LBNSY safety program the best at any shipyard. The NAVSEA IG visited, never did an on site validation and rated the LBNSY safety program as UNSAT and the Shipyard was slated for closure. By refusing to test their employees outside of Long Beach the Navy avoided disclosing the extent of asbestos related illnesses among sailors and employees. Nowadays I see adds for law firms looking for asbestos victims every hour of the day.

Any state with inadequate testing, will succeed in undereporting Covid-19 statistics, and look better than they should. The only question is should John Hopkins researchers adjust the statistics for the under-reporting due to inadequate testing. Or just let the 'cheaters' get away with their deception.

---

MSNBC. So that means we get to also use the bull crud numbers Fox puts out as well?

Do me a favor, look at the stats on test numbers performed by Arkansas and divide by population and the do a compare to states like Michigan. Once you past that little inconvenience, what you are saying is that they are using a source that makes up numbers for those it deems not testing enough. When you start making up crap, people stop listening, and you get people in office that start chanting liberate. There is a reason to use actual health department stats, based on real data, than what people make up.

Or why don't we just shut down Santa Clara county forever. using projections.

Coronavirus spread: Number of people infected by COVID-19 may be 50-80 times higher than official count, Stanford study suggests https://abc7news.com/health/80-times-more-people-may-have-been-infected-

Show me how they used this in the wonderful MSNBC let's make it up stats.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

Misinformation like this is one reason why people ignore the media. And simply repeating a source which doesn't show actual statistics is dangerous, like the stupid April 17 CNN article. Quotes from people are not actually reported stats. Citing BS rates like Trip here doesn't help either.

Google Arkansas COVID statistics and you will see an amazing graph that shows actually the number of cases has gone down in the last week from just over 100 cases a day to around 40 per day. The total number of cases of 1,498 (as of 2 hours ago) for Arkansas with a population a little over 3 million, is less than many counties in California.

Same thing with Oklahoma, numbers are down this last week. Nebraska and South Dakota they are up and Iowa spiked down and then up, but we are not talking a huge change in the number of cases, given the small number of cases in these states.

One problem with using short term numbers and then making political judgments, is that you are using results with reporting bias (and in this case the numbers were just bullshyte), such as when test results reach State reporting agencies. In all states, there is no precise curves, but ups and downs, and usually you have to look at the direction over a period of a couple weeks. Go Google the numbers and see the graphs - don't rely on bullsyte artists like Trip. But even the concept of using a short term period like old Trip here to draw such a conclusion is utter BS.

---

The article quoted the Johns Hopkins Stats, the same ones used by MSNBC; they are showing higher numbers than other data sources. One reason is that they are including deaths based on Covid-19 symptoms for states that are not testing. You cannot record deaths due to a positive Covid-19 test if tests aren't performed. About a week ago Johns Hopkins revised their statistical reporting to include probable Covid-19 deaths where the states were not testing. CNN on air has not been using the JH stats while MSNBC has been using them for awhile now. Not having a definitive cause of death (due to incomplete testing) is an easy way to minimize the scope of a problem.

I was working at Long Beach Naval Shipyard when local public health officials 'discovered' asbestosis and mesothelioma in veteran shipyard employees. The Navy immediately declared the problem was confined only to Long Beach and for several years refused to test employees at other Naval bases and shipyards. At the same time the Navy occupational health inspectors were telling the brass that the problem was worse everywhere else and rated LBNSY safety program the best at any shipyard. The NAVSEA IG visited, never did an on site validation and rated the LBNSY safety program as UNSAT and the Shipyard was slated for closure. By refusing to test their employees outside of Long Beach the Navy avoided disclosing the extent of asbestos related illnesses among sailors and employees. Nowadays I see adds for law firms looking for asbestos victims every hour of the day.

Any state with inadequate testing, will succeed in undereporting Covid-19 statistics, and look better than they should. The only question is should John Hopkins researchers adjust the statistics for the under-reporting due to inadequate testing. Or just let the 'cheaters' get away with their deception.

---

MSNBC. So that means we get to also use the bull crud numbers Fox puts out as well?

Do me a favor, look at the stats on test numbers performed by Arkansas and divide by population and the do a compare to states like Michigan. Once you past that little inconvenience, what you are saying is that they are using a source that makes up numbers for those it deems not testing enough. When you start making up crap, people stop listening, and you get people in office that start chanting liberate. There is a reason to use actual health department stats, based on real data, than what people make up.

Or why don't we just shut down Santa Clara county forever. using projections.

Coronavirus spread: Number of people infected by COVID-19 may be 50-80 times higher than official count, Stanford study suggests https://abc7news.com/health/80-times-more-people-may-have-been-infected-

Show me how they used this in the wonderful MSNBC let's make it up stats.

---

I can't evaluate what you cite, because you link to a "Page Not Found" but, you do know what 'may' means, right? Could be, might not be...

Do you have a specific instance of a problem with MSNBC's stats. The Chiron I am looking at sources Johns Hopkins. Those are make it up, stats? If deaths spike suddenly last week or next in a state that does not test and hence does not link cause of death to COVID-19, do you have another reasonable explanation for that spike?

And you can save the trouble of looking and doing math by just checking here: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ Tests per million AR 8K, MI 10K

GO FLORIDA! Open dem beaches! Revenge of the hanging chads.

bearister said:

---

GO FLORIDA! Open dem beaches! Revenge of the hanging chads.

---

https://floridaman.com/

Go!Bears said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

Misinformation like this is one reason why people ignore the media. And simply repeating a source which doesn't show actual statistics is dangerous, like the stupid April 17 CNN article. Quotes from people are not actually reported stats. Citing BS rates like Trip here doesn't help either.

Google Arkansas COVID statistics and you will see an amazing graph that shows actually the number of cases has gone down in the last week from just over 100 cases a day to around 40 per day. The total number of cases of 1,498 (as of 2 hours ago) for Arkansas with a population a little over 3 million, is less than many counties in California.

Same thing with Oklahoma, numbers are down this last week. Nebraska and South Dakota they are up and Iowa spiked down and then up, but we are not talking a huge change in the number of cases, given the small number of cases in these states.

One problem with using short term numbers and then making political judgments, is that you are using results with reporting bias (and in this case the numbers were just bullshyte), such as when test results reach State reporting agencies. In all states, there is no precise curves, but ups and downs, and usually you have to look at the direction over a period of a couple weeks. Go Google the numbers and see the graphs - don't rely on bullsyte artists like Trip. But even the concept of using a short term period like old Trip here to draw such a conclusion is utter BS.

---

The article quoted the Johns Hopkins Stats, the same ones used by MSNBC; they are showing higher numbers than other data sources. One reason is that they are including deaths based on Covid-19 symptoms for states that are not testing. You cannot record deaths due to a positive Covid-19 test if tests aren't performed. About a week ago Johns Hopkins revised their statistical reporting to include probable Covid-19 deaths where the states were not testing. CNN on air has not been using the JH stats while MSNBC has been using them for awhile now. Not having a definitive cause of death (due to incomplete testing) is an easy way to minimize the scope of a problem.

I was working at Long Beach Naval Shipyard when local public health officials 'discovered' asbestosis and mesothelioma in veteran shipyard employees. The Navy immediately declared the problem was confined only to Long Beach and for several years refused to test employees at other Naval bases and shipyards. At the same time the Navy occupational health inspectors were telling the brass that the problem was worse everywhere else and rated LBNSY safety program the best at any shipyard. The NAVSEA IG visited, never did an on site validation and rated the LBNSY safety program as UNSAT and the Shipyard was slated for closure. By refusing to test their employees outside of Long Beach the Navy avoided disclosing the extent of asbestos related illnesses among sailors and employees. Nowadays I see adds for law firms looking for asbestos victims every hour of the day.

Any state with inadequate testing, will succeed in undereporting Covid-19 statistics, and look better than they should. The only question is should John Hopkins researchers adjust the statistics for the under-reporting due to inadequate testing. Or just let the 'cheaters' get away with their deception.

---

MSNBC. So that means we get to also use the bull crud numbers Fox puts out as well?

Do me a favor, look at the stats on test numbers performed by Arkansas and divide by population and the do a compare to states like Michigan. Once you past that little inconvenience, what you are saying is that they are using a source that makes up numbers for those it deems not testing enough. When you start making up crap, people stop listening, and you get people in office that start chanting liberate. There is a reason to use actual health department stats, based on real data, than what people make up.

Or why don't we just shut down Santa Clara county forever. using projections.

Coronavirus spread: Number of people infected by COVID-19 may be 50-80 times higher than official count, Stanford study suggests https://abc7news.com/health/80-times-more-people-may-have-been-infected-

Show me how they used this in the wonderful MSNBC let's make it up stats.

---

I can't evaluate what you cite, because you link to a "Page Not Found" but, you do know what 'may' means, right? Could be, might not be...

Do you have a specific instance of a problem with MSNBC's stats. The Chiron I am looking at sources Johns Hopkins. Those are make it up, stats? If deaths spike suddenly last week or next in a state that does not test and hence does not link cause of death to COVID-19, do you have another reasonable explanation for that spike?

And you can save the trouble of looking and doing math by just checking here: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ Tests per million AR 8K, MI 10K

---

If you can't do the link, you could also read it in the main headline in today's Merc, Palo Alto Online, the LA Times, and a numbers of other California news sites, or even this unreliable source:

Coronavirus antibody testing finds Bay Area infections may be 85 times higher than reported: researchers https://fxn.ws/3ajqdSr #FoxNews


Latest headline from The Tripster: MASSIVE SPIKE IN Santa Clara County !!! CASES MULTIPLY BY 80 TIMES HIGHER OVERNIGHT! GREATEST INCREASE IN CASES EVER!! MASSES MOVING TO ARKANSAS!!!

AND IT GETS EVEN BETTER : You know that earlier comment about the the reason the numbers are so high on the MSNBC numbers compared to actual numbers is to make up for the lack of tests in those states listed by The Tripster. Well in the table you proved there is South Dakota at 12,799, Nebraska at 7,222, Iowa at 6,597, Oklahoma at 6,597 and Arkansas 7,856. Then compare that to California at 6,294. This just in from The Trip: "MSNBC Adjusts John Hopkins numbers for California upward due to lack of testing in California!

See how easy it is to make up numbers when your source doesn't actually rely on actual reported cases.

And you really need to look at those curves of actual reported cases if you think you can rely on short run variances of reported cases. Then again, The Tripster picked out certain states (there are many more with no or limited quarantines) that he felt served his narrative while ignoring short term spikes in high quarantine states.
There is a lesson here, and you can see it being played out in Huntington Beach and elsewhere.

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Far left factions, such as Antifa and the like, will gravitate towards the Dems, and the far right gun nuts will do the opposite. Nothing new here.

I'd like to hear your comments on Whitmer's new restrictions. Do you think they're reasonable? A lot of these governors are relishing in their new-found powers and won't give them up without a fight. She's trying to gain as much publicity as possible to be first in line for Biden's #2. It's going to backfire due to her overreach. Biden needs Michigan.

---

Michigan roars into third place in COVID-19 deaths.
Obviously Michigan hasn't done enough.
Michigan residents who don't want to be part of the solution, "Are not helping"

---

What I dont like about these protesters is they assume that if the stay at home orders were not in place, everything would be fine. That is an incorrect assumption in my opinion. People would still be staying at home in large numbers. I went bar hopping in sf the Thursday before the lockdown, and there was no one out. The bars were at 10% their normal volume of customers. I went to lunch the in fidi the day before lockdown and no one was there. They were at probably less than 5% usual volume.

Point being, the lockdown orders aren't what killed business, it was the disease and it killed them before the lockdown orders. The best way to get the economy back up and running is to kill the disease, and have people return to their normal life, without fear of infection (which is the real economic killer).

---

That's just it. You can't kill the disease. We can't even kill the flu and it's been around forever and still kills thousands. We all know of people who get a flu shot and still get the flu. Coronavirus has been around a long time and this is the novel one, a mutation, and you're not going to stamp it out by sitting at home.

Who will you look to to give you the all clear and allow us to peek out from under our rocks? The scientists?The very ones who have been dead wrong with their crappy models? How about the WHO? Yeah, there's a gang to be trusted. What scientist is going to tell you all is OK? What's in it for them to make such a proclamation? At some point you have to take a calculated risk. If you as an individual don't want to return to civilization, that's fine, but let the people who want to work and be smart about social distances and masks do so if they choose to. If you're old or vulnerable, be smart. Stay inside as much as you can.

Pretending that shuttering everybody unconditionally, no matter their age or condition; no matter where they live, is smart science or smart governance, is just foolish. If you're a Bay Area millionaire, then sure, maybe you don't care if everyone is going bust around you, but not everyone is as blessed as those on this board.

---

I feel you are off base on a lot of things here.

1. Yes, I trust scientists. They are the most qualified to make these decisions with the imperfect and always evolving information we have. And the modeling has not been dead wrong because we collectively took action to make them wrong (that is a good thing). Finally, the idea that the scientists working on this are doing so for selfish reasons to manipulate the situation to better themselves is ridiculous. I dont buy that for a second.

2. The world health organization is an excellent organization and should be credited with some of the greatest achievements humanity has achieved over the last 50 - 70 years. We should not discredit it. It is not a political organization, it does not have some secret plan or ambition, and they are essential in fighting a pandemic. Now more than ever it needs are support.

3. Not everyone that lives in the bay area is a millionaire, in fact a lot of us are the opposite of a millionaire. There are plenty of people suffering here, and the people that are suffering are still complying with the shelter in place orders. This isnt a class battle, everyone needs to work together.

4. So far there has been no federal enforcement of stay at home orders. Everything has been determined at the state level. Blaming the bay area for other states issuing shelter in place orders is ridiculous because they didnt make that call. That was a decision made by the local and state governments.

5. The only way to get the economy back to normal is by removing the fear of the disease by the general populace. That wont happen until the infection rate is under control. That wont happen without shelter in place.

---

Forgive me, but you sound a little naive.

1. You didn't mention which scientists you trust. You avoided the tough part of the question. The models have been very wrong and much of this has been exposed in the media. You didn't address the scientists who told us that wearing masks was not the correct thing for us to do. You know this is a fact. They lied to us for reasons they haven't disclosed. Do you even wonder why or have you convinced yourself that it was for our own good?

2. The head of the WHO is a scoundrel and you know it. Again, you're refusing to talk in specifics. It has been shown that he ignored data from Taiwan that would have saved countless lives from coronavirus. He did this because China would not allow him to give credit to what they consider to be a rogue province. This is not disputed, even in the liberal media. Why don't you address this specifically instead of talking about the WHO of days gone by in glowing terms?

3. Agreed, not everyone in the Bay Area is a millionaire. But it's pretty certain that the majority on this board are very well off and you'll get that drift if you've been posting here for awhile. Nothing wrong with that, but even a Berkeley scholar doesn't necessarily know what's best for someone living in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Do you agree there's no one-size-fits-all approach?

4. You are correct. I'm not blaming the Bay Area for anything. I'm saying that the thinking that what's right for one area is right for the next is incorrect. Should the farmer in Michigan be under the same restrictions as someone in Manhattan? Please.

5. Again, who will stand up and raise the flag signaling the "all clear"? It won't happen that way. No politician, except for maybe crazy Trump, is going to take that risk. It's not worth it to them. At best, under public pressure, they will dip their toes into the water and see how it goes, raising restrictions as they see fit. Waiting for everyone to gain a certain comfort level not only will never happen, but there will be only remnants of the life that you used to have if you wait that long. There won't be very much to return to. You see the dilemma?

---

Let me go back to the source material.

Quote:

---

Who will you look to to give you the all clear and allow us to peek out from under our rocks? The scientists?

---

As I said previously, yes, the scientists. No where in your original statement did you ask for which scientists I trust. You referred to them as a group, so I referred to them as a group, I'm not dodging anything.

As for the scientists recommending the masks, their logic hasn't changed. What they said at the beginning is that, 'you don't need a mask because they don't prevent you from getting sick, they prevent you from transmitting the disease'. Now they are say 'Wear the mask because you might transmit the disease'. The logic has stayed consistent in that they don't prevent you from getting infected, they prevent you from spreading it. What has changed is the circumstances and prevalence of the disease, personally I want my expert advice to address the most current situation.

Ultimately, I accept the fact that the scientists made decisions based on limited and constantly changing information, in hindsight there might have been better decisions they could have made, but they were still the most qualified people to make them at the time, and the models were the best information we had at the time.

Regarding the WHO, again you accuse me of not talking specifics as if your statement somehow compelled them, it didn't. You asked who I trust to let me know when its safe to stop social distancing, and I trust the World Health Organization, and this discrediting of the organization and everyone that works there is worrying.

But really, my biggest contention is when you said, "What's in it for them to make such a proclamation? " in reference to the WHO and scientists, and I fundamentally believe the scientists and the World Health Organization is operating in good-faith. They are trying to do what is best for the health of people across the world. I don't believe they are motivated by some selfish self-interest. and that's not naivete, that is based on the people I met in the healthcare world, the people that I met that work at institutions, and my understanding of people in general (yes, I believe most people want what is best for others, and no I don't think that makes me naive). Please note, I'm not saying everyone. I'm on record at saying I think 1 out of every 20 people are jerks.

Regarding different rules for different places, I somewhat agree that every plan should be specific to the people it is accommodating, but this is also what is currently happening. All the stay at home measures have been implemented at the state and local level, hence it is the elected officials the people chose to represent them that are implementing these policies. Nobody on this board is implementing policy or restricting people's movement.

It should also be noted that if you look at a map of everywhere in the world the virus has spread, it becomes obvious that all of humanity is tied together in this. In about 4.5 months, the disease has spread to essentially every country on earth. The actions of one place will have an effect on other places, we need cooperation and collective action, not a bunch of cowboys going off on their own.

As for who will say 'All Clear'. It will be the same people that implemented the stay at home orders. The state and local governments, will make the decisions based on conversations with a variety of experts in a range of fields from health to economics to logistics.

Personally, I'm tired of the lockdown. I'm eager to go to the bars, to play soccer, to see my family, to visit the national parks and travel abroad again. I got a girl in Mexico I am dying to see again. I want this to be over as soon as possible, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop listening to who I think is able to make the most-informed decision at the time. In this case, it is my local and state government under the advisement of the experts.

---

Well said golden sloth. But let me ask you a couple of things from your response. Hopefully this will meet the strict requirements of our resident debate referee, Unit2sucks:

You mentioned that the scientists have been consistent in their mask/no mask recommendations. As you point out, the justification was that masks are only good for preventing the transmission of the disease, not for preventing reception of the disease. But does that sound logical to you? Does your dental hygienist wear a facemask to protect all her patients, or does she do it to protect herself against the myriad patients she will see during the course of her work? I live in a predominantly Asian community where, way before Covid-19, many people wear masks on a daily basis. Are they doing that for my protection or for theirs? How about landscape workers? Are masks one-way check valves? Doesn't seem logical to me, but the scientists told us not to wear masks ... until of course they told us to wear them. That kind of switcheroo just raises question marks in my mind.

In reference to the WHO, you said: "I don't believe they are motivated by some selfish self-interest. and that's not naivete, that is based on the people I met in the healthcare world, the people that I met that work at institutions, and my understanding of people in general." But why haven't you looked at the specific, recent reporting of how the WHO and its leader, Tedros Adhanom, ignored early data from Taiwan and have largely acted in the interest of China's saving face? Does this affect your thinking on the WHO at all? If not, what would change your thinking?

---

No one was ever saying masks are useless in preventing reception of everything bad.

Landscape workers wear masks to prevent inhalation of particulate matter that is much bigger than the Covid 19 virus. It's not for the same purpose at all.

A dental hygienist is subject to saliva, phlegm, a whole lot of potentially nasty stuff. Saying their cloth mask won't protect against Covid 19 virus does not mean it won't protect against a lot of other stuff.

And even with respect to Covid 19, it isn't useless. It just isn't very good. Wearing a condom with a hole in it is more effective at preventing pregnancy than no condom, but you better not rely on it.

The Asian people in your community are probably motivated by protecting themselves but the benefit is more in everyone protecting each other.

Lastly, everything we hear from scientists is filtered through the media. If you look at what the scientists were saying, almost all of them were saying this:

In terms of lessening the overall spread of the disease, the most useful uses of the mask are to put them on sick people to stop them from spreading the disease and to put them on health care workers to prevent them from getting the disease and spreading it through the community. We don't have enough masks to do these two things right now. A distant third would be putting masks on everyone in the community. For the good of us all, you need to stop buying up all the masks.

It is much like in an out of control fire some people will leave the hose running on their roof. Of course that reduces the chances your house burns down to some extent. But if everyone does it, it makes it much harder for the firefighters to stop the greater fire. So, no, they don't release statements saying "yeah, we know your house is safer, but it increases the likelihood that everyone's house burns down so don't do it.

Frankly, the concept that masks are useless was largely a media distortion of the message that we needed to save masks for the sick and for health care workers because that was a much more effective use of a limited commodity.

---

They weren't saying that the masks were useless, but I heard from many scientists that wearing a mask could in fact make you more vulnerable than wearing one if you wore it incorrectly, or if it gave you a false sense of security. I would bet that everyone on this board heard these statements, however, "the wisdom of crowds" took hold and all the masks disappeared from the shelves as the "science people" were, if anything, downplaying their usefulness.

My point is this: If the leaders and scientists simply said to please not purchase masks for the sole reason that we need our health care workers to have full access to the supply, and to please use a cloth covering instead, I think the vast majority of Americans would see it as their patriotic duty to comply. But they don't give the populace that credit. They try to justify using information that reasonable people find hard to believe. The real danger in this is that the next time people get advice, they will assume that advice is also tainted and they'll hesitate, or even refuse, to comply.

....and some of you thought I was kidding when I said tRump has surrounded himself with the F Troop:

Why you can't rely on short term stats:

Gov. Newsom: California sees 'worst 24-hour period since this virus attacked people' https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/17/gov-newsom-california-sees-worst-24-hour-period-since-this-virus-attacked-people/ via @mercnews

Yet, the trend line in California overall is improving (at least with reported cases the last week). But under The Tripster approach, I expect a tweet with an implicitly snide remark about how stay at home policies don't work because of the one day reporting spike. #Twittershthead

If you look at reported cases, Newsom is correct, when he points out in the article that the State has somewhat flattened the curve (looking over a meaningful period of time in April).

LMK5 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Far left factions, such as Antifa and the like, will gravitate towards the Dems, and the far right gun nuts will do the opposite. Nothing new here.

I'd like to hear your comments on Whitmer's new restrictions. Do you think they're reasonable? A lot of these governors are relishing in their new-found powers and won't give them up without a fight. She's trying to gain as much publicity as possible to be first in line for Biden's #2. It's going to backfire due to her overreach. Biden needs Michigan.

---

Michigan roars into third place in COVID-19 deaths.
Obviously Michigan hasn't done enough.
Michigan residents who don't want to be part of the solution, "Are not helping"

---

What I dont like about these protesters is they assume that if the stay at home orders were not in place, everything would be fine. That is an incorrect assumption in my opinion. People would still be staying at home in large numbers. I went bar hopping in sf the Thursday before the lockdown, and there was no one out. The bars were at 10% their normal volume of customers. I went to lunch the in fidi the day before lockdown and no one was there. They were at probably less than 5% usual volume.

Point being, the lockdown orders aren't what killed business, it was the disease and it killed them before the lockdown orders. The best way to get the economy back up and running is to kill the disease, and have people return to their normal life, without fear of infection (which is the real economic killer).

---

That's just it. You can't kill the disease. We can't even kill the flu and it's been around forever and still kills thousands. We all know of people who get a flu shot and still get the flu. Coronavirus has been around a long time and this is the novel one, a mutation, and you're not going to stamp it out by sitting at home.

Who will you look to to give you the all clear and allow us to peek out from under our rocks? The scientists?The very ones who have been dead wrong with their crappy models? How about the WHO? Yeah, there's a gang to be trusted. What scientist is going to tell you all is OK? What's in it for them to make such a proclamation? At some point you have to take a calculated risk. If you as an individual don't want to return to civilization, that's fine, but let the people who want to work and be smart about social distances and masks do so if they choose to. If you're old or vulnerable, be smart. Stay inside as much as you can.

Pretending that shuttering everybody unconditionally, no matter their age or condition; no matter where they live, is smart science or smart governance, is just foolish. If you're a Bay Area millionaire, then sure, maybe you don't care if everyone is going bust around you, but not everyone is as blessed as those on this board.

---

I feel you are off base on a lot of things here.

1. Yes, I trust scientists. They are the most qualified to make these decisions with the imperfect and always evolving information we have. And the modeling has not been dead wrong because we collectively took action to make them wrong (that is a good thing). Finally, the idea that the scientists working on this are doing so for selfish reasons to manipulate the situation to better themselves is ridiculous. I dont buy that for a second.

2. The world health organization is an excellent organization and should be credited with some of the greatest achievements humanity has achieved over the last 50 - 70 years. We should not discredit it. It is not a political organization, it does not have some secret plan or ambition, and they are essential in fighting a pandemic. Now more than ever it needs are support.

3. Not everyone that lives in the bay area is a millionaire, in fact a lot of us are the opposite of a millionaire. There are plenty of people suffering here, and the people that are suffering are still complying with the shelter in place orders. This isnt a class battle, everyone needs to work together.

4. So far there has been no federal enforcement of stay at home orders. Everything has been determined at the state level. Blaming the bay area for other states issuing shelter in place orders is ridiculous because they didnt make that call. That was a decision made by the local and state governments.

5. The only way to get the economy back to normal is by removing the fear of the disease by the general populace. That wont happen until the infection rate is under control. That wont happen without shelter in place.

---

Forgive me, but you sound a little naive.

1. You didn't mention which scientists you trust. You avoided the tough part of the question. The models have been very wrong and much of this has been exposed in the media. You didn't address the scientists who told us that wearing masks was not the correct thing for us to do. You know this is a fact. They lied to us for reasons they haven't disclosed. Do you even wonder why or have you convinced yourself that it was for our own good?

2. The head of the WHO is a scoundrel and you know it. Again, you're refusing to talk in specifics. It has been shown that he ignored data from Taiwan that would have saved countless lives from coronavirus. He did this because China would not allow him to give credit to what they consider to be a rogue province. This is not disputed, even in the liberal media. Why don't you address this specifically instead of talking about the WHO of days gone by in glowing terms?

3. Agreed, not everyone in the Bay Area is a millionaire. But it's pretty certain that the majority on this board are very well off and you'll get that drift if you've been posting here for awhile. Nothing wrong with that, but even a Berkeley scholar doesn't necessarily know what's best for someone living in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Do you agree there's no one-size-fits-all approach?

4. You are correct. I'm not blaming the Bay Area for anything. I'm saying that the thinking that what's right for one area is right for the next is incorrect. Should the farmer in Michigan be under the same restrictions as someone in Manhattan? Please.

5. Again, who will stand up and raise the flag signaling the "all clear"? It won't happen that way. No politician, except for maybe crazy Trump, is going to take that risk. It's not worth it to them. At best, under public pressure, they will dip their toes into the water and see how it goes, raising restrictions as they see fit. Waiting for everyone to gain a certain comfort level not only will never happen, but there will be only remnants of the life that you used to have if you wait that long. There won't be very much to return to. You see the dilemma?

---

Let me go back to the source material.

Quote:

---

Who will you look to to give you the all clear and allow us to peek out from under our rocks? The scientists?

---

As I said previously, yes, the scientists. No where in your original statement did you ask for which scientists I trust. You referred to them as a group, so I referred to them as a group, I'm not dodging anything.

As for the scientists recommending the masks, their logic hasn't changed. What they said at the beginning is that, 'you don't need a mask because they don't prevent you from getting sick, they prevent you from transmitting the disease'. Now they are say 'Wear the mask because you might transmit the disease'. The logic has stayed consistent in that they don't prevent you from getting infected, they prevent you from spreading it. What has changed is the circumstances and prevalence of the disease, personally I want my expert advice to address the most current situation.

Ultimately, I accept the fact that the scientists made decisions based on limited and constantly changing information, in hindsight there might have been better decisions they could have made, but they were still the most qualified people to make them at the time, and the models were the best information we had at the time.

Regarding the WHO, again you accuse me of not talking specifics as if your statement somehow compelled them, it didn't. You asked who I trust to let me know when its safe to stop social distancing, and I trust the World Health Organization, and this discrediting of the organization and everyone that works there is worrying.

But really, my biggest contention is when you said, "What's in it for them to make such a proclamation? " in reference to the WHO and scientists, and I fundamentally believe the scientists and the World Health Organization is operating in good-faith. They are trying to do what is best for the health of people across the world. I don't believe they are motivated by some selfish self-interest. and that's not naivete, that is based on the people I met in the healthcare world, the people that I met that work at institutions, and my understanding of people in general (yes, I believe most people want what is best for others, and no I don't think that makes me naive). Please note, I'm not saying everyone. I'm on record at saying I think 1 out of every 20 people are jerks.

Regarding different rules for different places, I somewhat agree that every plan should be specific to the people it is accommodating, but this is also what is currently happening. All the stay at home measures have been implemented at the state and local level, hence it is the elected officials the people chose to represent them that are implementing these policies. Nobody on this board is implementing policy or restricting people's movement.

It should also be noted that if you look at a map of everywhere in the world the virus has spread, it becomes obvious that all of humanity is tied together in this. In about 4.5 months, the disease has spread to essentially every country on earth. The actions of one place will have an effect on other places, we need cooperation and collective action, not a bunch of cowboys going off on their own.

As for who will say 'All Clear'. It will be the same people that implemented the stay at home orders. The state and local governments, will make the decisions based on conversations with a variety of experts in a range of fields from health to economics to logistics.

Personally, I'm tired of the lockdown. I'm eager to go to the bars, to play soccer, to see my family, to visit the national parks and travel abroad again. I got a girl in Mexico I am dying to see again. I want this to be over as soon as possible, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop listening to who I think is able to make the most-informed decision at the time. In this case, it is my local and state government under the advisement of the experts.

---

Well said golden sloth. But let me ask you a couple of things from your response. Hopefully this will meet the strict requirements of our resident debate referee, Unit2sucks:

You mentioned that the scientists have been consistent in their mask/no mask recommendations. As you point out, the justification was that masks are only good for preventing the transmission of the disease, not for preventing reception of the disease. But does that sound logical to you? Does your dental hygienist wear a facemask to protect all her patients, or does she do it to protect herself against the myriad patients she will see during the course of her work? I live in a predominantly Asian community where, way before Covid-19, many people wear masks on a daily basis. Are they doing that for my protection or for theirs? How about landscape workers? Are masks one-way check valves? Doesn't seem logical to me, but the scientists told us not to wear masks ... until of course they told us to wear them. That kind of switcheroo just raises question marks in my mind.

In reference to the WHO, you said: "I don't believe they are motivated by some selfish self-interest. and that's not naivete, that is based on the people I met in the healthcare world, the people that I met that work at institutions, and my understanding of people in general." But why haven't you looked at the specific, recent reporting of how the WHO and its leader, Tedros Adhanom, ignored early data from Taiwan and have largely acted in the interest of China's saving face? Does this affect your thinking on the WHO at all? If not, what would change your thinking?

---

Regarding the World Health Organization, I believe they were given bad choices that they had to choose between. Do they bring up Taiwan and risk losing the cooperation of the Chinese government, or do they focus on the other examples of positive containment that were out there (South Korea, Singapore [though, Singapore looks like it may turn into a cautionary tale, only for relaxing too soon]). I don't think they were acting to protect China, I think they were acting to ensure China's cooperation so that they could help the greatest numbers of people they can and have access to the most advanced research and information (based on the fact the outbreak started in China). I'm not going to pretend I definitively know what the correct moral response is, but I do definitively think it is a gray area with pro's and con's for both approaches. I'm not going to admonish the WHO for that decision. I still think they are the best equipped organization at dealing with the pandemic.

Regarding scientists and their mask/no mask recommendations. As I said previously, their logic didn't change, and I agree with a lot of what Oaktown said. I'm not going to stop believing scientists over this one recommendation. The information and situation is constantly changing, therefore I expect their recommendations to change as well, it is to be expected when there are so many unknowns.

golden sloth said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Far left factions, such as Antifa and the like, will gravitate towards the Dems, and the far right gun nuts will do the opposite. Nothing new here.

I'd like to hear your comments on Whitmer's new restrictions. Do you think they're reasonable? A lot of these governors are relishing in their new-found powers and won't give them up without a fight. She's trying to gain as much publicity as possible to be first in line for Biden's #2. It's going to backfire due to her overreach. Biden needs Michigan.

---

Michigan roars into third place in COVID-19 deaths.
Obviously Michigan hasn't done enough.
Michigan residents who don't want to be part of the solution, "Are not helping"

---

What I dont like about these protesters is they assume that if the stay at home orders were not in place, everything would be fine. That is an incorrect assumption in my opinion. People would still be staying at home in large numbers. I went bar hopping in sf the Thursday before the lockdown, and there was no one out. The bars were at 10% their normal volume of customers. I went to lunch the in fidi the day before lockdown and no one was there. They were at probably less than 5% usual volume.

Point being, the lockdown orders aren't what killed business, it was the disease and it killed them before the lockdown orders. The best way to get the economy back up and running is to kill the disease, and have people return to their normal life, without fear of infection (which is the real economic killer).

---

That's just it. You can't kill the disease. We can't even kill the flu and it's been around forever and still kills thousands. We all know of people who get a flu shot and still get the flu. Coronavirus has been around a long time and this is the novel one, a mutation, and you're not going to stamp it out by sitting at home.

Who will you look to to give you the all clear and allow us to peek out from under our rocks? The scientists?The very ones who have been dead wrong with their crappy models? How about the WHO? Yeah, there's a gang to be trusted. What scientist is going to tell you all is OK? What's in it for them to make such a proclamation? At some point you have to take a calculated risk. If you as an individual don't want to return to civilization, that's fine, but let the people who want to work and be smart about social distances and masks do so if they choose to. If you're old or vulnerable, be smart. Stay inside as much as you can.

Pretending that shuttering everybody unconditionally, no matter their age or condition; no matter where they live, is smart science or smart governance, is just foolish. If you're a Bay Area millionaire, then sure, maybe you don't care if everyone is going bust around you, but not everyone is as blessed as those on this board.

---

I feel you are off base on a lot of things here.

1. Yes, I trust scientists. They are the most qualified to make these decisions with the imperfect and always evolving information we have. And the modeling has not been dead wrong because we collectively took action to make them wrong (that is a good thing). Finally, the idea that the scientists working on this are doing so for selfish reasons to manipulate the situation to better themselves is ridiculous. I dont buy that for a second.

2. The world health organization is an excellent organization and should be credited with some of the greatest achievements humanity has achieved over the last 50 - 70 years. We should not discredit it. It is not a political organization, it does not have some secret plan or ambition, and they are essential in fighting a pandemic. Now more than ever it needs are support.

3. Not everyone that lives in the bay area is a millionaire, in fact a lot of us are the opposite of a millionaire. There are plenty of people suffering here, and the people that are suffering are still complying with the shelter in place orders. This isnt a class battle, everyone needs to work together.

4. So far there has been no federal enforcement of stay at home orders. Everything has been determined at the state level. Blaming the bay area for other states issuing shelter in place orders is ridiculous because they didnt make that call. That was a decision made by the local and state governments.

5. The only way to get the economy back to normal is by removing the fear of the disease by the general populace. That wont happen until the infection rate is under control. That wont happen without shelter in place.

---

Forgive me, but you sound a little naive.

1. You didn't mention which scientists you trust. You avoided the tough part of the question. The models have been very wrong and much of this has been exposed in the media. You didn't address the scientists who told us that wearing masks was not the correct thing for us to do. You know this is a fact. They lied to us for reasons they haven't disclosed. Do you even wonder why or have you convinced yourself that it was for our own good?

2. The head of the WHO is a scoundrel and you know it. Again, you're refusing to talk in specifics. It has been shown that he ignored data from Taiwan that would have saved countless lives from coronavirus. He did this because China would not allow him to give credit to what they consider to be a rogue province. This is not disputed, even in the liberal media. Why don't you address this specifically instead of talking about the WHO of days gone by in glowing terms?

3. Agreed, not everyone in the Bay Area is a millionaire. But it's pretty certain that the majority on this board are very well off and you'll get that drift if you've been posting here for awhile. Nothing wrong with that, but even a Berkeley scholar doesn't necessarily know what's best for someone living in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Do you agree there's no one-size-fits-all approach?

4. You are correct. I'm not blaming the Bay Area for anything. I'm saying that the thinking that what's right for one area is right for the next is incorrect. Should the farmer in Michigan be under the same restrictions as someone in Manhattan? Please.

5. Again, who will stand up and raise the flag signaling the "all clear"? It won't happen that way. No politician, except for maybe crazy Trump, is going to take that risk. It's not worth it to them. At best, under public pressure, they will dip their toes into the water and see how it goes, raising restrictions as they see fit. Waiting for everyone to gain a certain comfort level not only will never happen, but there will be only remnants of the life that you used to have if you wait that long. There won't be very much to return to. You see the dilemma?

---

Let me go back to the source material.

Quote:

---

Who will you look to to give you the all clear and allow us to peek out from under our rocks? The scientists?

---

As I said previously, yes, the scientists. No where in your original statement did you ask for which scientists I trust. You referred to them as a group, so I referred to them as a group, I'm not dodging anything.

As for the scientists recommending the masks, their logic hasn't changed. What they said at the beginning is that, 'you don't need a mask because they don't prevent you from getting sick, they prevent you from transmitting the disease'. Now they are say 'Wear the mask because you might transmit the disease'. The logic has stayed consistent in that they don't prevent you from getting infected, they prevent you from spreading it. What has changed is the circumstances and prevalence of the disease, personally I want my expert advice to address the most current situation.

Ultimately, I accept the fact that the scientists made decisions based on limited and constantly changing information, in hindsight there might have been better decisions they could have made, but they were still the most qualified people to make them at the time, and the models were the best information we had at the time.

Regarding the WHO, again you accuse me of not talking specifics as if your statement somehow compelled them, it didn't. You asked who I trust to let me know when its safe to stop social distancing, and I trust the World Health Organization, and this discrediting of the organization and everyone that works there is worrying.

But really, my biggest contention is when you said, "What's in it for them to make such a proclamation? " in reference to the WHO and scientists, and I fundamentally believe the scientists and the World Health Organization is operating in good-faith. They are trying to do what is best for the health of people across the world. I don't believe they are motivated by some selfish self-interest. and that's not naivete, that is based on the people I met in the healthcare world, the people that I met that work at institutions, and my understanding of people in general (yes, I believe most people want what is best for others, and no I don't think that makes me naive). Please note, I'm not saying everyone. I'm on record at saying I think 1 out of every 20 people are jerks.

Regarding different rules for different places, I somewhat agree that every plan should be specific to the people it is accommodating, but this is also what is currently happening. All the stay at home measures have been implemented at the state and local level, hence it is the elected officials the people chose to represent them that are implementing these policies. Nobody on this board is implementing policy or restricting people's movement.

It should also be noted that if you look at a map of everywhere in the world the virus has spread, it becomes obvious that all of humanity is tied together in this. In about 4.5 months, the disease has spread to essentially every country on earth. The actions of one place will have an effect on other places, we need cooperation and collective action, not a bunch of cowboys going off on their own.

As for who will say 'All Clear'. It will be the same people that implemented the stay at home orders. The state and local governments, will make the decisions based on conversations with a variety of experts in a range of fields from health to economics to logistics.

Personally, I'm tired of the lockdown. I'm eager to go to the bars, to play soccer, to see my family, to visit the national parks and travel abroad again. I got a girl in Mexico I am dying to see again. I want this to be over as soon as possible, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop listening to who I think is able to make the most-informed decision at the time. In this case, it is my local and state government under the advisement of the experts.

---

Well said golden sloth. But let me ask you a couple of things from your response. Hopefully this will meet the strict requirements of our resident debate referee, Unit2sucks:

You mentioned that the scientists have been consistent in their mask/no mask recommendations. As you point out, the justification was that masks are only good for preventing the transmission of the disease, not for preventing reception of the disease. But does that sound logical to you? Does your dental hygienist wear a facemask to protect all her patients, or does she do it to protect herself against the myriad patients she will see during the course of her work? I live in a predominantly Asian community where, way before Covid-19, many people wear masks on a daily basis. Are they doing that for my protection or for theirs? How about landscape workers? Are masks one-way check valves? Doesn't seem logical to me, but the scientists told us not to wear masks ... until of course they told us to wear them. That kind of switcheroo just raises question marks in my mind.

In reference to the WHO, you said: "I don't believe they are motivated by some selfish self-interest. and that's not naivete, that is based on the people I met in the healthcare world, the people that I met that work at institutions, and my understanding of people in general." But why haven't you looked at the specific, recent reporting of how the WHO and its leader, Tedros Adhanom, ignored early data from Taiwan and have largely acted in the interest of China's saving face? Does this affect your thinking on the WHO at all? If not, what would change your thinking?

---

Regarding the World Health Organization, I believe they were given bad choices that they had to choose between. Do they bring up Taiwan and risk losing the cooperation of the Chinese government, or do they focus on the other examples of positive containment that were out there (South Korea, Singapore [though, Singapore looks like it may turn into a cautionary tale, only for relaxing too soon]). I don't think they were acting to protect China, I think they were acting to ensure China's cooperation so that they could help the greatest numbers of people they can and have access to the most advanced research and information (based on the fact the outbreak started in China). I'm not going to pretend I definitively know what the correct moral response is, but I do definitively think it is a gray area with pro's and con's for both approaches. I'm not going to admonish the WHO for that decision. I still think they are the best equipped organization at dealing with the pandemic.

Regarding scientists and their mask/no mask recommendations. As I said previously, their logic didn't change, and I agree with a lot of what Oaktown said. I'm not going to stop believing scientists over this one recommendation. The information and situation is constantly changing, therefore I expect their recommendations to change as well, it is to be expected when there are so many unknowns.

---

Do you realize that it's not just that the WHO didn't listen to or communicate with Taiwan, it's that Taiwan is barred from joining the WHO? Are you saying that's not a political decision? If you still think the WHO is playing it straight, you might want to read this from Reuters.

As for the masks, I understand that scientists must change their minds when new, revealing data is available. But masks have been around for well over 100 years and their effectiveness or lack thereof hasn't changed. To modify recommendations on mask wearing, first claiming you shouldn't then claiming you should, just doesn't compute. I'm not saying that people shouldn't listen to scientists at all, but unfortunately, in this day and age of political posturing and financial incentives, I do think that we also can't reflexively respond to every piece of advice that comes our way via the media. The airwaves and Internet are full of esteemed scholars that disagree with each other.

LMK5 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Regarding the World Health Organization, I believe they were given bad choices that they had to choose between. Do they bring up Taiwan and risk losing the cooperation of the Chinese government, or do they focus on the other examples of positive containment that were out there (South Korea, Singapore [though, Singapore looks like it may turn into a cautionary tale, only for relaxing too soon]). I don't think they were acting to protect China, I think they were acting to ensure China's cooperation so that they could help the greatest numbers of people they can and have access to the most advanced research and information (based on the fact the outbreak started in China). I'm not going to pretend I definitively know what the correct moral response is, but I do definitively think it is a gray area with pro's and con's for both approaches. I'm not going to admonish the WHO for that decision. I still think they are the best equipped organization at dealing with the pandemic.

Regarding scientists and their mask/no mask recommendations. As I said previously, their logic didn't change, and I agree with a lot of what Oaktown said. I'm not going to stop believing scientists over this one recommendation. The information and situation is constantly changing, therefore I expect their recommendations to change as well, it is to be expected when there are so many unknowns.

---

Do you realize that it's not just that the WHO didn't listen to or communicate with Taiwan, it's that Taiwan is barred from joining the WHO? Are you saying that's not a political decision? If you still think the WHO is playing it straight, you might want to read this from Reuters.

As for the masks, I understand that scientists must change their minds when new, revealing data is available. But masks have been around for well over 100 years and their effectiveness or lack thereof hasn't changed. To modify recommendations on mask wearing, first claiming you shouldn't then claiming you should, just doesn't compute. I'm not saying that people shouldn't listen to scientists at all, but unfortunately, in this day and age of political posturing and financial incentives, I do think that we also can't reflexively respond to every piece of advice that comes our way via the media. The airwaves and Internet are full of esteemed scholars that disagree with each other.

---

The overwhelming majority of global institutions like the United Nations and countries like the United States don't recognize Taiwan as an independent country? That is the global norm (I'm not saying it should be that way, just that that is the reality of the situation. Heck, only 18 countries actually recognize Taiwan as its own independent country, and they are not powerful countries. Taiwan is a politically sensitive situation. The bigger point is that regardless of the WHO's relationship with Taiwan (or lack thereof), it does not disqualify the WHO from being an authority on the best ways to treat and react to a pandemic. I feel you tying together the Taiwanese sovereignty issue with the WHO's ability to complete their core mission. I disagree with that.

Quote:

---

I'm not saying that people shouldn't listen to scientists at all,

---

Okay, I thought your original premise 4 or 5 comments ago was questioning who we should listen to to end the social distancing and dismissing scientists, if you think we should listen to the government officials deciding on social distancing policies based on advise from their medical experts and scientists, then I agree with you.

LMK5 said:

---

Do you realize that it's not just that the WHO didn't listen to or communicate with Taiwan, it's that Taiwan is barred from joining the WHO? Are you saying that's not a political decision?

---

Which would you rather have in the WHO, China or Taiwan? It is not a choice we get to make. It is the ultimatum China has imposed. You can criticize China for imposing it but it is foolish to criticize the WHO for making the choice they did.

golden sloth said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Regarding the World Health Organization, I believe they were given bad choices that they had to choose between. Do they bring up Taiwan and risk losing the cooperation of the Chinese government, or do they focus on the other examples of positive containment that were out there (South Korea, Singapore [though, Singapore looks like it may turn into a cautionary tale, only for relaxing too soon]). I don't think they were acting to protect China, I think they were acting to ensure China's cooperation so that they could help the greatest numbers of people they can and have access to the most advanced research and information (based on the fact the outbreak started in China). I'm not going to pretend I definitively know what the correct moral response is, but I do definitively think it is a gray area with pro's and con's for both approaches. I'm not going to admonish the WHO for that decision. I still think they are the best equipped organization at dealing with the pandemic.

Regarding scientists and their mask/no mask recommendations. As I said previously, their logic didn't change, and I agree with a lot of what Oaktown said. I'm not going to stop believing scientists over this one recommendation. The information and situation is constantly changing, therefore I expect their recommendations to change as well, it is to be expected when there are so many unknowns.

---

Do you realize that it's not just that the WHO didn't listen to or communicate with Taiwan, it's that Taiwan is barred from joining the WHO? Are you saying that's not a political decision? If you still think the WHO is playing it straight, you might want to read this from Reuters.

As for the masks, I understand that scientists must change their minds when new, revealing data is available. But masks have been around for well over 100 years and their effectiveness or lack thereof hasn't changed. To modify recommendations on mask wearing, first claiming you shouldn't then claiming you should, just doesn't compute. I'm not saying that people shouldn't listen to scientists at all, but unfortunately, in this day and age of political posturing and financial incentives, I do think that we also can't reflexively respond to every piece of advice that comes our way via the media. The airwaves and Internet are full of esteemed scholars that disagree with each other.

---

The overwhelming majority of global institutions like the United Nations and countries like the United States don't recognize Taiwan as an independent country? That is the global norm (I'm not saying it should be that way, just that that is the reality of the situation. Heck, only 18 countries actually recognize Taiwan as its own independent country, and they are not powerful countries. Taiwan is a politically sensitive situation. The bigger point is that regardless of the WHO's relationship with Taiwan (or lack thereof), it does not disqualify the WHO from being an authority on the best ways to treat and react to a pandemic. I feel you tying together the Taiwanese sovereignty issue with the WHO's ability to complete their core mission. I disagree with that.

Quote:

---

I'm not saying that people shouldn't listen to scientists at all,

---

Okay, I thought your original premise 4 or 5 comments ago was questioning who we should listen to to end the social distancing and dismissing scientists, if you think we should listen to the government officials deciding on social distancing policies based on advise from their medical experts and scientists, then I agree with you.

---

Well said on the Taiwan dilemma. As far as who we should listen to regarding when to open up the economy, I think our elected officials must make this determination with input from whomever they look to for scientific guidance. Our elected officials are the ones who are compelled to balance health concerns with economic concerns.

Thousands of Americans backed by rightwing donors gear up for protests


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/18/coronavirus-americans-protest-stay-at-home?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

" The former head of Medicare and Medicaid from 2015 to 2017, Andy Slavitt, commented on Twitter that the White House guidelines were sending a clear message to the states: "Your state didn't open, that's on your governor. Your state opened and people died, that's on your governor."

Operation reopen America: are we about to witness a second historic failure of leadership from Trump?


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/18/operation-reopen-america-are-we-about-to-witness-a-second-historic-failure-of-leadership-from-trump?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Las Vegas Strip to come back with major differences, analysts say https://lvrj.com/post/2009472 via @reviewjournal

Assuming that Cal actually will face UNLV this fall (I just don't thing it will happen) this is about what you can expect. It's interesting that Vegas wants to innovate and rely on technology. Not sure what that means, but I like hearing that. On the positive side, no buffets means less need to work out.

Are these lockdown protestor lads planning something for the future?

LMK5 said:

---

As for the masks, I understand that scientists must change their minds when new, revealing data is available. But masks have been around for well over 100 years and their effectiveness or lack thereof hasn't changed. To modify recommendations on mask wearing, first claiming you shouldn't then claiming you should, just doesn't compute. I'm not saying that people shouldn't listen to scientists at all, but unfortunately, in this day and age of political posturing and financial incentives, I do think that we also can't reflexively respond to every piece of advice that comes our way via the media. The airwaves and Internet are full of esteemed scholars that disagree with each other.

---

Compute this -
This disease is spread when the patient is asymptomatic (no symptoms, no need to be tested)
Early advice was based on past experience with other diseases that are spread when symptoms of the disease are present
Wearing a face mask was the recommended precaution for those with a contagious disease to reduce spreading to others. A plain face mask does not prevent catching an airborne disease.
With COVID-19 proving to be a highly contagious disease, but most virulent before symptoms appear, having only those who test positive wear masks is too little too late.

The conundrum -
How do you prevent the COVID-19 asymptomatic from spreading the disease?
If you only test patients with symptoms, you can't identity the COVID-19 asymptomatic who need to wear masks.
If everyone wears masks, so will the COVID-19 asymptomatic and the spread of the disease is mitigated.

Simple decision really...

Turns out people from WHO were communicating with the Trump admin in real time since the virus emerged in 2019. The CDC even had people deployed in Geneva.

LMK5 - please await orders from Trump for the next scapegoat for you to displace his own blame.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/americans-at-world-health-organization-transmitted-real-time-information-about-coronavirus-to-trump-administration/2020/04/19/951c77fa-818c-11ea-9040-68981f488eed_story.html

wifeisafurd said:

---

Why you can't rely on short term stats:

Gov. Newsom: California sees 'worst 24-hour period since this virus attacked people' https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/17/gov-newsom-california-sees-worst-24-hour-period-since-this-virus-attacked-people/ via @mercnews

Yet, the trend line in California overall is improving (at least with reported cases the last week). But under The Tripster approach, I expect a tweet with an implicitly snide remark about how stay at home policies don't work because of the one day reporting spike. #Twittershthead

If you look at reported cases, Newsom is correct, when he points out in the article that the State has somewhat flattened the curve (looking over a meaningful period of time in April).

---

The latest development in the data reporting has been the recent disclosure that the state figures have relied on hospital data but that deaths/cases from nursing homes was not being collected. Also in the Southwest Native American deaths/cases have not been collected on reservations. In San Diego they have just added the homeless/undocumented to the totals and the numbers have spiked. If the numbers spike when the most vulnerable are included in the totals; it doesn't mean that the disease has spread; only that the reported cases/deaths have been understated by a sizable portion.

bearister said:

---

Are these lockdown protestor lads planning something for the future?

---

I think the Bundys taught us that planning is not one of their strong suits

bearister said:

---

---

Professor Henry Higgins said:

---

bearister said:

---

Are these lockdown protestor lads planning something for the future?

---

I think the Bundys taught us that planning is not one of their strong suits

---

The Bundy's won, the Government lost in their Oregon trial.

sp4149 said:

---

Professor Henry Higgins said:

---

bearister said:

---

Are these lockdown protestor lads planning something for the future?

---

I think the Bundys taught us that planning is not one of their strong suits

---

The Bundy's won, the Government lost in their Oregon trial.

---

I guess if you define victory as not losing.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/08/576502739/judge-dismisses-federal-case-against-cliven-bundy-and-sons-bars-retrial

bearister said:

---

---

I would.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/04/18/a-deadly-if-dutiful-deference/

kelly09 said:

---

https://amgreatness.com/2020/04/18/a-deadly-if-dutiful-deference/

---

I definitely think you should revolt against your government overlords and break quaranteen. I recommend as many public protests as it takes for you to make people see the truth of your great post.

kelly09 said:

---

https://amgreatness.com/2020/04/18/a-deadly-if-dutiful-deference/

---

Well, I guess we get to test his theories when we see what happens to the citizenry of the states that are opening things up. A lot of the people in those states eat a lot of fatty foods so there will be plenty of corpulent hosts for the COVID 19. Hopefully tRump starts his rallies up again and his family attends them. I am happy to test this guy's theories in that manner as long as they stay the f@uck out of California.

If a guy looking like Roger rings my doorbell, I open the door and say "No" before he even starts his pitch.

Professor Henry Higgins said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

https://amgreatness.com/2020/04/18/a-deadly-if-dutiful-deference/

---

I definitely think you should revolt against your government overlords and break quaranteen. I recommend as many public protests as it takes for you to make people see the truth of your great post.

---

quarantine

bearister said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

https://amgreatness.com/2020/04/18/a-deadly-if-dutiful-deference/

---

Well, I guess we get to test his theories when we see what happens to the citizenry of the states that are opening things up. A lot of the people in those states eat a lot of fatty foods so there will be plenty of corpulent hosts for the COVID 19. Hopefully tRump starts his rallies up again and his family attends them. I am happy to test this guy's theories in that manner as long as they stay the f@uck out of California.

If a guy looking like Roger rings my doorbell, I open the door and say "No" before he even starts his pitch.

---

I am happy to test this guy's theories in that manner as long as they stay the f@uck out of California.
You are in charge of Caifotnia? How and when did that happen?
What did Kimball write that bothered you so much? BTW, were you KO Hallinan's Law partner? You say some really radical *****