Governor Newsom has worked out a coalition with the governors of Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah and Colorado to approach issues related to Covid-19 on a regional basis. Don't know how this will work out exactly and if it will cover the issue at hand but this coalition covers the Pac-12 footprint except for Arizona. Personally, I remain slightly optimistic but will just take things one day at a time.

bearister said:

---

71Bear said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Basically, you can't contract COVID-19 through touch alone it does not get absorbed through your skinand in order to acquire coronavirus through touch, you'll have to touch something contaminated and then touch your face. That's what essentially renders gloves useless. "While gloves might seemingly create a barrier between your hands and infected surfaces, they do not prevent COVID-19 infection because you can still touch your face with your gloved hands," says Dr. Meyer."

Should You Wear Gloves to the Grocery Store During Coronavirus?


https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/should-you-wear-gloves-to-the-grocery-store

---

Who the heck would touch their face with gloves on? That is kinda weird........

---

---

Brilliant - one of my favorite movies.....

bearister said:

---

71Bear said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Basically, you can't contract COVID-19 through touch alone it does not get absorbed through your skinand in order to acquire coronavirus through touch, you'll have to touch something contaminated and then touch your face. That's what essentially renders gloves useless. "While gloves might seemingly create a barrier between your hands and infected surfaces, they do not prevent COVID-19 infection because you can still touch your face with your gloved hands," says Dr. Meyer."

Should You Wear Gloves to the Grocery Store During Coronavirus?


https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/should-you-wear-gloves-to-the-grocery-store

---

Who the heck would touch their face with gloves on? That is kinda weird........

---

---

Don't ever change Berarister.

Coronavirus in Georgia: Real-time updates on Sunday | 11alive.com


https://www.11alive.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-in-georgia-real-time-updates-sunday-may-10/85-ed0142b0-8e93-4e68-b1d8-27c65a85f1d9
https://www.11alive.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-in-georgia-real-time-updates-sunday-may-10/85-ed0142b0-8e93-4e68-b1d8-27c65a85f1d9

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Quote:

---

I can't access the article because its behind a paywall. How are "reported cases" defined? Because if its just a gross number, then the metric is largely irrelevant - much if not most of the increase will be attributable to increased testing.

The better metric is deaths/hospitalizations - which trails by several weeks - and in any event appears to be on the decline.

Since you (and Newsom) blame conservatives for being hypocrites for resisting questionable proclamations (not "laws" as you said) they find unconstitutional or illegal, maybe someone could ask Newsom on what basis he issued gay marriage licenses in 2004? And on what basis sanctuary cities ignore and actively thwart federal laws? And maybe you could answer how that's different than what "conservatives" and many other people are doing now? If conservatives are ignoring the regulations (not because they believe their "inconvenient" but because they feel their illegal/unconstitutional), I'm pretty sure I know where they got the idea that was ok - Newsom's chickens are coming home. The lesson in this is that hypocrisy is found on all political fronts.

And for the record, I think people who violate the SIP regulations should pay the legal consequences, whatever those are. Charge/cite them and let the courts sort it out.

Have any of the bay area counties articulated a factual basis (rational or not) for refusing to move to stage 2? I'm open to the possibility there is a legitimate reason, but I haven't heard it. For example, I heard Sonoma has extended and has virtually no covid.

---

---

Why are you talking about gay marriage licenses from 2004 during a pandemic in 2020? Republicans have been proclaiming themselves the part of the rule of law for decades so I'm not sure why your whataboutism is relative. How long have you been criticizing democrats and their activist judges, etc.? Turns out, to no one's surprise, it was just posturing. I'm glad that you think the people who violate regulations should pay the legal consequences because that's not universally held by conservatives politicians. See the Lt. Gov of Texas actively working against the state's avowed interests.

Fortunately most conservatives civilians, like most Americans of all persuasions (outside right wing extremists), are paying attention to the public health crisis and are acting in their own best interests, even if their elected officials are acting against them. Here's another graphic from a NYT article I linked previously on point:




To your question regarding the data I cited previously, I didn't think SF Gate had paywalled their COVID map but here is some more detail behind the case counts.

Sources: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, California Department of Public Health and county public health departments, Chronicle reporting

The seven-day trailing average represents the average number of cases or deaths reported each day over the weeklong span ending on the given day. It is used to account for daily variances in reporting and large one-off changes in daily counts, such as April 20 when nearly 1,500 cases were reported in L.A. County as the result of a lab clearing a large backlog. Some counties do not provide daily updates which, combined with daily variances in the number of tests given, could result in randomly higher or lower counts for daily reported cases.

---

You make a sweeping statement that "Conservatives who used to trumpet the rule of law now openly encourage people to ignore laws they find inconvenient" - only conservatives. I respond by pointing out that democrats (in fact our current governor ) often advocate breaking laws. And it wasn't just 2004 wedding licensees - but current sanctuary policies. And then you decry whataboutism. Laughable.

And what do activist judges have to do with this? Absolutely nothing.

Posting a chart showing the trailing average of cases is literally useless and misleading. Testing is ramping up and, of course the number of cases will increase as a result. Due to selection bias and other problems with the sampling, the number of cases will not be relevant for some time (if ever). People are using this false metric to foment panic and justify the unreasonably harsh measures being adopted in the name of safety.

The only meaningful testing data will be when they have statistically significant random sampling testing (i.e., no selection bias) and then make comparisons over time. We're not there yet, but should have some decent data soon now that tests are more readily available and not being rationed.

The idea that only conservatives are anti-lockdown is ludicrous. I am not a conservative but am anti-lockdown. Hell i know many people just like me.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

Newsome has done a terrible job. $55 Bn in debt based on dubious science. Epidemiology is not a science. And I say this as a PhD scientist.

You have to be incredibly short sighted to think he's done a good job. Too bad we'll never have the control experiment: what happens if CA never shutdown. Based on the current epidemiologist projects basically nothing would've happened. In other words we blew $55bn for nothing.

By the way, Georgia opened up two weeks ago and there rates of Covid today are at a low.

---

As is your wont, almost everything you posted here is unsupported drivel. I do love that in your first paragraph you say that epidemiology is not a science and then in your second paragraph you cite epidemiologists to support your assertion (I mean you cite them generally since you don't have any actual data or quotes to support your opinion).

You were a pretty good troll a few years ago but you've really gone down hill. Maybe you could rehab your troll game with a Group of Five team. Perhaps eventually you would make it back up to the bigs, but given how ineffective you are as a troll, that's pretty doubtful.

---

You can start another thread and I will debate you and any 10 people on this message board that the statistical models used to drive our public policy is absolute drivel.

Go ahead. You and 10 others. I'm confident I know more about those models than any 10 people and you combined. Go ahead I dare you.

BearGoggles said:

---

You make a sweeping statement that "Conservatives who used to trumpet the rule of law now openly encourage people to ignore laws they find inconvenient" - only conservatives. I respond by pointing out that democrats (in fact our current governor ) often advocate breaking laws. And it wasn't just 2004 wedding licensees - but current sanctuary policies. And then you decry whataboutism. Laughable.

---

I guess I need to slow it down for you. Please pay attention because you seem to have missed this before. Republicans always talk about being the law and order party. Democrats don't. That's why I'm criticizing Republicans for their hypocrisy.

bearister said:

---

71Bear said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Basically, you can't contract COVID-19 through touch alone it does not get absorbed through your skinand in order to acquire coronavirus through touch, you'll have to touch something contaminated and then touch your face. That's what essentially renders gloves useless. "While gloves might seemingly create a barrier between your hands and infected surfaces, they do not prevent COVID-19 infection because you can still touch your face with your gloved hands," says Dr. Meyer."

Should You Wear Gloves to the Grocery Store During Coronavirus?


https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/should-you-wear-gloves-to-the-grocery-store

---

Who the heck would touch their face with gloves on? That is kinda weird........

---

---

Don't ever change Bearister!

Rushinbear said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Basically, you can't contract COVID-19 through touch aloneit does not get absorbed through your skinand in order to acquire coronavirus through touch, you'll have to touch something contaminated and then touch your face. That's what essentially renders gloves useless. "While gloves might seemingly create a barrier between your hands and infected surfaces, they do not prevent COVID-19 infection because you can still touch your face with your gloved hands," says Dr. Meyer."

Should You Wear Gloves to the Grocery Store During Coronavirus?


https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/should-you-wear-gloves-to-the-grocery-store

---

Would you wash your gloves as often and thoroughly as you do your hands?

---

Can you take your hands off?

At work (for those going into the office) the recommendation is NOT to wear gloves.

However, when I am out and about I definitely wear them. True, they are harder to sanitize than my hands (although I carry alcohol spray with me which should do the job). Healthcare workers wear them. So will I.

Of course I wash or sanitize my hands after taking the gloves off and don't touch my face (or any other part of me) while wearing them. I also wear a hoodie to protect my hair.

Here is me out shopping. The gun is in case I run into anyone not wearing a mask.

Goobear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Gavin Newsom said stage 3 of the reopening may be only a month away. This is important for many reasons, but is particularly relevant on a football board because it includes sports without fans. See https://abc7.com/phase-3-gavin-newsom-california-reopen-when-will/6164783/

Meanwhile, the Bay Area, lead by Santa Clara County Public Health Officer Sara Cody, it trying to not allow the move into stage 2, which was announced by the state last Friday. This is despite much lower rates of disease than in Los Angeles County, test positivity rate of 1-2%, empty hospitals, etc. The Bay Area public health officers are a bigger threat than the state. This is not just to football but to overall health of the Bay Area, which involves many more factors than just the number of people with the virus.

Sluggo

---

With huge State and local budget deficits, Newsom has to be under severe pressure to relax restrictions as soon as he can. I would not be surprised if he doesn't wait for Oregon or Washington governors to get on board. And you are right, local officials may be more of an impediment that Newsom when it comes to activity in the Bay Area.

---

Yep time to become sensible Gavin.

---

yeah, let's get things open tomorrow and see what happens! Its tourist season after all, so having people come in by the thousands, what possibly could go wrong? I'm here in the East, so I will make sure to come out there with some of my NJ and NY friends and relatives...
The Bay Area is almost a miracle of cases/deaths vs. number of people. Maybe "trusting the process" is actually "sensible."

I just gotta say...I live in a place of about 20,000 people in Oregon. We have 2 big box stores for hardware Lowe's and Home Depot. I was going to get an electrical light on/off switch. I drive by Home Depot and there's a line of people bunched up. Because Home Depot is only letting so many people in the store (I think it was 50). Anyway..my jaw dropped because they're basically creating a problem that was never there. By stopping people from entering they're just bunching people up lol.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I just gotta say...I live in a place of about 20,000 people in Oregon. We have 2 big box stores for hardware Lowe's and Home Depot. I was going to get an electrical light on/off switch. I drive by Home Depot and there's a line of people bunched up. Because Home Depot is only letting so many people in the store (I think it was 50). Anyway..my jaw dropped because they're basically creating a problem that was never there. By stopping people from entering they're just bunching people up lol.

---

You're not supposed to bunch up outside the store. You're supposed to line up 6 feet or more apart from each other.

dimitrig said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I just gotta say...I live in a place of about 20,000 people in Oregon. We have 2 big box stores for hardware Lowe's and Home Depot. I was going to get an electrical light on/off switch. I drive by Home Depot and there's a line of people bunched up. Because Home Depot is only letting so many people in the store (I think it was 50). Anyway..my jaw dropped because they're basically creating a problem that was never there. By stopping people from entering they're just bunching people up lol.

---

You're not supposed to bunch up outside the store. You're supposed to line up 6 feet or more apart from each other.

---

I'd invite you to explain that to the knuckleheads, but some of them are packing and pissed off.

I just said this exact thing yesterday:

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I just gotta say...I live in a place of about 20,000 people in Oregon. We have 2 big box stores for hardware Lowe's and Home Depot. I was going to get an electrical light on/off switch. I drive by Home Depot and there's a line of people bunched up. Because Home Depot is only letting so many people in the store (I think it was 50). Anyway..my jaw dropped because they're basically creating a problem that was never there. By stopping people from entering they're just bunching people up lol.

---

Honestly, though, it actually IS better if people bunch up outside rather than inside. The virus would spread faster with the indoor recycled air.

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I just gotta say...I live in a place of about 20,000 people in Oregon. We have 2 big box stores for hardware Lowe's and Home Depot. I was going to get an electrical light on/off switch. I drive by Home Depot and there's a line of people bunched up. Because Home Depot is only letting so many people in the store (I think it was 50). Anyway..my jaw dropped because they're basically creating a problem that was never there. By stopping people from entering they're just bunching people up lol.

---

Honestly, though, it actually IS better if people bunch up outside rather than inside. The virus would spread faster with the indoor recycled air.

---

I'm not sure that would apply to a warehouse store like Lowes/HD/Costco. I would need to hear more from someone with a bazooka on their back before I would get comfortable making a statement definitively however, since they are clearly the rational ones.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I just gotta say...I live in a place of about 20,000 people in Oregon. We have 2 big box stores for hardware Lowe's and Home Depot. I was going to get an electrical light on/off switch. I drive by Home Depot and there's a line of people bunched up. Because Home Depot is only letting so many people in the store (I think it was 50). Anyway..my jaw dropped because they're basically creating a problem that was never there. By stopping people from entering they're just bunching people up lol.

---

Honestly, though, it actually IS better if people bunch up outside rather than inside. The virus would spread faster with the indoor recycled air.

---

I'm not sure that would apply to a warehouse store like Lowes/HD/Costco. I would need to hear more from someone with a bazooka on their back before I would get comfortable making a statement definitively however, since they are clearly the rational ones.

---

Even in those stores people tend to bunch up when you get to the checkout lines. If you keep the store emptier they don't have to.

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I just gotta say...I live in a place of about 20,000 people in Oregon. We have 2 big box stores for hardware Lowe's and Home Depot. I was going to get an electrical light on/off switch. I drive by Home Depot and there's a line of people bunched up. Because Home Depot is only letting so many people in the store (I think it was 50). Anyway..my jaw dropped because they're basically creating a problem that was never there. By stopping people from entering they're just bunching people up lol.

---

Honestly, though, it actually IS better if people bunch up outside rather than inside. The virus would spread faster with the indoor recycled air.

---

I'm not sure that would apply to a warehouse store like Lowes/HD/Costco. I would need to hear more from someone with a bazooka on their back before I would get comfortable making a statement definitively however, since they are clearly the rational ones.

---

Even in those stores people tend to bunch up when you get to the checkout lines. If you keep the store emptier they don't have to.

---

yeah I mean we've already established that the applicable demographic is unconcerned with appropriate spacing. I'm just challenging whether the airflow in a warehouse with 50 foot ceilings makes it less safe to bunch up at a cash register vs outside vs staring at the power tools.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I just gotta say...I live in a place of about 20,000 people in Oregon. We have 2 big box stores for hardware Lowe's and Home Depot. I was going to get an electrical light on/off switch. I drive by Home Depot and there's a line of people bunched up. Because Home Depot is only letting so many people in the store (I think it was 50). Anyway..my jaw dropped because they're basically creating a problem that was never there. By stopping people from entering they're just bunching people up lol.

---

Honestly, though, it actually IS better if people bunch up outside rather than inside. The virus would spread faster with the indoor recycled air.

---

I'm not sure that would apply to a warehouse store like Lowes/HD/Costco. I would need to hear more from someone with a bazooka on their back before I would get comfortable making a statement definitively however, since they are clearly the rational ones.

---

Even in those stores people tend to bunch up when you get to the checkout lines. If you keep the store emptier they don't have to.

---

yeah I mean we've already established that the applicable demographic is unconcerned with appropriate spacing. I'm just challenging whether the airflow in a warehouse with 50 foot ceilings makes it less safe to bunch up at a cash register vs outside vs staring at the power tools.

---

I guess it's possible that it makes no difference, though I'd assume that all else being equal it's better to be outside if you're around people.

Is that Eagle Scout Dad planing to shoot Biden's campaign plane out of the air?

There seems to be a lot of cognitive dissonance on the right regarding the nation-wide response to COVID.

Many blame Newsom for not "opening up" California (and leaders in other states) but they fail to acknowledge that leadership either needs to come from the states or the federal government. The federal government alternates between telling us that it's up to the states, and promulgating federal guidelines. The feds came up with their own "plan" and even had the CDC draw up more detailed guidelines, but rejected those because they were too focused on protecting the nation's public health. The right says the SIP plan has changed without acknowledging that the White House response has changed innumerable times since the SIP orders were in place. I still don't know what Trump is pretending to believe today - is it that he's in charge or that the states are in charge? If someone can make sense of his contradictory logorrhea, please let me know.

The right seems to agree that they want the economy to be better and that whatever the resultant excess death amount is would definitely be acceptable to them, but they haven't presented any compelling reason to convince people to take on unknown risk for unknown benefit. We are making a beeline for 200k dead from the virus in the next few months when just weeks ago we were assured it would be under 60k. Can someone on the right tell me what number would make this bad? And don't talk about how the death counts are inflated. There were only something like 2,500 confirmed H1N1 deaths in the US but the right has no problem with the official number of 12,500 (or in Trump's case, using the maximum end of the range at 17,000+). Is 200k acceptable? Is 500k? 1M?

This is a demand shock and the demand won't increase until people feel safe interacting face to face in our economy. As has been demonstrated amply on this forum, the demand shock began without regard to whether SIP orders were in place, and are likely to continue regardless of "reopening". When we see an increase in daily death counts as a result of more and more people participating in the economy, will anyone be surprised if we see another drop in demand as people choose to sit it out until they feel safe again?

If you want the economy to improve on a national level, the reality is that you need to have coordinated efforts - which means you need a focused white house taking measured steps. Instead we have a chaotic one which constantly folds back on itself and can't determine whether it has any power to do anything or whether anyone else does. If the federal government can't stay on message and govern in a disciplined manner, it will continue to harm our country and blame the governors.

You want Gavin Newsom to "open" but we don't yet meet the minimum criteria to re-open according to the Trump plan which has not been officially disavowed. Further, I think Gavin has been fairly consistent. He shut it down on March 20 and 3 weeks later announced the 6 indicators needed to modify the SIP order.

And just a reminder that President Trump said on April 23 that the shutdown saved at least a million lives and probably many times that number. Same President that Ben Shapiro and all of the other conservative celebrities continue to support for his role in this pandemic.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

You make a sweeping statement that "Conservatives who used to trumpet the rule of law now openly encourage people to ignore laws they find inconvenient" - only conservatives. I respond by pointing out that democrats (in fact our current governor ) often advocate breaking laws. And it wasn't just 2004 wedding licensees - but current sanctuary policies. And then you decry whataboutism. Laughable.

---

I guess I need to slow it down for you. Please pay attention because you seem to have missed this before. Republicans always talk about being the law and order party. Democrats don't. That's why I'm criticizing Republicans for their hypocrisy.

---

Let me slow it down for you. Many Democrats talk about breaking laws they, unilaterally, feel are unconstitutional or unjust. Newsom, in particular has done this. That's why I'm criticizing Newsom for his hypocrisy in insisting that people follow his unconstitutional and unjust orders.

And to be clear, unlike you, I don't paint in wide brushes. Not all democrats (or republicans) see things this way. But Newsom clearly does, as evidenced by his issuing illegal (at the time) gay marriage license and adopting sanctuary policies.

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

You make a sweeping statement that "Conservatives who used to trumpet the rule of law now openly encourage people to ignore laws they find inconvenient" - only conservatives. I respond by pointing out that democrats (in fact our current governor ) often advocate breaking laws. And it wasn't just 2004 wedding licensees - but current sanctuary policies. And then you decry whataboutism. Laughable.

---

I guess I need to slow it down for you. Please pay attention because you seem to have missed this before. Republicans always talk about being the law and order party. Democrats don't. That's why I'm criticizing Republicans for their hypocrisy.

---

Let me slow it down for you. Many Democrats talk about breaking laws they, unilaterally, feel are unconstitutional or unjust. Newsom, in particular has done this. That's why I'm criticizing Newsom for his hypocrisy in insisting that people follow his unconstitutional and unjust orders.

And to be clear, unlike you, I don't paint in wide brushes. Not all democrats (or republicans) see things this way. But Newsom clearly does, as evidenced by his issuing illegal (at the time) gay marriage license and adopting sanctuary policies.

---

Did I miss something? Has the Supreme Court ruled that Newsom failed to adhere to the US constitution? Until such time, I think it is a tad presumptuous to suggest that Newsom's actions were unconstitutional. In time, the courts will decide that matter.

Secondly, the pages of American history are filled with examples of men and women who "broke the law" to advance a specific issue or a cause. In many, many cases, those actions led to a change in the law or a Supreme Court decision in their favor.

I don't think "breaking the law" in some instances is wrong (i.e., the issue of gay marriage). Obviously, subsequent court decisions confirmed that Newsom was on the right side of history. As for the sanctuary issue, it is currently working its way through the court system. Until a final verdict is reached, one cannot assume it is unconstitutional.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4403884/3-6-18-US-v-California-Complaint.pdf

Since it is too soon to tell who was "right" and who was "wrong" regarding the current situation, we can only surmise whether actions being taken today are a suppression of individual rights. As noted earlier, time will tell...

As I've often found, people only care about the legality or illegality, and by extension, the constitutionality of something, whether they like or dislike the act in question.

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

You make a sweeping statement that "Conservatives who used to trumpet the rule of law now openly encourage people to ignore laws they find inconvenient" - only conservatives. I respond by pointing out that democrats (in fact our current governor ) often advocate breaking laws. And it wasn't just 2004 wedding licensees - but current sanctuary policies. And then you decry whataboutism. Laughable.

---

I guess I need to slow it down for you. Please pay attention because you seem to have missed this before. Republicans always talk about being the law and order party. Democrats don't. That's why I'm criticizing Republicans for their hypocrisy.

---

Let me slow it down for you. Many Democrats talk about breaking laws they, unilaterally, feel are unconstitutional or unjust. Newsom, in particular has done this. That's why I'm criticizing Newsom for his hypocrisy in insisting that people follow his unconstitutional and unjust orders.

And to be clear, unlike you, I don't paint in wide brushes. Not all democrats (or republicans) see things this way. But Newsom clearly does, as evidenced by his issuing illegal (at the time) gay marriage license and adopting sanctuary policies.

---

I think it's interesting that you are so hung up on Newsom's issuance of gay marriage licenses. You say that that he broke the law, but he asserted that the laws preventing gay marriage were unconstitutional, and he was proven right. You may recall that the constitution is the highest law of the land.

And as for sanctuary city policies, I don't recall the supreme court having weighed in and declaring them unconstitutional or in violation of federal law, but please direct me to the precedent if i'm missing something.

And thank you for not painting with a broad brush. That so clearly comes through in your engagement here.

EDIT: 71Bear beat me to it!

Unit2Sucks said:

---

There seems to be a lot of cognitive dissonance on the right regarding the nation-wide response to COVID.

Many blame Newsom for not "opening up" California (and leaders in other states) but they fail to acknowledge that leadership either needs to come from the states or the federal government. The federal government alternates between telling us that it's up to the states, and promulgating federal guidelines. The feds came up with their own "plan" and even had the CDC draw up more detailed guidelines, but rejected those because they were too focused on protecting the nation's public health. The right says the SIP plan has changed without acknowledging that the White House response has changed innumerable times since the SIP orders were in place. I still don't know what Trump is pretending to believe today - is it that he's in charge or that the states are in charge? If someone can make sense of his contradictory logorrhea, please let me know.

The right seems to agree that they want the economy to be better and that whatever the resultant excess death amount is would definitely be acceptable to them, but they haven't presented any compelling reason to convince people to take on unknown risk for unknown benefit. We are making a beeline for 200k dead from the virus in the next few months when just weeks ago we were assured it would be under 60k. Can someone on the right tell me what number would make this bad? And don't talk about how the death counts are inflated. There were only something like 2,500 confirmed H1N1 deaths in the US but the right has no problem with the official number of 12,500 (or in Trump's case, using the maximum end of the range at 17,000+). Is 200k acceptable? Is 500k? 1M?

This is a demand shock and the demand won't increase until people feel safe interacting face to face in our economy. As has been demonstrated amply on this forum, the demand shock began without regard to whether SIP orders were in place, and are likely to continue regardless of "reopening". When we see an increase in daily death counts as a result of more and more people participating in the economy, will anyone be surprised if we see another drop in demand as people choose to sit it out until they feel safe again?

If you want the economy to improve on a national level, the reality is that you need to have coordinated efforts - which means you need a focused white house taking measured steps. Instead we have a chaotic one which constantly folds back on itself and can't determine whether it has any power to do anything or whether anyone else does. If the federal government can't stay on message and govern in a disciplined manner, it will continue to harm our country and blame the governors.

You want Gavin Newsom to "open" but we don't yet meet the minimum criteria to re-open according to the Trump plan which has not been officially disavowed. Further, I think Gavin has been fairly consistent. He shut it down on March 20 and 3 weeks later announced the 6 indicators needed to modify the SIP order.

And just a reminder that President Trump said on April 23 that the shutdown saved at least a million lives and probably many times that number. Same President that Ben Shapiro and all of the other conservative celebrities continue to support for his role in this pandemic.

---

You keep posting this same drivel, without acknowledging that those (on the left and right) who advocate for SIP similarly cannot provide evidence of the unknown risk and unknown benefits of SIP. How many lives will be saved by continued SIP and how much economic damage will result (as compared to lifting SIP sooner, rather than later)? You don't know. NOBODY knows.

You have theories on demand shock - it is just a theory, not evidence. You have policy preferences and theories, not science.

What are the health risks of continued SIP? We don't know, but we know there will be deaths resulting from poverty and SIP. CNN says up to 75,000 https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/08/health/coronavirus-deaths-of-despair/index.html

For you, it always comes down to demonizing the right or conservatives. it is rather sad. There are some conservatives who want continued SIP (and are highly critical of Trump). And there are some progressives who want SIP removed in large part. But acknowledging that proven reality interferes with your "hate the right" narrative. So carry on.

BearGoggles said:

---

You keep posting this same drivel, without acknowledging that those (on the left and right) who advocate for SIP similarly cannot provide evidence of the unknown risk and unknown benefits of SIP. How many lives will be saved by continued SIP and how much economic damage will result (as compared to lifting SIP sooner, rather than later)? You don't know. NOBODY knows.

You have theories on demand shock - it is just a theory, not evidence. You have policy preferences and theories, not science.

What are the health risks of continued SIP? We don't know, but we know there will be deaths resulting from poverty and SIP. CNN says up to 75,000 https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/08/health/coronavirus-deaths-of-despair/index.html

For you, it always comes down to demonizing the right or conservatives. it is rather sad. There are some conservatives who want continued SIP (and are highly critical of Trump). And there are some progressives who want SIP removed in large part. But acknowledging that proven reality interferes with your "hate the right" narrative. So carry on.

---

You keep posting this same drivel, without acknowledging that those (on the left and right) who advocate against SIP similarly cannot provide evidence of the unknown risk and unknown benefits of ending SIP. How many lives will be saved by ending SIP and how much economic benefit will result (as compared to lifting SIP later, rather than sooner)? You don't know. NOBODY knows.

You have policy preferences and theories, not science or economics.

What are the health risks of ending SIP now? We don't know, but we know there will be deaths resulting from poverty and SIP because our economy will continue to be diminished just as it was before the SIP orders went into effect. CNN says up to 75,000 https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/08/health/coronavirus-deaths-of-despair/index.html but that's all completely made up with no science backing it and no reason to believe ending SIP will reduce it.

What are the economic benefits of ending SIP now? We don't know but you presume to believe that whatever those benefits are will outweigh the public health benefits of continuing SIP.

Stop pretending like you are something you aren't.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

<big snip>
Stop pretending like you are something you aren't.

---

He can't help himself. He's a conservative white male with an opinion. In his mind, that makes him an expert.

AunBear89 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

<big snip>
Stop pretending like you are something you aren't.

---

He can't help himself. He's a conservative white male with an opinion. In his mind, that makes him an expert.

---

I am curious as to your label, because clearly CWM's don't hold the market on self-proclaimed experts.

Civil Bear said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

<big snip>
Stop pretending like you are something you aren't.

---

He can't help himself. He's a conservative white male with an opinion. In his mind, that makes him an expert.

---

I am curious as to your label, because clearly CWM's don't hold the market on self-proclaimed experts.

---

True, but they hold the largest share of the market.

71Bear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

You make a sweeping statement that "Conservatives who used to trumpet the rule of law now openly encourage people to ignore laws they find inconvenient" - only conservatives. I respond by pointing out that democrats (in fact our current governor ) often advocate breaking laws. And it wasn't just 2004 wedding licensees - but current sanctuary policies. And then you decry whataboutism. Laughable.

---

I guess I need to slow it down for you. Please pay attention because you seem to have missed this before. Republicans always talk about being the law and order party. Democrats don't. That's why I'm criticizing Republicans for their hypocrisy.

---

Let me slow it down for you. Many Democrats talk about breaking laws they, unilaterally, feel are unconstitutional or unjust. Newsom, in particular has done this. That's why I'm criticizing Newsom for his hypocrisy in insisting that people follow his unconstitutional and unjust orders.

And to be clear, unlike you, I don't paint in wide brushes. Not all democrats (or republicans) see things this way. But Newsom clearly does, as evidenced by his issuing illegal (at the time) gay marriage license and adopting sanctuary policies.

---

Did I miss something? Has the Supreme Court ruled that Newsom failed to adhere to the US constitution? Until such time, I think it is a tad presumptuous to suggest that Newsom's actions were unconstitutional. In time, the courts will decide that matter.

Secondly, the pages of American history are filled with examples of men and women who "broke the law" to advance a specific issue or a cause. In many, many cases, those actions led to a change in the law or a Supreme Court decision in their favor.

I don't think "breaking the law" in some instances is wrong (i.e., the issue of gay marriage). Obviously, subsequent court decisions confirmed that Newsom was on the right side of history. As for the sanctuary issue, it is currently working its way through the court system. Until a final verdict is reached, one cannot assume it is unconstitutional.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4403884/3-6-18-US-v-California-Complaint.pdf

Since it is too soon to tell who was "right" and who was "wrong" regarding the current situation, we can only surmise whether actions being taken today are a suppression of individual rights. As noted earlier, time will tell...

---

As the resident lawyer know it all, I would just point out courts give the executive branch huge leeway in an emergency. Just don't ask me anything specific -not my area of practice.