Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And economy is something that bounces back and recovers. Seeing core needs and wants aren't changed and nothign concrete is destroyed once money flow starts to flow economy will start to recover and quite likely faster than some people expect.

Death is something you can't recover from. And ATM it's #1 killer in US and wouldn't surprise if Italy, Spain, French, UK etc it would be #1 death cause atm.

Of course, there need to be periods of lockdown to create breathing room so the economy can slowly start back up in a reduced capacity, as well as to create room for other essential healthcare that is on hold right now. Just having a full lockdown for a year is not feasible given other health issues that the population suffers from and the economic consequences.

But no country is advocating a full lockdown until a vaccine, they all want to have the periodic approach. Because the periodic approach is best in terms of cost benefit analysis. But now a period of lockdown is essential because having hundreds of thousands die to keep the economy going is certain to tank it regardless. The sectors hit hardest because of a lockdown would suffer the same fate from a runaway pandemic to preserve the economy.

What is frequently forgotten in the 'look at the number of deaths argument' is that A. This is with significant measures in place to blunt the number of death and B. When comparing it to other causes of death they tend to forget that those causes of death happen in a normal healthcare capacity, now watch all those causes shoot up together with Coronavirus deaths because your healthcare system just collapsed under a wave of patients it was not build to handle. Virus death numbers ignore all the other deaths that would be a consequence of an imploded healthcare system.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52262490?SThisFB&fbclid=IwAR2Dp85brmBWC0JQsKcrErFTL-Pg4z3DWyNgvEeW-mWulMRwtyhs-EFMDgg

Goodies star Brooke-Taylor dies with coronavirus


bugger.

I forgot also to mention that in my state the Facebook group is encouraging people to turn off their phones when they go out and drive "so the government can't use Google to get numbers telling them if citizens have been properly sheltering in place."

They are claiming Google is working with the government to make a program which can track individual people who can then be fined for travelling too far, so this will "defend" against that injustice, and will let you "travel as you please without restrictions".

People are calling for a march on the state capitol to force the state to lift restrictions, and at worse, remove certain leaders from office.

America is going to conspiracy theory and freedom riot ourselves into making the pandemic worse. A certain level of finding any kind of personal restriction to be horribly chafing is just self-harming.

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52262490?SThisFB&fbclid=IwAR2Dp85brmBWC0JQsKcrErFTL-Pg4z3DWyNgvEeW-mWulMRwtyhs-EFMDgg

Goodies star Brooke-Taylor dies with coronavirus


bugger.

Oh feth no. Wasn't a massive fan of the Goodies but am a huge fan of I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue (best radio panel game ever, in my opinion). Only got Graeme Garden left on that front. Really thankful I got the chance to see the live Isihac show with Tim in January

tneva82 wrote:
And economy is something that bounces back and recovers. .

UK side the furlough payments should help the economy bounce back fairly well. We will still lose many businesses, but we should manage to maintain enough to kick things off well to a restart. Granted it generates a lot of national level debt, but hopefully by keeping things "sort of going" during with payments, it should boost any recovery period.


I'm not as sure about the US approach which seems to be putting the loan in the name of individuals rather than the nation; which might help bounce things back, but could also mute any recovery as people all end up with a debt over their heads at a personal level; curtailing investment/spending.

 Matt Swain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
A tiny glimmer of sanity and intelligence on the viral front coming from an unexpected place.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/492346-kentucky-governor-announces-state-will-record-license-plate-information

Yeah, but that is very very very very illegal.

Just because it would be for the best for everybody to stay home doesn't mean you can violate 2 Constitutional rights as well as a host of settled case law surrounding those rights. Thats far worse than any harm spreading the virus could do.

1) You can't force quarantine on people who haven't tested positive. That violates the Sixth amendment. Quarantine legally requires Due Process be given. IE: The person has to have been tested positive for a disease AND then have a court order to remain in custody.

2) Saying that you can't meet for religious services, even temporarily, clearly violates the 1st amendment. You are prohibiting the free exercise of religion, as well as the right to peaceably assemble.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

And I've been seeing some of the alarmist posts about taking away our freedoms too. While some good points have been raised, I think that this is a special situation where suspending a few things is for the greater good [/tau]. I don't actually think the government is going to continue to enact these measures once the threat of the virus has gone away. Maybe I'm woefully naive in thinking this, but...eh.

This would set a precedent that the government can just "declare an emergency" and then proceed to ignore any rights they choose. That is a terrible idea. Its the line of thinking that led to the Japanese Internment Camps in WW2.

Coronavirus is definitely not serious enough that we can excuse the ignoring of basic rights. Having advice that we should shelter in place and avoid unnecessary exposure is fine. But Enforcing that advice is morally unacceptable.

Seriously? We had a little things called 9-11 in which ~3,000 americans were killed and we got the patriot act, FISA courts, no knock warrants, unlimited surveillance wiretaps, trials with secret evidence the defense was not allowed to see, detention without trial, or legal council, torture, rendition to foreign countries for torture, etc. and it's still going on.

Within a couple days the covid pandemic will kill 10x more americans than 9-11 did. If temporarily violating the rights of church goers to slow it's spread helps, then lets do it. It's not like these people are being held indefinitely without charges, legal council, family contact, etc. it's not like they're being waterboarded or subject to other forms of torture. They're being told they can't go to church for a few months maybe. They think that violates their rights? Waah waah. They mostly want to force rape victims to go thru with a forced pregnancy. I don't give a if they can't go to church for a few months. Waah waah.

Let's face it, the post 911 patriot act and other acts pretty much rendered the constitution moot anyway. We're dealing with something that probably going to kill at least 20x more americans than 911 did. Close the churches.

You're assuming that the Patriot act is Constitutional. Its definitely not.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

2) Saying that you can't meet for religious services, even temporarily, clearly violates the 1st amendment. You are prohibiting the free exercise of religion, as well as the right to peaceably assemble.

It doesn't have to violate the free exercise of religion, because even religion is limited in its free exercise depending on what the religion entails. Where the interest of the state clashes with religion, the state takes precedence, such as with polygamy.

Temporarily suspending services in the public interest would probably hold up at the SC, because it is not forbidding the practice of said religion, just the assembly of the congregation for a period of time. Meanwhile services can easily continue in a world that has radio, tv and the internet.

The freedom of assembly is also limited by certain factors where the state trumps personal freedom, such as an immediate threat to public safety, which you could possibly argue pretty well in front of the SC for. As these people might get infected at a church service, which is not essential (being food and medication to survive) and then infect people at essential services such as supermarkets and pharmacies. It just cannot unfairly single out church services, but if everything gets suspended, they are not being unfairly targeted.

Yes the first amendment protects quite a bit, but if push comes to shove the state would probably win in the SC based on precedence in similar cases due to the exceptional circumstances of a pandemic.

It would be quite a stretch to say that simply holding a service alone is a compelling threat to safety and security to be a valid reason for violating the 1st amendment on two different counts(Religion and Assembly) for several reasons. The only precedent for a crackdown of this magnitude is Foreign Invasion. Pandemics do not have legal precedent for violations of this magnitude.

Its one thing to prevent the practice polygamy or human sacrifice. Its a huge stretch to make that same logic cover simply meeting in a public place. The 1st amendment is designed to protect from this exact situation. An overzealous government coming up with excuses to prevent gatherings and practice.

If this were to be held as legal, it would also be legal to permanently shut down all Mosques because Muslim terrorists attacked the WTC because you can declare "Its in the public interest". Not a good precedent.

 Grey Templar wrote:


It would be quite a stretch to say that simply holding a service alone is a compelling threat to safety and security to be a valid reason for violating the 1st amendment on two different counts(Religion and Assembly) for several reasons. The only precedent for a crackdown of this magnitude is Foreign Invasion. Pandemics do not have legal precedent for violations of this magnitude.

Its one thing to prevent the practice polygamy or human sacrifice. Its a huge stretch to make that same logic cover simply meeting in a public place. The 1st amendment is designed to protect from this exact situation. An overzealous government coming up with excuses to prevent gatherings and practice.

If this were to be held as legal, it would also be legal to permanently shut down all Mosques because Muslim terrorists attacked the WTC because you can declare "Its in the public interest". Not a good precedent.

It's not preventing nor shutting down organised religious groups.
It's simply preventing physical gatherings of people in the same place, which happens to also include religious gatherings.

You can still gather on skype or facebook; you can still transmit the services through twitch or youtube to the flock etc...


Furthermore its proven that the virus spreads person to person very rapidly when in close proximity to other people and when in an enclosed space. Meanwhile you don't just walk into a Mosque and "catch terrorism" by being with a group. The two are in no way comparable.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

2) Saying that you can't meet for religious services, even temporarily, clearly violates the 1st amendment. You are prohibiting the free exercise of religion, as well as the right to peaceably assemble.

It doesn't have to violate the free exercise of religion, because even religion is limited in its free exercise depending on what the religion entails. Where the interest of the state clashes with religion, the state takes precedence, such as with polygamy.

Temporarily suspending services in the public interest would probably hold up at the SC, because it is not forbidding the practice of said religion, just the assembly of the congregation for a period of time. Meanwhile services can easily continue in a world that has radio, tv and the internet.

The freedom of assembly is also limited by certain factors where the state trumps personal freedom, such as an immediate threat to public safety, which you could possibly argue pretty well in front of the SC for. As these people might get infected at a church service, which is not essential (being food and medication to survive) and then infect people at essential services such as supermarkets and pharmacies. It just cannot unfairly single out church services, but if everything gets suspended, they are not being unfairly targeted.

Yes the first amendment protects quite a bit, but if push comes to shove the state would probably win in the SC based on precedence in similar cases due to the exceptional circumstances of a pandemic.

It would be quite a stretch to say that simply holding a service alone is a compelling threat to safety and security to be a valid reason for violating the 1st amendment on two different counts(Religion and Assembly) for several reasons. The only precedent for a crackdown of this magnitude is Foreign Invasion. Pandemics do not have legal precedent for violations of this magnitude.

Its one thing to prevent the practice polygamy or human sacrifice. Its a huge stretch to make that same logic cover simply meeting in a public place. The 1st amendment is designed to protect from this exact situation. An overzealous government coming up with excuses to prevent gatherings and practice.

If this were to be held as legal, it would also be legal to permanently shut down all Mosques because Muslim terrorists attacked the WTC. Not a good precedent.

Well that depends on how you view the safety argument. What would fall under that? Something as bad as a pandemic might get included because just like war, its a massive threat to the stability of the state. The argument can be made in that regard that temporary (which really needs to be stressed) suspension of physical services on location should be on the table if the proper distance is not able to be maintained. For the sake of argument, fire codes and amount of people inside are already a restriction on church services in a building no? Nevertheless, I don't think this is going to become something that the courts get involved in. Either these services happen without much issue or the congregation gets sick and starts dying of and self preservation start kicking in.

The 1st amendment is not a blank cheque, it also states that the state make no law against it. But a temporary suspension is not a governmental ban, because there is a clear point when this suspension will stop, the end of the pandemic. That is not down to government excuses. This is also the issue with your mosque example. That is blatantly problematic in court because it is a blanket ban against one specific religion for an act outside their control, instead of a temporary suspension for all religions equally in response to a massive public health crisis. And everything is getting shut down, temporarily so the argument that this is against freedom of religion will be a tough one to sell in court.

 Overread wrote:

It's not preventing nor shutting down organised religious groups.
It's simply preventing physical gatherings of people in the same place, which happens to also include religious gatherings.

You can still gather on skype or facebook; you can still transmit the services through twitch or youtube to the flock etc...

Banning, even temporarily, gathering in the same place does specifically target religious groups. Especially when that group's beliefs do have explicit exhortations to gather together. Its also coincided with Easter, the most important religious event for Christianity.

Furthermore its proven that the virus spreads person to person very rapidly when in close proximity to other people and when in an enclosed space. Meanwhile you don't just walk into a Mosque and "catch terrorism" by being with a group. The two are in no way comparable.

If terrorists used Mosques to meet and plot their schemes, then it would be relevant to shut them down for public safety. Its the same justification being used here. Temporarily or permanently makes no difference.

Of would you also argue that the Japenese Internment Camps in WW2 were ok because they were also temporary?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well that depends on how you view the safety argument. What would fall under that? Something as bad as a pandemic might get included because just like war, its a massive threat to the stability of the state. The argument can be made in that regard that temporary (which really needs to be stressed) suspension of physical services on location should be on the table if the proper distance is not able to be maintained. For the sake of argument, fire codes and amount of people inside are already a restriction on church services in a building no? Nevertheless, I don't think this is going to become something that the courts get involved in. Either these services happen without much issue or the congregation gets sick and starts dying of and self preservation start kicking in.

The 1st amendment is not a blank cheque, it also states that the state make no law against it. But a temporary suspension is not a governmental ban, because there is a clear point when this suspension will stop, the end of the pandemic. That is not down to government excuses. This is also the issue with your mosque example. That is blatantly problematic in court because it is a blanket ban against one specific religion for an act outside their control, instead of a temporary suspension for all religions equally in response to a massive public health crisis. And everything is shutting down, so the argument that this is against religion will be a tough one to sell in court.

Temporary or permanent doesn't really matter. Again, the Japanese Internment Camps were held to be illegal, but were justified with the same criteria we are currently using to justify shutting down Churches. They had a definite end point(End of the War) and were arguably in public interest.

The timing also shows this isn't effecting all religions equally. This is Easter weekend.

Pandemics don't really have the same emergency level as war. War threatens the entire population because there is the threat of a foreign invasion. If an invasion did occur, casualties from that would far eclipse any pandemic. The death projections for COVID have severely dropped over the last couple days. Enough to where you can't justify draconian measures like this any longer.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:


- Public opinion seems to be wildly in favor of protecting all life instead of the economy. There doesn't appear to be a recognition of the long term consequences of keeping the economy shut down, which also involves mortality. The comparative metrics for economic instability aren't available to the public (nor should they be.) A lot of the people chiming in on what should be the next steps are very short sighted, and that's kind of dangerous.

Then by all means, do the math, or find a source. Essential jobs are not shut down, many industries are working from home or just trudging along- so if this economic impact is so dire, what percentage of our economy do we need to keep shut down for a few months to stop the spread of this thing? What percentage of our economy is shut down right now? For that matter, what's unemployment, which is essentially what shutdown does, do to life expectancy? And another factor to consider- how much does each Coronavirus victim's treatment cost? Not even the just the deaths, the ones who are hospitalized for a week and put on ventilators.

Once you've got the numbers of probable deaths from unemployment, compare it to the death toll of an unmitigated Corona virus outbreak. This should give you a raw life comparison, form a very utilitarian mindset.

Adjust for cost of treatment of victims.

Then, finally, calculate the average age of virus victims. Compare with average age of retirement, and average earnings. That'll give you a rough estimate of the economic value of a worker. If you can find something about how much they contribute to GDP or another of the economic factors, all the better. Then you can tell us what this mysterious and feared economic impact is, and why it is more important than the deaths of our friends and family.

The Great Depression was the last time our economy was ruined- and it increased life expectancy. https://www.history.com/news/great-depression-economy-life-expectancy

Yeah, the problem with that is the wild political angle. It's an election year in the US, we're not going to see anything approaching accuracy in the figures. It's not that you can't do the math, it's that you can't discuss it intelligently in a manner that helps people understand their options.

Instead, we have projections. One rubric that's getting tossed about is 97% of the economy can restart if we get back to work by April 15, 92% of the economy can restart if this goes to May 1. No way to tell you how accurate either number is, projections are an attempt to influence behavior more than provide an accurate gauge of the future.

An aspect people don't understand fully about the economic angle is the amount that gets spent on healthcare in the US. It's almost 18% of the GDP, and slightly more than half that amount goes to care delivered in the last 6 months of life. Were we to lose a lot of seniors, there's about $2T of services that won't be delivered. That's part of the economic argument in favor of keeping the economy shut down.

OTOH, if we move too fast, that's a significant chunk of the GDP that doesn't get spent in another area. The number of doctors, clinicians, nurses, therapists, supply manufacturers, etc who would get caught up in this is significant, they can't all just take different jobs.

So there's a give and take that goes along with all of this. Healthcare is not the only one. Any retail sales that operate on a manufacturer -> distributor -> storefront model is at risk right now, that describes about 40% of US consumer spending. Stimulus dollars will help but some industries are going to go under.

My sisters neighbours had a visit from the constabulary today. They had people over for a barbecue a few days ago and today they had visitors for a Sunday meal I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. TBH at this stage if it wasn't for the extra danger they are putting others in I'd say screw em and let natural selection do its thing.

Oh and seven hundred and thirty seven hospital deaths today in the UK.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Overread wrote:

It's not preventing nor shutting down organised religious groups.
It's simply preventing physical gatherings of people in the same place, which happens to also include religious gatherings.

You can still gather on skype or facebook; you can still transmit the services through twitch or youtube to the flock etc...

Banning, even temporarily, gathering in the same place does specifically target religious groups. Especially when that group's beliefs do have explicit exhortations to gather together. Its also coincided with Easter, the most important religious event for Christianity.

Except its not targeting religions, its targeting gatherings. Public meetings; fairs; country shows; sporting events (all); music halls; dance clubs; hobby groups (including warhammer); live esport events; music fairs; conventions; parties; beaches everything. You'd have to really argue that religion is in some way except from temporary measure to ban/restrict mass gatherings when those restrictions are purely designed to help safeguard all those attending and the greater population as a whole.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Furthermore its proven that the virus spreads person to person very rapidly when in close proximity to other people and when in an enclosed space. Meanwhile you don't just walk into a Mosque and "catch terrorism" by being with a group. The two are in no way comparable.

If terrorists used Mosques to meet and plot their schemes, then it would be relevant to shut them down for public safety. Its the same justification being used here. Temporarily or permanently makes no difference.

Of would you also argue that the Japenese Internment Camps in WW2 were ok because they were also temporary?

Except that the virus cannot spread to other people if people are not meeting up; meanwhile your example of terrorists; the shutting down of one religious groups gathering place would not prevent recruitment, planning nor preparation. A terrorist group can adapt to communicate in other ways - a virus cannot just suddenly say "Ok I can't spread by association I'll start spreading by spores in the air spread over huge distances." This is the real world not Plague Inc.

Prison camps during war time have nothing to do with this; its a weak attempt to deflect the discussion into another line of argument where you can gain an upper hand or at least hold a valid position.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well that depends on how you view the safety argument. What would fall under that? Something as bad as a pandemic might get included because just like war, its a massive threat to the stability of the state. The argument can be made in that regard that temporary (which really needs to be stressed) suspension of physical services on location should be on the table if the proper distance is not able to be maintained. For the sake of argument, fire codes and amount of people inside are already a restriction on church services in a building no? Nevertheless, I don't think this is going to become something that the courts get involved in. Either these services happen without much issue or the congregation gets sick and starts dying of and self preservation start kicking in.

The 1st amendment is not a blank cheque, it also states that the state make no law against it. But a temporary suspension is not a governmental ban, because there is a clear point when this suspension will stop, the end of the pandemic. That is not down to government excuses. This is also the issue with your mosque example. That is blatantly problematic in court because it is a blanket ban against one specific religion for an act outside their control, instead of a temporary suspension for all religions equally in response to a massive public health crisis. And everything is shutting down, so the argument that this is against religion will be a tough one to sell in court.

Temporary or permanent doesn't really matter. Again, the Japanese Internment Camps were held to be illegal, but were justified with the same criteria we are currently using to justify shutting down Churches. They had a definite end point(End of the War) and were arguably in public interest.

The timing also shows this isn't effecting all religions equally. This is Easter weekend.

Pandemics don't really have the same emergency level as war. War threatens the entire population because there is the threat of a foreign invasion. If an invasion did occur, casualties from that would far eclipse any pandemic. The death projections for COVID have severely dropped over the last couple days. Enough to where you can't justify draconian measures like this any longer.

Japanese internment camps are a terrible example, which was brought on by nothing more than racism as evidenced by the fact that German Americans and Italian Americans were judged on an individual basis as opposed to collective punishment for Japanese Americans. So you have a disproportionate measure based on the ethnicity of a population that you don't even maintain for other 'hostile' nationalities.

Meanwhile the Coronavirus measures apply to everyone and every religion equally, churches are just a small part of public life being shut down, they aren't unfairly singled out for this. Coronavirus is a much greater threat to the state than some vague accusation of Japanese American spying..

As for Easter weekend, I'm sorry that the Coronavirus did not take the religious calendar into consideration, bad virus? Besides Easter it also hits Passover for the Jews and at this point and Ramadan for Muslims in the upcoming weeks. So yes, all religions equally.

Wait, you think a pandemic is not akin to war? Without measures a projected +/- 2 million Americans were going to die from Coronavirus alone, let alone all other conditions that would go untreated and too little capacity pushing up the death rate. How are those not wartime numbers? That is worse than any war the US has ever experienced, including the Civil War on its own soil. Death projections have dropped exatcly because of measures to enforce distancing. Packing everyone together in church for Easter does the exact opposite of what caused the death projections to fall so much lower...

GoatboyBeta wrote:
My sisters neighbours had a visit from the constabulary today. They had people over for a barbecue a few days ago and today they had visitors for a Sunday meal I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. TBH at this stage if it wasn't for the extra danger they are putting others in I'd say screw em and let natural selection do its thing.

Oh and seven hundred and thirty seven hospital deaths today in the UK.

The law only prohibits gatherings in public places, so I have no idea why the police feel they have any right to visit them.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
My sisters neighbours had a visit from the constabulary today. They had people over for a barbecue a few days ago and today they had visitors for a Sunday meal I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. TBH at this stage if it wasn't for the extra danger they are putting others in I'd say screw em and let natural selection do its thing.

Oh and seven hundred and thirty seven hospital deaths today in the UK.

The law only prohibits gatherings in public places, so I have no idea why the police feel they have any right to visit them.

Aren't you only 'allowed' to go outside to shop for essentials, exercise once, work or care for someone/medical care?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
My sisters neighbours had a visit from the constabulary today. They had people over for a barbecue a few days ago and today they had visitors for a Sunday meal I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. TBH at this stage if it wasn't for the extra danger they are putting others in I'd say screw em and let natural selection do its thing.

Oh and seven hundred and thirty seven hospital deaths today in the UK.

The law only prohibits gatherings in public places, so I have no idea why the police feel they have any right to visit them.

Aren't you only 'allowed' to go outside to shop for essentials, exercise once, work or care for someone/medical care?

Exactly, organising parties and having people visit is totally non-essential travel.

No, that is the advice /guidance, not the law. The law is a lot less restrictive than what the government would like us to do as laid out in their guidelines, but they are somewhat wary of breaching parts of the ECHR, and rightly so. For example, you can leave your house for whatever reason you like, as many times as you like, despite the police setting up snitch websites for curtain twitchers to grass up their neighbours. This is why we've had problems. Certain parts of the law are unclear, and some police have mistaken some of the guidance for things they can enforce, (despite it really being in their professional remit to ensure they are aware of what can and can not be enforced.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
My sisters neighbours had a visit from the constabulary today. They had people over for a barbecue a few days ago and today they had visitors for a Sunday meal I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. TBH at this stage if it wasn't for the extra danger they are putting others in I'd say screw em and let natural selection do its thing.

Oh and seven hundred and thirty seven hospital deaths today in the UK.

The law only prohibits gatherings in public places, so I have no idea why the police feel they have any right to visit them.

Aren't you only 'allowed' to go outside to shop for essentials, exercise once, work or care for someone/medical care?

Exactly, organising parties and having people visit is totally non-essential travel.

But not illegal.

tneva82 wrote:
"Asked by a journalist about the level of testing for the coronavirus across the US, the president answered: “This is a very brilliant enemy. You know, it’s a brilliant enemy. They develop drugs like the antibiotics. You see it. Antibiotics used to solve every problem. Now one of the biggest problems the world has is the germ has gotten so brilliant that the antibiotic can’t keep up with it."

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Trump doesn't even know difference between virus and bacteria. And clearly doesn't even ask experts on it.

Dunno what's scary. That trump doesn't know or that he basically admits virus is more intelligent than himself...

Trump doesn't literally believe that the virus is smart, but he does follow the long-held belief that germs are slowly adapting to be more resistant to our medicines and antibiotics. He words it very poorly, but what else is new with Trump? I think he was being facetious, personally, but it just came out wrong.

 ZergSmasher wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
"Asked by a journalist about the level of testing for the coronavirus across the US, the president answered: “This is a very brilliant enemy. You know, it’s a brilliant enemy. They develop drugs like the antibiotics. You see it. Antibiotics used to solve every problem. Now one of the biggest problems the world has is the germ has gotten so brilliant that the antibiotic can’t keep up with it."

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Trump doesn't even know difference between virus and bacteria. And clearly doesn't even ask experts on it.

Dunno what's scary. That trump doesn't know or that he basically admits virus is more intelligent than himself...

Trump doesn't literally believe that the virus is smart, but he does follow the long-held belief that germs are slowly adapting to be more resistant to our medicines and antibiotics. He words it very poorly, but what else is new with Trump? I think he was being facetious, personally, but it just came out wrong.

Eh point is the guy thinks antibiotics should work here. Those work on bacteria. Not on virus. Corona isn't smart by being adapting. Antibiotics were never going to affect it! You don't get rid of virus with antibiotics. Only reason you are given antibiotics when in hospital due to corona is there's potential for bacterial infection alongside which doesn't make things easier.

Corona didn't adapt to antibiotics. It was immune to it from get go just like every single virus in the human history. Trying antibiotics vs virus is like trying to use water as fuel for gasoline engine...Good luck doing that!

Trump doesn't even know what difference there is between virus and bacteria(and this is pretty darn basic knowledge which doesn't even require any speial teaching...). Nor even bother to ask any of experts he has(or at least should have) around to help him in areas where his experience doesn't cover.

Scary how somebody who has so little grasp of basics is leading US and affecting response to the corona.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
My sisters neighbours had a visit from the constabulary today. They had people over for a barbecue a few days ago and today they had visitors for a Sunday meal I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. TBH at this stage if it wasn't for the extra danger they are putting others in I'd say screw em and let natural selection do its thing.

Oh and seven hundred and thirty seven hospital deaths today in the UK.

The law only prohibits gatherings in public places, so I have no idea why the police feel they have any right to visit them.

Same reason the police have a right to visit someone's home when they're filming a snuff movie. They're doing harm, which can easily end up with corpses.

This isn't a TV murder mystery or a hypothetical rights discussion. This is a worldwide epidemic. Having a party while people die is literally a villainous cliche in this scenario.

I had a very scary time last night.

My daughter was coming home from a walk in the evening. SHe said there was a bus parked outside, with one passenger in it who was unconscious.

We looked out of our front window. The bus was there. The driver was outside, talking on his smartphone. He had blue gloves but no mask.

We didn't know what to do. I want to go and help, maybe offer him a cup of tea, but my wife forbade me.

After a while the ambulance arrived. Two paramedics got out. Ther had masks, gloves and aprons, but no face shields.

They got the casualty out of the bus. She was a middle-aged woman, it looked like. They took her into the amulance on a folding trolley stretcher.

The ambulance, then the bus drove off.

All this happened about 30 yards from my front door.

Voss wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
My sisters neighbours had a visit from the constabulary today. They had people over for a barbecue a few days ago and today they had visitors for a Sunday meal I honestly don't know what its going to take for the message to get through to some people. TBH at this stage if it wasn't for the extra danger they are putting others in I'd say screw em and let natural selection do its thing.

Oh and seven hundred and thirty seven hospital deaths today in the UK.

The law only prohibits gatherings in public places, so I have no idea why the police feel they have any right to visit them.

Same reason the police have a right to visit someone's home when they're filming a snuff movie. They're doing harm, which can easily end up with corpses.

This isn't a TV murder mystery or a hypothetical rights discussion. This is a worldwide epidemic. Having a party while people die is literally a villainous cliche in this scenario.

Except a snuff film would feature murder, which is an actual crime, so try again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I had a very scary time last night.

My daughter was coming home from a walk in the evening. SHe said there was a bus parked outside, with one passenger in it who was unconscious.

We looked out of our front window. The bus was there. The driver was outside, talking on his smartphone. He had blue gloves but no mask.

We didn't know what to do. I want to go and help, maybe offer him a cup of tea, but my wife forbade me.

After a while the ambulance arrived. Two paramedics got out. Ther had masks, gloves and aprons, but no face shields.

They got the casualty out of the bus. She was a middle-aged woman, it looked like. They took her into the amulance on a folding trolley stretcher.

The ambulance, then the bus drove off.

All this happened about 30 yards from my front door.

Damn that's crazy. As a first aider/medic trained I would be obligated to go and help in the scenario, but I wonder if I would in the current circumstances or would I hesitate?

I'm a lapsed first aider, but the first rule of first aid is not to become part of the problem.

That's the dilemma facing all medics now, should you help without the proper equipment, and risk spreading the virus further?

I still think the bus driver could have been given a cup of tea without any serious hazard.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm a lapsed first aider, but the first rule of first aid is not to become part of the problem.

That's the dilemma facing all medics now, should you help without the proper equipment, and risk spreading the virus further?

I still think the bus driver could have been given a cup of tea without any serious hazard.

Need to invest in a Wallace and Gromit-esque remote controlled tea delivery trolley

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm a lapsed first aider, but the first rule of first aid is not to become part of the problem.

That's the dilemma facing all medics now, should you help without the proper equipment, and risk spreading the virus further?

I still think the bus driver could have been given a cup of tea without any serious hazard.

Leaving a cuppa on a wall or even the ground for him to pick up would probably have been fine, as long as you used a mug you didn't want back Poor guy must be bricking it, I hope he's kept informed. But overall your wife was probably right to stay out of it. As you said its best not to become part of the problem, and helping out could potentially expose you and your whole family, making things even worse.

tneva82 wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
"Asked by a journalist about the level of testing for the coronavirus across the US, the president answered: “This is a very brilliant enemy. You know, it’s a brilliant enemy. They develop drugs like the antibiotics. You see it. Antibiotics used to solve every problem. Now one of the biggest problems the world has is the germ has gotten so brilliant that the antibiotic can’t keep up with it."

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Trump doesn't even know difference between virus and bacteria. And clearly doesn't even ask experts on it.

Dunno what's scary. That trump doesn't know or that he basically admits virus is more intelligent than himself...

Trump doesn't literally believe that the virus is smart, but he does follow the long-held belief that germs are slowly adapting to be more resistant to our medicines and antibiotics. He words it very poorly, but what else is new with Trump? I think he was being facetious, personally, but it just came out wrong.

Eh point is the guy thinks antibiotics should work here. Those work on bacteria. Not on virus. Corona isn't smart by being adapting. Antibiotics were never going to affect it! You don't get rid of virus with antibiotics. Only reason you are given antibiotics when in hospital due to corona is there's potential for bacterial infection alongside which doesn't make things easier.

Corona didn't adapt to antibiotics. It was immune to it from get go just like every single virus in the human history. Trying antibiotics vs virus is like trying to use water as fuel for gasoline engine...Good luck doing that!

Trump doesn't even know what difference there is between virus and bacteria(and this is pretty darn basic knowledge which doesn't even require any speial teaching...). Nor even bother to ask any of experts he has(or at least should have) around to help him in areas where his experience doesn't cover.

Scary how somebody who has so little grasp of basics is leading US and affecting response to the corona.

feth me I'm the last one to defend the bloke, but you're trying to hard to manufacture outrage here. assuming the quote is accurate, he's talking about how adaptable microorganisms can be, and using how bacteria constantly outpace the efficacy of antibiotics as an example. Bacteria adapting to antibiotic treatments is not the same as a virus mutating, but it is analogous enough that I'll concede I understand his point and don't fundamentally disagree with it, rather than raging about the minute inaccuracies in how he's expressed himself and holding it up as an example of how big an idiot he is. There's already plenty of examples of that.

He seems to pretty specifically be saying that antibiotics cannot keep up with this particular problem. He is referencing the the problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Taken as a whole it is rather damming evidence that the head of managing this crisis does not know the difference between a virus and a bacterium. I do not expect a degree in micro biology, but that is basic knowledge I feel any official in a position of making decisions about this pandemic should know. That the topmost official does not bodes ill* for the US.

*Literally!

So the UK government is working on a contact tracing app.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52263244

I wouldn't worry to much about any privacy concerns. If there track record on other tech projects is anything to go by, we will all have been vaccinated before it goes live

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
He seems to pretty specifically be saying that antibiotics cannot keep up with this particular problem. He is referencing the the problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Taken as a whole it is rather damming evidence that the head of managing this crisis does not know the difference between a virus and a bacterium. I do not expect a degree in micro biology, but that is basic knowledge I feel any official in a position of making decisions about this pandemic should know. That the topmost official does not bodes ill* for the US.

*Literally!

This. How many times has Trump said something stupid Y, people came out and said he meant X, and then Trump comes out and says he did mean Y.

At this point, giving Trump the benefit of the doubt seems a bit naive.