Fox is reporting that it was a research project that escaped from a Wuhan lab... — Shawn

That's always been one of the theories, but it seems to be gaining more steam lately. The Chinese government's information is completely unreliable, so I don't think we'll ever have a clear answer of how it really got started.

I learned from watching the Texas broadcast that sign language for "viral test kit" is the motion of sticking a q-tip in your nose and swirling it around. You might need that. — frank

Makes sense. The sign for "you've contracted the virus and have a pre-existing immune system problem" is where the sign language guy bends over the Governor and simulates impregnating him. It's weird that there's a sign for such a specific thing, and it's often hard to find a Governor to complete the sign, but it's a good to know what it means so that you don't misinterpret it.

Per Cuomo 80% of the people who were intubated died. That means we have a really expensive supportive technology that mostly fails for this virus. — frank

That or they're dying of intubation. During the Civil War (spoiler alert, South lost), soldiers did whatever they could to avoid being treated because the treatment usually killed them.

The best way to avoid serious consequences during this crisis is not to be old.

For some reason the models say your state's peak deaths is two week away while my state's is already passed.

But they're going to open Texas! Woo hoo! — frank

I don't know what we'll do here. Georgia's governor is really pretty stupid. You'd think from the governors we elect that we really talk this slow.


I do like the dancing guy with the beard in the back left. Not sure what he's listening to, but he's way into it.

To come to the point, it is arguable that recent events challenge the notion of human perfectibility aided by scientific progress. It is also arguable that some event like a pandemic challenges the notion that decisions will always be better when left to the individual. — graham hackett

If the objective is to find a set of principles that apply in any hypothetical environment, I don't think you'll ever be successful. At some point, I think you have to apply some degree of pragmatism when circumstances change, temporarily or permanently. The point being, in times when an infectious disease does not threaten to wipe out the human race (and I understand that is an exaggeration of the current situation), what sorts of individual liberties ought be afforded and why? I think Mill's responses to that are persuasive, and I'm not terribly concerned and ready to jettison his theories just because we now are facing that sort of crisis. As with all theories (and consider perhaps comparing his ethical theory to Kant's), you can always arrive at some hypothetical that makes it unworkable. Will Kant really allow the world to explode if it means having to sacrifice a single person? Would Mill really allow me to throw innocent children in front of a runaway train in order to save a larger group of people? I mean, maybe, maybe not, but those sorts of things really don't happen enough for me to be concerned (again pragmatism).

These sorts of issues arise in other contexts. The US Constitution affords certain rights (not wholly different from what Mill advocates), and so one day a guy says he doesn't have to be inoculated against smallpox because that's his right. The Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Mass. said:

"The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.

It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine."

It's fairly clear the Constitution sounds fairly absolute in its declarations, yet, when it's interpreted, it has to make sense within the context it's being applied. But, as noted, the Court does not say "we hereby discard the principles set forth in the Constitution as unworkable" (as you suggest maybe it's time to swap Mill for Hobbes), but it instead explains how this exception must now apply. Philosophically we might consider this ad hoc because we don't have to live in the real world and apply our principles, which is why I consider pragmatism the proper way to describe how we allow for these exceptions.

There is a statement in the law that says "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" , which more clearly can be stated as "the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact

I think you can apply this same logic to Mill.

And, no, don't kick yourself for now realizing there might be problems with your thesis or that you should have least considered additional matters before submitting it. The purpose of your thesis was to get your degree, and you did that. But then again, I'm a pragmatist as to all things.

What's the right wing of the Repub party's excuse? — Baden

Can't say. My excuse is is that I don't interact with the elderlies, so I can't do any harm, so set me free. I'm also running out of room from all this toilet paper I've got.

I'm gonna go get an MD or something so I can control the damn world. Dr. Hanover will be an emancipator, not a regulator. He won't be spittin no viruses, just rhymes.

The medical and scientific community have made some mistakes, but you can safely presume politicians and pundits are more likely to intentionally mislead us than eggheads dragged from their labs and papers to deal with real life. — Baden

Mengele.

"South Dakota’s coronavirus cases have begun to soar after its governor steadfastly refused to mandate a quarantine.

The number of confirmed cases in the state has risen from 129 to 988 since April 1 — when Gov. Kristi Noem criticized the “draconian measures” of social distancing to stop the spread of the virus in her state.

Noem had criticized the quarantine idea as “herd mentality, not leadership” during a news conference, adding, “South Dakota is not New York.”"

Yall need to bring back public hanging of public officials. — StreetlightX

And their deaths per million is now 8, 2nd lowest in the nation. South Dakota isn't New York. There are 10.7 people per square mile in SD, compared to 411.2 in NY (70,826 per square mile in Manhattan). This is to say that South Dakotans practice more social distancing on an average day than a New Yorker practices on total lock down. It's not a one size fits all, which is why the individual governors are given the ability to decide the best course of action.

They didn't work hard to look this way. — Craiya

How do you know?

You aren't objecting to the way NY arrived at its decisions are you? Just smaller communities where the lockdown is presently causing hardship? — frank

I was purposefully vague enough not to specify what I was objecting to, but more concerned with the lack of oversight and what appears to be a naive assumption that these experts wouldn't steer us wrong because they are somehow the world's only neutral, objective people, devoid of any political gain in the situation.

The rest of your argument falls flat on anyone who doesn't believe in this Creator if that's how you intend to justify it. — Michael

That's not how I intend to justify it. I justify it by referencing the Constitution. My reference to the Creator is only to point out how fundamental of rights these are considered. The foundation of the laws is the Constitution. It's not really significant for these purposes upon what foundation the Constitution rests.

It's generally agreed that power corrupts, and historically we have fought the tyranny of religious institutions and governments by placing strict limitations on their power. In the US, we have decreed certain limitations on government power and described them as inalienable rights endowed by no less than the Creator.

What limitations do we place on the power of the medical community in dictating how the average citizen is to live? Are we really that comfortable in saying that that community is above the political fray and that its only agenda is the altruistic protection of society and that it cannot be bought off, swayed, or led by those with less than pure motive?

All these final decisions are being made by our executive branches (President, governors, and mayors) without legislative act and so far with no judicial oversight. On this board, we sort through various websites and largely agree (with some exceptions) that our executives are considering reliable material and are making proper decisions. This strikes me as wrong, if for no other reason than I think everyone is biased one way or the other (malicious or not), and we have no checks or balances on anything. In fact, anyone who disputes the official line is shouted down as a idiot and murderer.

That is, I don't [want to opportunistically pretend] see this crisis as [is] evidence that we've been doing things all wrong and we need non-crisis times to be different now — Hanover

Fixed it.

Not true. We have raised the minimum wage in Ireland consistently (at above inflation rates, you know, to reflect economic growth and actually give everyone a share of it) over the past 30 years and also consistently increased employment. And, besides, reducing minimum wage jobs as a proportion of overall jobs would be great for obvious reasons as long as overall employment levels remained steady. — Baden

The US has increased its minimum wage as well and there's obviously a breaking point, as I understand some areas, like Seattle, have priced some employees out of jobs. Whether Ireland is the best historical example of a thriving economy I don't know.

So, unless, you can explain what a politics-free conversation would look like here, I don't see much substance to the objection. — Baden

We have a bit of a tautology here, considering a decision maker by definition is a politician. So, sure, we can't take the politics out of decision making. My objection is to using this crisis to bring about permanent structural change that could not be achieved during normal times. That is, I don't see this crisis as evidence that we've been doing things all wrong and we need non-crisis times to be different now. If we need to change things, then we can do that, but this isn't the needed catalyst for that change.

Just imagine if that Ebola outbreak had been in multiple countries at the same time, it would have been a struggle to get it under control even with our own countries not infected. — Punshhh

Ebola isn't as easily spread as the coronavirus because the infected person becomes symptomatic quickly and then dies fairly quickly, making it easier to detect and the person doesn't have as much time to spread it.

think there is a political discussion to be had here. For example, the much touted healthcare systems of Europe, often held against the American system as far superior, are not fairing much better when put to the test in this crisis. The notion that we must risk our livelihoods and put ourselves on lockdown to keep them from collapsing is damning, in my opinion. — NOS4A2

This strikes me as two points: (1) those nations with public healthcare are not faring any better than the US, and (2) we shouldn't allow for a lockdown because it risks our livelihoods.

I agree with #1 because it's true. I disagree with #2 because it's dependent upon what the greater good is. That is, if there were a nationwide pandemic of Ebola, I think we'd all agree everyone would have to do their share to be sure we didn't all start dying in the streets, regardless of the risk to our livelihood. I suspect you distinguish the coronavirus from ebola in that you believe the danger posed by the former has been hyped up and you don't believe it's that dangerous. If that's the case, that's a debate over the empirical evidence showing its dangerousnes, not a debate over the general question of whether we have a duty to society not to infect our neighbors with deadly diseases.

Poor people wouldn't be better off if you gave them free healthcare and raised the minimum wage? That's not going to fly. You might argue that the country as a whole wouldn't be better off, and that is the usual argument, but you can't argue that certain sectors would not be better off when you redistribute money their way. Just like you can't argue that the rich are not better off when you give them tax cuts. It's literally nonsense. — Baden

If you raise minimum wage, you reduce minimum wage jobs, so, whether the whole sector benefits isn't obviously so. Medicaid is free healthcare for the poor. They already have that. The rich keep more money if you pass a law that they keep more money. That I agree with.

The coronavirus has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. If we ought to increase minimum wage or whether all sorts of government benefits ought be increased or decreased is no more or less evident or obvious due to this pandemic. Whether you're a right wing libertarian or a totalitarian Marxist, this pandemic is not cause for you to lose your religion, and that is the gist of my (recent) objection to this meandering conversation. This whole "let's take advantage of every crisis in order to advance our political agenda" thing is what I'm objecting to.

Anyone who says that this virus 'hasn't exposed the cracks in American society' is either not looking, or a deliberate hack. As Jodi Dean says aporpos 'opening up' again: — StreetlightX

It hasn't. Even should I assume your assessment is correct, it's not like I've not heard it before, meaning nothing new has been exposed. I disregard your concerns because they're agenda based, and it's an agenda I don't agree with, which is that the impoverished you identify are not benefited better under the current system more than they would be in whatever alternative you're envisioning.

And I do find this all sidetracking and politicizing, which serves no purpose other than to hijack this crisis to promote your political agenda. The predictable result will be that those opposed to your agenda will fight you every step of the way, even when some of the healthcare measures proposed might be objectively valid. That is what is happening, by the way.

You've sort of taken on this idea that anything less than a vitriolic diatribe is cowardly, like the time for rebellion is NOW! It's entertaining, but I can't imagine it moves your opponents any closer to your position. Maybe your objective isn't to persuade, but just to rally the troops. I really haven't figured it out.

No. We should probably verify this with your mom though. — praxis

Are you saying that @frank's mom is an ostrich? Frank, is that true?

I was dating this girl who thought my lackadaisical attitude during this coronavirus thing was irresponsible and evidence of incompatibility. I told her I found her judgmental and harsh, and that I'd stay with her even if she robbed a liquor store, which was something I found worse than a failure to take the coronavirus thing more seriously. While I thought that persuasive in showing how my commitment would hypothetically exceed hers, she apparently did not. So, after some discussion, we stopped discussing, and now I've got to go through this quarantine alone, which is not at all what I think I should expect during a quarantine.

My point here is that there all sorts of lesser but real casualties that this thing has brought about. I can't help but to feel sad for her, now having to be without me.

. Mandatory mask-wearing orders are being introduced already and I expect that's the way we'll go — Baden

They are actually starting to advise putting plastic bags over your head where I live. I'd strongly encourage you to get ahead of the curve where you live and start doing that so that you're not caught with your pants down again.

The surest way to kill the parasite is to kill the host. Don't overthink that, just go get yourself a head bag. Maybe even double bag it.

If Trump doesn't have the power to reopen schools, businesses, state and local govt. offices, etc. then did he really have the power to close them down? If it is the power of the governors to reopen their states, then wasn't it their responsibility to close them? If so, then why are people blaming Trump for not closing things down sooner? — Harry Hindu

Different states have imposed different restrictions. Where I live, the first thing to happen was the county closed the local schools. The city where I lived then closed down restaurants. A number of other cities within my county began doing the same thing. Then the county closed everything down, but it did it by joint resolution of all the cities within the county. Then other counties did the same. Finally the governor shut everything down throughout the state. Interestingly, the state preempted the cities and the state reopened the beaches, which pissed off the mayors along the coast who wanted them closed.

Trump can close down the interstate travel, but I saw in Florida (and other places), they're not letting people cross state lines without good reason. I doubt that's Constitutional, but whatever.

I suspect that Trump could take full charge and declare a national emergency where he would have the right to close the schools and all the stores and issue a complete lock down. The truth is that that Americans really aren't that rebellious of a group and if the President issued a decree that everything close, it's very doubtful some local government would open up for business and Johnny would board the school bus and go off to school.

But, as to your question, if I hold a beer fest in the park with 500 of my friends, I will be charged with a state crime. I will not be charged with a federal offense. The states are the ones imposing these restrictions. But Trump could have closed the country down by just saying it must be done, as he has that level of influence, regardless of whether his decree was made enforceable by federal marshals.

He can either choose to accept that or reject it, so he'll probably do both. — Baden

There's a difference between asking someone to choose either A or B versus A or not A. The former permits both choices, the latter only one, but not because of the "either," but because of the contradiction in choosing both to be and not to be.

As to the question, do I want bourbon or vodka, the answer is yes.

The solution then can arise is two ways, either (1) decrease the number of serious cases at any given time through social distances, or (2) increasing the amount of available healthcare (including ventilators). That's true as far as i can see it.
— Hanover

False dichotomy. Please reprogram your brain with logic and understanding. Thank you. — Baden

It's a false dichotomy only if I presented it as a dichotomy. Purely hypothetically, you might say that if I support Trump, I'm either (1) a mindless Republican, or (2) drunk. There's nothing in that sentence that says I can't be both.

You can't read ordinary conversation like a syllogism, but, for the sake of clarity, please do insert the words "or both" somewhere in my sentence so that I can avoid my embarrassing logical fallacy. Thank you.

How can it be true that ice cream tastes good, if it doesn't taste good to others? It can only be true if it tastes good to you. There is no such thing as a subjective truth. A subjective truth is a category error. — Harry Hindu

So, if I taste ice cream, and it tastes good to me, but it doesn't taste good to you, and I say "Ice cream tastes good to me," is that statement true or false? You've claimed it can't be true, so all I'm left with is false. So ice cream doesn't taste good to me even though I think it does?

Showing that you believe policy can actually impact the disease a lot. — fdrake

I do think that. That's obvious.

I put all my hope in a scientific solution, not in a policy one. My trust isn't in some politician of any party of any country to figure out how to fix this.
— Hanover

Contradicting the above.
— fdrake

That's not a contradiction.

I trust scientists more than politicians, even though I accept that government decisions can impact the result.
[/

My proposal is not just to let nature take it's course, but instead to invest the trillions we intend to to prop up the economy on ventilators, hospital beds, and better treatment in an effort to drive down the deaths from the infections, as opposed to the futile battle to control the infection rate, which will just further damage all sorts of lives in the process.
— Hanover

Defending not social distancing or quarantine measures (despite blaming Italy's admin for not adhering to them well enough). — fdrake

I still think that the logic of the social distancing is based upon keeping the serious cases low enough not to overwhelm medical care available. The solution then can arise is two ways, either (1) decrease the number of serious cases at any given time through social distances, or (2) increasing the amount of available healthcare (including ventilators). That's true as far as i can see it.

Currently .02% of the world is infected with the coronavirus (169,387 / 7,771,074,926). The percentage of worldwide deaths rounds to 0.00% (6,513), but if you take it out enough decimal points you will eventually see some evidence of it.
— Hanover

The US is at 41. That's 41/50ths a person per state we've lost. Do you know what it's like to lose just over 80% of a person? It's not pretty I tell you.
— Hanover

And other people already corrected your calculations — fdrake

My numbers are generally correct. If I missed the decimal space one or two spots nothwithstanding, it's very much the case that the raw percentages of people worldwide contracting the disease and dying from disease is very very low. That's just true. But don't spin that into me saying that death is no big deal just because someone died of a rare disease.

I dunno what to tell you. If you don't deny that "test, isolate, treat" when consistently applied has demonstrably lead to bankruptcy, or that the healthcare system required a policy hotfix towards something much closer to free (at least more affordable) universal healthcare to address the issue by your administration. The US administration acknowledged the systemic issue and took a measure to rectify it. Let's hope it does not get repealed. — fdrake

It's always been the case that emergency care (as defined by the patient) cannot be denied regardless of ability to pay. That rule has led to those without health insurance using emergency rooms to treat for minor illnesses. Inner city hospitals routinely make no effort to collect those fees, and that care has been provided at government expense for some time. That is a shortcoming of the American system, and it contributes to the high dollar expenditure by the government for healthcare.

But, if what you're trying to say is that there are people dying of treatable illness in the US, including of coranavirus, due to inability to pay, or that that has been the case in the past, that is not true. It's also not true that those nations with public healthcare systems in place has fared better than the US in this crisis. If your point is that the US has deployed government resources in response to a health care crisis in a way that goes far beyond how it provides social security in normal times, I agree with that. I don't follow, though, why what we do in an emergency should be expected in normal times. I think I can be expected to provide for myself more in normal times than I do in a state of emergency, just as I can expect to be left alone most days to fend for myself, but I fully expect a county owned firetruck to roll up when my house is on fire.

Bug. Not feature. Want to know who the bugs are? — Baden

You speak a broken English and you speak in riddles, but, yes, answer that question for me, although I'm not sure what it is.

But of course now as the US is at the present epicenter of the pandemic, it's no wonder that the discussion is focused on you. — ssu

The epicenter remains the path from Spain, France, and Italy, with numbers far worse than what the US is reporting. In fact, the US pandemic is largely limited to a few areas, primarily New York and some surrounding areas. I'm in Atlanta, and saying that I'm at the epicenter is a bit of a stretch, considering my experience is dramatically different from Manhattan. As I watched Italian reports, it seems that country is truly in a state of devastation, but that's really not the experience where I am. Maybe New York can be said to be a hotspot right now, but whether that's going to spread like wildfire across the US seems unlikely.

Have you looked?

Seriously, "test, isolate, treat" is the maxim for dealing with a pandemic. Having a healthcare system which makes people avoid those measures on pain of bankruptcy or being unable to eat for a week is absolutely insane, and I have no idea how you could think of this as anything but a catastrophic design problem; read, a systemic issue. — fdrake

I have looked. The death tolls in France, Italy, Spain, and the UK are much higher per capita than the US, despite them having the healthcare systems you believe will result in lower death tolls. Americans requiring healthcare cannot be denied healthcare. It's the law. You simply don't have any data to support that the American situation has been caused by or is aggravated by its brand of healthcare.

And in true non-American form, we don't care that you don't care what we think about you. We're going to tell you anyway.

Ok, your turn. — Baden

But you do care, else there'd be far less discussion of Trump and far more discussion of the Irish leader whoever that is.

Your turn.

No one is throwing all the deaths at capitalism's feet, anticapitalist; specifically anti-austerity; criticism which has been going on (in Europe too, even in countries with universal healthcare) is all just saying that the kind of welfare system investment strategy that diminishes access as compared to effective universal healthcare amplifies the knock on effects of the virus by reducing how prepared hospitals could be, and how short sighted postponing quarantine measures (among other things, like too little testing) was by the administrations that chose to take that route.

The anticapitalist generalisation is just that this is business as usual when organising investment based on return on investment than the public good, and favouring the short term concerns of the economy versus longer term concerns and the public good — fdrake

I just don't see that this has much to do the economic system or health care system as much as it has to do with individual leadership style and decisions made by certain personalities.

The UK appears to be overlooking their most vulnerable despite having nationalized healthcare. The Swedes seem to think laissez faire is the way to go despite being staunchly socialist. GW Bush is credited for creating a national response program to pandemics despite being whatever the hell be was.

Whatever problems the US may have, I don't think they were exposed or made more evident by this crisis. The US numbers are better than many and fared pretty well comparatively. I don't give it a pass for any errors, but it's reponse hardly gives concern that anything systemic needs changing other than a laying out a specific protocol that should be followed for future similar events.

People are usually critical of their country's responses. I've been positive but also critical about my country's response. There has been a lot of debate about the policies implemented by Sweden, many of it critical, hence not all is US-centric. — ssu

It's true, but I think it's hard for many not to use this crisis to call into question Trump, capitalism, autonomy, and other Americanisms to show it's somehow a failed system.

But in true American form, Americans really don't care what the world thinks about them.

More or less the same advice today. Old news. Common sense. — jorndoe

If they cared about saving lives back then they wouldn't have written it in gibberish.

People in care homes are amongst the most vulnerable in society, not to mention the loneliest and most neglected. Excluding them from COVID testing and treatment is despicable. I don't have the words. — Baden

If only the UK had universal public healthcare we wouldn't be seeing such things.

As long as proper methods are applied, the consensus will generally shift towards that most in line with objective truth, since objective truth has the annoying tendency to reassert itself. — Echarmion

The shift is towards that which results in greater survivability. The bee sees the world in a way that leads to his survival. Those who smell garbage as sweet probably don't survive well, regardless of what garbage really smells like, whatever that means.

But seriously, there is a difference between subjective, intersubjective, and objective. The objective part here is that we're somehow exchanging information. The intersubjective part is that we're using an Internetforum, computers, the English language etc. And then we each have a subjective interpretation of what is said and why, with a small model of what the person saying it might be like.

Unless you're specifically doing metaphysics or epistemology, there isn't any reason to differentiate between objective and whatever is intersubjective for all humans. — Echarmion

You're talking about truth, right? Subjective truth versus intersubjective truth versus objective truth? If that's the case, then it's subjectively true that ice-cream tastes good, but objectively true that ice-cream tastes good to me.

If it's intersubjectively true that the earth is flat, that matters to someone other than the metaphysician, especially if there is one objector who happens to be right. If that weren't the case, then great discoveries are false prior to their discovery and only become true when enough people believe in them.

But since we're talking about truth, of what value is perspective, which is what objective and subjective reference? I'm not the first to remark that you have to have a view from somewhere, else it'd be a view from nowhere. So, is the earth flat? From my perspective it's not, but I can't pretend to know that objectively. I only think that, which is the way every person thinks when they think they've got something right.

I think the solution is either (1) there is an objective perspective we cannot know because we will always be situated somewhere, or (2) the question is incoherent because you cannot ask what something would look like if you were standing no where.

Oh Dubbaya! He was genius compared to Trump. — frank

They blamed him for the levies breaking during Katrina. Anyway, I don't think Trump has mishandled this. It wasn't a perfect response, but I doubt the US numbers are going to look a whole lot different per capita from the rest of the Western world once this is all said and done.

It's funny too how GW sort of has this simple, happy go lucky persona when he basically set fire to the entire Middle East. Trump's just a blow hard, but has been incredibly dovish, and, if anyone has been watching, he just passed through a massive bipartisan social security program that has protected the average American worker. Scary times, sure, but we won't remember these days like they were the Great Depression or the Black Plague.