coronavirus

[cherrypoptart]

That must be why Britain has a red list travel ban, because it just doesn't matter.



https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-measures-to-protect-the-uk-from-variant-strains-of-covid-19

Red list travel ban countries
If you have been in or through any of the countries listed below in the previous 10 days, you will be refused entry to the UK.

If you are a British or Irish National, or you have residence rights in the UK, you will be able to enter. You must quarantine in a government approved hotel for 10 days.

Angola
Argentina
Bangladesh (will be added to the list 4am Friday 9 April)
Bolivia
Botswana
Brazil
Burundi
Cape Verde
Chile
Colombia
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Ecuador
Eswatini
Ethiopia
French Guiana
Guyana
Kenya (will be added to the list 4am Friday 9 April)
Lesotho
Malawi
Mozambique
Namibia
Oman
Pakistan (will be added to the list 4am Friday 9 April)
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines (will be added to the list 4am Friday 9 April)
Qatar
Rwanda
Seychelles
Somalia
South Africa
Suriname
Tanzania
United Arab Emirates (UAE)
Uruguay
Venezuela
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Updates to the list
Any upcoming updates to list and updates that happened within the last 10 days.

Countries added to the list
Bangladesh, Kenya, Pakistan and Philippines will be added to the list 4am Friday 9 April.

[TheDrake]

That's funny, I don't see Mexico there. That's the country we are talking about, right? I am a little surprised that the UK isn't banning US travel, since we have a mass amount of cases. France isn't there either, despite dropping into yet another lockdown with high case loads. I wonder if they are only blocking travel from *censored*hole countries?

[cherrypoptart]

"That's funny, I don't see Mexico there. That's the country we are talking about, right?"

Because all illegals are Mexican? That's racist and untrue.

The fact is people, and by that I mean mostly Democrats, get so hung up on not wanting to be racist that they let public safety take a back seat when it's inconvenient for their politics.

The pandemic is here and it's real and the science says that travel restrictions are one of the necessary tools to fight it. Vital. Indispensable. Joe Biden isn't listening to the science when it isn't politically convenient for him.

And by the way, even Joe is telling migrants not to come. Well, with his mouth he is saying that though with his actions he's saying something else. So does that make Joe Biden's mouth racist that he is saying pretty much exactly what I am, that this is not the time for migrants to be crossing our border en masse? It seems like whether something is racist or not depends on who says it. If conservatives say the same thing Joe Biden says then it's racist when the conservative says it but it's fine when Joe Biden says it. It's funny how that works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfkCHLj5cfU

Biden on Border Crisis
President's Message to Migrants: "Don't Come"

I want to see Biden called a racist for saying that the same way Trump would be. Hooray for double standards.

[rightleft22]

The fact is people, and by that I mean mostly Democrats, get so hung up on not wanting to be racist that they let public safety take a back seat when it's inconvenient for their politics.

Are you arguing that its ok to be racist if its good for public safety? Seems I heard that argument before.... Usually just before a
Ones values, character, and morals should never take precedence over inconvenience, that's just crazy talk.  Begs the questions if they really are values.. ahh that question is inconvenient. Thank goodness thought I was in trouble.

Does Biden or Trump saying 'Don't come' make them racist. No
Did Trump statements go further then only saying don't come... yes. Could some of those statements be considered racist? I would say yes for what my opinion is worth

Keep dancing for your master

[Fenring]

The fact is people, and by that I mean mostly Democrats, get so hung up on not wanting to be racist that they let public safety take a back seat when it's inconvenient for their politics.

Are you arguing that its ok to be racist if its good for public safety?

It seems to me his point was relatively clear. He's saying that any attempt to discuss Mexicans as a problem is countered with "racist!", thereby making it impossible to discuss the topic objectively. Assuming this is what he meant, there was a parallel situation early in Trump's term regarding the 'Muslim ban.' He, too, was accused of being racist purely on principle, even though (in theory) it was a question of national security.

[TheDrake]

#1 we are talking about people coming from Mexico. That's our border. I doubt Guatemalans are getting to that border under 10 days. They don't have to be Mexicans, travel restrictions are based on the countries you passed through or were last in, not where you were born.

#2 Biden is still deporting adults. He's just not willing to throw children back over the wall they were just dropped from.

#3 Risking some small increase in transmission in order to save the lives of people who cross the border against protocol is a human win. It would be like saying, we'd better not send paramedics to save lives because it might increase the spread of the virus.

#4 Admit this is just an excuse for you, cherry. If Biden proposed building massive infrastructure allowing for 10 day quarantine of all migrants with 6 ft separation, and immediate inoculations with J&J vaccine, you'll just move on to some other excuse.

#5 It absolutely is racist to base border restrictions on anything other than the infection rates within the country of origin if your goal is to stop the spread. So yeah, the UK allowing France and the US is racist compared to other countries that are on the list.

France has 59/100k. Poland 68/100k. I thought the whole point of Brexit was to restrict travel from the EU? UAE? They sit at 22/100k. South Africa? 2/100k.

You might want to find excuses for that, like "what about the testing rates though?" UAE has nearly the highest rate of testing in the world. 3.9M/1M pop. 4x that of France.

[cherrypoptart]

#5 It absolutely is racist to base border restrictions on anything other than the infection rates within the country of origin if your goal is to stop the spread. So yeah, the UK allowing France and the US is racist compared to other countries that are on the list.

I'm going to nit-pick this one. Just because a country has low infection rates doesn't mean the people traveling from there aren't infected. In fact, travelers would seem to be the kind of people who are infected more than most specifically because they are traveling instead of practicing real social distancing because you can't travel on a plane and practice social distancing at the same time. Even if a country has a low infection rate how much is that going to matter when the person gets infected while traveling on the way to their final destination? They will test negative when they leave, pick up the virus en route, test negative again when they arrive, and then spread it around if they don't have a ten day or so quarantine first.

That's not disagreeing with the idea completely though about some nations being granted favored status despite their higher infection rates but my point is that ALL travel is dangerous and non-essential travel is a luxury that is spreading the virus all over the place. The more travel allowed FROM ANYWHERE, the more dangerous it is to everyone. That's what started the whole ball rolling in the first place and it's what's going to finish us too if we don't wise up and fast. Unless you have some sort of travel bubble between two uninfected countries or something, but that requires serious travel restrictions on everyone else to get to that sweet spot.

Just like with Fauci early on with the masks, people just don't want to admit the truth of it because it's going to make them uncomfortable and take them out of their safe space. New Zealand and Australia understand all of this which is why they have been so successful where we have failed miserably.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/04/06/984639171/new-zealand-australia-to-create-travel-bubble-resume-quarantine-free-travel

"Australia and New Zealand have controlled the COVID-19 outbreak better than many other developed nations. Both countries closed their international borders to noncitizens early in the pandemic, which helped them to contain the virus's spread."

Saying that travel restrictions are useless sounds a lot like how we were told not to buy and wear masks because they won't help the general public and instead of that just wash your hands a lot. Look at Australia and New Zealand and then make the case for how travel restrictions don't help.

Just like with masks, it's just common sense. How is the virus spreading? People are spreading it, obviously. This isn't rocket science here.

[rightleft22]

The fact is people, and by that I mean mostly Democrats, get so hung up on not wanting to be racist that they let public safety take a back seat when it's inconvenient for their politics.

Are you arguing that its ok to be racist if its good for public safety?

It seems to me his point was relatively clear. He's saying that any attempt to discuss Mexicans as a problem is countered with "racist!", thereby making it impossible to discuss the topic objectively. Assuming this is what he meant, there was a parallel situation early in Trump's term regarding the 'Muslim ban.' He, too, was accused of being racist purely on principle, even though (in theory) it was a question of national security.

How we say things matter.

Trumps and Biden's communication style are very different making any 'parallel situation' difficult to access as being parallel. Perhaps you can pick and chose when to take Trumps statements seriously and when not to and give him the benefit of the doubt.  Trump has been pretty consistent in his use of language as it concerns issues that are often associated rightly or wrongly to race over the last 6 years when he decided to become a politician.  That only matters though if one holds the view that words and values matter.

[TheDrake]

Just like with Fauci early on with the masks, people just don't want to admit the truth of it because it's going to make them uncomfortable and take them out of their safe space. New Zealand and Australia understand all of this which is why they have been so successful where we have failed miserably.

I'm okay with that, but let's be clear that those countries have done a lot of other things right also.

Brisbane locked down for three days when they had SEVEN cases in March of this year. We're having spring break parties and all the rest with hundreds of deaths per day.

[Fenring]

How we say things matter.

Trumps and Biden's communication style are very different making any 'parallel situation' difficult to access as being parallel. Perhaps you can pick and chose when to take Trumps statements seriously and when not to and give him the benefit of the doubt.  Trump has been pretty consistent in his use of language as it concerns issues that are often associated rightly or wrongly to race over the last 6 years when he decided to become a politician.  That only matters though if one holds the view that words and values matter.

You can say this all you like, but Trump was consistent to a fault from day one is how he speaks. This is just a reiteration of the same complaint people made from the primaries. At a certain point you can't keep saying the same thing about his speaking style like it's a new topical objection. It's boring already. If people could get over themselves and just take him for what he is (for better or worse) the anxiety level would go down tenfold.

[TheDrake]

How we say things matter.

Trumps and Biden's communication style are very different making any 'parallel situation' difficult to access as being parallel. Perhaps you can pick and chose when to take Trumps statements seriously and when not to and give him the benefit of the doubt.  Trump has been pretty consistent in his use of language as it concerns issues that are often associated rightly or wrongly to race over the last 6 years when he decided to become a politician.  That only matters though if one holds the view that words and values matter.

You can say this all you like, but Trump was consistent to a fault from day one is how he speaks. This is just a reiteration of the same complaint people made from the primaries. At a certain point you can't keep saying the same thing about his speaking style like it's a new topical objection. It's boring already. If people could get over themselves and just take him for what he is (for better or worse) the anxiety level would go down tenfold.

Oh, I do take him for what he is. I take his words for what they are, not invent excuses like "it's just his speaking style" or "he was joking". If there's tension, it is because others refuse to admit that he's exactly how he sounds.

[Fenring]

Oh, I do take him for what he is. I take his words for what they are, not invent excuses like "it's just his speaking style" or "he was joking". If there's tension, it is because others refuse to admit that he's exactly how he sounds.

I think you are misreading the context of my post. I was saying that cherry's post was not too difficult to understand, and that it's a complaint that has other instances where it might apply. rightleft then mentioned how it's not about the proposed policies themselves, but about *how* Trump said them. That is when I mentioned about how the objections about how Trump's speech pattern can only go so far before you're just ignoring the actual policies and going after him each time. I called that boring; that's my opinion. No one's talking about making excuses for anything. cherry was specifically addressing the issue of how certain policy proposals get drowned in off-topic objections. Whether or not I agree with that proposition, I don't think his post was actually unclear, which was the claim being made.

[TheDrake]

I'm just saying his policy doesn't get "drowned out" by irrelevance. His policy is exactly as he said:

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

That's not a speaking style, it is very plain language that describes exactly what his policy is. There shouldn't be any reason to examine the policy further, and if we did, we'd come to the exact same conclusion absent his speaking style. It is just a lot more convenient to accept his description of his own policy.

[Fenring]

That's not a speaking style, it is very plain language that describes exactly what his policy is. There shouldn't be any reason to examine the policy further, and if we did, we'd come to the exact same conclusion absent his speaking style. It is just a lot more convenient to accept his description of his own policy.

Then the point would be to ask whether in fact that will impact national security or not, rather than to kneejerk to "racism!" without consideration for the stated purpose of the ban. Now maybe it was just racist, but that requires some parsing. cherry was just saying that sometimes you can't even have the discussion for fear of the backlash. All I was saying is that cherry's post was clear. That's all! We can debate the point he raised ourselves, but that's not what I got in the ring to do in this instance.

[yossarian22c]

And B117 is now the dominant strain in the US. It is more transmissible and more virulent. And unlike the original variant it seems to spread relatively easily among children as well. I fear our rush to open schools up is going to bite us in the ass. We should have just ridden out the school year, gotten the virus under control with vaccinations and other measures over the summer and hope to have a good fall. Now I fear we're going have a lot of sick kids over the next couple months and increased community spread as too many states have rushed to reopen bars, restaurants, other indoor activities, and mass events. The really tragic thing is with another two months of good social behavior we could have seen vaccination rates really put a large dent into the spread of the disease. Now we're going to give it a foothold in the child population that can't be vaccinated yet to potentially mutate into a new variant that can better evade the vaccines.

[edgmatt]

Only Vaccincated persons can board evacuation vessels to leave island after volcanic eruption.

From the article (I'm not 100% sure anyone here can access the link):

"After a massive 6 mile-high eruption of ashes from the Soufriere volcano frightened the residents of Saint Vincent, Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves said that only those who have been vaccinated for the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus could board the cruise ships evacuating people off the island.

Rumbling noises emanated from the volcano, with ash coating rooftops, cars, and roads in Kingstown, the capital of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Videos from Saint Vincent showed a ghost-like landscape.

On Friday, CruiseRadio.net reported that two cruise ships had arrived at the small island to rescue its residents, adding that three more were on the way.

St. Lucia, Grenada, Antigua, and Barbados accepted taking in evacuees from the disaster area, with the condition that evacuees are fully vaccinated against the CCP Virus, which causes the disease COVID-19."


Seems utterly ridiculous to me to not transport people away from a volcanic eruption because they haven't been vaccinated against Covid.  It also seems morally reprehensible. 

[Fenring]

Seems utterly ridiculous to me to not transport people away from a volcanic eruption because they haven't been vaccinated against Covid.  It also seems morally reprehensible. 

I heard about that. Apparently it's not a question of the governments, but about the regulations about certain cruise lines. Apparently some of them require vaccinations for embarkments, but one line I heard of in the area doesn't. It does seem hard to manage a pandemic situation when another disaster is co-incident.

By the way, fun point of interest, I am currently sitting under the raining volcanic ash cloud you're referring to. Windows are shut, ash accumulating around the house. I'm in Barbados right now. The eruptions continue...

[edgmatt]

It doesn't seem hard to me:  get em off the island (if they want to go).  Suspend the rules in order to save them.

If the same ship came across a life boat with some people on it in the middle of the ocean, would they not take them on board if they weren't vaccinated?

[cherrypoptart]

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/could-a-cup-of-yogurt-cure-your-case-of-covid-19-664976

“We knew that we had found these molecules in yogurt with anti-inflammatory properties,” he said. “So, when COVID started, we said, Let’s see if these molecules can help against cytokine storms.”

It seems like something that for most people wouldn't do any harm even if you don't wouldn't want to count on it to save you. Another story had tumeric as beneficial in helping against Covid too. That story had it as a tea but I put it in my oatmeal. I already ate yogurt too. There are probably quite a few things most people could do with their diets to help fight off Covid and it would be interesting to see if those couldn't be a factor in the disparity of responses.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7361299/

[yossarian22c]

It seems like something that for most people wouldn't do any harm even if you don't wouldn't want to count on it to save you. Another story had tumeric as beneficial in helping against Covid too. That story had it as a tea but I put it in my oatmeal. I already ate yogurt too. There are probably quite a few things most people could do with their diets to help fight off Covid and it would be interesting to see if those couldn't be a factor in the disparity of responses.

There is probably a lot people could do with diet that would impact it but maybe not after catching it. Obesity and diabetes are the highest risk factors after age. It is going to be really hard to disambiguate any population level studies based on diet. If it was just a matter of getting anti-inflammatory compounds in your body then ibuprofen would be considered an effective treatment (and not just of symptoms). 

[TheDrake]

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/could-a-cup-of-yogurt-cure-your-case-of-covid-19-664976

“We knew that we had found these molecules in yogurt with anti-inflammatory properties,” he said. “So, when COVID started, we said, Let’s see if these molecules can help against cytokine storms.”

It seems like something that for most people wouldn't do any harm even if you don't wouldn't want to count on it to save you. Another story had tumeric as beneficial in helping against Covid too. That story had it as a tea but I put it in my oatmeal. I already ate yogurt too. There are probably quite a few things most people could do with their diets to help fight off Covid and it would be interesting to see if those couldn't be a factor in the disparity of responses.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7361299/

Gotta be real careful about stuff like that.

Some of the plants found in food supplements can weaken the body’s natural defences, primarily by interfering with the inflammatory defence mechanisms used to fight infection and, in particular, COVID-19. The plants concerned by the ANSES opinion include willow, meadowsweet, harpagophytum, turmeric, echinacea, birch, poplar and liquorice.

[msquared]

So it sounds like soon we will have more supply than demand for vaccines, as those who are hesitant to get the shots become a larger and larger proportion of the unvaccinated population.

So when the rate of vaccinated people starts to drop, will the Republicans say Biden was lying when he said he wanted everyone one vaccinated by a certain date? When the number of cases continue at a steady pace will they say it is obvious the vaccines do not work since people are still getting sick?

I mean conservative brain Tucker Carlson does not understand why people who have been vaccinated can not go back to life as normal.  Do the vaccines not work?

[rightleft22]

Tucker Carlson deliberately fails to understands quite allot..  including the intent of Socratic method.
He has a great understanding of how to manipulate his audience and propagate propaganda for his tribe and personal gain. Actuality I don't think he cares much for his tribe just personal gain. As his actions are to intentionally sow doubt and discord he qualifies as 'evil' in my book.
History will not be kind to him but who cares about history. 

[cherrypoptart]

https://news.yahoo.com/senators-biden-waive-vaccine-intellectual-100049446.html

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Ten liberal senators are urging President Joe Biden to back India and South Africa’s appeal to the World Trade Organization to temporarily relax intellectual property rules so coronavirus vaccines can be manufactured by nations that are struggling to inoculate their populations.

The lawmakers, in a letter delivered to the White House on Thursday evening, wrote that Biden should “prioritize people over pharmaceutical company profits” and support the temporary waiver of the rules. A waiver could pave the way for generic or other manufacturers to make more vaccines."

I agree with doing this. I think I saw a story early in the pandemic about China using various methods including hacking to try to steal some of the secrets to making Covid vaccines and I thought well shouldn't information about how to make Covid vaccines be made available to all countries anyway to help get the pandemic under control?

If they are worried about money, whatever big pharma is going to lose will be more than made up for by ending the pandemic earlier and of course for the lives saved what price can you put on that? Big pharma should be well compensated for their research and efforts whether that be with American tax dollars or deals with some of these countries who can afford it to pay some sort of licensing fees or some other arrangement but in any case money shouldn't be a barrier to letting other countries make Covid vaccines and others as well.

This part couldn't be more true: “Simply put, we must make vaccines, testing, and treatments accessible everywhere if we are going to crush the virus anywhere..." especially when we continue to allow international travel the way we do.

[oldbrian]

Didn't we already pay for this?  Wasn't that part of Operation... um...whatever last summer.  I am drawing a blank on the name.  We promised the companies a guaranteed profit in order to spur research and all that?

[msquared]

If Trump was involved then it would have been only for US production since that is the only population he cared about. 

[yossarian22c]

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/04/22/989768074/how-india-went-from-a-ray-of-hope-to-a-world-record-for-most-covid-cases-in-a-da

India's daily tally announced on Thursday exceeded the previous record of 313,310 cases set by the United States on Jan. 8, according to the CDC. But with testing kits also in short supply across India, that number may represent only a fraction of the infections nationwide.

Confirmed deaths from the coronavirus also broke an Indian record Thursday, with 2,104 fatalities recorded in the previous 24 hours. But deaths too may be drastically undercounted, because many of the people dying outside hospitals never got tested. Bodies are piling up in morgues. Crematoriums can't work fast enough.
...
As the health system breaks down, so does law and order: Oxygen tankers are traveling under police guard to fend off looters. Vaccines have been stolen from a hospital warehouse. And the black market trade in medical equipment has soared.

Things have gotten bad in India. They have about 1/6th of the worlds population. And fewer than 2% of the country is fully vaccinated, with 10% having received their first dose. The world should shut down travel to India, Brazil, South Africa, and most international travel.

[TheDrake]

Flight cancelled forever. Hope you like driving, Lora.

An Alaska state lawmaker who had called flight attendants "mask bullies" and clashed with airline employees on video over mask rules is now banned from Alaska Airlines for her "continued refusal to comply" with the mask policy, the airline said in a statement.

The restriction on Republican state Sen. Lora Reinbold will make her job more difficult: Alaska Airlines operates the only regular flights between her home north of Anchorage and the state capital in Juneau.
The ban meant Reinbold on Sunday had to drive more than 14 hours, including a portion of the trip through Canada, and take a ferry to reach Juneau on Monday, where a bill she opposes that would extend Gov. Mike Dunleavy's emergency powers during the coronavirus pandemic is scheduled for action.

[msquared]

A private school in Florida says that if you are a teacher and have been vaccinated you can not teach there any more.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/miami-private-school-centner-academy-233603240.html

What a load of crap. They say they have heard stories of unvaccinated people getting sick after exposure to vaccinated people.  I wonder if the vaccinated teachers can sue?

[yossarian22c]

A private school in Florida says that if you are a teacher and have been vaccinated you can not teach there any more.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/miami-private-school-centner-academy-233603240.html

What a load of crap. They say they have heard stories of unvaccinated people getting sick after exposure to vaccinated people.  I wonder if the vaccinated teachers can sue?

Can the state shut down the school for being abysmally stupid?

[Fenring]

A private school in Florida says that if you are a teacher and have been vaccinated you can not teach there any more.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/miami-private-school-centner-academy-233603240.html

What a load of crap. They say they have heard stories of unvaccinated people getting sick after exposure to vaccinated people.  I wonder if the vaccinated teachers can sue?

Here's a question that may help to answer that question: since Florida is an at-will state, and the employer can do anything they like regarding firing people, is there another way the government can prevent dangerous medical scenarios at a place like that?

Let's take an extreme case: what if a school (or workplace, or any place really) announced they were going to have a "covid party" and deliberately make sure everyone present got infected. Never mind the reasoning behind it. They used to do that for chicken pox, maybe still do for all I know. Given the heightened nature of the public danger in general, does a local or state government have recourse to some kind of public safety protocol to put a stop to it within the framework of the law? Can men in bio suits from the CDC come and shut down the whole operation?

[rightleft22]

A private school in Florida says that if you are a teacher and have been vaccinated you can not teach there any more.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/miami-private-school-centner-academy-233603240.html

What a load of crap. They say they have heard stories of unvaccinated people getting sick after exposure to vaccinated people.  I wonder if the vaccinated teachers can sue?

Here's a question that may help to answer that question: since Florida is an at-will state, and the employer can do anything they like regarding firing people, is there another way the government can prevent dangerous medical scenarios at a place like that?

Let's take an extreme case: what if a school (or workplace, or any place really) announced they were going to have a "covid party" and deliberately make sure everyone present got infected. Never mind the reasoning behind it. They used to do that for chicken pox, maybe still do for all I know. Given the heightened nature of the public danger in general, does a local or state government have recourse to some kind of public safety protocol to put a stop to it within the framework of the law? Can men in bio suits from the CDC come and shut down the whole operation?

Probably not
Second question: How much is the state responsible for taking care of those that get infected at the 'party' and end up in ICU?

I assume that within a democracy their exists a social contract. Such a contract defines the role and experience of freedom. ie there will be some laws that impact the individual for the greater good of the many. If people reject such a concept of a social contract is their a democracy.

Read a story about a town in Alberta where a large percent of the people do not 'believe' covid is a threat. The towns hospitals are reaching a breaking point  and the mayor is demanding more vaccines be allocated to the town. (survey shows a large percent of the people do not plan to take vaccine) The town has asked for federal assistance for more medical personal from the army and such.
If the large percentage of the people in the town refuse to take Covid seriously should they be left on their own and maybe isolated? Is it justice to have the people of this town jump ahead of the vaccine line and eat up provincial and federal recourses? 

[Fenring]

Probably not

Let's take another scenario and you can tell me if you still think it's "probably not." What if, instead of a flu or pneumonia-like illness (putting aside that covid is quite different from those) it was something more like black death, for which there was no cure, high infectious rate, and extreme unendurable pain leading to certain death. And let's say people infected were deliberately going out in public to spread it to people. What would you say then about government's authority to do something about that? I don't know the law-side of it, but I would like to think that anyone choosing this course of action could be designated as a domestic terrorist and dealt with accordingly.

[cherrypoptart]

Doesn't the same kind of thing exist with AIDS?

If you know you have it and you knowingly infect someone then in some places that is a crime but as far as I'm aware not in all places and there is no federal authority involved, only states.

In fact, according to wiki: "In July 2010, the White House announced a major change in its HIV/AIDS policy; the "National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States" stated that "the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws [that criminalize HIV infection] run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and may undermine the public health goals of promoting HIV screening and treatment."

I like how they say the "White House" instead of President Obama. So in other words, if I'm reading that correctly, Obama thought it would be a good idea to make or keep it legal for people to purposefully infect others with HIV.

Also it says that, "a person diagnosed with HIV who is accused of infecting another while engaging in sexual intercourse is, in many jurisdictions, automatically committing a crime."

Interesting. Many jurisdictions. Not all. Maybe not even most.

Where that intersects with this is with the asymptomatic people who have no idea they are infected. With HIV, nowhere is that a crime. Never has been. Never will be. And nobody ever talked about making it one. Even when HIV was often fatal.

[Fenring]

AIDS may not be the best comparison, because the manner of its transmission is very specific, and slow in terms of the general population. There is no risk at all of AIDS ending civilization as we know it, or even making a significant dent of any kind. Even if you deliberately gave it to someone, that would be like a targeted assassination, compared to an airborn/aerosolized spreading virus, where it would be more like a killing spree (or worse) if you just go to the wrong place.

[cherrypoptart]

They both are similar though when it comes to the principle involved, and that principle is whether or not it should be illegal to purposefully risk infecting other people with contagious diseases or negligently risk exposing others to contagious diseases.

Although AIDS doesn't pose the same danger to humanity, the principle involved is even more starkly outlined because you have to take affirmative action to risk exposing others. You have to go out of your way. And our government still said that shouldn't be illegal. Unlike with AIDS where you have to make an effort to expose others and that's still not a crime, with Covid it's the other way around and you have to make an effort and go out of your way as it were with masking and social distancing to avoid exposing others.

If the principle is that our government says you shouldn't be charged with a crime even when you go out of your way to infect someone by having sex with them knowing full well you're infected, it seems like it's harder for them to then turn around and say that now you have to make all this effort with Covid not to infect people.

Now to be clear I'm not saying you should be allowed to go around infecting people with Covid, either on purpose or by being negligent. I'm saying it shouldn't be legal to do that with other contagious diseases like AIDS and our government has a bad habit of putting political correctness above public safety, of being more concerned with people being made to feel uncomfortable than being made sick, of worrying more about people having their feelings hurt than having their health and lives lost.

[Fenring]

They both are similar though when it comes to the principle involved, and that principle is whether or not it should be illegal to purposefully risk infecting other people with contagious diseases or negligently risk exposing others to contagious diseases.

They're as similar as it is similar to carry around a tactical nuclear missile versus a pocket knife. They can both harm people, but the difference in scale of destructiveness isn't just a quantitative piece of trivia. In the case of a weapon of mass destruction the situation becomes a categorically different type of situation. That they are both "disease" is not nearly as relevant as the respective threat levels to human life.

If the principle is that our government says you shouldn't be charged with a crime even when you go out of your way to infect someone by having sex with them knowing full well you're infected, it seems like it's harder for them to then turn around and say that now you have to make all this effort with Covid not to infect people.

In my original question I wasn't specifically suggesting it should be criminalized, which is especially difficult in the case of a disease that you can contract without knowing it, and may even in good faith think is a cold or the flu. That's why I asked whether the government can do something to put a stop to super-spreading. It doesn't have to involve criminal indictments. In fact the scene I had painted for myself in my head was simply men in space suits coming to cordon off the area with yellow tape, and testing everyone present before they can go.

[rightleft22]

In the black death example. It think society - government - would have the right to create laws to force compliance. 
I suspect with today climate and concept of 'freedom' the government couldn't do it and we deteriorate in to vigilantly type enforcement for the aholes that only consider their own 'individual freedoms' as valid.   

[TheDeamon]

It's just a good idea to keep some of the measures permanently, and never need to be over. Do I really need people to be adjacent to me in line at the grocery store? Shaking hands with strangers should probably go away forever. Other measures like distance learning might be important to eliminate for young children but actually beneficial to keep in higher learning. In my mind we shouldn't think of it as "that's over now let's live like we did in 2019". Partly because this virus is likely to be with us indefinitely, but also because it is highly likely more viruses will appear. I'd like to see businesses maintain the option for remote work for anyone who wants it. I'd like to see meat processing plants regulated to create better health for their workers who are currently all on top of each other.

Now, perhaps you're thinking more about government capacity limitations and other restrictions, rather than government recommendations? I think that's debatable, but it involves having a permanently flattened curve rather than exponential spread, instead of yo-yoing from swampy peak to manageable background. Take a look at influenza charts, statistics like hospitalization go linear within a couple of weeks of onset spread.

Some of this moves into domains that really should likely be incorporating into building/fire/health and safety codes for businesses going forward. But be prepared for the unintended consequences that will follow.

Capacities can remain the same or comparable, so long as they have an HRV/ERV system installed that is capable of handing the number of occupants in the room and at a given rate of air exchange. (There might even be an opening for some further tech to have the system's activity dynamically scale based on actual occupancy rather than maximum capacity) Also mandate air ionizers(there are ceiling fans that also serve as ionizers now) and possibly the use of some UV lamps in the ventilation system to further sterilize the air being pushed around.

Of course, those systems cost money to install, and maintain. Which means remodels become more expensive(as they'd no longer be "grandfathered") and new builds likewise incur some additional costs.

If commercial aircraft are considered to not be a meaningful public health risk because of how they're doing their air handling. It should be entirely possible for a restaurant or bar to accomplish much the same thing. It just means they need to install and implement a far more active ventilation system than the old business paradigm allowed for. (Where bars in particular are infamous for not having enough air handling for the number of people inside them--but fire code allowed it)

Many office buildings and schools would likely be well served if they followed suit as well, as it would help reduce the risk of viral spread between co-workers and students as the viral load in the relevant rooms would be kept to a minimum.

[cherrypoptart]

https://news.yahoo.com/us-restrict-travel-india-over-183052939.html

There goes Biden again with his reactionary knee-jerk racist travel restrictions.

If Americans are spreading the virus around amongst ourselves so much that incoming infectoids are a negligible factor then why do we need travel restrictions?

And if they are a factor in potentially making the pandemic worse for us then why is it okay for hundreds of thousands to keep crossing the border at will, uncaught, never tested, and dispersing themselves directly into our communities because Democrats promise them sanctuary?

https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pearland/crime-courts/article/More-than-100-people-found-in-suspected-stash-5331522.php

"The phone call to police was a plea to help save a family held by smugglers. But when authorities raided the south Harris County home which they believed held the woman and children Wednesday, they found 110 people imprisoned in a packed, rancid "stash house" where smugglers had locked them away pending payment for their freedom."

When I heard the story on the radio it was mentioned that a big concern is Covid and everyone is being tested.

[cherrypoptart]

"That's why I asked whether the government can do something to put a stop to super-spreading. It doesn't have to involve criminal indictments. In fact the scene I had painted for myself in my head was simply men in space suits coming to cordon off the area with yellow tape, and testing everyone present before they can go."

The government can. Local government. State government. I'm not so sure about the jurisdiction of the federal government unless as you pointed out they start considering these incidents acts of terrorism.

Testing everyone right then and there wouldn't do anything though because it takes a few days before the tests would show anything. You'd have to quarantine everyone and then test them after the incubation period.

My point about the principle though is it doesn't matter if you hurt someone with a fist or a pocket knife, a sword or a gun or a nuke; it's all still illegal though the penalties may be more or less severe. 

[Fenring]

My point about the principle though is it doesn't matter if you hurt someone with a fist or a pocket knife, a sword or a gun or a nuke; it's all still illegal though the penalties may be more or less severe.

Using a weapon requires a positive act to result in a murder; moving your deadly fist toward someone's head, thrusting the knife, etc. With a disease it's just being there, maybe sneezing. So in the case of a weapon there's a distinction between possession and employment of the weapon. In the case of a disease, not so. You can say it's legal to carry a knife and not a nuke, and this fact remains so aside from the point that murdering people with either one is 'illegal'. In the case of virulence, possession and delivery is essentially the same thing if you're in the vicinity of others. Your physical presence is effectively the equivalent of brandishing. What you are brandishing, then, matters a lot, and the law wouldn't (or shouldn't) work the same way if you're brandishing a knife (the police talk you down if you're lucky), versus brandishing a nuke (snipers already took you out).

[msquared]

Ok this will be interesting.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/norwegian-cruise-line-ceo-says-170820587.html

Norwegian Cruise Lines says that if they are not allowed to verify passengers are vaccinated, they will not run ships out of FL. FL has, of course, made it illegal for companies to require vaccines to do business.  I wonder what would happen if Disney said it would not open its gates if it could not verify vaccine status?  Disney and the cruises are a large part of the state tourism.

[cherrypoptart]

"Airborne Coronavirus Is a Threat, the C.D.C. Acknowledges"

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now states explicitly — in large, bold lettering — that airborne virus can be inhaled even when one is more than six feet away from an infected individual. The new language, posted online, is a change from the agency’s previous position that most infections were acquired through “close contact, not airborne transmission.”

As the pandemic unfolded last year, infectious disease experts warned for months that both the C.D.C. and the World Health Organization were overlooking research that strongly suggested the coronavirus traveled aloft in small, airborne particles. Several scientists on Friday welcomed the agency’s scrapping of the term “close contact,” which they criticized as vague and said did not necessarily capture the nuances of aerosol transmission.

“C.D.C. has now caught up to the latest scientific evidence, and they’ve gotten rid of some old problematic terms and thinking about how transmission occurs,” said Linsey Marr, an aerosol expert at Virginia Tech."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/airborne-coronavirus-is-a-threat-the-c-d-c-acknowledges/ar-BB1gtRBD

It's nice when our government finally starts to admit the truth of the obvious.

Maybe someday, perhaps like with Covid though it will take until the next administration, our government will likewise admit the truth of the obvious regarding the crisis on the border.

[msquared]

Starting in 2 weeks (May 26) Ohio is going to have a lottery from all of the vaccinated people over 18 (at least one shot). 5 weeks (5 winners). $1 million per drawing.

For kids 12-17, there will be 5 drawings and the winners get a full ride to Ohio State Uni. with full tuition, room/board.

I think this is a great incentive for people to get the shot.  Only Ohio residents qualify, and it costs nothing (as compared to the normal lottery). Your chances are better than the normal lottery.

[TheDrake]

Starting in 2 weeks (May 26) Ohio is going to have a lottery from all of the vaccinated people over 18 (at least one shot). 5 weeks (5 winners). $1 million per drawing.

For kids 12-17, there will be 5 drawings and the winners get a full ride to Ohio State Uni. with full tuition, room/board.

I think this is a great incentive for people to get the shot.  Only Ohio residents qualify, and it costs nothing (as compared to the normal lottery). Your chances are better than the normal lottery.

That is a good plan. Can you enter more than once?

[msquared]

I hope it works. Even an additional 5-10% of the population would be a great boost.  It is an outside the box idea that might well work.  I certainly hope so.

[TheDrake]

Plus, it is an initiative that will easily be partly paid for by reduced healthcare costs through Medicaid, etc. ICU is expensive, as are lesser hospital stays.

[cherrypoptart]

Yeah I heard an NPR show in which they were talking about how to persuade people to get vaccinated. A lottery is one fun way to do it. Another would be to offer to pay for the treatment of adverse reactions and to have a system in which it isn't basically impossible to prove the vaccine caused it.

Sure the most serious adverse reactions are like five in a million odds, a real longshot, almost like winning the lottery except in reverse, but you shouldn't have to lose thousands of your own dollars for treatment when you were doing your civic duty as your government encouraged.

[msquared]

isn't there already a fund for that sort of thing?

I think so

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html