Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[SonicG]

Work is the greatest cause of death in the world...Sadly, and especially in Western countries, many many males try to cover the death-void of work with mindless sport and associated trivia. The lack of sporting diversion may likely increase suicide to over that of work-related suicides, and will certainly increase domestic violence too. But really, what's to blame here, the quarantine or the unnatural structures we have created to disguise our main purpose as worker ants for the one percent?
Work is never freedom...and in the US, those pissed off NASCAR fans have lots and lots of guns...

[0_0]

I suspect a lot of deaths during lockdowns are from vulnerable people not getting the medical help that would usually be (more or less) available to them because healthcare was focused on the forecasted tsunami of covid deaths to the exclusion of everything else (half a million deaths in the uk alone! predicted by imperial college's Neil Ferguson) and basic services like public transit were suddenly less available to them if at all. I also suspect the number of suicides due to the lack of sports entertainment is negligible, and that argument seems a little spurious to me frankly..

[0_0]

[stickdog99]

To me, it sets a ridiculously bad precedent to criminalize coming within six feet of other people or failing to wear a mask.

Too many people, even many here, do not seem to appreciate the very basic idea that almost everyone will be exposed to this virus one way or another before this is over. All we can possibly do by steering clear of others is to flatten the curve. Are you really in favor of jailing someone who may or may not actually have a certain virus for potentially transmitting to someone something with the potential to perhaps harm this person at a time that is potentially not optimal in terms of available medical resources for this person to be exposed to something that he or she will soon almost certainly be exposed to anyway?

Why not criminalize sex? Sex has the potential to lead to all sorts of ill health effects. Aren't you willfully risking the health of your partners in the same sort of manner every time you have sex?

Why not criminalize sports? Sports have the potential to lead to all sorts of ill health effects. Aren't you willfully risking the health of those you are competing against every time you play sports?

Why not criminalize driving? Driving has the potential to lead to all sorts of ill health effects. Aren't you willfully risking the health of other drivers every time you drive?

While we are at it, why not criminalize email? Email is a major cause of identity theft. Why not criminalize computer use and internet shopping? Aren't you risking creating another Bill Gates every time you use a computer? Why not criminal writing? I mean, this post could hurt someone.

[liminalOyster]

I agree emphatically that all sorts of risky precedents are at play or potential play. Some of the worst I can imagine in fact.

I'm also very confident that masks and social distancing help reduce transmission and save lives. Much like I believe about vaccines in general while passionately and totally opposing them ever being mandatory.

So I have no difficulty separating out in my own mind that one can 100% oppose any criminalization of what need to be consensual opt-ins and still passionately support the proposed measures.

Please *choose* to wear a mask in public places.

Please. Please. Please.

[DrEvil]

To me, it sets a ridiculously bad precedent to criminalize coming within six feet of other people or failing to wear a mask.

Not really a precedent. Look up Typhoid Mary.

Too many people, even many here, do not seem to appreciate the very basic idea that almost everyone will be exposed to this virus one way or another before this is over. All we can possibly do by steering clear of others is to flatten the curve. Are you really in favor of jailing someone who may or may not actually have a certain virus for potentially transmitting to someone something with the potential to perhaps harm this person at a time that is potentially not optimal in terms of available medical resources for this person to be exposed to something that he or she will soon almost certainly be exposed to anyway?

If you're supposed to be in quarantine because you've had close contact with someone who tested positive then yes, you should get slapped if you ignore it. Jail is probably too harsh unless you're being exceptionally stupid, like repeatedly breaking quarantine or coughing on people on purpose.

Why not criminalize sex? Sex has the potential to lead to all sorts of ill health effects. Aren't you willfully risking the health of your partners in the same sort of manner every time you have sex?

If you intentionally infect someone else with an STD then that's already a criminal offense.

Why not criminalize sports? Sports have the potential to lead to all sorts of ill health effects. Aren't you willfully risking the health of those you are competing against every time you play sports?

I'm in favor of arming the pit crews in NASCAR, and golf should be a full-contact sport.

Why not criminalize driving? Driving has the potential to lead to all sorts of ill health effects. Aren't you willfully risking the health of other drivers every time you drive?

To be allowed to drive you have to actually prove to the government that you're competent before they'll let you do it, and driving irresponsibly (drunk, high, too fast, the wrong way, without a license, doing doughnuts on the freeway, etc.) is already illegal.

While we are at it, why not criminalize email? Email is a major cause of identity theft. Why not criminalize computer use and internet shopping? Aren't you risking creating another Bill Gates every time you use a computer? Why not criminal writing? I mean, this post could hurt someone.

Just to be on the safe side we should make living illegal. You never know when the next Hitler shows up.

[0_0]

funny article: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coronavirus/why-white-men-in-america-are-refusing-to-wear-masks have at it

[0_0]

Let's hear what the UK Chief Med Officer has to say: most people will not get this virus at all at any point, of the minority who do get it some will get it without even knowing it (asymptomatic), of those who get symptoms the great majority (probably 80%) will have a mild to moderate disease (not bad enough to go to the doctor), an unfortunate minority will have to go to hospital, but the majority of those will just need oxygen and then leave the hospital, and then a minority of those will have to go to severe and critical care, and some of those (to recap: some of a minority of a minority of a minority) sadly will die.. again, not my words, but the words of the UK Chief Med Officer.. now where's my welding mask?



Meanwhile:

The UK’s new joint biosecurity centre, an independent body monitoring the coronavirus threat level, is to be set up by a senior counterterror official in the running to become the next chief of MI6, the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service.

https://www.ft.com/content/8a37555e-8c5 ... 0290e5977f

[0_0]

Californians dying to sit and order a meal in their favorite restaurant got a glimmer of hope Tuesday, as Gov. Gavin Newsom laid out the steps eateries must take to begin welcoming back dine-in customers, the latest move in his gradual push to reopen the state. Almost two months after coronavirus lockdowns forced California restaurants to close their dining rooms and limit service to takeout only, Newsom painted a detailed picture of what opening day will look like when those restrictions are lifted. The governor’s new guidelines include customers wearing masks when they aren’t eating, patrons getting screened for COVID-19 symptoms at the door, expanded outdoor seating and customers waiting in their cars for a table.

http://ocregister.ca.newsmemory.com/?publink=077f4d6b2 bone apple tea!


pic is actually Amsterdam ok, same difference courtesy of The Great Equalizer™

[stickdog99]

I agree emphatically that all sorts of risky precedents are at play or potential play. Some of the worst I can imagine in fact.

I'm also very confident that masks and social distancing help reduce transmission and save lives. Much like I believe about vaccines in general while passionately and totally opposing them ever being mandatory.

So I have no difficulty separating out in my own mind that one can 100% oppose any criminalization of what need to be consensual opt-ins and still passionately support the proposed measures.

Please *choose* to wear a mask in public places.

Please. Please. Please.

I have no problem with this. Obviously, I advocate breathing responsibly. With so many unknowns, why try to help out however you can?

And about vaccines, all I want is mechanisms in place that at least try to demonstrate that each and every recommended vaccine's benefits exceed its costs and risks. As it stands today, our medical community assumes that this is true for every vaccine ever invented to date or yet to be invented until proven otherwise by mechanisms purposefully designed not to be able to quantify the health risks of any approved vaccine while shielding vaccine manufacturers of all liability of any harms their vaccines might inflict. How does such a system make sense unless you assume that all vaccine manufacturers are somehow uniquely altruistic among capitalists or that all vaccines are uniquely harmless among pharmacologically active substances?

[stickdog99]

To me, it sets a ridiculously bad precedent to criminalize coming within six feet of other people or failing to wear a mask.

Not really a precedent. Look up Typhoid Mary.

Too many people, even many here, do not seem to appreciate the very basic idea that almost everyone will be exposed to this virus one way or another before this is over. All we can possibly do by steering clear of others is to flatten the curve. Are you really in favor of jailing someone who may or may not actually have a certain virus for potentially transmitting to someone something with the potential to perhaps harm this person at a time that is potentially not optimal in terms of available medical resources for this person to be exposed to something that he or she will soon almost certainly be exposed to anyway?

If you're supposed to be in quarantine because you've had close contact with someone who tested positive then yes, you should get slapped if you ignore it. Jail is probably too harsh unless you're being exceptionally stupid, like repeatedly breaking quarantine or coughing on people on purpose.

Why not criminalize sex? Sex has the potential to lead to all sorts of ill health effects. Aren't you willfully risking the health of your partners in the same sort of manner every time you have sex?

If you intentionally infect someone else with an STD then that's already a criminal offense.

That's a bizarre reply. I mean, if you put COVID-19 in someone's drink in order to infect them, sure you should go to jail. But how does going outside without a mask or coming within 4 feet of someone have anything to do with intentionally infecting someone else with a STD?

And I don't think you would bat an eye if any heathen who committed the high crime of refusing vaccination or not wearing a required mask were intentionally infected with disease as punishment. I mean, look up Typhoid Mary.

[liminalOyster]

I agree emphatically that all sorts of risky precedents are at play or potential play. Some of the worst I can imagine in fact.

I'm also very confident that masks and social distancing help reduce transmission and save lives. Much like I believe about vaccines in general while passionately and totally opposing them ever being mandatory.

So I have no difficulty separating out in my own mind that one can 100% oppose any criminalization of what need to be consensual opt-ins and still passionately support the proposed measures.

Please *choose* to wear a mask in public places.

Please. Please. Please.

I have no problem with this. Obviously, I advocate breathing responsibly. With so many unknowns, why try to help out however you can?

And about vaccines, all I want is mechanisms in place that at least try to demonstrate that each and every recommended vaccine's benefits exceed its costs and risks. As it stands today, our medical community assumes that this is true for every vaccine ever invented to date or yet to be invented until proven otherwise by mechanisms purposefully designed not to be able to quantify the health risks of any approved vaccine while shielding vaccine manufacturers of all liability of any harms their vaccines might inflict. How does such a system make sense unless you assume that all vaccine manufacturers are somehow uniquely altruistic among capitalists or that all vaccines are uniquely harmless among pharmacologically active substances?

Yeah IIRC we once hashed this out on the vaccine thread and actually share the great majority of our view despite what appear on surface to be deep schisms.

What concerns me.most about the conceit of a pro vs anti vaxx debate spectacle is actually that it slides vaccination into a sacred/good ontological category where its anathema, even as a vaccine supporter, to even acknowledge that 1) vax typically carries the very very small risk of horrific outcomes for a tiny minority and 2) its essentially impossible to design controlled studies for how increasing the number of Vax ad infinitum may have emergent effects.

[0_0]

Well, don't worry too much:

DOD Awards $138 Million Contract, Enabling Prefilled Syringes for Future COVID-19 Vaccine
MAY 12, 2020

Statement attributed to Lt. Col. Mike Andrews, Department of Defense spokesman:

"Today the Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, announce a $138 million contract with ApiJect Systems America for “Project Jumpstart” and “RAPID USA,” which together will dramatically expand U.S. production capability for domestically manufactured, medical-grade injection devices starting by October 2020.

Spearheaded by the DOD’s Joint Acquisition Task Force (JATF), in coordination with the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the contract will support “Jumpstart” to create a U.S.-based, high-speed supply chain for prefilled syringes beginning later this year by using well-established Blow-Fill-Seal (BFS) aseptic plastics manufacturing technology, suitable for combatting COVID-19 when a safe and proven vaccine becomes available.

By immediately upgrading a sufficient number of existing domestic BFS facilities with installations of filling-line and technical improvements, “Jumpstart” will enable the manufacture of more than 100 million prefilled syringes for distribution across the United States by year-end 2020.

The contract also enables ApiJect Systems America to accelerate the launch of RAPID USA manufactured in new and permanent U.S.-based BFS facilities with the ultimate production goal of over 500 million prefilled syringes (doses) in 2021. This effort will be executed initially in Connecticut, South Carolina and Illinois, with potential expansion to other U.S.-based locations. RAPID will provide increased lifesaving capability against future national health emergencies that require population-scale vaccine administration on an urgent basis.

RAPID’s permanent fill-finish production capability will help significantly decrease the United States’ dependence on offshore supply chains and its reliance on older technologies with much longer production lead times. These supplies can be used if a successful SARS-COV-2 vaccine is oral or intranasal rather than injectable."

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releas ... vDelivery/

[0_0]

some things bear repeating:

[Sounder]

At least we have poetic justice in this world.

r-con-cov-1.jpg