(04-22-2020 08:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It's funny that you seem to view Trump's actions as being worthy of an FDR moment while I view it so negatively. Agree to disagree I guess.

(04-23-2020 08:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dallas reopening plan

I have seen other municipalities and states moving to start loosening restrictions, perhaps contrary to the best medical advice. Las Vegas and Georgia come to mind.

There are two considerations, medical and economic, and sometimes the two do not mesh. Clearly the best medical solution would be to enforce some sort of national stay-at-home order for months, perhaps with martial law enforcing it. The economic solutions have to involve some sort of mixing of people - sellers and buyers. Leaders, from Mayors to Presidents, have to balance both.

Quote:"We're gonna be making an announcement opening so many different types of businesses, where you're gonna be able to go to a hair salon, you're gonna be able to go to any type of retail establishment you want to go to, different things like that, with a structure in place that will ensure that we slow the spread of the coronavirus," Abbott told Lubbock radio host Chad Hasty, adding that businesses won't be "fully opened, but ... will be opened in strategic ways, in ways that are approved by doctors to make sure we contain the coronavirus."

Quote:In a second radio interview, Abbott said the announcement will come "either this Friday or next Monday," with the reopenings going into effect a week after the announcement. Business have said they need that weeklong period to "ramp up" again, according to the governor.

"This is gonna be happening in the first couple of days in May where you’re gonna be able to go back and go dining under safe standards, you’re gonna be able to get a haircut … but we’re gonna make sure there’ll be safe standards in place so that you will be able to do that without spreading the coronavirus," Abbott said.

(04-23-2020 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 08:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dallas reopening plan

I have seen other municipalities and states moving to start loosening restrictions, perhaps contrary to the best medical advice. Las Vegas and Georgia come to mind.

There are two considerations, medical and economic, and sometimes the two do not mesh. Clearly the best medical solution would be to enforce some sort of national stay-at-home order for months, perhaps with martial law enforcing it. The economic solutions have to involve some sort of mixing of people - sellers and buyers. Leaders, from Mayors to Presidents, have to balance both.

Is that a reopening plan like your hyperlink title suggests? The article highlights small business loans and mortgage/rental assistance that the city is putting forth. Both are good, but I don't see the reopening component.

Regardless, your comments are why I was happy to see the WH release guidelines for reopening economies - there needs to be a balance between economic/medical considerations, and the federal government providing a road map is helpful to the states/municipalities when they have to act. I was almost immediately dismayed when Trump undercut his own guidelines with his broad comments about liberating certain states.

I do think Harris County has a great plan in place - use bananas as a face covering if you need to.

(04-23-2020 09:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 08:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dallas reopening plan

I have seen other municipalities and states moving to start loosening restrictions, perhaps contrary to the best medical advice. Las Vegas and Georgia come to mind.

There are two considerations, medical and economic, and sometimes the two do not mesh. Clearly the best medical solution would be to enforce some sort of national stay-at-home order for months, perhaps with martial law enforcing it. The economic solutions have to involve some sort of mixing of people - sellers and buyers. Leaders, from Mayors to Presidents, have to balance both.

Is that a reopening plan like your hyperlink title suggests? The article highlights small business loans and mortgage/rental assistance that the city is putting forth. Both are good, but I don't see the reopening component.

Regardless, your comments are why I was happy to see the WH release guidelines for reopening economies - there needs to be a balance between economic/medical considerations, and the federal government providing a road map is helpful to the states/municipalities when they have to act. I was almost immediately dismayed when Trump undercut his own guidelines with his broad comments about liberating certain states.

I do think Harris County has a great plan in place - use bananas as a face covering if you need to.

Bananas? Haven't heard that. What is the scientific basis for that?

(04-23-2020 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 09:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 08:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dallas reopening plan

I have seen other municipalities and states moving to start loosening restrictions, perhaps contrary to the best medical advice. Las Vegas and Georgia come to mind.

There are two considerations, medical and economic, and sometimes the two do not mesh. Clearly the best medical solution would be to enforce some sort of national stay-at-home order for months, perhaps with martial law enforcing it. The economic solutions have to involve some sort of mixing of people - sellers and buyers. Leaders, from Mayors to Presidents, have to balance both.

Is that a reopening plan like your hyperlink title suggests? The article highlights small business loans and mortgage/rental assistance that the city is putting forth. Both are good, but I don't see the reopening component.

Regardless, your comments are why I was happy to see the WH release guidelines for reopening economies - there needs to be a balance between economic/medical considerations, and the federal government providing a road map is helpful to the states/municipalities when they have to act. I was almost immediately dismayed when Trump undercut his own guidelines with his broad comments about liberating certain states.

I do think Harris County has a great plan in place - use bananas as a face covering if you need to.

Bananas? Haven't heard that. What is the scientific basis for that?

Lots of potassium?



https://www.newsbreak.com/texas/houston/news/0Opte0Us/harris-county-judge-lena-hidalgo-now-commands-you-to-wearbananas

(04-23-2020 09:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 09:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 08:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dallas reopening plan

I have seen other municipalities and states moving to start loosening restrictions, perhaps contrary to the best medical advice. Las Vegas and Georgia come to mind.

There are two considerations, medical and economic, and sometimes the two do not mesh. Clearly the best medical solution would be to enforce some sort of national stay-at-home order for months, perhaps with martial law enforcing it. The economic solutions have to involve some sort of mixing of people - sellers and buyers. Leaders, from Mayors to Presidents, have to balance both.

Is that a reopening plan like your hyperlink title suggests? The article highlights small business loans and mortgage/rental assistance that the city is putting forth. Both are good, but I don't see the reopening component.

Regardless, your comments are why I was happy to see the WH release guidelines for reopening economies - there needs to be a balance between economic/medical considerations, and the federal government providing a road map is helpful to the states/municipalities when they have to act. I was almost immediately dismayed when Trump undercut his own guidelines with his broad comments about liberating certain states.

I do think Harris County has a great plan in place - use bananas as a face covering if you need to.

Bananas? Haven't heard that. What is the scientific basis for that?

Lots of potassium?



https://www.newsbreak.com/texas/houston/news/0Opte0Us/harris-county-judge-lena-hidalgo-now-commands-you-to-wearbananas

I love bananas, but I think I would gag at using one as a face covering. Who the hell thought that one up? Have the scientists certified that they act as a good blocker? Why not pumpkins? Are they UH scientists? Have they had an abortion lately?

Here in the boonies, things are much better. My county has had less than two dozen cases, over half already recovered, and no deaths. Maybe we country folk are not so stupid as yall think. Better to live here than Harris county, it seems. People, stores, and businesses are practicing social distancing, but only about 25-30% of shoppers at Wal-Mart are wearing masks.

My nephew who lives in Houston had to make an appointment at the bank to get some papers notarized. Here we just walked in.

(04-23-2020 09:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 09:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 09:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Is that a reopening plan like your hyperlink title suggests? The article highlights small business loans and mortgage/rental assistance that the city is putting forth. Both are good, but I don't see the reopening component.

Regardless, your comments are why I was happy to see the WH release guidelines for reopening economies - there needs to be a balance between economic/medical considerations, and the federal government providing a road map is helpful to the states/municipalities when they have to act. I was almost immediately dismayed when Trump undercut his own guidelines with his broad comments about liberating certain states.

I do think Harris County has a great plan in place - use bananas as a face covering if you need to.

Bananas? Haven't heard that. What is the scientific basis for that?

Lots of potassium?



https://www.newsbreak.com/texas/houston/news/0Opte0Us/harris-county-judge-lena-hidalgo-now-commands-you-to-wearbananas

I love bananas, but I think I would gag at using one as a face covering. Who the hell thought that one up? Have the scientists certified that they act as a good blocker? Why not pumpkins? Are they UH scientists? Have they had an abortion lately?

Here in the boonies, things are much better. My county has had less than two dozen cases, over half already recovered, and no deaths. Maybe we country folk are not so stupid as yall think. Better to live here than Harris county, it seems. People, stores, and businesses are practicing social distancing, but only about 25-30% of shoppers at Wal-Mart are wearing masks.

My nephew who lives in Houston had to make an appointment at the bank to get some papers notarized. Here we just walked in.

Exhibit A on how to ruin a typo that should be universally funny.

(04-22-2020 08:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 08:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:What experts gave what advice to Trump prior to him speaking? You ostensibly sound like you know exactly what went down, from whom, and when. Please educate us.

I'm referring to the experts with whom he has shared the stage for weeks. He heard what they had to say (presuming he was actually listening) and seemingly felt that he had better ideas to share with America.

Can you provide a cite to exactly what they told him? And when?

Go back and look at the press conferences. Look at what his experts were saying on-stage standing next to Trump.

Quote: You are obliquely trying to do a magic hand wand wave on a very specific question, based on a very specific statement that you made (i.e. Trump ignored what those experts told him).

I'm talking about what I heard his experts say standing three feet away from Trump. Not what was said in the back rooms.

Quote:When you actually note the statements of 'it might work, it might not', it does sound at least in small part that he is stating that advice (that is that in your ind would have been ignored). But not being a first hand party to those conversations, I cannot say for sure. Nor do I know anyone who has first hand knowledge. I am asking you how you obtained that first hand knowledge that 'Trump ignored the advice given to him by the experts'.

Press conferences.

Quote:Or, do you 'know this' in a similar manner in which lad 'knows' that a moral position on "abortion" is a proxy for being 'under the anti-science umbrella'?

Quote:If you listened to the Trump's press conferences you would think that Plaquenil had a safety profile similar to 1000 iu of Vitamin D.

Funny -- I would have thought that Plaquenil would had a safety profile of, well, Plaquenil.

Please do state exactly where Trump notes that Plaquenil has a safety profile 'similar to Vitamin D', or any other compound aside from Plaquenil for that matter.

Or is your rhetoric running a tad ahead of you here?

Go back and watch the press conferences and his description on multiple occasions of just how safe Plaquenil is.

Quote:

[stuff about gaining off the shelf prescription medicine]

I guess if you are comfortable with breaking some very serious state and Federal laws on the unauthorized obtaining of and use of such stuff that would be a major concern. I guess if that rampant lawbreaking is a factor, you might have a point. But if that is the case, why the hell do we have any MD prescription laws in any form whatsoever; ostensibly that underground use, possession and transfer is so widespread and pervasive that if that is a very serious problem, then perhaps we should roll back pretty much all the laws on the subject.

I will grant you that those practices exist -- but I would disagree that it would be so amazingly pervasive that it would completely vitiate that MD in the middle. But apparently in your mind it is that stunningly pervasive.

How often do you buy illegal prescription medicines online?

Not sure that my personal lack of experience in buying prescription medicine illegally is relevant to this topic. It happens a lot, though. I have a doctor friend who decided to buy some Plaquenil while in Cabo in March (he's a big Fox News guy FWIW) and was told that people had cleaned them out.

It's funny that you seem to view Trump's actions as being worthy of an FDR moment while I view it so negatively. Agree to disagree I guess.

(04-23-2020 10:40 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 08:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 08:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:What experts gave what advice to Trump prior to him speaking? You ostensibly sound like you know exactly what went down, from whom, and when. Please educate us.

I'm referring to the experts with whom he has shared the stage for weeks. He heard what they had to say (presuming he was actually listening) and seemingly felt that he had better ideas to share with America.

Can you provide a cite to exactly what they told him? And when?

Go back and look at the press conferences. Look at what his experts were saying on-stage standing next to Trump.

Quote: You are obliquely trying to do a magic hand wand wave on a very specific question, based on a very specific statement that you made (i.e. Trump ignored what those experts told him).

I'm talking about what I heard his experts say standing three feet away from Trump. Not what was said in the back rooms.

Quote:When you actually note the statements of 'it might work, it might not', it does sound at least in small part that he is stating that advice (that is that in your ind would have been ignored). But not being a first hand party to those conversations, I cannot say for sure. Nor do I know anyone who has first hand knowledge. I am asking you how you obtained that first hand knowledge that 'Trump ignored the advice given to him by the experts'.

Press conferences.

Quote:Or, do you 'know this' in a similar manner in which lad 'knows' that a moral position on "abortion" is a proxy for being 'under the anti-science umbrella'?

Quote:If you listened to the Trump's press conferences you would think that Plaquenil had a safety profile similar to 1000 iu of Vitamin D.

Funny -- I would have thought that Plaquenil would had a safety profile of, well, Plaquenil.

Please do state exactly where Trump notes that Plaquenil has a safety profile 'similar to Vitamin D', or any other compound aside from Plaquenil for that matter.

Or is your rhetoric running a tad ahead of you here?

Go back and watch the press conferences and his description on multiple occasions of just how safe Plaquenil is.

Quote:

[stuff about gaining off the shelf prescription medicine]

I guess if you are comfortable with breaking some very serious state and Federal laws on the unauthorized obtaining of and use of such stuff that would be a major concern. I guess if that rampant lawbreaking is a factor, you might have a point. But if that is the case, why the hell do we have any MD prescription laws in any form whatsoever; ostensibly that underground use, possession and transfer is so widespread and pervasive that if that is a very serious problem, then perhaps we should roll back pretty much all the laws on the subject.

I will grant you that those practices exist -- but I would disagree that it would be so amazingly pervasive that it would completely vitiate that MD in the middle. But apparently in your mind it is that stunningly pervasive.

How often do you buy illegal prescription medicines online?

Not sure that my personal lack of experience in buying prescription medicine illegally is relevant to this topic. It happens a lot, though. I have a doctor friend who decided to buy some Plaquenil while in Cabo in March (he's a big Fox News guy FWIW) and was told that people had cleaned them out.

It's funny that you seem to view Trump's actions as being worthy of an FDR moment while I view it so negatively. Agree to disagree I guess.

There are plenty of FDR moments that are viewed negatively. Just to mention a few: the attempt to pack the Supreme Court and the internment of Japanese Americans have been universally condemned; maritime policy in the first half of 1942 was a shambles that cost thousands of lives and brought the Allies closer than at any other time to losing the Battle of Atlantic; his policy toward Stalin was notoriously clumsy and naive. Given that FDR was president for twelve years (and a month), it would be impossible for him not to have made made a number of bad decisions, along with the many good ones.

(04-22-2020 05:25 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 12:56 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Yes. I think we're going to find out, in retrospect, that containment was never going to be possible, especially in an open and civil-libertarian society like the US.

Containment requires, as you point out, "early" and "widespread" testing (presumably followed by isolation of those testing positive). But "early" is thwarted by a disease that is super-communicable, has a 14-day incubation period, and leaves the majority of carriers asymptomatic. The horse is miles down the road (and rather more like a rabbit, has reproduced itself quite vigorously) before anyone can notice the open barn door.

Even if this were true, we didn't know it at the time the early decisions were made and it doesn't excuse a slow initial response. "Oh, sorry i blew through the stop sign and ran over your husband and he died a week later. But it turns out he had an aneurysm that was not caused by me running him over and he would have died a week later anyway, so no harm done!"

(04-22-2020 12:56 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  As for "widespread," I recall it being pointed out here that even South Korea would have needed years to test its entire populace at the gold-standard rate they were going, and our population is 5x theirs.

You didn't need to test everyone early because the outbreaks were still fairly small and in a smaller number of communities. And as we have seen with the meat packing plant in South Dakota or the church in South Korea, if some of the particularly bad spreaders had been contained early, that would have reduced the problem by orders-of-magnitude.

(04-23-2020 12:44 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 05:25 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 12:56 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Yes. I think we're going to find out, in retrospect, that containment was never going to be possible, especially in an open and civil-libertarian society like the US.

Containment requires, as you point out, "early" and "widespread" testing (presumably followed by isolation of those testing positive). But "early" is thwarted by a disease that is super-communicable, has a 14-day incubation period, and leaves the majority of carriers asymptomatic. The horse is miles down the road (and rather more like a rabbit, has reproduced itself quite vigorously) before anyone can notice the open barn door.

Even if this were true, we didn't know it at the time the early decisions were made and it doesn't excuse a slow initial response. "Oh, sorry i blew through the stop sign and ran over your husband and he died a week later. But it turns out he had an aneurysm that was not caused by me running him over and he would have died a week later anyway, so no harm done!"

(04-22-2020 12:56 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  As for "widespread," I recall it being pointed out here that even South Korea would have needed years to test its entire populace at the gold-standard rate they were going, and our population is 5x theirs.

You didn't need to test everyone early because the outbreaks were still fairly small and in a smaller number of communities. And as we have seen with the meat packing plant in South Dakota or the church in South Korea, if some of the particularly bad spreaders had been contained early, that would have reduced the problem by orders-of-magnitude.

There is no realistic scenario under which CV could have been contained and stamped out in this country ab initio, due to the nature of the disease and the fact we aren't a surveillance state where it is possible to trace people's movements and contacts without jumping through a lot of time-consuming (and privacy-protecting) hoops.

But the fact that any feasible initial response would ultimately prove ineffective does not excuse its being "slow," according to you. You would have preferred activity for activity's sake. You also persist in thinking that it is somehow a valid criticism to fault the lack of actions that simply weren't and aren't (and hopefully won't ever be) legal here.

Even if you won't take any lessons from this episode, I've at least learned to pay less attention to your posts, which are, at bottom, simply political water-carrying for your team.

(04-23-2020 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 12:44 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 05:25 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 12:56 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Yes. I think we're going to find out, in retrospect, that containment was never going to be possible, especially in an open and civil-libertarian society like the US.

Containment requires, as you point out, "early" and "widespread" testing (presumably followed by isolation of those testing positive). But "early" is thwarted by a disease that is super-communicable, has a 14-day incubation period, and leaves the majority of carriers asymptomatic. The horse is miles down the road (and rather more like a rabbit, has reproduced itself quite vigorously) before anyone can notice the open barn door.

Even if this were true, we didn't know it at the time the early decisions were made and it doesn't excuse a slow initial response. "Oh, sorry i blew through the stop sign and ran over your husband and he died a week later. But it turns out he had an aneurysm that was not caused by me running him over and he would have died a week later anyway, so no harm done!"

(04-22-2020 12:56 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  As for "widespread," I recall it being pointed out here that even South Korea would have needed years to test its entire populace at the gold-standard rate they were going, and our population is 5x theirs.

You didn't need to test everyone early because the outbreaks were still fairly small and in a smaller number of communities. And as we have seen with the meat packing plant in South Dakota or the church in South Korea, if some of the particularly bad spreaders had been contained early, that would have reduced the problem by orders-of-magnitude.

There is no realistic scenario under which CV could have been contained and stamped out in this country ab initio, due to the nature of the disease and the fact we aren't a surveillance state where it is possible to trace people's movements and contacts without jumping through a lot of time-consuming (and privacy-protecting) hoops.

But the fact that any feasible initial response would ultimately prove ineffective does not excuse its being "slow," according to you. You would have preferred activity for activity's sake. You also persist in thinking that it is somehow a valid criticism to fault the lack of actions that simply weren't and aren't (and hopefully won't ever be) legal here.

Even if you won't take any lessons from this episode, I've at least learned to pay less attention to your posts, which are, at bottom, simply political water-carrying for your team.

But is this issue binary? As in, there's either benefit if spread is contained or no benefit if it wasn't?

Would there have been no benefit to early testing/tracing, even if COVID-19 couldn't have been completely contained? I imagine that even if containment wasn't possible, early testing/tracing could have shown community spread was occurring and we could have addressed that with mitigation measures that could have helped with slowing the initial spread to give areas, the government, and private industry more time to prepare?

(04-23-2020 01:19 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 12:44 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 05:25 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 12:56 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Yes. I think we're going to find out, in retrospect, that containment was never going to be possible, especially in an open and civil-libertarian society like the US.

Containment requires, as you point out, "early" and "widespread" testing (presumably followed by isolation of those testing positive). But "early" is thwarted by a disease that is super-communicable, has a 14-day incubation period, and leaves the majority of carriers asymptomatic. The horse is miles down the road (and rather more like a rabbit, has reproduced itself quite vigorously) before anyone can notice the open barn door.

Even if this were true, we didn't know it at the time the early decisions were made and it doesn't excuse a slow initial response. "Oh, sorry i blew through the stop sign and ran over your husband and he died a week later. But it turns out he had an aneurysm that was not caused by me running him over and he would have died a week later anyway, so no harm done!"

(04-22-2020 12:56 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  As for "widespread," I recall it being pointed out here that even South Korea would have needed years to test its entire populace at the gold-standard rate they were going, and our population is 5x theirs.

You didn't need to test everyone early because the outbreaks were still fairly small and in a smaller number of communities. And as we have seen with the meat packing plant in South Dakota or the church in South Korea, if some of the particularly bad spreaders had been contained early, that would have reduced the problem by orders-of-magnitude.

There is no realistic scenario under which CV could have been contained and stamped out in this country ab initio, due to the nature of the disease and the fact we aren't a surveillance state where it is possible to trace people's movements and contacts without jumping through a lot of time-consuming (and privacy-protecting) hoops.

But the fact that any feasible initial response would ultimately prove ineffective does not excuse its being "slow," according to you. You would have preferred activity for activity's sake. You also persist in thinking that it is somehow a valid criticism to fault the lack of actions that simply weren't and aren't (and hopefully won't ever be) legal here.

Even if you won't take any lessons from this episode, I've at least learned to pay less attention to your posts, which are, at bottom, simply political water-carrying for your team.

But is this issue binary? As in, there's either benefit if spread is contained or no benefit if it wasn't?

Would there have been no benefit to early testing/tracing, even if COVID-19 couldn't have been completely contained? I imagine that even if containment wasn't possible, early testing/tracing could have shown community spread was occurring and we could have addressed that with mitigation measures that could have helped with slowing the initial spread to give areas, the government, and private industry more time to prepare?

Could we do that?
I read an interesting article yesterday about the tracing of the genome and the origins of the pandemic in the US. Washington was an early entry point and 40% of US cases were traced back to Seattle. There was a patient who flew into SeaTac from China who ended up testing positive that was thought to be the source. This genome would spread to various US states as well as Australia and Europe. However, there seems to be a second related genome out of Seattle that showed up in Vancouver, BC, just prior to showing up in Seattle. The source of this genome was never traced back to any individual. So, it looks like Seattle was an entry point from 2 different people with one of them driving over from Canada and there is no idea who this person is.

(04-23-2020 02:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 01:19 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 12:44 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(04-22-2020 05:25 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Even if this were true, we didn't know it at the time the early decisions were made and it doesn't excuse a slow initial response. "Oh, sorry i blew through the stop sign and ran over your husband and he died a week later. But it turns out he had an aneurysm that was not caused by me running him over and he would have died a week later anyway, so no harm done!"


You didn't need to test everyone early because the outbreaks were still fairly small and in a smaller number of communities. And as we have seen with the meat packing plant in South Dakota or the church in South Korea, if some of the particularly bad spreaders had been contained early, that would have reduced the problem by orders-of-magnitude.

There is no realistic scenario under which CV could have been contained and stamped out in this country ab initio, due to the nature of the disease and the fact we aren't a surveillance state where it is possible to trace people's movements and contacts without jumping through a lot of time-consuming (and privacy-protecting) hoops.

But the fact that any feasible initial response would ultimately prove ineffective does not excuse its being "slow," according to you. You would have preferred activity for activity's sake. You also persist in thinking that it is somehow a valid criticism to fault the lack of actions that simply weren't and aren't (and hopefully won't ever be) legal here.

Even if you won't take any lessons from this episode, I've at least learned to pay less attention to your posts, which are, at bottom, simply political water-carrying for your team.

But is this issue binary? As in, there's either benefit if spread is contained or no benefit if it wasn't?

Would there have been no benefit to early testing/tracing, even if COVID-19 couldn't have been completely contained? I imagine that even if containment wasn't possible, early testing/tracing could have shown community spread was occurring and we could have addressed that with mitigation measures that could have helped with slowing the initial spread to give areas, the government, and private industry more time to prepare?

Could we do that?
I read an interesting article yesterday about the tracing of the genome and the origins of the pandemic in the US. Washington was an early entry point and 40% of US cases were traced back to Seattle. There was a patient who flew into SeaTac from China who ended up testing positive that was thought to be the source. This genome would spread to various US states as well as Australia and Europe. However, there seems to be a second related genome out of Seattle that showed up in Vancouver, BC, just prior to showing up in Seattle. The source of this genome was never traced back to any individual. So, it looks like Seattle was an entry point from 2 different people with one of them driving over from Canada and there is no idea who this person is.

It’s too uncertain to say certainly one way or the other - but that’s why I say it’s not binary. But I feel like there are a whole host of reasonable situations that could have resulted in different outcomes.

For example, Mardi Gras was still held at the end of February. Imagine if we had started testing in the US prior to it and cases were identified that were connected to NOLA? Would the celebration still have occurred?

Same with Winter Party in Miami, which happened in early March and was basically a proven vector for transmitting COVID outside of the state (see the article about the doctor from Boston who attended).

(04-23-2020 03:11 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 02:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 01:19 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 12:44 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  There is no realistic scenario under which CV could have been contained and stamped out in this country ab initio, due to the nature of the disease and the fact we aren't a surveillance state where it is possible to trace people's movements and contacts without jumping through a lot of time-consuming (and privacy-protecting) hoops.

But the fact that any feasible initial response would ultimately prove ineffective does not excuse its being "slow," according to you. You would have preferred activity for activity's sake. You also persist in thinking that it is somehow a valid criticism to fault the lack of actions that simply weren't and aren't (and hopefully won't ever be) legal here.

Even if you won't take any lessons from this episode, I've at least learned to pay less attention to your posts, which are, at bottom, simply political water-carrying for your team.

But is this issue binary? As in, there's either benefit if spread is contained or no benefit if it wasn't?

Would there have been no benefit to early testing/tracing, even if COVID-19 couldn't have been completely contained? I imagine that even if containment wasn't possible, early testing/tracing could have shown community spread was occurring and we could have addressed that with mitigation measures that could have helped with slowing the initial spread to give areas, the government, and private industry more time to prepare?

Could we do that?
I read an interesting article yesterday about the tracing of the genome and the origins of the pandemic in the US. Washington was an early entry point and 40% of US cases were traced back to Seattle. There was a patient who flew into SeaTac from China who ended up testing positive that was thought to be the source. This genome would spread to various US states as well as Australia and Europe. However, there seems to be a second related genome out of Seattle that showed up in Vancouver, BC, just prior to showing up in Seattle. The source of this genome was never traced back to any individual. So, it looks like Seattle was an entry point from 2 different people with one of them driving over from Canada and there is no idea who this person is.

It’s too uncertain to say certainly one way or the other - but that’s why I say it’s not binary. But I feel like there are a whole host of reasonable situations that could have resulted in different outcomes.

For example, Mardi Gras was still held at the end of February. Imagine if we had started testing in the US prior to it and cases were identified that were connected to NOLA? Would the celebration still have occurred?

Same with Winter Party in Miami, which happened in early March and was basically a proven vector for transmitting COVID outside of the state (see the article about the doctor from Boston who attended).

Who would you test? There are some reports that upwards of 50% of infected people have no symptoms (and it is suspected that the individual from Canada that came into the Seattle area was without symptoms). You going to test anybody who went to those events as a condition of participating in those events? Spring breakers in Florida new of the risk and went anyway, stated they didn't care and what do ya know? It was a cluster of propagation because there were asymptomatic individuals who showed up at the event. Same as a square dancing event in the Seattle area that sent the Seattle virus across the country.