Lol this is amazing...Georgia governor said that he just learned COVID19 can be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers. Wait until someone tells him the Masters golf tournament is postponed!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...matically/

(04-02-2020 04:31 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Lol this is amazing...Georgia governor said that he just learned COVID19 can be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers. Wait until someone tells him the Masters golf tournament is postponed!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...matically/

lol

Jesus.... this is even more alarming than MY concerns (not that it changes the recommendation)

https://theweek.com/speedreads/906407/ex...y-negative

Experts warn as many as 1 in 3 coronavirus test results may be incorrectly negative

Curiously, it doesn't seem to go the other way. The Times adds, "the tests appear to be highly specific: If your test comes back positive, it is almost certain you have the infection."

hence why 'no test' (and appropriate precautions) is better than a flawed one.

(04-02-2020 11:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, liberals are more likely to support the government acting in the benefit of the public good than conservatives and libertarians. Shocked I tell you, shocked.

So let's assume this gets a lot worse... If the government decided to quite literally test every person in the nation... say once a week... and put every infected person into a 'quarantine camp' for the public good.... You okay with that? What if they tracked everyone's cell phones 24/7... requiring you to have one in fact, perhaps even implanting one in you to ensure we could track you and anyone you contacted (so that nobody could simply leave their phone in their car or switch phones with others)... What if you weren't ever again allowed to have a crowd more than 1,000 people, just to be safe? And of course, now that they know exactly where you are and whom you're with 24/7, what ELSE can they know (or imply) about you?

Let's go a step further... What if they decided that 'organic' farms, because they use animal manure and not 'pure, refined and monitored for safety' chemicals had to be closed down in order to avoid transmission through animal feces? No more Guano in cosmetics or even raw honey?

ALL of this 'serving the public interest'.

The point being, you've decided (either condescendingly or arrogantly) to define 'public good' as something you agree with right now. You ignore that throughout history, such a benevolent society has never existed for long without exploitation, often resulting in some form of genocide....

all under the auspices of 'the public good'.

You've kicked (heh) this hornets' nest a few times in this thread, and I'm glad you're doing it. It reminds of my post near the beginning of the thread reflecting on the situation in Germany in the early 1930s. I'll try to recapitulate so that people don't have to go searching through the thread to find my comments:

The elections of 1930 produced a badly-split Reichstag between the Social Democrats (24% of the vote), Nazis (18%), the Centre and Bavarian Peoples' Parties (15%), Communists (13%), the National Peoples' Party (7%), and German Peoples' Party (5%); the remaining 18% was split amongst 31 other parties, nine of which gained parliamentary representation (supporters of proportional representation, take note of this result...). This was an unworkable mix; no parliamentary majority could be reached on any major issue no matter what one's opinion on the issue was. To get anything done, the chancellors of the day repeatedly had to go to President Paul von Hindenburg and get him to invoke Article 48 of the Weimar Republic's constitution, which gave the Reichspräsident the authority to promulgate emergency decrees without the consent of the Reichstag (the nature of what constituted an "emergency" was not defined in the constitution). Essentially, this meant that from 1930 to 1933 Germany was ruled by decree by the Chancellor via the President. After the Reichstag fire of 1933, Adolf Hitler, by then Chancellor, was able to use Article 48 to assume broad powers which eventually allowed him to get the Reichstag to pass the "Enabling Act", essentially giving the Cabinet Article 48 powers without the need of presidential approval and effectively ending democracy in Germany.

The economic and political crises of Germany in 1930 made Article 48 an attractive option to the politicians of the day, but the same people who said "What could possibly go wrong?" in 1930 said "How could this have possibly happened?" in 1933. The United States is facing a crisis today and will face crises in the future, and while we don't have an Article 48 in our constitution, we do have James Clyburns and Gavin Newsoms. What could possibly go wrong?

(04-02-2020 07:00 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 11:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, liberals are more likely to support the government acting in the benefit of the public good than conservatives and libertarians. Shocked I tell you, shocked.

So let's assume this gets a lot worse... If the government decided to quite literally test every person in the nation... say once a week... and put every infected person into a 'quarantine camp' for the public good.... You okay with that? What if they tracked everyone's cell phones 24/7... requiring you to have one in fact, perhaps even implanting one in you to ensure we could track you and anyone you contacted (so that nobody could simply leave their phone in their car or switch phones with others)... What if you weren't ever again allowed to have a crowd more than 1,000 people, just to be safe? And of course, now that they know exactly where you are and whom you're with 24/7, what ELSE can they know (or imply) about you?

Let's go a step further... What if they decided that 'organic' farms, because they use animal manure and not 'pure, refined and monitored for safety' chemicals had to be closed down in order to avoid transmission through animal feces? No more Guano in cosmetics or even raw honey?

ALL of this 'serving the public interest'.

The point being, you've decided (either condescendingly or arrogantly) to define 'public good' as something you agree with right now. You ignore that throughout history, such a benevolent society has never existed for long without exploitation, often resulting in some form of genocide....

all under the auspices of 'the public good'.

You've kicked (heh) this hornets' nest a few times in this thread, and I'm glad you're doing it. It reminds of my post near the beginning of the thread reflecting on the situation in Germany in the early 1930s. I'll try to recapitulate so that people don't have to go searching through the thread to find my comments:

The elections of 1930 produced a badly-split Reichstag between the Social Democrats (24% of the vote), Nazis (18%), the Centre and Bavarian Peoples' Parties (15%), Communists (13%), the National Peoples' Party (7%), and German Peoples' Party (5%); the remaining 18% was split amongst 31 other parties, nine of which gained parliamentary representation (supporters of proportional representation, take note of this result...). This was an unworkable mix; no parliamentary majority could be reached on any major issue no matter what one's opinion on the issue was. To get anything done, the chancellors of the day repeatedly had to go to President Paul von Hindenburg and get him to invoke Article 48 of the Weimar Republic's constitution, which gave the Reichspräsident the authority to promulgate emergency decrees without the consent of the Reichstag (the nature of what constituted an "emergency" was not defined in the constitution). Essentially, this meant that from 1930 to 1933 Germany was ruled by decree by the Chancellor via the President. After the Reichstag fire of 1933, Adolf Hitler, by then Chancellor, was able to use Article 48 to assume broad powers which eventually allowed him to get the Reichstag to pass the "Enabling Act", essentially giving the Cabinet Article 48 powers without the need of presidential approval and effectively ending democracy in Germany.

The economic and political crises of Germany in 1930 made Article 48 an attractive option to the politicians of the day, but the same people who said "What could possibly go wrong?" in 1930 said "How could this have possibly happened?" in 1933. The United States is facing a crisis today and will face crises in the future, and while we don't have an Article 48 in our constitution, we do have James Clyburns and Gavin Newsoms. What could possibly go wrong?

Careful: some here have been quite adamant that such historical reference is "inane".

Lol.

We hit 3M hard today after seeing what they were doing with their Masks. “P Act” all the way. Big surprise to many in government as to what they were doing - will have a big price to pay!

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/stat...72162?s=21

When one understands what just happened re: 3M, it was a great move.

3M only sells to distributors, with long term contracts. 3M has zero present day control over the destination -- the ongoing contracts control.

In the semiconductor world, I had some very good relationships with the distributors and got to know a subset of that world.

What the Trump order did was allow 3M to break every existing contract it had on the books relating to foreign deliveries; that order allows them be scot-free of any contingent or springing obligation, or even face a penalty for default. From what I gather from some people whom I knew there, but are there no longer, they have done so within minutes of the order with all foreign-based distributors.

Trump handed them a get out of the penalty box free card and allowed them to avoid the vast majority, if not all, economic repercussion from breaching any foreign-centric distribution contract.

Official actions can be wonderful things. Very nice move both on the surface and in the way it plays out in the not-so-obvious manner.

edited to add:

If 3M was sending stuff over and throwing the finger at the govt requisition requests -- this is good commupence.

If they were really trying to meet demand but had contractual issues that precluded it -- insto presto cover. Either way it is on its surface a good move.

(04-02-2020 08:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  When one understands what just happened re: 3M, it was a great move.

3M only sells to distributors, with long term contracts. 3M has zero present day control over the destination -- the ongoing contracts control.

In the semiconductor world, I had some very good relationships with the distributors and got to know a subset of that world.

What the Trump order did was allow 3M to break every existing contract it had on the books relating to foreign deliveries; that order allows them be scot-free of any contingent or springing obligation, or even face a penalty for default. From what I gather from some people whom I knew there, but are there no longer, they have done so within minutes of the order with all foreign-based distributors.

Trump handed them a get out of the penalty box free card and allowed them to avoid the vast majority, if not all, economic repercussion from breaching any foreign-centric distribution contract.

Official actions can be wonderful things. Very nice move both on the surface and in the way it plays out in the not-so-obvious manner.

But **** the people who maybe advocated for doing this sooner. Huh?

Depends on what they saw at the various times.

You really seem to have a fing problem with that concept.

Here is the timeline presented in the news:

3M promises to double production

3M promises to double production again

3M then notes that that later production will be, well, later.

Aside from that we know nothing.

Maybe 3M said to the government before the first problem, no sweat, we are doubling.

Maybe the same thing was said at the second doubling.

The issue is that none of us know what went down, nor what was presented. That is, everyone but you the expert in everything under the fing sun, who can glean from who the fk knows where that sometime last December Trump should have exercised.

The simple point is that you dont know *any* of the backstory, nor more than I do. But yet you go all in each and every time about that on this subject. Kind of funny. Please keep squawking.

And the funny thing is that you fall into the into the same cycle time after time, ostensibly filled with the grandeur of heavy state action at every turn possible. Imagine that.

The second funny thing is that you advocated doing this on the *entire* PPE industry if memory serves correctly. Funny, last I saw 3M is not the entire industry, in contradistinction to your arm flapping. In fact, 3M isnt even the entire *domestic* PPE industry.

Yet there is lad, taking a victory lap at one company. When he still has no idea of any of the back facts. Good for him. About par for the course as well.

One serious question lad: when you do/did advocate for a unilateral preemptive use of the DPA, would you consider *any* extraneous circumstances on that quasi nationalization act? Or are you just showing an ingrained junior prot-authoritarian / proto-fascist streak iin using such a bald assessment here?

china

My last post for these graphs. I decided to go all-out and added 2 extras just to tweak how the curves looked. Graph #3 starts with ~3000 confirmed infections as the first day on the graph instead of ~200. Graph #4 combines the European countries I have been tracking and compares them to the USA starting when both hit ~9000 confirmed infections.

(04-02-2020 09:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 12:46 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Nightly graphs. I didn't read any comments today so if anyone is calling me out, calling me names, or calling for a response, I'm not trying to ignore anyone.

It's not all about you.

(04-02-2020 02:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I find that somewhat arrogant, to be blunt.
...
And that is another action on your part that smacks of arrogance.

Yep, that is me. Mr. Arrogant!

(04-02-2020 02:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The issue being presented is that if you have 100,000,000 marbles, you are bitching about the use of 1500 of them.

The number is so relatively low to be utterly inconsequential -- but that is a horrendous Trump mistake. Sounds either really stupid to me, are venality that is beyond measure.

Actually, the issue is that you need 100,000,000 marbles but only have 1,000,000 marbles and now we are giving away 1500 of them. So while it is a bit of a drop in the bucket, some of our people are still going to die without those 1500 marbles. Maybe those people will be in New Orleans or West Texas for all we know.

If you think Trump's use of the DPA was awesome or that he couldn't have reasonably invoked it a couple weeks earlier, good on you. I'm certainly not going to be able to convince you otherwise. Just stop asking me what I would have done differently.

(04-02-2020 09:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, in the public, the PPE providers are literally racing like lizards on crack to get their part done.

Those very public very important criterion are very adroitly overlooked on your oh-so-stunning race to chastise on the DPA. Amazing that. Color me shocked and surprised.

I find it very telling that here, you are saying in fairly certain terms, that you really do not care about the real issues of the DPA, only those issues that you can call out in coloring book level way. Got it. Thank you for the clarification.

You are extremely focused on 1 part of the DPA. While I think encouraging non-PPE and non-ventilator manufacturers to change their production is an important piece, the DPA can also be used to require manufacturers to fulfill government contracts and orders first. This would allow FEMA to buy the PPE and distribute them where needed. Instead, from what I have read, we have 50 states, FEMA, and foreign countries all bidding for the PPE. That might be efficient for pricing, but not real-world need.

(04-02-2020 11:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yep, Roarke's Drift as a very appropriate analogy here.

You do an exquisite job of saying things that make zero sense to me, as I have no idea what Roarke's Drift is. I must live a sheltered life.

(04-02-2020 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Again, I want to point out a very humorous 'about face'. One particular poster here has continuously noted his amazing concerns about Trump being an authoritarian, and his being scared of that trait to some extent.

But, when Trump has been pressed to engage one of *the* most authoritarian acts that *can* be used, Trump noted that there are times and places to use the act, and has refrained in a great deal to use that amazing power.

But now, *the* most authoritarian argument that 'Trump really really really should have used the DPA with only a scintilla of thought or reason behind it' has been promulgated by --- that same poster.

Again, I want to point out a very humorous thing. It isn't humorous actually, just seemed like a good opening line. Trump exercising power that has been vested in him by Congress and has been vested in all recent presidents is OK, especially to save american lives. Trump engaging in authoritarian-curious acts either against Congressional actions or against long-standing norms is a whole different ball of wax. To summarize: keep your balls of wax straight.

(04-02-2020 03:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As for PPE, well fk me, Obama borrowed the truck and never refilled the gas tank. Trump in his tenure didnt do that either. But Obama had a crapload more time to do it, and considering that he drained it *because* of a pandemic, he *might* have learned its fing value to refill it in his 7 years at that wheel.

The Tea Party controlled the House during the last 6 Obama years. Do you really think the Tea Party had any interest in spending billions to restock the national stockpile of PPE when they were forcing austerity, freezes, debt ceiling crises, and a government shutdown? Because that is truly some magical thinking.

(04-02-2020 10:33 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 01:49 AM)mrbig Wrote:  We can just agree to disagree. Obama's response was proportional to the threat. Trump's response has not been proportional to the threat. The threats themselves are so vastly different that it makes comparing them tough. It would have been an insane overreaction for Obama to call for anything like what is happening in most of the country with the stay at home and extreme social distancing. And it would be likewise insane for Trump to not call for it.

To argue that Trump's response hasn't been an order of magnitude more than Obama's is just flat wrong.

I never argued that. Does that make me right? My argument is mostly that Trump's response was too late. If he had done most of the things he eventually did, but had done them 2-4 weeks earlier, it would have made a world of difference. And I have repeatedly cited examples of either experts or politicians calling on him to do those things earlier.

(04-02-2020 10:33 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 01:54 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Well here is a significant difference between you and me. I have long thought that the threat of pandemic disease caused a far greater threat to american life and prosperity that anything else. By a long shot. More pandemics will come too and while this one is tough, it is easy to imagine something even worse (longer incubation, higher fatality rate, etc.). I have worried more about pandemic disease in the last decade than Russia, Iran, and North Korea combined.

Then why not even a PEEP from you over Obama 'ending' the 10yr research partnership with China specifically on pandemic diseases originating there? You guys list every POSSIBLE link between the 2018 budget and China, and you won't even acknowledge that ending a two-party partnership on that specific issue from that specific part of the world COULD have played a part? I'm not saying it specifically did... because I don't believe Trump's moves did either... but you can't reasonably say 'cutting budgets' DID impact them, but ending pandemic research programs in China DIDN'T.

My memory of that issue is that the CDC was helping China build up its internal capabilities and capacities. Once China got to where it wanted/needed to be, then that specific program ended. Unless I am thinking of something else?

(04-02-2020 10:33 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You're calling Trump's response 'not proportional' (of course that's not even a definable number... is Covid twice as bad? 10 times? Is our response twice as much? 10X?) and of course it could easily and likely WILL surpass Swine's numbers.... but we have a long way to go before we've reached those numbers

Long way to go to the 12,000 killed by swine flu? Really? We might be there by the end of this weekend. On 3/23 the USA hit 500 deaths. On 3/25 the USA hit 1000 deaths. On 3/28 the USA hit 2000 deaths. On 3/31 the USA hit 4000 deaths. The number of deaths has been roughly doubling every 3 days. We are at 6000 now and the end of the weekend would get us over 12,000 at the current rate.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hou...s_20200403

Interesting story on Houston and coronavirus cases (and lack of official cases being reported while the hospitals say otherwise).

(04-02-2020 11:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, liberals are more likely to support the government acting in the benefit of the public good than conservatives and libertarians. Shocked I tell you, shocked.

So let's assume this gets a lot worse... If the government decided to quite literally test every person in the nation... say once a week... and put every infected person into a 'quarantine camp' for the public good.... You okay with that? What if they tracked everyone's cell phones 24/7... requiring you to have one in fact, perhaps even implanting one in you to ensure we could track you and anyone you contacted (so that nobody could simply leave their phone in their car or switch phones with others)... What if you weren't ever again allowed to have a crowd more than 1,000 people, just to be safe? And of course, now that they know exactly where you are and whom you're with 24/7, what ELSE can they know (or imply) about you?

Let's go a step further... What if they decided that 'organic' farms, because they use animal manure and not 'pure, refined and monitored for safety' chemicals had to be closed down in order to avoid transmission through animal feces? No more Guano in cosmetics or even raw honey?

ALL of this 'serving the public interest'.

The point being, you've decided (either condescendingly or arrogantly) to define 'public good' as something you agree with right now. You ignore that throughout history, such a benevolent society has never existed for long without exploitation, often resulting in some form of genocide....

all under the auspices of 'the public good'.

I'd say this is quite literally the biggest difference between younger generations and older... between progressives and conservatives. Young progressives believe they can control government. Old conservatives have quite literally had to protect people from their governments. Young progressives focus on whether or not we should have been fighting with Iraq (which is fair to a point)... Older conservatives focus on what that regime was doing to their people. People inbetween vary a balance in between.

The strangest thing about progressives to me is that they don't seem to trust our government against bad regimes (blood for oil in Iraq) but they DO trust our government against us? That's the odd part to me. You'd think that progressives would either trust the government, or not.... and if there is a difference, that they'd be more concerned with trusting how they treat US than with how they treat a dictator thousands of miles away.

Really just want to address one thing - your continued reliance on trying to say everything is condescending or arrogant. It’s tired.

Stating that progressives are more likely to support the government acting in the benefit of the public good is not saying conservatives never do, but rather conservatives and libertarians are more likely to support the private sector acting in the benefit of the public good (or state governments - since we have been talking about fed responses, I didn’t think that was a necessary adjective to use).

I don’t have the urge to go down this slippery-slope rabbit hole, but yes, I do recognize that governments have abused their powers under the auspices of the “public good” across history. I understand the point you’re trying to make, and there is definitely a line that can be crossed where the Feds start going too far, but suffice to say, I don’t think the invocation of the DPA, deployment of the Army Corp, or a better coordination between states is quite there. So I promise I’m not ignoring it!

But yeah, the definition of “public good” is fungible and always changing - so inherently you’re right about it being about what I support, right now. There will be debates in the future, just like there have been in the past, about what constitutes the “public good” and what doesn’t. And right now, I think the “public good” is defined by slowing the spread of the pandemic, and I am more OK than conservatives on this board are with the federal government acting in support of the public good. It seems like most conservatives on this board are more supportive of private industries and states leading the charge, as y’all have very frequently pushed back against suggestions about how the Feds should respond.

https://www.medbelle.com/best-hospital-cities-usa

Ranking of best big cities in US for hospitals. There is some correlation here between the rankings and how they have fared so far with the virus (except for NYC).

(04-03-2020 02:39 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(04-02-2020 02:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The issue being presented is that if you have 100,000,000 marbles, you are bitching about the use of 1500 of them.

The number is so relatively low to be utterly inconsequential -- but that is a horrendous Trump mistake. Sounds either really stupid to me, are venality that is beyond measure.

Actually, the issue is that you need 100,000,000 marbles but only have 1,000,000 marbles and now we are giving away 1500 of them. So while it is a bit of a drop in the bucket, some of our people are still going to die without those 1500 marbles. Maybe those people will be in New Orleans or West Texas for all we know.

Labeling a spit in the bucket as horrendous mistake actually is pretty stupid. And amazingly petty. Dig in harder there, big. Remind me to *never* ask you to borrow a cup of sugar. Ever. Feel better there?

Quote:

(04-02-2020 12:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Again, I want to point out a very humorous 'about face'. One particular poster here has continuously noted his amazing concerns about Trump being an authoritarian, and his being scared of that trait to some extent.

But, when Trump has been pressed to engage one of *the* most authoritarian acts that *can* be used, Trump noted that there are times and places to use the act, and has refrained in a great deal to use that amazing power.

But now, *the* most authoritarian argument that 'Trump really really really should have used the DPA with only a scintilla of thought or reason behind it' has been promulgated by --- that same poster.

Again, I want to point out a very humorous thing. It isn't humorous actually, just seemed like a good opening line. Trump exercising power that has been vested in him by Congress and has been vested in all recent presidents is OK, especially to save american lives. Trump engaging in authoritarian-curious acts either against Congressional actions or against long-standing norms is a whole different ball of wax. To summarize: keep your balls of wax straight.

Yep, good job allowing you, as well, to make sure that you can feel good about your criticism no matter the action, and no matter how hypocritical any conflict between the two. Bravo. mark of snake oil salesman. A good one.

Quote:

(04-02-2020 03:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As for PPE, well fk me, Obama borrowed the truck and never refilled the gas tank. Trump in his tenure didnt do that either. But Obama had a crapload more time to do it, and considering that he drained it *because* of a pandemic, he *might* have learned its fing value to refill it in his 7 years at that wheel.

The Tea Party controlled the House during the last 6 Obama years. Do you really think the Tea Party had any interest in spending billions to restock the national stockpile of PPE when they were forcing austerity, freezes, debt ceiling crises, and a government shutdown? Because that is truly some magical thinking.

Well Mr Objective Pants, perhaps you should bring up such objective facts on how it is the Tea Party fault. Nice default to point at anyone but a demigod ---

Maybe your assertion is true, maybe not. Prove it. Or, just admit that you are pulling the assertion out of your ass. But the immediate yelp and electric hop to point blame away isnt too surprising when the annointed saint is brought into play I guess.

(04-03-2020 02:39 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Again, I want to point out a very humorous thing. It isn't humorous actually, just seemed like a good opening line. Trump exercising power that has been vested in him by Congress and has been vested in all recent presidents is OK, especially to save american lives. Trump engaging in authoritarian-curious acts either against Congressional actions or against long-standing norms is a whole different ball of wax. To summarize: keep your balls of wax straight.

Would it be OK if Trump said he had a pen and a phone? I think you are the one confusing your balls of wax.

Quote:The Tea Party controlled the House during the last 6 Obama years. Do you really think the Tea Party had any interest in spending billions to restock the national stockpile of PPE when they were forcing austerity, freezes, debt ceiling crises, and a government shutdown? Because that is truly some magical thinking.

But you are the one who says the man at the top gets all the blame, that he is the QB, AD, and GM all in one. Now you want to blame Congress? What is the difference? Is this another different ball of wax?

In back-to-back portions of one post, you waffle in an effort to absolve Obama and blame Trump in similar situations.

Seeing articles about dairy farmers dumping milk because of overproduction.

Bring back the government cheese!