Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#76,878
#76,878
The CDC and the WHO now suggest people wear face coverings to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, which is spread through respiratory droplets when a person coughs, sneezes or talks. Face coverings are "the most powerful public health tool" the nation has against the coronavirus and might even provide better protection against it than a vaccine, the head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told lawmakers Wednesday. "We have clear scientific evidence they work and they are our best defense,"

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/16/cdc...ore-protection-than-coronavirus-vaccine-.html
 
#76,881
#76,881
Mick said:
Sound's like you're talking about the inherent nature of capitalism for which there's not a capitalistic solution.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Sometimes you'd think an injection of common sense would apply, but that would require long term thinking, and that's in short supply in the business/fiance/investment sector - and most other places. Henry Ford at least understood the worker as consumer relationship which is a far cry from both the "robber barons" of his time and current business practice. However, there's not a better solution than capitalism. Business requires a motivating factor and that is pretty much limited to profit. Even the most basic economics textbooks generally start with a statement that if a business won't return more than investment of the capital, forget the business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#76,882
#76,882
In Volunteer-related COVID-19 lunacy, Knox County currently has 29 COVID-19 hospitalizations and (in spite of high cases/day) is on track to have fewer deaths in September than August (which itself saw a decrease from the number of deaths in July). 67 people have unfortunately succumbed to COVID-19 in Knox County since the dawn of this pandemic and ~6,900 of the ~8,650 cases of COVID-19 in the county are inactive.

Yet... there is a strong push to replace the present bar curfew of 10:00 PM, set to expire tonight, with a stronger measure outlawing the sale of alcohol entirely past either 9:00 or 10:00 at night. Bars on the strip aren't particularly adhering to the "mandate" that they close up shop once the clock strikes 10, and there are a number of establishments throughout Knoxville suspiciously claiming that 50%+ of their revenue comes from food.

This, of course, is completely absurd. We are now 185 days into "15 days to slow the spread" and Knox County's hospitals remain particularly unencumbered by this disease. Implementing a curfew on businesses in the county just because you don't like the case count is a total joke, especially when you've seen that a number of businesses don't particularly care about following your guidelines (and they shouldn't!). All you're doing with these ridiculously-draconian decrees is punishing the "good" businesses (who give you plenty of tax revenue) doing their best to maintain compliance with distancing best-practices and goading the "bad" businesses into bucking your silly law (perhaps the KCS will come out and remind everyone that he won't be enforcing this nonsense).

Can you imagine bars and restaurants closing during the third quarter of the South Carolina game? Me neither!
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc, Rickyvol77 and allvol123
#76,883
#76,883
chrismc1000 said:
Look at the deaths when states started to break down the Chinese virus deaths. Not hard to find really. It's been in the news that if someone tested positive for the Chinese virus but was shot to death they still listed the virus on the death certificate. That gets counted towards this 200k number. That means the numbers are fudged which then raises the question how many people have actually died from the virus. Going by cdc it's 10k
Click to expand...
No, 10k is the number net of pre-existing conditions. Hell, nearly half of the US population has prexisting conditions. The hypothetical you gave above would be an over count but we both know that situation and other similar situations is a very small percentage.
 
#76,885
#76,885
Mick said:
Advocating doing away with the First Amendment are you?
Click to expand...

In the time that the 1st Amendment was written, electronic communication didn't exist, so it was far different with respect to the dissemination of news. There were far fewer "channels" for the distribution of news, and perhaps reporters felt the need to be more purveyors of who, what, when, where, how etc - fact. Without doubt there was still bias, but I have to believe those earlier journalist were more ethical than the current crop. You realize most "reporters" these days are never actually there - they piggyback stories which simply become opinion pieces. Larger news businesses have been caught editing even on camera interviews - just snip a bit here and there and even the "only believe what you see" thing goes by the wayside.

So, yeah, I see no reason to continue giving those who are loose with the truth the protections that allow them access and irresponsibility. Do we really need a "reporter" to tell us what was just presented in a speech so we "understand" what we didn't understand first hand. Do we really need a reporter to show the "he hit me back first" blow rather than the initiating event when it doesn't fit the reporter's agenda? Where once we needed a real journalist because you couldn't crowd the entire populace into the available space - even if they could physically get there considering distance and travel mode, we can simply insert cameras and microphones and broadcast the real thing ... of course, that means not having someone explain what we just saw and heard - and that's opinion.

The thought of honest investigative journalism died years ago - if it ever existed.
 
#76,886
#76,886
AM64 said:
In the time that the 1st Amendment was written, electronic communication didn't exist, so it was far different with respect to the dissemination of news. There were far fewer "channels" for the distribution of news, and perhaps reporters felt the need to be more purveyors of who, what, when, where, how etc - fact. Without doubt there was still bias, but I have to believe those earlier journalist were more ethical than the current crop. You realize most "reporters" these days are never actually there - they piggyback stories which simply become opinion pieces. Larger news businesses have been caught editing even on camera interviews - just snip a bit here and there and even the "only believe what you see" thing goes by the wayside.

So, yeah, I see no reason to continue giving those who are loose with the truth the protections that allow them access and irresponsibility. Do we really need a "reporter" to tell us what was just presented in a speech so we "understand" what we didn't understand first hand. Do we really need a reporter to show the "he hit me back first" blow rather than the initiating event when it doesn't fit the reporter's agenda? Where once we needed a real journalist because you couldn't crowd the entire populace into the available space - even if they could physically get there considering distance and travel mode, we can simply insert cameras and microphones and broadcast the real thing ... of course, that means not having someone explain what we just saw and heard - and that's opinion.

The thought of honest investigative journalism died years ago - if it ever existed.
Click to expand...

Now apply this same logic to the 2A.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother and BowlBrother85
#76,890
#76,890
37L1 said:
Maybe it was a test before the real thing. If we freaked out over this and almost destroyed ourselves. . .
Click to expand...

Probing has long been a military strategy. Looking for a weakness to exploit or to see how prepared to respond and how the adversary will respond is sound strategy. It can even lull an adversary into expecting and preparing one kind of attack while planning to do something very different. Besides, you never know when you might get lucky and find a real weakness and rout the enemy with what started as a simple probe.

Our strength during WW2 was physical isolation, resources, and manufacturing. Modern weapons have lessened the isolation, our business wizards gave away our manufacturing - facilities and a trained workforce, and it's doubtful that we could count on resources to again manufacture what we once did. We have a great distribution system to handle stuff made in China, which won't be of much value if the Chinese turn off the source. I could easily see this as a trial run with a non lethal virus to see how we and other countries worldwide could cope in the face of worse.
 
#76,892
#76,892
headhunter15 said:
Click to expand...

Does she really? Because Kayleigh McEnany was also asked last week if Donald Trump was correct for playing down the virus. Her response was, "The president didn't downplay the virus,". Of course, on Woodward's tapes, Trump is specifically heard saying that he did play down the virus. McEnany does a lot of gaslighting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: titansvolsfaninga
#76,893
#76,893
TrumpedUpVol said:
In Volunteer-related COVID-19 lunacy, Knox County currently has 29 COVID-19 hospitalizations and (in spite of high cases/day) is on track to have fewer deaths in September than August (which itself saw a decrease from the number of deaths in July). 67 people have unfortunately succumbed to COVID-19 in Knox County since the dawn of this pandemic and ~6,900 of the ~8,650 cases of COVID-19 in the county are inactive.

Yet... there is a strong push to replace the present bar curfew of 10:00 PM, set to expire tonight, with a stronger measure outlawing the sale of alcohol entirely past either 9:00 or 10:00 at night. Bars on the strip aren't particularly adhering to the "mandate" that they close up shop once the clock strikes 10, and there are a number of establishments throughout Knoxville suspiciously claiming that 50%+ of their revenue comes from food.

This, of course, is completely absurd. We are now 185 days into "15 days to slow the spread" and Knox County's hospitals remain particularly unencumbered by this disease. Implementing a curfew on businesses in the county just because you don't like the case count is a total joke, especially when you've seen that a number of businesses don't particularly care about following your guidelines (and they shouldn't!). All you're doing with these ridiculously-draconian decrees is punishing the "good" businesses (who give you plenty of tax revenue) doing their best to maintain compliance with distancing best-practices and goading the "bad" businesses into bucking your silly law (perhaps the KCS will come out and remind everyone that he won't be enforcing this nonsense).

Can you imagine bars and restaurants closing during the third quarter of the South Carolina game? Me neither!
Click to expand...
We have the smallest number of COVID positive patients we've had in months and even then only a couple are in "serious" condition
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc, TrumpedUpVol and AM64
#76,895
#76,895
BowlBrother85 said:
Does she really? Because Kayleigh McEnany was also asked last week if Donald Trump was correct for playing down the virus. Her response was, "The president didn't downplay the virus,". Of course, on Woodward's tapes, Trump is specifically heard saying that he did play down the virus. McEnany does a lot of gaslighting.
Click to expand...
it's called alternative facts....their fact is their reality
 
#76,897
#76,897
AM64 said:
In the time that the 1st Amendment was written, electronic communication didn't exist, so it was far different with respect to the dissemination of news. There were far fewer "channels" for the distribution of news, and perhaps reporters felt the need to be more purveyors of who, what, when, where, how etc - fact. Without doubt there was still bias, but I have to believe those earlier journalist were more ethical than the current crop. You realize most "reporters" these days are never actually there - they piggyback stories which simply become opinion pieces. Larger news businesses have been caught editing even on camera interviews - just snip a bit here and there and even the "only believe what you see" thing goes by the wayside.

So, yeah, I see no reason to continue giving those who are loose with the truth the protections that allow them access and irresponsibility. Do we really need a "reporter" to tell us what was just presented in a speech so we "understand" what we didn't understand first hand. Do we really need a reporter to show the "he hit me back first" blow rather than the initiating event when it doesn't fit the reporter's agenda? Where once we needed a real journalist because you couldn't crowd the entire populace into the available space - even if they could physically get there considering distance and travel mode, we can simply insert cameras and microphones and broadcast the real thing ... of course, that means not having someone explain what we just saw and heard - and that's opinion.

The thought of honest investigative journalism died years ago - if it ever existed.
Click to expand...
And you would be wrong. The 1st Amendment exists because of the essential need for a free press to serve as a check against public corruption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother
#76,899
#76,899
Rickyvol77 said:
We have the smallest number of COVID positive patients we've had in months and even then only a couple are in "serious" condition
Click to expand...

It's a researcher's nightmare. So many different things may be responsible for increases and decreases; you can't reliably isolate and measure the effect of any as I see it. The other factor is time. Transmitting and receiving a virus isn't like flipping a switch to verify a light comes on, so you are often left wondering what was the initiating event when you can't even identify all the potentials. The other big factor is what I consider momentum. The increase in cases will increase regardless of measures taken because there are already cases in the pipeline. It's like trying to apply control and feedback theory when you can't quantify the inputs or adequately measure the variables.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#76,900
#76,900
BowlBrother85 said:
And you would be wrong. The 1st Amendment exists because of the essential need for a free press to serve as a check against public corruption.
Click to expand...

I get that, and I absolutely agree with the concept. However, if the very people charged with ensuring against public corruption can't be trusted because their output is opinion based on their own political bias, then what purpose does the press actually serve? Isn't this essentially your position with respect to the police and BLM? That the people charged with ensuring our safety act on a basis of racial bias; therefore, the system is fraudulent, out of control, and basically criminal in nature? You see reform necessary in one instance, and I see similar abuse and the need for reform in another.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top