Society is a group of people cooperating for the common good. Spreading a fatal disease is not working together for the common good. Societal cooperation right now requires people to reduce their...
The slightest bit of danger and we are throwing society out the bloody door.
Society is a group of people cooperating for the common good. Spreading a fatal disease is not working together for the common good. Societal cooperation right now requires people to reduce their movement, for the common good.
I don't think either of us know the legal details, but there are exceptions for emergency situations that allow governments to restrict movement. During a wildfire or hurricane they don't let you...
I don't think either of us know the legal details, but there are exceptions for emergency situations that allow governments to restrict movement. During a wildfire or hurricane they don't let you drive wherever you want and you might not be allowed to return to your home.
It's mind-boggling to me that when any solution to anything comes up people go "but freedom!". This isn't the slightest bit of danger. People in all but one state have already been infected. We've...
It's mind-boggling to me that when any solution to anything comes up people go "but freedom!". This isn't the slightest bit of danger. People in all but one state have already been infected. We've got a couple weeks of evidence that our country is not at all ready to deal with this pandemic in the ways other countries have (i.e., competently). I don't know how travel restrictions would be implemented, I can't imagine there'd be dystopian checkpoints everywhere, but it certainly can't hurt to put out an advisory to encourage people not to travel and at least do something. Saying "but the Constitution!" does nothing. Literally no one wants there to be long-term travel restrictions and it's disingenuous to say we're throwing out society just because some of us recognize that it's basically too late to stop this from spreading and one of the few things we can actually do to hinder the virus's spread is get people to stop traveling. We don't have the infrastructure to test people, we don't have the infrastructure to house as many sick people as there are being projected to be, we have an enormous amount of people who can't afford to stay home if they're sick or if their kid is sick. The least we can do is try and stop a little bit of the damage.
You are behind the curve and need to look at the math. US doubling time is currently 3 days. It is 1678 today and it was 696 on Wednesday. [1] So, at that rate when do we hit 12,000 cases? Eight...
You are behind the curve and need to look at the math. US doubling time is currently 3 days. It is 1678 today and it was 696 on Wednesday. [1]
So, at that rate when do we hit 12,000 cases? Eight days. Here is a graph. And 24,000 3 days after that. Keep going. It gets to 100,000 in 17 days.
The second thing you should know is that official cases is a lagging indicator, because people don't get diagnosed when they first get it, but rather a week or two later. The number of true cases is probably 10x official cases. Take a look at Chart 7 in this blog post for an estimated relationship between official and true cases in China.
We are not going to be able to make a proportionate response based on feedback from actual data. It's too quick for that. To get ahead of it, you need to take it on faith that it's going to be a lot worse, and overreact. There is no way to avoid overreacting because you don't know when to let off the gas. No exponential curve goes on forever but where is the top?
Now, I hope that all the school closures and so on will be effective and it's not really a 3 day doubling time anymore, but there are crowds (!) at Costco and other stores, and that's not good, and it will be a week or two before we know whether closing schools made any difference. The number of people walking around with this virus is probably very high and unknowable, yet.
We are maybe a week or two behind Italy, and they did shut down movement.
Nobody knows why South Korea's death rate is so low, and the US is nothing like them, so that's optimistic. But if half of the US poulation gets coronavirus (163 million), that's still over a...
Nobody knows why South Korea's death rate is so low, and the US is nothing like them, so that's optimistic. But if half of the US poulation gets coronavirus (163 million), that's still over a million deaths.
I think it's worth restricting movement to try to keep a million people from dying, if it worked. (I am not sure about that. It may already be too late.)
This is all back-of-the-envelope calculations and it sucks to be able to make decisions in this kind of uncertainty. Fortunately for me, it's not my call. But I think that's a realistic projection.
The CDC has had over two months to get its act together. What makes you think it will get it's act together in the next two months? The death rate for CoronaVirus is doubling in the USA every five...
if the CDC gets its act together and starts acting like the world class public health institute it's supposed to be, America should be able to get similiar numbers.
The CDC has had over two months to get its act together. What makes you think it will get it's act together in the next two months?
The death rate for CoronaVirus is doubling in the USA every five days. So presumably is the rate of infection. The hospitalization rate is estimated to be about 15% with ICU rates of 5%.
If exponential growth continues as is, USA will run out of hospital beds in 1-2 months. The only thing that will slow exponential growth is drastic action e.g. closing schools, restricting travel etc...
This will effectively slow both the virus and the economy, as seen in China & Italy, so these actions are only being reluctantly considered.
Simply suggesting self isolation isn't going to cut it.
The H1N1 swine flu infected about 60.8 million people in the USA and killed about 12,469 of those people. That's a 0.02% fatality rate: for every 1,000,000 people infected, about 200 people died....
In contrast, the COVID-19 seems to have a fatality rate of approximately 3.4%: for every 1,000,000 people infected, about 34,000 people will die. That makes COVID-19 about 170 times more deadly.
So, twice as many people can be infected in the same period of time, and hundreds of times more people will be killed.
But you're more concerned about Americans' freedom of movement than whether Americans die. You're putting a so-called "right" above other people's lives. You are willing to let people die so that you can go out freely. That's quite callous and selfish.
There's an American legal maxim: your right to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose. One person's so-called "rights" do not allow that person to cause harm to others.
And someone who's so concerned with legalities should learn the difference between "tenants" and "tenets",
You're being very condescending again. You can disagree and explain your side without needing to be patronizing as part of it. Treat the people you're talking to as peers, not inferiors.
You're being very condescending again. You can disagree and explain your side without needing to be patronizing as part of it. Treat the people you're talking to as peers, not inferiors.
Loire is providing a challenging counterpoint that seems reasoned and factual. I completely disagree with Loire's points, but feel you are chilling the conversation. Surely we can all suffer a...
Loire is providing a challenging counterpoint that seems reasoned and factual.
I completely disagree with Loire's points, but feel you are chilling the conversation.
Surely we can all suffer a little bit of condescension in the interest of a robust debate.
That may be true, to a point (I've already questioned whether it's factual). However, does that "challenging counterpoint" need to include phrases like these? "You're panicking, thats fine, I...
Loire is providing a challenging counterpoint that seems reasoned and factual.
That may be true, to a point (I've already questioned whether it's factual). However, does that "challenging counterpoint" need to include phrases like these?
"You're panicking, thats fine, I understand why you are scared."
"I'm going to assume you're left leaning because of tildes typical demographic."
Actually, looking into it deeply is what makes me think you're not being condescending with that. However, a quick reading of that sentence can lead to it being interpreted as insulting. (Trust...
You might be looking into that one a little too deeply.
Actually, looking into it deeply is what makes me think you're not being condescending with that. However, a quick reading of that sentence can lead to it being interpreted as insulting. (Trust me: I'm an expert in being misinterpreted!)
@skybrian has done a better job of explaining this than I can. No right is absolute. I'm not concerned with philosophy, I'm concerned with the real-life impact of 300 million people with shitty...
Nobody was asking for the suspension of civil liberties. Why do you think that is?
@skybrian has done a better job of explaining this than I can.
No right is absolute. I'm not concerned with philosophy, I'm concerned with the real-life impact of 300 million people with shitty healthcare running around and getting other people sick. Would Trump abuse travel restrictions? Maybe, but I think even his base would be up in arms if any sort of restriction overstayed its welcome. All I'd want is a small fine at most.
Deaths in the USA due to CoronaVirus are growing exponentially. Exponential growth, unchecked, gets big surprisingly fast. Without any intervention, at the current rates, we would hit 12,000...
I'll remind you, again, that in 2009 twelve thousand Americans died to H1N1. That's 240 times the current death toll in about 3x as many months
Deaths in the USA due to CoronaVirus are growing exponentially. Exponential growth, unchecked, gets big surprisingly fast. Without any intervention, at the current rates, we would hit 12,000 deaths by about April 22.
The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms (as enshrined in the Second Amendment) is much more firmly and clearly established than the right to freedom of movement, which you cited above as...
Freedom of movement is not a constitutional right in the same vein as "muh guns".
The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms (as enshrined in the Second Amendment) is much more firmly and clearly established than the right to freedom of movement, which you cited above as being guaranteed by "the Privileges and Immunities clause within Article IV of the Constitution". However, the Privileges and Immunities Clause merely states:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Wikipedia explains in plain language that it "prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. Additionally, a right of interstate travel may be plausibly inferred from the clause."
There should probably be travel restrictions within the US as well. It would be better if the whole country didn't get it at once.
Society is a group of people cooperating for the common good. Spreading a fatal disease is not working together for the common good. Societal cooperation right now requires people to reduce their movement, for the common good.
I don't think either of us know the legal details, but there are exceptions for emergency situations that allow governments to restrict movement. During a wildfire or hurricane they don't let you drive wherever you want and you might not be allowed to return to your home.
South Korea is much smaller, and they did a better job earlier.
It's mind-boggling to me that when any solution to anything comes up people go "but freedom!". This isn't the slightest bit of danger. People in all but one state have already been infected. We've got a couple weeks of evidence that our country is not at all ready to deal with this pandemic in the ways other countries have (i.e., competently). I don't know how travel restrictions would be implemented, I can't imagine there'd be dystopian checkpoints everywhere, but it certainly can't hurt to put out an advisory to encourage people not to travel and at least do something. Saying "but the Constitution!" does nothing. Literally no one wants there to be long-term travel restrictions and it's disingenuous to say we're throwing out society just because some of us recognize that it's basically too late to stop this from spreading and one of the few things we can actually do to hinder the virus's spread is get people to stop traveling. We don't have the infrastructure to test people, we don't have the infrastructure to house as many sick people as there are being projected to be, we have an enormous amount of people who can't afford to stay home if they're sick or if their kid is sick. The least we can do is try and stop a little bit of the damage.
You are behind the curve and need to look at the math. US doubling time is currently 3 days. It is 1678 today and it was 696 on Wednesday. [1]
So, at that rate when do we hit 12,000 cases? Eight days. Here is a graph. And 24,000 3 days after that. Keep going. It gets to 100,000 in 17 days.
The second thing you should know is that official cases is a lagging indicator, because people don't get diagnosed when they first get it, but rather a week or two later. The number of true cases is probably 10x official cases. Take a look at Chart 7 in this blog post for an estimated relationship between official and true cases in China.
We are not going to be able to make a proportionate response based on feedback from actual data. It's too quick for that. To get ahead of it, you need to take it on faith that it's going to be a lot worse, and overreact. There is no way to avoid overreacting because you don't know when to let off the gas. No exponential curve goes on forever but where is the top?
Now, I hope that all the school closures and so on will be effective and it's not really a 3 day doubling time anymore, but there are crowds (!) at Costco and other stores, and that's not good, and it will be a week or two before we know whether closing schools made any difference. The number of people walking around with this virus is probably very high and unknowable, yet.
We are maybe a week or two behind Italy, and they did shut down movement.
Nobody knows why South Korea's death rate is so low, and the US is nothing like them, so that's optimistic. But if half of the US poulation gets coronavirus (163 million), that's still over a million deaths.
I think it's worth restricting movement to try to keep a million people from dying, if it worked. (I am not sure about that. It may already be too late.)
This is all back-of-the-envelope calculations and it sucks to be able to make decisions in this kind of uncertainty. Fortunately for me, it's not my call. But I think that's a realistic projection.
The CDC has had over two months to get its act together. What makes you think it will get it's act together in the next two months?
The death rate for CoronaVirus is doubling in the USA every five days. So presumably is the rate of infection. The hospitalization rate is estimated to be about 15% with ICU rates of 5%.
If exponential growth continues as is, USA will run out of hospital beds in 1-2 months. The only thing that will slow exponential growth is drastic action e.g. closing schools, restricting travel etc...
This will effectively slow both the virus and the economy, as seen in China & Italy, so these actions are only being reluctantly considered.
Simply suggesting self isolation isn't going to cut it.
The H1N1 swine flu infected about 60.8 million people in the USA and killed about 12,469 of those people. That's a 0.02% fatality rate: for every 1,000,000 people infected, about 200 people died.
In contrast, the COVID-19 seems to have a fatality rate of approximately 3.4%: for every 1,000,000 people infected, about 34,000 people will die. That makes COVID-19 about 170 times more deadly.
And it's more contagious. "The flu has an R0 value of about 1.3. [...] Preliminary studies have estimated an R0 value for the new coronavirus to be between 2 and 3" That makes the COVID-19 coronavirus about twice as contagious as the H1N1 flu.
So, twice as many people can be infected in the same period of time, and hundreds of times more people will be killed.
But you're more concerned about Americans' freedom of movement than whether Americans die. You're putting a so-called "right" above other people's lives. You are willing to let people die so that you can go out freely. That's quite callous and selfish.
There's an American legal maxim: your right to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose. One person's so-called "rights" do not allow that person to cause harm to others.
And someone who's so concerned with legalities should learn the difference between "tenants" and "tenets",
You're being very condescending again. You can disagree and explain your side without needing to be patronizing as part of it. Treat the people you're talking to as peers, not inferiors.
Loire is providing a challenging counterpoint that seems reasoned and factual.
I completely disagree with Loire's points, but feel you are chilling the conversation.
Surely we can all suffer a little bit of condescension in the interest of a robust debate.
That may be true, to a point (I've already questioned whether it's factual). However, does that "challenging counterpoint" need to include phrases like these?
"You're panicking, thats fine, I understand why you are scared."
"I'm going to assume you're left leaning because of tildes typical demographic."
It comes across as dismissive and condescending: "You're a silly bleeding-heart leftie, so you obviously can't understand the point I'm making."
Actually, looking into it deeply is what makes me think you're not being condescending with that. However, a quick reading of that sentence can lead to it being interpreted as insulting. (Trust me: I'm an expert in being misinterpreted!)
@skybrian has done a better job of explaining this than I can.
No right is absolute. I'm not concerned with philosophy, I'm concerned with the real-life impact of 300 million people with shitty healthcare running around and getting other people sick. Would Trump abuse travel restrictions? Maybe, but I think even his base would be up in arms if any sort of restriction overstayed its welcome. All I'd want is a small fine at most.
Deaths in the USA due to CoronaVirus are growing exponentially. Exponential growth, unchecked, gets big surprisingly fast. Without any intervention, at the current rates, we would hit 12,000 deaths by about April 22.
The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms (as enshrined in the Second Amendment) is much more firmly and clearly established than the right to freedom of movement, which you cited above as being guaranteed by "the Privileges and Immunities clause within Article IV of the Constitution". However, the Privileges and Immunities Clause merely states:
Wikipedia explains in plain language that it "prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. Additionally, a right of interstate travel may be plausibly inferred from the clause."