Covid-19

Blizzard said:
To that point, here is an interesting podcast from Michael Osterholm, he's been referenced numerous times earlier in this thread - overall, I'm still not a fan but on this topic he makes sense:
Special Episode: Masks and Science

^ You can listen to the podcast or read the transcript but among numerous interesting comments/observations, was this one from Osterholm:

"What was even more telling, regarding the MASKS4ALL letter was the fact that over a hundred prominent experts called for this mask requirement. I contacted five of them who I know well, all are close friends. Four of them were “surprised to shocked” when I shared the information I just with shared with you regarding the body of data or lack thereof, supporting the effectiveness of cloth masks in preventing viral respiratory-transmitted agents. They had just assumed that the summary information was accurate. The fifth one was honest enough to say to me, "Well, I signed it because of pressure from peers.” I don't know how many of the other signers of the letter had a similar experience. Regardless, this is not the way you make science-based public policy on such a critical issue."
Click to expand...
More on masks. Interview with Osterholm:

 
Last edited:
My father has two guys that work for him that weren't feeling well, so they went to one of the drive through testing facilities. Filled out the paperwork and then waited in line for 4 hours before a nurse came to the car and told them they had run out of tests for the day. She told them to come back the next day and would get expedited. They never went back... 7 days later they got results in the mail that they both were tested positive. This was orlando Florida.

Basically.. my father is prepping for bankruptcy on one of his businesses because of this BS, but he's the greedy selfish person. My father isn't alone in this and his business is failing because of the government. Makes no sense.
 
Florida173 said:
My father has two guys that work for him that weren't feeling well, so they went to one of the drive through testing facilities. Filled out the paperwork and then waited in line for 4 hours before a nurse came to the car and told them they had run out of tests for the day. She told them to come back the next day and would get expedited. They never went back... 7 days later they got results in the mail that they both were tested positive. This was orlando Florida.

Basically.. my father is prepping for bankruptcy on one of his businesses because of this BS, but he's the greedy selfish person. My father isn't alone in this and his business is failing because of the government. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

So they had positive results for tests they never had?
 
Dvr55119 said:
Why would this story deter you from getting tested?
Click to expand...
Because I will not subject myself to this insanity. It is unconstitutional.
Yes, tests are coming back "positive" when there are no tests or when there is no positive. Ask the CDC what happened. They know.
Barr: DOJ may side with citizens who sue states over 'onerous' coronavirus restrictions

“Our federal constitutional rights don’t go away in an emergency. They constrain what the government can do,” Barr said in the Tuesday interview. “And in a circumstance like this, they put on the government the burden to make sure that whatever burdens it’s putting on our constitutional liberties are strictly necessary to deal with the problem. They have to be targeted. They have to use less intrusive means if they are equally effective in dealing with the problem. And that’s the situation we’re in today. We’re moving into a period where we have to do a better job of targeting the measures we’re deploying to deal with this virus.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dame said:
Because I will not subject myself to this insanity. It is unconstitutional.
Yes, tests are coming back "positive" when there are no tests or when there is no positive. Ask the CDC what happened. They know.
Barr: DOJ may side with citizens who sue states over 'onerous' coronavirus restrictions
Click to expand...

Im not a constitutional law expert, so I won’t comment on that.

If you knew someone infected you knowing they were ill, would that be ok with you? I guess I only see it from a public health perspective, as I don’t have the requisite education to see it any other way. To me, to be ill, not get tested, or be tested then refuse to quarantine seems unconscionable. I just don’t get it.
 
Dvr55119 said:
Im not a constitutional law expert, so I won’t comment on that.

If you knew someone infected you knowing they were ill, would that be ok with you? I guess I only see it from a public health perspective, as I don’t have the requisite education to see it any other way. To me, to be ill, not get tested, or be tested then refuse to quarantine seems unconscionable. I just don’t get it.
Click to expand...
I see that.

So yes, when my son was ill in late January, it was OK with me. Even though I am "older" and may have caught it. Which I did. Whatever IT was. He was recently tested and was negative. That does not mean the test was correct. Did I say I would refuse to quarantine? Did the woman in Tennessee? No. You presume an awful lot about a person based on whether they decide these "tests" are worth the legal implications.

If I am ill, I stay home. That is part of being a responsible adult. Has anyone caught anything from me at work or home? No. Did I go into the grocery store? No. Do I believe that ankle bracelets might have been the answer to the black death or any other pandemic? No.
 
Dame said:
I see that.

So yes, when my son was ill in late January, it was OK with me. Even though I am "older" and may have caught it. Which I did. Whatever IT was. He was recently tested and was negative. That does not mean the test was correct. Did I say I would refuse to quarantine? Did the woman in Tennessee? No. You presume an awful lot about a person based on whether they decide these "tests" are worth the legal implications.

If I am ill, I stay home. That is part of being a responsible adult. Has anyone caught anything from me at work or home? No. Did I go into the grocery store? No. Do I believe that ankle bracelets might have been the answer to the black death or any other pandemic? No.
Click to expand...

I get that.
 
@Dame i don’t mean to presume anything about you personally. I don’t know you, nor you me. I am speaking in generalizations. If that isn’t clear that is poor communication via an impersonal method on my part.
 
Dvr55119 said:
Im not a constitutional law expert, so I won’t comment on that.

If you knew someone infected you knowing they were ill, would that be ok with you? I guess I only see it from a public health perspective, as I don’t have the requisite education to see it any other way. To me, to be ill, not get tested, or be tested then refuse to quarantine seems unconscionable. I just don’t get it.
Click to expand...

Dvr55119 said:
Why would this story deter you from getting tested?
Click to expand...

So you test positive, you don't like the language of paperwork presented in front of you.

The next day five cops are at your door and a guy in an NBC suit to forceably and I'd say illegally put an ankle monitor on you, I highly doubt you'd be good with it. In some parts of this country that would be an ill-advised move.

Now me, unsure what I'd do. But that health department and police department would be bankrupted by the legal settlement they'd have to pay me. Some attorney that is freaking amazing will represent these people, [ s ]he'll take 66% of the settlement because they'll do it on contingency. In fact this is a case perfect for the ACLU to go after the state government for.

This is akin to using a swat team to arrest Roger Stone. These tactics? That's totalitarian dictatorship type stuff.

She didn't commit a crime.
 
Last edited:
ThunderHorse said:
So you test positive, you don't like the language of paperwork presented in front of you.

The next day five cops are at your door and a guy in an NBC suit to forceably and I'd say illegally put an ankle monitor on you, I highly doubt you'd be good with it. In some parts of this country that would be an ill-advised move.

Now me, unsure what I'd do. But that health department and police department would be bankrupted by the legal settlement they'd have to pay me. Some attorney that is freaking amazing will represent these people, [ s ]he'll take 66% of the settlement because they'll do it on contingency. In fact this is a case perfect for the ACLU to go after the state government for.

This is akin to using a swat team to arrest Roger Stone. These tactics? That's totalitarian dictatorship type stuff.

She didn't commit a crime.
Click to expand...

If I tested positive I would quarantine. I would readily do that as that is the right thing to do. I don’t think we are being presented with all the information, but in your scenario, that would never have happened to me as I would have quarantined myself and my family would have done the same. I do believe the state government has every right to enforce public health in situations such as these. Here is a link I found, I don’t know if it is biased, or untrustworthy, but it seems like a legit organization:

Responsibilities in a Public Health Emergency
 
Me, I use logic, and I play the odds. If I get sick, I know the cluster of symptoms which would make it probable for chronovirus or likely in a differential diagnosis. I also know at what point I should probably see a physician, versus when I can probably treat myself at home.

But I'm not going to get a test unless I have to go to the hospital, otherwise the knowledge is just a burden.

Now if there were a commonly prescribed medicine, then yeah, I'd get tested so I can get the medicine. But since for 95% of the cases it is supportive care, I just don't see the point.
 
Here is an interesting snippet, again I’m not an expert, so my opinion is just going off of reading the interpretation of the law by those experts:

Police powers were reserved in the federal constitution for states’ use when needed for the preservation of the common good. When applied, they allow states to pass and enforce isolation and quarantine, health, and inspections laws to interrupt or prevent the spread of disease.https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/public-health-chart.aspx#_edn1 See Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 475 (1996) ("Throughout our history the several states have exercised their police powers to protect the health and safety of their citizens. Because these are primarily, and historically, matters of local concern, the states traditionally have had great latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons." (internal citations omitted)); Black’s Law Dictionary 1196 (8`H ED. 2004); Ernst Freund, The Police Power: Public Policy and Constitutional Rights iii, 3 (1904). The police power supports the authority of a state to enact and enforce “health laws of every description.” Jacobson, supra, 197 U.S. at 25.
 
Devildoc said:
Me, I use logic, and I play the odds. If I get sick, I know the cluster of symptoms which would make it probable for chronovirus or likely in a differential diagnosis. I also know at what point I should probably see a physician, versus when I can probably treat myself at home.

But I'm not going to get a test unless I have to go to the hospital, otherwise the knowledge is just a burden.

Now if there were a commonly prescribed medicine, then yeah, I'd get tested so I can get the medicine. But since for 95% of the cases it is supportive care, I just don't see the point.
Click to expand...

Would you go to your job? At the hospital?
 

Similar threads

R.Caerbannog
Economic shifts in Central America and China
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
R.Caerbannog
R.Caerbannog
AWP
The Aging Crisis in America
Replies
8
Views
297
Dame
Dame
Ooh-Rah
Nanny Wars in Manhattan- sheesh…
Replies
18
Views
905
Box
Box
Devildoc
EKGs at MEPS...
Replies
8
Views
779
Stretcher Jockey
Stretcher Jockey
AWP
Computer Help
Replies
4
Views
126
RackMaster
RackMaster
Back
Top