All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (1 Viewer)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I appreciate the earlier edit.

IDK what the problem is with the MI governor. What I do know is her decisions are not reasonably tailored to stopping the infection and they don't appear to try to take into consideration fundamental rights. Whether she is making them because she is power hungry or she is just way to nervous to be in charge, the people are paying the price.

She made it unlawful for people to travel from one home they own to another.

When questioned, she stated that her "rationale" was that if people travel they will have to buy gas and if they buy gas they will have to touch the fuel pump.

I doubt any epidemiologist went running to the governor stating that science required that restriction. All one has to do to avoid the virus is to avoid touching your face during fueling and to disinfect their hands afterwards.

I think you're having a hard time understanding it because you don't take the virus seriously. Or not as serious as others. Even your statement that "all one has to do to avoid the virus is to avoid touching your face during fueling...." basically indicates that you think it's a trivial problem.

So, every time a person travels outside their home and interacts either with other people or with something that other people interact with increases the probability of the spread of the virus. Some actions only add a very, very small increase in the spread... and I suspect traveling to your second home and touching gas handles along the way is a very small increase. But there are 10,000,000 people in Michigan, so if every person does some tiny thing that increases the probability of spread, and there are dozens of those types of small actions each day, it adds up to a couple of hundred of new infections every day. And the more people get it, those numbers add up even more.

A simple explanation is that Whitmer has a proportionally higher value of human life relative to the economic activity of the state over a 3-8 week period than you do, or her risk calculus is more conservative than yours is.

Think about it this way, let's say that I do a risk analysis and say that if you add Michigan's more severe restrictions on top of whatever it is you think is reasonable for a period of 5 weeks, you stand a 70% chance of saving 800 lives. What's your decision? Note, I'm not saying those numbers are real, but they represent a type of risk management decision making.

 

[Humperdoo]

I appreciate the earlier edit.

IDK what the problem is with the MI governor. What I do know is her decisions are not reasonably tailored to stopping the infection and they don't appear to try to take into consideration fundamental rights. Whether she is making them because she is power hungry or she is just way to nervous to be in charge, the people are paying the price.

She made it unlawful for people to travel from one home they own to another.

When questioned, she stated that her "rationale" was that if people travel they will have to buy gas and if they buy gas they will have to touch the fuel pump.

I doubt any epidemiologist went running to the governor stating that science required that restriction. All one has to do to avoid the virus is to avoid touching your face during fueling and to disinfect their hands afterwards.

My father says he can’t get the virus as he’s a Republican now.
And yes he’s being halfway facetious.

 

[Beach Friends]

I think you're having a hard time understanding it because you don't take the virus seriously. Or not as serious as others. Even your statement that "all one has to do to avoid the virus is to avoid touching your face during fueling...." basically indicates that you think it's a trivial problem.

So, every time a person travels outside their home and interacts either with other people or with something that other people interact with increases the probability of the spread of the virus. Some actions only add a very, very small increase in the spread... and I suspect traveling to your second home and touching gas handles along the way is a very small increase. But there are 10,000,000 people in Michigan, so if every person does some tiny thing that increases the probability of spread, and there are dozens of those types of small actions each day, it adds up to a couple of hundred of new infections every day. And the more people get it, those numbers add up even more.

A simple explanation is that Whitmer has a proportionally higher value of human life relative to the economic activity of the state over a 3-8 week period than you do, or her risk calculus is more conservative than yours is.

Think about it this way, let's say that I do a risk analysis and say that if you add Michigan's more severe restrictions on top of whatever it is you think is reasonable for a period of 5 weeks, you stand a 70% chance of saving 800 lives. What's your decision? Note, I'm not saying those numbers are real, but they represent a type of risk management decision making.

Her stated reason was that people would be touching gas pumps. I just stated how people can avoid contracting the virus and safely manage to get fuel in their cars. I don't see how telling the truth is not taking the virus seriously.

Maybe part of the reason I can look at it that way is I spent a lot of time in the Army training how to survive in a chemical environment. First, you are trained to have respect for the agent. But then, you are taught you have to have confidence in what you have been taught to continue the mission. The answer was not to freeze in place until Karen from Facebook is no longer scared.

I am not going to drive up to a fuel pump and stare at it in fear when I know how to take reasonable measures to get the gasoline out of the pump and into my car without killing myself.

As long as we are just expanding the facts, let's say an elderly couple lives in a condo in the city. They realize that they would be safer leaving the city and going to their house on the lake.

Who in the hell is the governor to tell such people that they have no choice - they have to stay where they are?

I actually feel like I am the one who is taking this virus more seriously. I realize that based on our current knowledge, this virus is going to be around for a long time. There is no reason to believe that it is not going to continue to work its way through the population if only we lock ourselves in our homes for 5 weeks.

We can take precautions such as I described for use at the fuel point and eliminate mass gatherings where the virus would have an opportunity to spread very rapidly. But, we are not going to defeat the virus by adopting unsustainable measures.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Her stated reason was that people would be touching gas pumps. I just stated how people can avoid contracting the virus and safely manage to get fuel in their cars. I don't see how telling the truth is not taking the virus seriously.

Maybe part of the reason I can look at it that way is I spent a lot of time in the Army training how to survive in a chemical environment. First, you are trained to have respect for the agent. But then, you are taught you have to have confidence in what you have been taught to continue the mission. The answer was not to freeze in place until Karen from Facebook is no longer scared.

I am not going to drive up to a fuel pump and stare at it in fear when I know how to take reasonable measures to get the gasoline out of the pump and into my car without killing myself.

As long as we are just expanding the facts, let's say an elderly couple lives in a condo in the city. They realize that they would be safer leaving the city and going to their house on the lake.

Who in the hell is the governor to tell such people that they have no choice - they have to stay where they are?

I actually feel like I am the one who is taking this virus more seriously. I realize that based on our current knowledge, this virus is going to be around for a long time. There is no reason to believe that it is not going to continue to work its way through the population if only we lock ourselves in our homes for 5 weeks.

We can take precautions such as I described for use at the fuel point and eliminate mass gatherings where the virus would have an opportunity to spread very rapidly. But, we are not going to defeat the virus by adopting unsustainable measures.

You keep framing the opposing argument dishonestly. Not a single person has suggested that we "freeze in place until Karen from Facebook is no longer scared." Not one. Every single person in this thread and most public health experts say the goal is to lock things down until we've raised capacity to handle increased hospital capacity and we have adequate testing to perform smarter lockdowns instead of blanket lockdowns. If you want to be treated honestly it has to go both ways.

 

[Beach Friends]

You keep framing the opposing argument dishonestly. Not a single person has suggested that we "freeze in place until Karen from Facebook is no longer scared." Not one. Every single person in this thread and most public health experts say the goal is to lock things down until we've raised capacity to handle increased hospital capacity and we have adequate testing to perform smarter lockdowns instead of blanket lockdowns. If you want to be treated honestly it has to go both ways.

I think telling people that they can't engage in intrastate travel is essentially telling them to freeze in place. I think telling people that they can't walk across the street to visit friends or relatives is telling people to freeze in place.

I think you need to make up your mind. Do you want to defend the governor of MI or do you want to pretend she and her authoritarian orders don't exist?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think telling people that they can't engage in intrastate travel is essentially telling them to freeze in place. I think telling people that they can't walk across the street to visit friends or relatives is telling people to freeze in place.

I think you need to make up your mind. Do you want to defend the governor of MI or do you want to pretend she and her authoritarian orders don't exist?

I think you need to decide if you want to have a discussion or engage in polemics.

You specifically characterized the opposing arguments as freezing in place until Karen from Facebook is no longer scared. You know that's a false argument. Instead of walking it back, you decide to switch to polemics framing it as an authoritarian over reach instead of a more cautious approach than you think is warranted.

If you want to say I think the risk presented by certain actions is too small to be worth the amount of authority given to the government, that's fine, but that isn't what you are saying.

As far as defending the Gov of Michigan, I'm not really all that certain either way. I don't know her. I don't follow Michigan politics closely. I can see being concerned about the amount of authority the government can wield. But I also don't view them as nefarious. I also know that the theory goes that the harder you lock an area down, the quick you can get control of the situation, and therefore the quicker you can start easing them. I would be more interested in hearing from her what are the standards she is looking for towards easing her restrictions - they should have solid definitions of what we're looking for in terms of virus control, so we know that they are based on actual metrics and not a feeling. Because that's the danger - you want to make sure the decisions aren't arbitrary or indefinite.

 

[Lapaz]

I think telling people that they can't engage in intrastate travel is essentially telling them to freeze in place. I think telling people that they can't walk across the street to visit friends or relatives is telling people to freeze in place.

I think you need to make up your mind. Do you want to defend the governor of MI or do you want to pretend she and her authoritarian orders don't exist?

You have selectively noted a couple of examples where I agree that Whitmer went too far, but I think we could pick examples where Governors of just about every state have made questionable decisions, many of which didn't go far enough. I know she has amended her orders to allow those things you're griping about. I also know Michigan has been hit harder than most states, and I prefer someone that goes a little too far to protect us in an emergency, than someone that doesn't go far enough. I understand that your calculus is different that hers, so it is fair to criticize selectively, but also acknowledge that it also has benefit. Your fueling example doesn't account for the way most people will fuel their cars. Of course one can take precautions, but many people won't even wear masks, so what makes you think most would take such precautions? I think it would've led to more spread of the virus. I would've preferred that she required precautions at the pumps, such as gloves or disinfectants, and possibly signs advising how to avoid infection. I would've allowed people to go to their vacation homes, but I would've required justification to travel.

 

[JimEverett]

I don't agree that in general we should be uninterested in what other states or localities are doing, but in this instance, it seems more correct than usual. I think the decisions to be made will be justifiably different based on local situations - even different within a state itself.
Strict lockdown procedures make no sense where I live. Perhaps we will see a huge spike soon, perhaps not. But forcing strict lockdown in a place where hospitals are empty, where the tested case rate is measured in tenths of a percent and deaths are fractions of that, just breeds distrust - even if cases might not be declining at great speed (the way I understand it - Tennessee bases its guidelines on the percentage of positive cases per tests. So cases might be going up but if testing is outstripping the rise in cases then it is considered a decline).

 

[The moose]

Google News

Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.

news.google.com

Oh snap!

Really shocking news

 

[Beach Friends]

@Lapaz
I disagree about the part about requiring justification for travel. This virus will come and it will go, but we have to be concerned with what we are left with when this is all over.

I don't like setting a precedent toward needing papers to travel within the Unites States. I know, I know - that sounds hyperbolic. It could never happen here, right?

I don't know why people seem so sure that everything is destined to remain the same. History proves that notion to be false. We have to be careful about what we get used to and what we indicate that we will tolerate. I guess not all of us do, but some of sure need to.

I absolutely agree with your suggestions about the fuel pump. We should spend our time and energy educating and reminding people about how to take sustainable measures to mitigate risks and to provide the means for them to carry those measures out.

This is the second week in a row that I have seen someone who was previously too frightened to leave the house suddenly emerge with a "to hell with it" approach. Neither is the right approach, IMO.

I genuinely believe that we have to take into consideration the psychological impact restrictions have on people. If the restrictions are unreasonable, people will lose confidence in what they are being told and will rebel against all restrictions, even if that is not in their best interest.

 

[MT15]

I thought I read where the reason to ban travel to a vacation home had more to do with people traveling from a city with plenty of medical resources to a rural area with little to no medical resources. I think the fear was that people who didn’t know they were already infected would travel to the rural area and then become ill where there was no way to take care of them. I don’t think Michigan was the only state to wrestle with that scenario.

How you know someone isn’t really concerned with anything except partisanship is when they complain about certain states as engaging in overreach, but do not acknowledge that states with both R and D governors have pretty much responded in like ways, according to their level of disease.

With a couple of exceptions, the state response has been similar.

 

[The moose]

I thought I read where the reason to ban travel to a vacation home had more to do with people traveling from a city with plenty of medical resources to a rural area with little to no medical resources. I think the fear was that people who didn’t know they were already infected would travel to the rural area and then become ill where there was no way to take care of them. I don’t think Michigan was the only state to wrestle with that scenario.

How you know someone isn’t really concerned with anything except partisanship is when they complain about certain states as engaging in overreach, but do not acknowledge that states with both R and D governors have pretty much responded in like ways, according to their level of disease.

With a couple of exceptions, the state response has been similar.

Well my snow bird customers are all gone.

The normal migration is by next week after jazz fest.

They all packed up and ran as quick as humanly possible from new Orleans. Like right after the first infections were announced.

Can't really blame them but yes they could have taken it to Montana or where ever they go up on the east coast.

Then again we are talking about stupid wealthy people that will get tested and receive care early and have the best shot of survival.

 

[wardorican]

Since the guy who has never lived in Michigan has such a vested interest in the (swing) state...

Here's a pretty right biased source, but it's a quote of an exchange. It's not her full reasoning, but a point she was making back in Mid April.

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-...er-isnt-robbing-citizens-freedom-because-snow

Craig Melvin: “The overwhelming majority of governors in this country, as you know, have issued stay-at-home orders but yours have been considered to be among the most stringent in this country. Folks who have vacation homes in Michigan, if they’re residents, they not being allowed to travel to those vacation homes. You're asking stores that sell things like paint and garden supplies, having those stores shut down, not considering them essential. What's the thinking behind your particular stay-at-home order?”
Gov. Whitmer: “Well, let me tell you this: Michigan has the third-most COVID-19 cases in the nation right now and we're not the third-largest state in the nation. That tells you we've got a unique crisis on our hands and it demands a unique solution.
“So, we just had snow. I've got snow on the ground here in Michigan, right now in Lansing. We're expecting up to 30 inches in the upper peninsula.
“The fact that we're cracking down on people traveling between homes, or planting, or landscaping, or golfing, really, for a couple more weeks isn't going to meaningfully impact people's ability to do it, because the snow will do it in and of itself.”

Gov. Whitmer also argued that forbidding travel will limit the number of “people that touch that gas pump”:

“But, the more people that are traveling, the more people that touch that gas pump - we know COVID-19 can last for 72 hours on stainless steel. So, think about the people that have to up touch that gas pump: the nurses and police and the paramedics and the pharmacists and the food clerks that are the true superheroes, now. If we're all traveling and touching the same, that means we're spreading COVID-19 and might actually take people off the frontline who we desperately need.
“So, unless it's a life-sustaining activity, we're asking people to stay home, to do their part, and for a couple more weeks to really buckle down. We're seeing our curve start to flatten, but we all have to continue doing our part.”

So, is she factually inaccurate that more people gassing up means more people touching the same things, that means more people could spread the virus? You realize that maybe these folks are wearing winter gloves, and not washing their gloves every time they go outside. They can't just rub sanitizer on the ski gloves, then they touch the car door handle, the steering wheel, their door knob, etc.

I mean, it's not the best argument, but it is something people can relate to. But the whole point of hunkering down is two things... 1, you limit the contact with other people. 2 you limit the amount of infectious material spread around everywhere. Her argument seemed pretty clear. 3rd in cases at the time, 8th in population. Just like Louisiana spiked, a little extra had to be done.

Look at Florida. South Florida has had much stronger restrictions than the majority of the state. We will also have them removed later.

It's not rocket science.

 

[Lapaz]

I thought I read where the reason to ban travel to a vacation home had more to do with people traveling from a city with plenty of medical resources to a rural area with little to no medical resources. I think the fear was that people who didn’t know they were already infected would travel to the rural area and then become ill where there was no way to take care of them. I don’t think Michigan was the only state to wrestle with that scenario.

How you know someone isn’t really concerned with anything except partisanship is when they complain about certain states as engaging in overreach, but do not acknowledge that states with both R and D governors have pretty much responded in like ways, according to their level of disease.

With a couple of exceptions, the state response has been similar.

That makes sense to a point, however even when you start developing symptoms, I think the decline is gradual, so they would have time to return to a place with facilities. In general, allowing people to leave to more rural places makes sense, but only if they follow precautions wherever they are.

@Lapaz
I disagree about the part about requiring justification for travel. This virus will come and it will go, but we have to be concerned with what we are left with when this is all over.

I don't like setting a precedent toward needing papers to travel within the Unites States. I know, I know - that sounds hyperbolic. It could never happen here, right?

I don't know why people seem so sure that everything is destined to remain the same. History proves that notion to be false. We have to be careful about what we get used to and what we indicate that we will tolerate. I guess not all of us do, but some of sure need to.

I absolutely agree with your suggestions about the fuel pump. We should spend our time and energy educating and reminding people about how to take sustainable measures to mitigate risks and to provide the means for them to carry those measures out.

This is the second week in a row that I have seen someone who was previously too frightened to leave the house suddenly emerge with a "to hell with it" approach. Neither is the right approach, IMO.

I genuinely believe that we have to take into consideration the psychological impact restrictions have on people. If the restrictions are unreasonable, people will lose confidence in what they are being told and will rebel against all restrictions, even if that is not in their best interest.

To stop a pandemic, extra precautions like travel justifications are acceptable. Traveling to one's rural house could be justified by simply showing your deed for the house or some other form showing your ownership. We went way farther after 911, although I didn't agree with all of the measures. I don't think of this as some type of slippery slope. We are capable of ratcheting back restrictions as is evident by what we are now doing, even if that ratcheting back is done poorly.

I agree that measures should be based on local conditions if that locality has evidence they have it under control and takes responsible measures. They have to have plenty of testing and be prepared for surges, which is not happening in most places. I believe the experts have suggested 15 times as many tests as cases and declining cases. We only have 4 states that meet that criteria: Hawaii, Wyoming, Montana, and Arkansas (weirdly). We have 6 other states that have at least flattened their curves and have tested at least 15 times as many cases as they have: California, Florida, Utah, Oregon, North Dakota, and Alaska. I don't know if those states are also prepared to continue doing widespread testing and contact tracing of new cases identified, and ready for surges. I know California is training people to do contact tracing. If those states are, then I believe they are ready to start re-opening.

Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count

A detailed county map shows the extent of the coronavirus outbreak, with tables of the number of cases by county.

www.nytimes.com

Large gatherings still don't make sense. Mardi Gras is what got New Orleans in trouble. The problem is the mixed messages and the downplaying of the threat have led to many large gatherings by non-believers, which tend to be those that trust Trump. With this disease, there is too much lag between infections and symptoms, so it gives people a false sense of security. The irresponsible places will allow the virus to spread, and it won't remain within those irresponsible state borders. That is why some models are projecting giant rises in the U.S, while most countries have declining cases. It almost makes me wish that religious leaders would try to scare people into believing they will go to hell if they don't abide by restrictions. That's how they usually control the masses. It would be useful if they preached that. If the draft CDC projections are correct, we might be facing fire and brimstone in the U.S., so they might as well preach it. Unfortunately, I was just texted a video of one preaching that this is anti-god, since gathering is in the bible, so some are preaching the opposite.

 

[Beach Friends]

Since the guy who has never lived in Michigan has such a vested interest in the (swing) state...

Here's a pretty right biased source, but it's a quote of an exchange. It's not her full reasoning, but a point she was making back in Mid April.

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-...er-isnt-robbing-citizens-freedom-because-snow



So, is she factually inaccurate that more people gassing up means more people touching the same things, that means more people could spread the virus? You realize that maybe these folks are wearing winter gloves, and not washing their gloves every time they go outside. They can't just rub sanitizer on the ski gloves, then they touch the car door handle, the steering wheel, their door knob, etc.

I mean, it's not the best argument, but it is something people can relate to. But the whole point of hunkering down is two things... 1, you limit the contact with other people. 2 you limit the amount of infectious material spread around everywhere. Her argument seemed pretty clear. 3rd in cases at the time, 8th in population. Just like Louisiana spiked, a little extra had to be done.

Look at Florida. South Florida has had much stronger restrictions than the majority of the state. We will also have them removed later.

It's not rocket science.

You say they are not the "best" arguments. I don't know whether they are her best arguments or not, I suppose they are since she went them.

What I do know is that they are not good. The gas stations are open so this is not going to stop people from engaging in this activity that she apparently thinks is so dangerous that she is justified in preventing people from traveling from one home to another.

The risks she identified are very easy to mitigate. Not rocket science at all.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Just thought I'd highlight some good examples of leadership. Governor DeWine of Ohio has come out to defend his unelected staff and reporters from "obnoxious" protestors. Basically saying since he's the one deciding policy, he's fair game, everyone else just doing their job are not. So, hat tip to Governor DeWine.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine hits back at 'obnoxious' protesters

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine chastised protesters upset with coronavirus lockdown measures who he said were “disrespectful” and “obnoxious” to the media and a member of his cabinet over the weekend.

www.foxnews.com

Also, for the record, Ohio has been doing a good job, reporting fewer cases and lower death rate than other states with similar demographics.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I don't agree that in general we should be uninterested in what other states or localities are doing, but in this instance, it seems more correct than usual. I think the decisions to be made will be justifiably different based on local situations - even different within a state itself.
Strict lockdown procedures make no sense where I live. Perhaps we will see a huge spike soon, perhaps not. But forcing strict lockdown in a place where hospitals are empty, where the tested case rate is measured in tenths of a percent and deaths are fractions of that, just breeds distrust - even if cases might not be declining at great speed (the way I understand it - Tennessee bases its guidelines on the percentage of positive cases per tests. So cases might be going up but if testing is outstripping the rise in cases then it is considered a decline).

So, I did a remarkably poor job of explaining my point even by my standards with regards to the issue of paying attention to other states' actions. What I was trying to convey was a sense of skepticism about what seems to me to be over the top outrage over actions that are going on in another state. I think it's entirely appropriate to see what's working and what isn't in other states - that's the point of federalism.

 

[wardorican]

You say they are not the "best" arguments. I don't know whether they are her best arguments or not, I suppose they are since she went them.

What I do know is that they are not good. The gas stations are open so this is not going to stop people from engaging in this activity that she apparently thinks is so dangerous that she is justified in preventing people from traveling from one home to another.

The risks she identified are very easy to mitigate. Not rocket science at all.

She never said she wanted to stop it. She wanted to minimize it. Shutting down gas stations would be draconian.

That's the part that isn't rocket science. There is a difference between prevention and lowering the usage of. minimize contact spread.

To me, the best argument would be a more complete one about minimizing all kinds of interactions.. i.e. the gas station pump, opening multiple doors, probably having to use the rest stop, taking an extra grocery trip, stopping by to check on John and Karen, needing to get a bite to eat, because you're on the road. But a short interview doesn't give anyone the time to fully explain themselves.

Also noting that a simple sneeze in an enclosed area with air handling could spread out the infection radius.

I don't know how much time you've spent in the brutal cold (and indoor heat), but typically it makes you have a slight persistent sore throat and runny nose. Lots of viral ammunition to be spread.