Did you catch it ?

Another few ideas:

  • Encourage colleges to offer EMT training, and allow students who have been certified to become part of a reserve EMS corps on a paid, part-time basis to keep their skills sharp. They could be activated full-time in the event of an emergency.
  • Make Advanced First Aid and AED training a standard part of the high school curriculum.
  • Provide Chromebooks (or similar devices) with specially-designed UI's to the elderly who live alone, teach them how to use them, and check on them daily via video chat daily during an emergency.
  • Convert some of the empty, huge warehouses in the Bush Terminal area to emergency convalescent centers for people who are recovering, but still infectious.

Rich
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
Dana- the bottom of the picture in the post above yours is Omaha.
Click to expand...

I know, that's why I used Omaha as an example. :)

PeterNSteinmetz said:
Also for [USEr]@Cap’n Jack [/User]and @Dana. How would you answer these questions?
Click to expand...

I would answer, "I don't know." To which I would add, "I don't think you know either." There simply isn't enough apples-to-apples data. NYC is not Omaha (to use the same example) in many more ways than population and population density.

Based on what I do know of medicine (high school biology plus a lifelong interest in anything interesting) and math and statistics (as an engineer) I strongly suspect that the lockdowns have been effective, if not in reducing the deaths long term, to spread them out (which was the point, after all). The disease spreads by interpersonal conotact; if you reduce contact between people then naturally you're going to slow its spread. I also suspect lockdowns will have more effect in less educated, lower income, less friendly communities (like NYC) than they would in a more rural, friendlier community where people might be more prone to "do the right thing" anyway without being forced to. In the latter they may indeed not have a significant effect. Again, the cost/benefit ratio is another thing entirely.
 
Dana said:
I would answer, "I don't know." To which I would add, "I don't think you know either." There simply isn't enough apples-to-apples data. NYC is not Omaha (to use the same example) in many more ways than population and population density.
Click to expand...

Thanks for replying p, but that is sort of begging the question and not answering my question. Is there any sort of evidence which would persuade you that these lockdowns have not worked? That is the critical question.

If you can’t name any, then the belief in their efficacy is a non-falsifiable belief. There is no point then acting like it has to do with evidence because it doesn’t.
 
RJM62 said:
States and large cities should have bazillions of masks, gloves, and so forth in stock.
Click to expand...
FWIW: They did... at one time, as did the nation. In general terms, if you look back at the SARS 1 outbreak and the subsequent 2005(?) National Influenza Pandemic Plan they put into place such preparations were in place. However, since the maintenance of such plans is very expensive the Plan never got fully funded but eventually stocked the Strategic National Stockpile. After the H1N1 "pandemic" the SNS was reduced by over 60%, however, was never restocked due to available budget money. Even New York as late as 2016 auctioned off 1000s of ventilators due to upkeep costs per reports. And when MERS popped up the same discussion we are having now was at the forefront nationally... "we are not prepared." And again when the last Ebola epidemic hit with infected people getting into the US. Same discussion. And here we are again. When the Cold War was at its peak we, as a nation, were stockpiled beyond belief for any imminent nuclear issue. And now where are we with that threat? While a lot of comparison is done to South Korea due to their national stockpiles, testing, and contact tracking, keep in mind they remain on constant alert due to North Korea plus they were hit hard by MERS and restructured their response to such events which is only possible via their National Defense Act that basically funds it unconditionally and cancels all individual rights. So while the current local discussion is about preparation and prevention where will it be in 4 years when all this is a distant memory and someone needs to pay for it? The old adage that history repeats itself gets tighter and tighter in the digital age and I hope someone will finally see the light.
 
Looks like Quest Diagnostics is now offering antibody tests for those *without* symptoms, per local message board.

I assume nationwide.

$119.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Thanks for replying p, but that is sort of begging the question and not answering my question. Is there any sort of evidence which would persuade you that these lockdowns have not worked? That is the critical question.

If you can’t name any, then the belief in their efficacy is a non-falsifiable belief. There is no point then acting like it has to do with evidence because it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Sure... comparison of two near identical locations with similar demographics, population, geography, etc. We may see that as other states (not including NY, which is unique) start lifting lockdowns while others don't. Until then, it's a judgement call. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make the call.
 
Dana said:
Sure... comparison of two near identical locations with similar demographics, population, geography, etc. We may see that as other states (not including NY, which is unique) start lifting lockdowns while others don't. Until then, it's a judgement call. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make the call.
Click to expand...

Ok, so which pairs of states would qualify as close enough in your judgement? Or how close would they have to be in quantitative terms? Also which demographic characteristics would matter do you think?
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Ok, so which pairs of states would qualify as close enough in your judgement? Or how close would they have to be in quantitative terms? Also which demographic characteristics would matter do you think?
Click to expand...
I'd pick two states with equal numbers of fools.
 
Palmpilot said:
It appears so from their Web site, and it says they have 2200 locations nationwide:

https://questdirect.questdiagnostics.com/#cit_HowItWorks_start

Their Covid-19 page sounds pretty noncommittal about whether their test will actually be any good:

https://questdirect.questdiagnostic...response/b580e541-78a5-48a6-b17b-7bad949dcb57
Click to expand...

They're not noncomittal about the test's accuracy in detecting the antibody so much as about whether the the antibody confers immunity. It would be rather unusual for that not to be the case, but it hasn't been officially decreed to be true. Quest's marketing is limited by what the government has decided is true.

That also makes the test of questionable practical value. Until presence of the antibody makes some sort of difference in one's state of house arrest, why bother paying for the test? Just wait until the state comes around and get it for free.

Rich
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Thanks for replying p, but that is sort of begging the question and not answering my question. Is there any sort of evidence which would persuade you that these lockdowns have not worked? That is the critical question.

If you can’t name any, then the belief in their efficacy is a non-falsifiable belief. There is no point then acting like it has to do with evidence because it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
You've got 1404 posts on this forum and I dare say 1398 of them have been dedicated to explaining in great detail how you've found irrefutable evidence that coercive lock downs have not been shown to be effective and that anyone disagrees with your evidence is not going to change their mind and therefore is not worth bothering to discuss the issue with.

We get it. You're right, everyone else is wrong. Please post your address so we can send you the 'I was right on the Internet' medal. Happy now?
 
RJM62 said:
They're
That also makes the test of questionable practical value. Until presence of the antibody makes some sort of difference in one's state of house arrest, why bother paying for the test? Just wait until the state comes around and get it for free.
Click to expand...

In our case, Mrs “Essential” wants to know simply to move on mentally. She’s been in contact with hundreds and hundreds of people at a non-6’ range since this started.

Which also then leads to me... if I’ve already had the thing, household protocol changes a bit and I could do the shopping, for example.

We don’t care either way on the protocols, we’re committed to a course, but it would “uncomplicate” some things with one “essential” and one “immune suppressed”.

Neighbors up the road that we know very well are more complex. She’s working directly with Covid patients, he’s immune suppressed AND has a significant lung disorder AND the kid is working at WalMart. Threw positive antibody tests in that household and would make their lives a whole lot simpler.

Assuming anti-body means some level of immunity which isn’t solid... which is at least different math.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
You've got 1404 posts on this forum and I dare say 1398 of them have been dedicated to explaining in great detail how you've found irrefutable evidence that coercive lock downs have not been shown to be effective and that anyone disagrees with your evidence is not going to change their mind and therefore is not worth bothering to discuss the issue with.

We get it. You're right, everyone else is wrong. Please post your address so we can send you the 'I was right on the Internet' medal. Happy now?
Click to expand...

Pretty serious issue, don’t you think? The WHO projecting 250 million people will die of starvation due to economic damage from this thing. Likely that a fair share of that is due to these coercive lockdowns.

I would not say there is irrefutable evidence they don’t work. What I would say is that there is no good evidence they do work.

I will also further clarify. I do not think it is not worth continuing a discussion simply because someone disagrees with me. Rather, if another person cannot conceive of evidence which would persuade them of the truth of the proposition I am advocating, then there is no point in continuing. Their beliefs are non-falsifiable and no need to discuss those. Just creates unnecessary friction.

But hey, if you aren’t interested, then feel free to ignore those posts. This is a Covid-19 thread, not about flying, and sort of being tolerated by the moderators for now. Or if you really believe that fraction of posts, ignore me.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
In our case, Mrs “Essential” wants to know simply to move on mentally. She’s been in contact with hundreds and hundreds of people at a non-6’ range since this started.

Which also then leads to me... if I’ve already had the thing, household protocol changes a bit and I could do the shopping, for example.

We don’t care either way on the protocols, we’re committed to a course, but it would “uncomplicate” some things with one “essential” and one “immune suppressed”.

Neighbors up the road that we know very well are more complex. She’s working directly with Covid patients, he’s immune suppressed AND has a significant lung disorder AND the kid is working at WalMart. Threw positive antibody tests in that household and would make their lives a whole lot simpler.

Assuming anti-body means some level of immunity which isn’t solid... which is at least different math.
Click to expand...

Fair points. If a person or their S.O. regularly comes into contact with infected people or cares for a vulnerable person, there definitely are some practical benefits.

For the rest of us prisoners, not so much.

Rich
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Ok, so which pairs of states would qualify as close enough in your judgement? Or how close would they have to be in quantitative terms? Also which demographic characteristics would matter do you think?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. If we knew, and if we had good data, we could weight the data to get a definitive answer. But we can't. That's the problem.
 
Dana said:
I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. If we knew, and if we had good data, we could weight the data to get a definitive answer. But we can't. That's the problem.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you said you would not assert that the coercive lockdown prevents the spread of Covid-19 in terms of deaths or cases, but rather that you didn’t know, is that correct?

So then the policy question would be - if no one knows do you think it is ok to coerce people when we don’t know? That is essentially a political question, not a scientific one.
 
RJM62 said:
They're not noncomittal about the test's accuracy in detecting the antibody so much as about whether the the antibody confers immunity....
Click to expand...
I was responding to this:

"Test results may help identify if you were previously exposed to the virus and, if exposed, can check whether or not your body has produced antibodies."
​
And this:

"This test can sometimes detect antibodies from other coronaviruses, which can cause a false positive result if you have been previously diagnosed with or exposed to other types of coronaviruses."​
 
Palmpilot said:
I was responding to this:

"Test results may help identify if you were previously exposed to the virus and, if exposed, can check whether or not your body has produced antibodies."
​
And this:

"This test can sometimes detect antibodies from other coronaviruses, which can cause a false positive result if you have been previously diagnosed with or exposed to other types of coronaviruses."​
Click to expand...

Right. But that sounds so much like the language that I've read about other tests and in news articles (like this one) that I have to wonder whether it's based on some government boilerplate.

In other words, I don't think they're dissing their own test any more than pointing out the shortcomings of COVID-19 antibody tests in general so as not to run afoul of the official position or open themselves up to liability for a false positive.

Whatever the case, there would be nothing in it for me to get tested right now.

Rich
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Well, I think you said you would not assert that the coercive lockdown prevents the spread of Covid-19 in terms of deaths or cases, but rather that you didn’t know, is that correct?

So then the policy question would be - if no one knows do you think it is ok to coerce people when we don’t know? That is essentially a political question, not a scientific one.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head with that last sentence.

My answer would be that in a national emergency, we don't have the luxury of waiting for scientific proof of what the best course of action is. In situations like that, people who have been placed in positions of authority have a responsibility to evaluate the relative risks of various courses of action using whatever information is available at the time.

During the "Spanish" flu pandemic that started in 1918, if governments had waited for scientific proof that their mandatory restrictions would work, the final death count would likely have been far higher.

The U.S. instituted a draft more than a year before the Pearl Harbor attack. That's about as coercive as a legal mandate can get. If we had waited until there was proof that we would be forced into the war before instituting the draft, the year delay in building up our forces would have likely resulted in FAR higher casualties than we ended up with.
 
By the way, legal coercion is not the only kind that exists. There is also economic coercion, such as when a governor recently decreed that any employees who refuse to return to work when meat-packing plants are ordered to reopen, because they think it's too dangerous, will be denied unemployment compensation. Is it right to coerce people to work in situations where there is inadequate personal protective equipment and social distancing provisions? In other words, is it right to coerce employees to work in a situation that hasn't been scientifically proven to be safe?
 
RJM62 said:
Right. But that sounds so much like the language that I've read about other tests and in news articles (like this one) that I have to wonder whether it's based on some government boilerplate.

In other words, I don't think they're dissing their own test any more than pointing out the shortcomings of COVID-19 antibody tests in general so as not to run afoul of the official position or open themselves up to liability for a false positive....
Click to expand...
There are reasons for suspecting the accuracy of antibody tests that have nothing to do with government boilerplate. For example:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...dy-tests-immunity-mayo-clinic-who/3038740001/
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Pretty serious issue, don’t you think? The WHO projecting 250 million people will die of starvation due to economic damage from this thing. Likely that a fair share of that is due to these coercive lockdowns.

I would not say there is irrefutable evidence they don’t work. What I would say is that there is no good evidence they do work.

I will also further clarify. I do not think it is not worth continuing a discussion simply because someone disagrees with me. Rather, if another person cannot conceive of evidence which would persuade them of the truth of the proposition I am advocating, then there is no point in continuing. Their beliefs are non-falsifiable and no need to discuss those. Just creates unnecessary friction.

But hey, if you aren’t interested, then feel free to ignore those posts. This is a Covid-19 thread, not about flying, and sort of being tolerated by the moderators for now. Or if you really believe that fraction of posts, ignore me.
Click to expand...
a1-2.jpg


No one has produced sufficient evidence lock downs work. Like I said, you win. The question is, so what do you win? Its a bunch of old pilots on the internet. Nothing I nor anyone else on this forum does will have any impact on lockdowns. They stormed the Michigan capital building with guns yesterday for pity sake. And today? Michigan is still locked down. Didn't change a thing.

So yeah you're right, lockdowns don't work. That and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee somewhere. You being right changes nothing.
 
Palmpilot said:
There are reasons for suspecting the accuracy of antibody tests that have nothing to do with government boilerplate. For example:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...dy-tests-immunity-mayo-clinic-who/3038740001/
Click to expand...

That was probably not the best article to pack up that assertion. Roughly a quarter of it discusses the FDA's role in allowing imperfect tests to be used. It also includes one paragraph that says pretty much the same thing that I was saying:

Article said:
The FDA has allowed antibody test makers to sell their products without the normal step of filing data validating test accuracy. More than 100 test makers have notified the FDA of plans to market antibody tests. The companies or labs cannot claim the FDA authorized the tests and must include disclaimers that they might falsely conclude whether a person had a prior infection.
Click to expand...

So I'm not sure what your point is.

One thing I do know is that in my experience, whenever something seems to make no sense, look for government involvement.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
That was probably not the best article to pack up that assertion. Roughly a quarter of it discusses the FDA's role in allowing imperfect tests to be used. It also includes one paragraph that says pretty much the same thing that I was saying:



So I'm not sure what your point is.

One thing I do know is that in my experience, whenever something seems to make no sense, look for government involvement.

Rich
Click to expand...
My point is that we don't know which antibody tests, if any, are accurate enough to be useful.

The price of this test is pretty reasonable, but if it gives people a false sense of security, that could have serious consequences.
 
Palmpilot said:
My point is that we don't know which antibody tests, if any, are accurate enough to be useful.

The price of this test is pretty reasonable, but if it gives people a false sense of security, that could have serious consequences.
Click to expand...

Okay, sure. No disagreement there. Shades of the same color.

Considering that the death rate for asymptomatic individuals is even lower than the test's error rate, the only reason I'd pay to get the test done absent symptoms would be if it came with some sort of get-out-of-lockdown-free card. Otherwise, I'll wait until the state asks me to get it done on their dime. I live alone, and the few people with whom I might actually like to associate are all hiding under their beds; so there wouldn't be much point in my getting tested.

Rich
 
Palmpilot said:
By the way, legal coercion is not the only kind that exists. There is also economic coercion, such as when a governor recently decreed that any employees who refuse to return to work when meat-packing plants are ordered to reopen, because they think it's too dangerous, will be denied unemployment compensation. Is it right to coerce people to work in situations where there is inadequate personal protective equipment and social distancing provisions? In other words, is it right to coerce employees to work in a situation that hasn't been scientifically proven to be safe?
Click to expand...

Firstly, if the governor decreed it, isn’t that a form of coercion by the government? Or legal coercion?

Or maybe you mean there is coercion by violence and threats of violence and coercion by threatening to take people’s property away? Of course you can usually only do the latter for longer periods of time or with larger amounts by threatening to do the former.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
You hit the nail on the head with that last sentence.

My answer would be that in a national emergency, we don't have the luxury of waiting for scientific proof of what the best course of action is. In situations like that, people who have been placed in positions of authority have a responsibility to evaluate the relative risks of various courses of action using whatever information is available at the time.

During the "Spanish" flu pandemic that started in 1918, if governments had waited for scientific proof that their mandatory restrictions would work, the final death count would likely have been far higher.

The U.S. instituted a draft more than a year before the Pearl Harbor attack. That's about as coercive as a legal mandate can get. If we had waited until there was proof that we would be forced into the war before instituting the draft, the year delay in building up our forces would have likely resulted in FAR higher casualties than we ended up with.
Click to expand...

Sort of a purely political post, so likely best to discuss separately if you really want to.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
a1-2.jpg


No one has produced sufficient evidence lock downs work. Like I said, you win. The question is, so what do you win? Its a bunch of old pilots on the internet. Nothing I nor anyone else on this forum does will have any impact on lockdowns. They stormed the Michigan capital building with guns yesterday for pity sake. And today? Michigan is still locked down. Didn't change a thing.

So yeah you're right, lockdowns don't work. That and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee somewhere. You being right changes nothing.
Click to expand...

Well thanks for clarifying and sorry I missed your point.

While it certainly is largely a bunch of old pilots on the internet, I guess I am more hopeful that by raising awareness amongst the public that there is no good reason for these lockdowns, and even protesting in front of a statehouse, that we will bring an end to them sooner, thereby reducing the destruction and loss of life caused by these policies.

We are starting to see increasing resistance. Hopefully lawmakers will get the message and it will accelerate their leaving people alone.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Well thanks for clarifying and sorry I missed your point.

While it certainly is largely a bunch of old pilots on the internet, I guess I am more hopeful that by raising awareness amongst the public that there is no good reason for these lockdowns, and even protesting in front of a statehouse, that we will bring an end to them sooner, thereby reducing the destruction and loss of life caused by these policies.

We are starting to see increasing resistance. Hopefully lawmakers will get the message and it will accelerate their leaving people alone.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I doubt that will happen. The nature of public office attracts too many sociopathic power junkies with paraphilic domination and control fetishes. They get their rocks off on this sort of ****.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Sadly, I doubt that will happen. The nature of public office attracts too many sociopathic power junkies with paraphilic domination and control fetishes. They get their rocks off on this sort of ****.

Rich
Click to expand...

You may be right. But I believe we must try persuasion first and exhaust that as a possibility before other means are required. And simple refusal to comply, when done by enough people, can be a powerful force.
 
Protests and disruption do nothing to convince people on the other side, and it alienates people in the middle who might otherwise have been swayed by logical argument. All it does it fire up the people protesting. This goes for a myriad of issues, not just this one.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
While it certainly is largely a bunch of old pilots on the internet, I guess I am more hopeful that by raising awareness amongst the public that there is no good reason for these lockdowns, and even protesting in front of a statehouse, that we will bring an end to them sooner, thereby reducing the destruction and loss of life caused by these policies.
Click to expand...
How magnanimous of you. Wouldn't be a bad idea to hope for a $1000/hr minimum wage and abolishing all taxes while you're at it. If you're gonna dream, might as well dream big.
 
Everskyward said:
Protests and disruption do nothing to convince people on the other side, and it alienates people in the middle who might otherwise have been swayed by logical argument. All it does it fire up the people protesting. This goes for a myriad of issues, not just this one.
Click to expand...

I dunno... I think the Boston Tea Party worked out pretty well in the end. It just took some time.

Rich
 
Everskyward said:
Protests and disruption do nothing to convince people on the other side, and it alienates people in the middle who might otherwise have been swayed by logical argument. All it does it fire up the people protesting. This goes for a myriad of issues, not just this one.
Click to expand...
I agree. Chanting innane slogans, carrying signs with equally innane slogans, getting in politicians' faces, making threats, blocking egress or access to buildings or roads, sit-ins...all of the things that usually come to mind when one thinks of a "protest" typically make me think negatively of the ones doing the protesting, whether I believe in their "cause" or not.

Having said that, one can protest unjust or illogical laws simply by not obeying them blindly, but through civil disobedience. I have complied with many of the COVID guidelines, including all that I agree with and many that I do not, but when our county executive took it upon himself to only allow us to make grocery runs on certain days according to whether or not you were born in an even or odd birth year, I made a point of only shopping on a day I was not permitted to. A relatively insignificant form of protest, to be sure, but I was prepared to argue the fine in court calmly if one was assessed. FWIW, I've only gone grocery shopping twice in the past three weeks.

I wish I had a better example personally, but right now I don't. Protests can be made effectively, politely, and without harm. Everskyward's portrayal of protests is completely accurate considering the form they usually take, unfortunately.
 
RJM62 said:
I dunno... I think the Boston Tea Party worked out pretty well in the end. It just took some time.

Rich
Click to expand...
The question is, were the loyalists coerced ;) by the patriots, or did they switch sides voluntarily?
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top