Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
Typically during a pandemic authorities (for example state and Commonwealth parliaments) can declare a state of emergency or a state of disaster, suspending normal laws and giving summary powers to designated officials (eg premiers or health officials). These drastic powers have been effective in limiting outbreaks (IIRC the UN granted both formal and informal powers to doctors combatting smallpox, and previously international cooperation in a similar vein led to the suppression of Bubonic plague).
There is also a further political and legal understanding that acts and decisions during emergencies that would normally attract investigation and formal action are no pursued. For example in Australia road speed limits apply to emergency vehicles, but the prosecuting authorities of their own volition decline to proceed against ambulances, police in pursuit of criminals and fire services.
Our legal and other systems of governance are after all human artefacts and perform only imperfectly, so we have discretion to bend them, sometimes built in to the system and sometimes as a flat refusal to observe the legal letter of the law.
I am sure there are similar informal understandings in the various US jurisdictions, but the gridlocked nature of US politics means stupid decisions like this become more common from time to time. Its a shame judges give in to sectional pressure when it harms the entire community. The US is overall such a robust system but its a shame to see petty instances like this where it fails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aexodus
Edit: I am aware that many Americans, and probably many foreigners like me don't understand that the Supreme Court aren't lawmakers.
The US system combines several streams of legal thought, with Common Law a major element. In the Common Law system decisions from the bench serve to create precedent where there is a lack of clarity and given our laws and Constitutions are made by politicians, as night follows day there are points at which the meaning, intent and application of laws can be argued.
Judges for many centuries constantly have "legislated from the bench", both negatively (striking down laws and decisions) but also positively (establishing new norms and principles): every first year law student knows about that snail, in Australia Kirby J. discovered Native Title (an awesome act of judicial hubris worthy of its own thread) in a case where no one even mentioned it.
Common Law systems are built up like coral reefs, and the judges are as much polyps on that reef as they are parrot fish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aexodus
They shouldn't be making policy.
...and religious groups shouldn't be spreading the virus.
Parliament began life as a court (members literally sit on the benches), became an instrument of taxation and then decided it could make new laws and elect royal advisors. Its all quite legal because parliament said so. If people stayed in their lane the 13 colonies never would have formed the US in the first place.
November 30, 2020, 07:22 PM
TheDarkKnight
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
Oh no...not the radiologist...How will the pandemic response team survive without their radiologist...
:no:
November 30, 2020, 08:02 PM
pacifism
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antaeus
I'm with Aexodus on this one. The SCOTUS isn't there to debate science. They're there to interpret the law. If the law is stupid enough to be crafted in a way that allows for people to behave in a way that is harmful to other people, then that's a problem with the law.
I’m not saying that they’re scientists or that they shouldn’t interpret the law. I’m saying that they made a deliberate choice to make a scientifically illiterate one. Earlier this year, the court made a ruling in the opposite direction, that a certain level of deferment to public health experts was in order during a public health emergency:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
“Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time. And the Order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.
”The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement. Our Constitution principally entrusts “[t]he safety and the health of the people” to the politically accountable officials of the States “to guard and protect.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905). When those officials “undertake[ ] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974). Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,” which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people. See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 545 (1985).
”That is especially true where, as here, a party seeks emergency relief in an interlocutory posture, while local officials are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground. The notion that it is “indisputably clear” that the Government’s limitations are unconstitutional seems quite improbable.”
- majority opinion from South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, taken from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19A1044
Both cases were 5-4. The arguments employed on either side didn’t substantially change, just the number of people on each side. Guess what changed since then.
While religious political conservatives are free to play victim and even file suits as they wish, I hoped that the Supreme Court of the United States is above that and wouldn’t make a ruling that will objectively worsen the fight against COVID as they did previously. I was wrong. It would be nice to pretend this is a politically neutral decision preserving the free exercise of religion and that it won’t seriously impact the worsening COVID situation in the U.S., but that simply isn’t true. Choosing to equate houses of worship to essential businesses (implying restrictions are harsh) instead of nonresidential gatherings (implying restrictions are lenient) is a mistake that will cost lives due to that mistake. The downside of the bravery of white evangelicals in America in the face of an infectious disease is that not everyone is on board with being unconcerned with it, but the sentiment spreads it anyway and tramples those other people’s wishes. The fact is that they simply need a little more prodding by the law to follow COVID guidelines and their obstinacy is contributing to the death toll.
The survey was conducted March 10 to 16, after the U.S. recorded its first coronavirus death but before Trump proposed sending $500 billion to taxpayers to soften the economic blow. On March 13, Trump declared a national state of emergency.
Around three-quarters of white evangelicals (77%) say they are at least somewhat confident that Trump is doing a good job responding to the outbreak, including roughly half who say they are very confident. Majorities of white evangelicals say Trump has assessed the risks of the situation correctly (64%) and that the crisis has been blown out of proportion by the media (76%), while just a quarter (24%) say Trump hasn’t taken risks tied to the coronavirus seriously enough. By comparison, about half of Americans overall (52%) say Trump has underplayed the risks, including majorities who say this among the religiously unaffiliated (64%), black Protestants (67%) and Jews (73%).
…
While white evangelicals are confident in the president’s ability to handle the crisis and skeptical that the risks it poses are as bad as the media suggests, they share the view of those in other religious groups that the situation poses a major threat to the U.S. economy. About two-thirds of white evangelicals (64%) say this.
But white evangelicals are less likely than most other groups to say COVID-19 poses a major threat to the health of the U.S. population or to day-to-day life in their local communities. Only about a third of white evangelical Protestants (32%) say the virus poses a major threat to the health of the U.S. public, compared with about half of Catholics (53%), Jews (51%) and religious “nones” (48%) who say this. And only around a quarter of white evangelicals (26%) see a major danger to day-to-day life in their community, on par with white Protestants who are not evangelical (27%) and white Catholics (31%), but lower than other religiously affiliated groups analyzed here.
Around two-thirds of white evangelicals said the news media had greatly or slightly exaggerated the risks posed by COVID-19. Just under half (44.5%) said the same of Democrats in Congress.
Almost two thirds of white evangelicals, though, believe that President Donald Trump’s response to the coronavirus has been “about right.” They are more confident in the president’s response than in any other group’s, including public health officials like those with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just 3 in 10 respondents who were not white evangelicals think that the president’s response was “about right.”
Coronavirus responses have been highly politicized from the start. While white evangelicals tend to be strongly Republican—and both groups are less worried about COVID-19 than the rest of the population—there are differences in evangelical and Republican behavior.
White evangelicals are around 7 percentage points more likely than Republicans to say that they have been avoiding personal contact and crowds over the last three months. When it comes to social distancing, white evangelicals are in line with the trend for the population overall.
However, like Republicans, white evangelicals are less likely than the average American to say they have worn a mask in public (78.4% of white evangelicals vs. 82.1% of all adults).
COVID-19 is more deadly among older Americans, which is especially worrisome because half of all weekly churchgoers are over 55. In many cases, white evangelicals are on par with the general population when it comes to complying with public health recommendations.
The one area where white evangelicals fall far behind? Mask wearing. A white evangelical under the age of 35 is 13 percentage points less likely to wear a mask in public than the same age group in the general population (58.7% vs. 71.8%). This may due to a lower level of concern about coronavirus from younger white evangelicals, as they are 9 percentage points less likely to say that they are “somewhat” or “very” worried about casting the virus than young people in general.
Churches in several states have violated local rules or filed lawsuits claiming that coronavirus restrictions that limit in-person gatherings violate their religious rights.
The Christian Medical & Dental Associations statement asks congregations to consider meeting online until the current surge is over. The organization had previously urged churches to obey authorities who've implemented coronavirus restrictions.
The statement, prepared for release on behalf of the group's 20,000 members nationwide, also says that the group is "saddened to learn not only that many churches have ignored our guidelines but that congregants have become infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of those decisions."
In an interview with NPR, Dr. Jeff Barrows, the group's senior vice president for bioethics and public policy, said Christians are commanded to love their neighbors as themselves.
"And one of the most tangible ways that we can do that at this moment in time is to avoid any in-person gatherings, especially as larger churches," he said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aexodus
As for the judgement, I'm guessing they decided the NY rules unfairly impeded freedom of association by targeting religious groups. Maybe it was the gerrymandering that ultimately made it unconstitutional?
That was not a consideration in the majority opinion. The closest they approached to it was that the areas could be quickly reassigned a new color zone as the COVID situation adapted. The court only compared New York’s policies to other states and houses of worship to essential businesses, and then granted the church and synagogue’s requests even though both of them were already in yellow zones that allowed 50% capacity.
December 01, 2020, 11:10 AM
conon394
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
Quote:
I’m not saying that they’re scientists or that they shouldn’t interpret the law. I’m saying that they made a deliberate choice to make a scientifically illiterate one.
What else would you expect. You forget Lawyers are people who earn a Bachelors degree and then a post graduate degree that is far less rigorous than than a typical MS degree let alone a PhD and they publish in journals curated by students not their peers who could care less if they eviscerate their papers rather shine your shoes to make sure that get a clerk position.. Their staff are likely other lawyers or lawyers in training.
Outside of patent law where corporations do a lot of work to to find burned out MS or PhDs to train as lawyer you will not find much scientific literacy in Law school.
December 01, 2020, 03:01 PM
Cyclops
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
Quote:
Originally Posted by conon394
What else would you expect. You forget Lawyers are people who earn a Bachelors degree and then a post graduate degree that is far less rigorous than than a typical MS degree let alone a PhD and they publish in journals curated by students not their peers who could care less if they eviscerate their papers rather shine your shoes to make sure that get a clerk position.. Their staff are likely other lawyers or lawyers in training.
I know from the medical and legal people in my family that the doctors hate the way lawyers get into other people's workplace while protecting their own. Very hard to sue a lawyer for what happens in court (there's civil immunity and other protections) and you see judges and lawyers roll up drunk or actually falling asleep on the job. Meanwhile they hover at the shoulder of every doctor and midwife ready to sue.
Its sad that this epidemic is yet another opportunity for lawyers to flex on doctors. Likewise science deniers flexing on politicians: we've had mining magnates suing governments to break lockdowns here in Australia, wannabe Trumps leading imaginary crusades, but so far they are full of fail: there's less votes in blind ignorance in my country for now.
December 01, 2020, 04:58 PM
Surgeon
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
Quote:
These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.
Quote:
When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.
Quote:
Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.
The study was taken down under the pretext it was "being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic", NOT that it itself was inaccurate. lel.
December 01, 2020, 05:38 PM
Infidel144
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
Quote:
he study was taken down under the pretext it was "being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic", NOT that it itself was inaccurate. lel.
As I read it was inaccurate. But let's step back its not a real paper but a quick analysis by an econ MS... At its core its making the mistake that happens with influenza deaths each year. People who have a co morbidity or die from an easily identifiable reason in Hospital or else where are called a heart attack or pneumonia even though they really should be labeled a flu deaths. If the US year's flue death rate was properly recognized it would convince people to get their shot year over year.
December 02, 2020, 08:32 AM
PointOfViewGun
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surgeon
New study from John Hopkins suggests rona overblown:
The study was taken down under the pretext it was "being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic", NOT that it itself was inaccurate. lel.
This is from the article:
Quote:
“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,” Briand concluded.
Between March 1 and August 1, 2020, 1 336 561 deaths occurred in the US, a 20% increase over expected deaths (1 111 031 [95% CI, 1 110 364 to 1 111 697]).
If COVID19 didn't create all of that excess death, what did?
December 02, 2020, 06:51 PM
Ludicus
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surgeon
Johns Hopkins published this study on Sunday which posits that Covid is nowhere near the disaster we're being told it is.
"is nowhere near the disaster we're being told it is?" really?
So, what's going on?
Covid-19, directly and indirectly, is a global nightmare. Around the world, in the US and Europe intensive care units are reaching full capacity, hospitals are running out of beds for patients, around the world covid-19 has impacted every aspect of cancer care (colon, lung, etc) deaths are increasing from other causes such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.
December 02, 2020, 07:48 PM
antaeus
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludicus
"is nowhere near the disaster we're being told it is?" really?
So, what's going on?
Covid-19, directly and indirectly, is a global nightmare. Around the world, in the US and Europe intensive care units are reaching full capacity, hospitals are running out of beds for patients, around the world covid-19 has impacted every aspect of cancer care (colon, lung, etc) deaths are increasing from other causes such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.
I think what we're seeing there is an article discussing a very specific situation or phenomena, whereby in some contexts, deaths through Covid have for a time balanced against the reduction of deaths through other causes thanks to some of the tools used to slow Covid (lockdowns lead to lowering flu, lessening of deaths on the roads etc), which when combined with the way that Covid accelerates the decline or even kills some people whom could have died through another cause, can lead to deaths seemingly balancing out.
Of course what the Not-Bee doesn't seem to look much into is that this set of statistics comes about within the context of lockdowns and preventative measures. And that without those preventative measures it's highly unlikely that we would see any balancing of mortality. This perhaps might explain why Johns Hopkins might have been gunshy with publishing - because a study like this is highly context specific and most people in the media don't want context, they want a headline. And what people who for partisan reasons don't agree with Covid responses want, is a headline that vindicates them.
December 02, 2020, 08:03 PM
Cyclops
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
I have to say the denials are breath-taking. Partisanship shibbolethery in the US leads to staggeringly stupid claims like "there was no racism until Obama/Biden/[current opponent] invented it" or "Trump is literally Hitler". The politicking of COVID 19 has led to even more excess deaths, no doubt in my mind, and gridlock-as-ususal politics is a huge part of the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun
...
If COVID19 didn't create all of that excess death, what did?
If COVID19 didn't create all of that excess death, what did?
Here is a part of the editorial comment why Briand's article was removed in the John Hopkins Newsletter, highlight be me:
Quote:
Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.” This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19. Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.
It would appear that the article was removed from a number of other sites as well. Using wrong graphs instead of simple math does suck occasionally.
What odds do I get that this article will be evidence that we are turning the curve?
December 03, 2020, 01:54 PM
Infidel144
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
Every Mayor, Governor Accused of Breaking COVID Restrictions—and Why
BY MATT CANNON ON 12/3/20 AT 8:41 AM EST
"Governors and mayors have been announcing restrictions aimed to help stop the spread of coronavirus throughout the pandemic.
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
The response to Sars-Cov2 in the US is highly federalized and overall delayed. The Obama administration actually has built up some preparation for pandemics, but this has all been removed under the Trump administration, like a totally senseless demolition, borne out of an envious and jealous hatred and a motive for revenge against Obama., which directly leads to the person of Donald Trump.
Of course the US is not inept, they have reacted very well but were overwhelmed very quickly, eventually. The best example is New York. It's not a lack of ability to react, but a disability to react in time and in a unified manner. Most necessary measures were basically delayed, because it was indeed the wrong president at the wrong time. Surprisingly, the EU has proven to work better together than the federal states of the USA.
The consequence that has to be drawn for the US, is to grant federalized rights to the CDC that overrules the decisions of individual states, like Florida. There has to be an equivalent of the FBI regarding pandemics.
December 03, 2020, 05:06 PM
Surgeon
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
Don't panic tho, this'll only cause inflation after lockdowns end and consumer spending picks back up, if the excess dollars aren't destroyed (which they normally are).
December 03, 2020, 05:34 PM
swabian
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
Yes, it's kinda irritating. But the EUR:USD pair is doing well. No worries, the corona depression will end soon, so..
December 03, 2020, 08:16 PM
conon394
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
Don't panic tho, this'll only cause inflation after lockdowns end and consumer spending picks back up, if the excess dollars aren't destroyed (which they normally are).
Wow have you noticed any hyper inflation inflation. I have not. Maybe there is none.
December 04, 2020, 06:43 AM
Lord Thesaurian
Re: Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
A trend of key concern is the potential for stagflation, not hyperinflation, post-Covid. I discussed this earlier in the year, here.
Quote:
The financial markets, thanks to Fed intervention, have largely decoupled from the real economy. Portfolios – especially those overweight to passive index funds and technology – risk a severe "reconciliation" between the financial economy, and the real economy.
A very real catalyst for said reconciliation is the possibility for U.S. stagflation. Additionally, even the slightest sign of weakness from the Fed to further stimulate the economy, or an indication that they may raise rates could cause this financial reckoning.
Investors are best-served by diversifying at least part of their portfolios away from passive strategies to funds that can actively manage around the risks (and opportunities) that stagflation may present.
The Fed is not only out of bullets but, like Dr. Jekyll, has created its own Mr. Hyde. We face stagflation—the paradox of high unemployment and inflation.
This winter, as vaccines become widely available, in some sectors — such as airlines — and places — such as restaurants in large cities — workers that have been displaced will remain unemployed, but elsewhere demand will surge, creating continuing shortages of capacity and inflation
The trend is also alarming observers of other major economies:
Quote:
What remains, above the fray, is debt. Debts don’t disappear into thin air. They are passed on, multiplying until reaching those who can afford them. When enhanced debt does finally disappear, financial assets are destroyed. Balance sheets shrink. Debtors and creditors retrench, curbing consumption and curtailing investment. Idle plant and labour rules out demand-pull inflation. Instead, we will witness inflation of the cost-push variety.
How does this happen? When companies and households retrench, they collectively deny each income. The state will be forced to spend more on benefits, income support, health services and so on. A return to austerity via public spending cuts will be impossible. Higher taxes are inevitable, probably involving wealth taxes, which is the only sane way to proceed.
This produces competitive struggle for income. Employees will exert economic bargaining power over cash-strapped employers. State beneficiaries such as pensioners have political power to demand protection. Profits will fall victim to a stagflation wage-price-tax spiral. As in the 1970s, policy-makers will have decide either to erase inflation by causing still higher unemployment, or validate higher inflation to save jobs and bring down the mountain of state debt. They will choose the latter. Welcome to the future. It isn’t pretty – but it’s the logical consequence of what’s happening now.
Currently, discussions are going around on whether the Covid-19 induced economic crisis would push the major economies to a stagflationary shock. The debate is getting stronger in India, with the release of GDP data for the first quarter of FY21. The Indian economy contracted 23.9 per cent in Q1FY21. The major components of GDP -- viz consumption demand and investment demand – contracted 27 per cent and 47 per cent, respectively. In the second quarter also, the economy would be in the negative territory, though the contraction wouldn’t be as deep as in the first quarter.
On the other hand, the inflation rate as measured by Consumer Price Index (CPI) breached the upper band of 6 per cent for the fifth consecutive month at 6.69 per cent in August. The major contributor to the rising inflation rate was the surge in food prices. Food inflation rate registered a growth rate of around 9 per cent in August. Similarly, core inflation i.e., inflation excluding food and fuel also remained high at 5.4 per cent, despite the falling demand in the economy. The contraction of GDP along with the rising inflation rate ignites the fear of stagflation in the Indian economy.
The total death toll for the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in a country is affected by three key groups of determinants and the social and political factors that shape them; the baseline characteristics of the population and communities they live in; the response policies that affect mortality positively by interrupting transmission and negatively by isolation and denial of essential services; and the preparedness, resilience and agility of the public health and health and social care systems
(...) At present, the tissue distribution and antiviral efficacy ofMK-4482/EIDD-2801 in humans are still unknown.If ferret-based inhibition data of SARS-CoV-2 transmission are predictive of the effect in humans, however, patients with COVID-19could become non-infectious within 24–36 h after the onset of oral treatment