Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.

[PointOfViewGun]

What consequence on other people does fishing and hunting game by yourself have? What about growing your own food? Why are you white-knighting for an idiotic state government that actually made situation worse by unreasonable and irrational regulations?

It potentially increases the chance of the disease being contracted between people that could eventually jump to other people that had no say in such activities. This is no rocket science. Social activities contribute to the spread of the disease. No one banned growing your own food either. You can drop making stuff up. The government did not make the situation worse. People with the mentality you're advocating here did that.

[swabian]

Just a few examples:
https://www.rnz.de/nachrichten/heide...id,510266.html
https://www.rbb24.de/panorama/thema/...gt-berlin.html

I understand that the Berlin protest was not "permitted" by the authorities, but it's precisely such a system which I find scary and potentially authoritarian. In a situation like this, where our basic freedoms are restricted more than ever before, the police response should be relaxed, since so much is at stake. The police will only pour fuel onto the paranoia of radicals.

Another thing that baffles me about the German political system is the relativity of citizen rights. I understand rights such as freedom of assembly and religion are listed in the German Basic Law, but apparently these are relative and can be circumscribed by other laws, such as the Infection Protection Law. If individual rights can be relativized like this, then they are worthless. They are only there to make you feel good. I'm no expert in German constitutionality, but it does seem to me the German constitution is in need of amendment, to make absolute those rights all humans possess from birth and to prohibit parliament from making laws that restrict those freedoms.

All other European countries with high infection rates are doing basically the same, so why does it "baffle" you? This seeming circumvention of basic rights is only temporary and for a judicially relevant reason. If brought to the extreme it could go to supreme court for reviewing and possible termination. There's nothing baffling, it's rather boring. What is baffling me instead is all those childish people feeling "oppressed" because of necessary measures that save hundreds of thousands lives per country. I feel rather "oppressed" by the egotism and recklessness of die hard individualists who don't want to see reason and indirectly threaten me and my family with a raised risk of infection.

[antaeus]

It potentially increases the chance of the disease being contracted between people that could eventually jump to other people that had no say in such activities. This is no rocket science. Social activities contribute to the spread of the disease. No one banned growing your own food either. You can drop making stuff up. The government did not make the situation worse. People with the mentality you're advocating here did that.

I believe the major reason behind bans on outdoor sporting activities is that they are part of a broader drive to reduce unnecessary accident prone activities that take up valuable hospital resources.

By asking people to suck it up and not go fishing for a few weeks, they're reducing the number of ER visits and emergency call outs by people who fall overboard or have car crashes on the way home.

The point is to limit unnecessary risk to save resources... So every car not driving to the park or pond, every person not hiking in the mountains, is a potential hospital resource that can now be repurposed to coronavirus.

Governments know that you're unlikely to catch the virus hunting bears in the mountains. But you are much more likely to end up using a hospital ER when that bear bites your head off. And it's an unnecessary bear injury that wouldn't have happened if you were at home roasting the bear steaks you bought last month.

Heathen is concerned about the loss of personal liberty to do lifestyle things which don't realistically place you at greater risk of disease. This is a legitimate concern. But a bigger concern was always hospital surge capacity. And you'd be amazed by how many cumulative hospital visits are saved by reducing sport and recreation. My sister is an ER nurse in Perth. She has been posting instagram pics of empty ER wards, which has allowed her to take time out to train on coronavirus without risking ER lives.

I just think suck it up. Stay at home for a few weeks. They're already lifting bans on these activities in countries who are doing well. If the US or the UK had done well, they'd be getting ready to go fishing now too. But hey...

[Heathen Hammer]

It potentially increases the chance of the disease being contracted between people that could eventually jump to other people that had no say in such activities. This is no rocket science. Social activities contribute to the spread of the disease. No one banned growing your own food either. You can drop making stuff up. The government did not make the situation worse. People with the mentality you're advocating here did that.

If hunting and fishing creates such a pressure on hospitals, I'm sure there are statistics that would back up that hot take. How many hunting accidents per instances of hunting happen in America? What about fishing? Also hunting and fishing isn't a social activity. Its like banning drinking because people can gather in a group to do that.
So yeah, the moronic state government did make situation worse, while people with mentality I'm advocating are making an effort to make this better.

[Diamat]

All other European countries with high infection rates are doing basically the same, so why does it "baffle" you? This seeming circumvention of basic rights is only temporary and for a judicially relevant reason. If brought to the extreme it could go to supreme court for reviewing and possible termination. There's nothing baffling, it's rather boring. What is baffling me instead is all those childish people feeling "oppressed" because of necessary measures that save hundreds of thousands lives per country. I feel rather "oppressed" by the egotism and recklessness of die hard individualists who don't want to see reason and indirectly threaten me and my family with a raised risk of infection.

I suppose we come from different political cultures. In my view, and it's fine if you disagree with me, all humans are naturally endowed with rights - they are not granted by the government. Therefore, the government may not restrict those rights based on the contingency of the situation. The burden should not be on the individual to prove he has the right to assemble. That is, the individual shouldn't have to go to court with the government to prove his rights. Rather, the government first has to go to the courts to prove it can restrict those rights. That's why I find the German situation perverse. This is not a childish view, but just like yours, a measured view that is based on a specific conception of rights.

[Morifea]

@Diamat: I as Citizen of this Country demand that the government protects me and most of the other citizens. If this protection involves arresting people that are not able to conform to simple rules like keeping distance during a protest, I`m very happy about that. I applaude the policemen, that are doing their job and fining those People and hopefully there will soon be arrest warrants for those people that are organizing these "happenings" to spread Virus and their Propaganda.

I remind you, no one is oppressing the right to protest. There are just some simple rules, like keeping some ** distance. Shouldn`t be so difficult if someone has honest motives, which I doubt in regard of most participants.

Its also forbidden to show swastikas during protests in Germany, does this oppress you to?

[PointOfViewGun]

If hunting and fishing creates such a pressure on hospitals, I'm sure there are statistics that would back up that hot take. How many hunting accidents per instances of hunting happen in America? What about fishing? Also hunting and fishing isn't a social activity. Its like banning drinking because people can gather in a group to do that.
So yeah, the moronic state government did make situation worse, while people with mentality I'm advocating are making an effort to make this better.

Hunting and fishing doesn't really have to kill the healthcare system by themselves. There is no logic in suggesting that. They are contributing factors like many other activities though. Accidents that might happen is just an additional factor. Drinking may not be prohibited but bars are shut down. There goes your example. You need to think these through. Whats moronic here is your struggle to cling to arguments here. You're not making an effort to make anything better.

[Diamat]

@Diamat: I as Citizen of this Country demand that the government protects me and most of the other citizens. If this protection involves arresting people that are not able to conform to simple rules like keeping distance during a protest, I`m very happy about that. I applaude the policemen, that are doing their job and fining those People and hopefully there will soon be arrest warrants for those people that are organizing these "happenings" to spread Virus and their Propaganda.

I remind you, no one is oppressing the right to protest. There are just some simple rules, like keeping some ** distance. Shouldn`t be so difficult if someone has honest motives, which I doubt in regard of most participants.

Its also forbidden to show swastikas during protests in Germany, does this oppress you to?

It's not quite true that the right to protest isn't oppressed. Permissions either aren't granted or demos are restricted to 20 people.
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/...0427-99-847123

As for the swastikas, I can understand German sensibilities. But from an American perspective, this is a violation of free speech.

[Morifea]

@Diamat: Well, they still have the courts to Battle it out.

I must say I find your "International" View on the topic, while I disagree with it, very interesting and refreshing. Your time in other Countries has broaden your view on the world, which I lack.
Good that your now back in Germany, its time to bring you back on line

[Heathen Hammer]

Hunting and fishing doesn't really have to kill the healthcare system by themselves. There is no logic in suggesting that. They are contributing factors like many other activities though. Accidents that might happen is just an additional factor. Drinking may not be prohibited but bars are shut down. There goes your example. You need to think these through. Whats moronic here is your struggle to cling to arguments here. You're not making an effort to make anything better.

Any activity other then lying or sitting still can result with an injury. So no, the argument to ban fishing and hunting is moronic. Governor probably wanted to feel "empowered", maybe even subconsciously. Whats moronic is that you are desperately white knighting for some dumb governor who made a dumb decisions. Now that's not making things better.

@Diamat: I as Citizen of this Country demand that the government protects me and most of the other citizens. If this protection involves arresting people that are not able to conform to simple rules like keeping distance during a protest, I`m very happy about that. I applaude the policemen, that are doing their job and fining those People and hopefully there will soon be arrest warrants for those people that are organizing these "happenings" to spread Virus and their Propaganda.

Except there is a reason why laws like that aren't compatible with civilized society: all your "good intention" dictatorial laws can easily be abused, as we can see with example of that dumb bimbo state governor. Gatherings during a pandemic are a bit of a grey area (since infecting another person is technically a violation of NAP), but at the end of the day we can all agree that government should be blamed for making stupid restrictions like banning hunting and fishing, and thus causing rather justified public outrage.
The moral of the story is that the government power should be culled as much as possible. A weak small government that can't regulate speech or any other victim-less behavior and is there just to build roads is the only type of government that should be allowed to exist. Periodically, governments tend to forget that wisdom and need a good reminder via guillotines and tar&feathering. I think feathers would suit certain authority-happy politicians really well.

[PointOfViewGun]

Any activity other then lying or sitting still can result with an injury. So no, the argument to ban fishing and hunting is moronic. Governor probably wanted to feel "empowered", maybe even subconsciously. Whats moronic is that you are desperately white knighting for some dumb governor who made a dumb decisions. Now that's not making things better.

Random accidents do not really clog down the healthcare system. Random virus transmissions do. What dumb here is your objection to simple measures to stop the spread of a virus.

[tgoodenow]

Nearly two months into the region's coronavirus pandemic, New York released new data Monday showing that nearly 15 percent of those tested had antibodies to the virus — suggesting as many as 2.9 million New Yorkers may have been infected at some point, fully 10 times what the state has reported officially.
The numbers are even higher in New York City — antibody testing found a positivity rate of 24.7 percent in city samples, suggesting almost 2.1 million city residents could have been infected at some point.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...weeks/2390949/

The study estimated that 2.49% to 4.16% of people in Santa Clara Country had been infected with Covid-19 by April 1. This represents between 48,000 and 81,000 people, which is 50 to 85 times what county officials recorded by that date: 956 confirmed cases.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/healt...udy/index.html

About 6 percent of Miami-Dade’s population — about 165,000 residents — have antibodies indicating a past infection by the novel coronavirus, dwarfing the state health department’s tally of about 10,600 cases, according to preliminary study results announced by University of Miami researchers Friday.
The study, spurred by Miami-Dade County officials, will be an ongoing weekly survey based on antibody testing — randomly selecting county residents to volunteer pinpricks of their blood to be screened for signs of a past COVID-19 infection, whether they had tested positive for the virus in the past or not. The goal is to measure the extent of infection in the community.

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/cor...#storylink=cpy

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/cor...242260406.html

So here in Miami, estimated 165,000 cases and 302 deaths. Estimated 2.1 million in NYC, 12,500 deaths. Estimated 48,000 in Santa Clara, 100 deaths.

[antaeus]

Random accidents do not really clog down the healthcare system. Random virus transmissions do. What dumb here is your objection to simple measures to stop the spread of a virus.

I'm sorry, I have to partly agree and disagree with both you and Heathen here.

Any visit to any ER on the weekend will inform you just how many random recreational accidents there are out there. Not just by the acts themselves, but the traffic travelling to and from, the shopping for supply and all of the accociated activities. True, they don't clog the system, but they do occasionally stretch it - particularly in flu seasons. And that's the point. Our healthcare systems are built for normal times. They are budgeted and funded with a little wiggle room, for pre-covid times. Add a few tens of thousands of cases and it all breaks down. So severely limiting all recreation makes a really big cumulative difference to surge capacity. Particularly where it allows the conservation of PPE and the retraining of staff.

Sure you could just ban everything that isn't sitting still looking at the wall. But then people would starve on their chairs. The principle at play is about balancing necessity. You don't need to sport fish - in spite of what my father in law claims. You don't need to go to the pub. Take a break, watch some Marx documentaries on Prime. You can fish for fun again in a few months. Even Stalinist and Fascist regimes let people play sport.

Only then do we look at the secondary concern for the possible infection vectors during the activity - licking your best mate's fishing rod or sharing a slurpee with your cousin or whatever you do while waiting to shoot bald eagles or whatever.

Yes Heathen's objection is dumb. But at least it's consistent in its unwavering principle. I.e. If it involves inconvenience, it's bad. Either way, Heathen's objections are irrelevant in most countries. Most non essential activities are banned and over the next few months may come back online. I've said this before. Getting stuck arguing in principle against a defacto reality that has no chance of changing is pointless. Maybe we should be in that other thread looking at the next steps. Instead of saying "things shouldn't be like this" we should be saying "how things should be, going forward"

[sumskilz]

So here in Miami, estimated 165,000 cases and 302 deaths. Estimated 2.1 million in NYC, 12,500 deaths. Estimated 48,000 in Santa Clara, 100 deaths.

The Santa Clara results are nonsense. I addressed the methodology issues in an earlier post. The Miami study is better methodologically, but their sample may still be enriched with positive results due to their recruitment method. People who believe they may have been exposed are probably more likely to respond to a random call offering them a test. The fact that the authors of the Miami study didn't bother to validate the tests themselves also raises a red flag. They said it's because the tests are FDA approved, but the FDA isn't doing independent validations either, they're just trusting whatever the manufacturers say.

But this is the biggest problem with all these results:

No test is perfect. And the sheer number of antibody tests — Dutch virologist Marion Koopmans recently saw nearly 275 on a list maintained by the WHO — makes it very tough at this stage to know how good any of them actually are. The WHO is working with a number of labs trying to validate tests, said Van Kerkhove, who added: “Unfortunately that takes a little bit of time.”

In particular, the rapid tests appear not to perform well at all. Koopmans, the head of virology at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, said the Dutch national serology task force has recommended that people not use the rapid tests, because of the risk that people will get a false result and assume — if it was a positive — that they have protection they do not in fact have.

Every serology test is going to produce some erroneous results. Some people who were truly sick will test negative — that’s a false negative. Some people who were not sick will test positive — that’s a false positive.

Each commercial test comes with guidance from the manufacturer about how “sensitive” it is — in other words, what percentage of true positive cases it will detect — as well as how “specific” it is, meaning how good it is at not generating false positive results.

Those estimates are especially important when the rate of infection in an area is likely low. Even a small over-estimate — say a 5% false positive rate — can vastly increase the final projection of how many people in a location had been infected.

Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, drew up a chart to explain how different rates of sensitivity and specificity will impact a serology study in an area with 1 million people, using a test that had 95% sensitivity (caught all but 5% of true positives) and 95% specificity (designated as positive only 5% of people who were actually negative).

If 5% of the population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, there would have been 50,000 infected people. This test would find 47,500 (the true positives) but it would miss 2,500 (the false negatives). And it would detect 47,500 false positives — as many false positives as true positives. If the rate of infection in the community was smaller, the percentage of wrong results would rise.

If the rate of infection in the community increased, the errors become less substantial. If 15% of the community — 150,000 — had been infected, this test would find 142,500 true positives, 42,500 false positives, and would miss 7,500 cases — the false negatives.

Applying this knowledge to Thursday’s results from New York puts the picture in sharper focus. The release from the state doesn’t disclose the sensitivity of the test used, but it does note the specificity is between 93% and 100%, a “huge range,” Ashish Jha, head of Harvard’s Global Health Institute, noted on Twitter. If the test performed at the low end of that range, New York’s infection rate would be closer to 7% — half the figure Cuomo announced — and nearly one out of every two positives would have been a false positive, Jha said.

“These tests don’t perform like people think they do and so there are a lot of crazy results,” Osterholm said. “You can often find more than half of the positives you do document are actually false positives.”

People who don’t understand how challenging serology testing is may assume a result is binary — positive or negative. But reading a result is nowhere near that black and white, Osterholm said.

So as long as the margin of error in these tests (the expected number of false positives produced) is equal to or greater than the amount of real positives being claimed, the results can't really be taken as reliable no matter how much the researchers attempt to control for the problem.

[Heathen Hammer]

Random accidents do not really clog down the healthcare system. Random virus transmissions do. What dumb here is your objection to simple measures to stop the spread of a virus.

In order to say that, you need to prove that people hunting or fishing by themselves spread the virus. Good luck with that one.

[PointOfViewGun]

In order to say that, you need to prove that people hunting or fishing by themselves spread the virus. Good luck with that one.

Then we have to prove that people who drink alone at a bar corner spreads the virus as well.
How about people that watch a football match in their private boxes?
People who only go for the late night movie sessions where no one else goes?
Some love to watch a concert from a distance as well where its not that crowded.
The list goes on but people get the point. Good luck indeed.

[Heathen Hammer]

Then we have to prove that people who drink alone at a bar corner spreads the virus as well.
How about people that watch a football match in their private boxes?
People who only go for the late night movie sessions where no one else goes?
Some love to watch a concert from a distance as well where its not that crowded.
The list goes on but people get the point. Good luck indeed.

Nice, you listed indoor activities and crowd activities as lame justification for banning solitary outdoor activities. You do realize you kinda just proved me 100% correct, right?

[Infidel144]

And communazi Bill de(r fuhrer) Blasio:
"My message to the Jewish community, and all communities, is this simple: the time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups. This is about stopping this disease and saving lives. Period."
https://twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/125530961588306329

[Vanoi]

Good on Blasio for enforcing social distancing.

[PointOfViewGun]

Nice, you listed indoor activities and crowd activities as lame justification for banning solitary outdoor activities. You do realize you kinda just proved me 100% correct, right?

Concerts or football matches are often not indoor activities. Fishing or hunting are not solely solitary activities either. What I realized is that you didn't think this through.