Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.

[Infidel144]

SCOTUS, 5-4, grants injunctive relief, against Il Duce Cuomo, CommuNazi, New York.
The emmy award winning Il Duce, who is responsible for the death of thousands of nursing home patients:
"is enjoined from enforcing Executive Order202.68’s 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on applicant
pending disposition of the appeal in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and disposition of
the petition for a writ of certiorari,"
The ruling notes the targeting of Jews by Il Duce:
"Agudath Israel argues that the Governor specifically targeted the Orthodox Jewish community and gerrymandered the boundaries of red and orange zones to ensure
that heavily Orthodox areas were included."
"As noted by the dissent in the court below,
statements made in connection with the challenged rules
can be viewed as targeting the “ ‘ultra-Orthodox [Jewish]
community.’"
(and no doubt disappointing De(r Fuhrer) Blasio, who also enjoys targeting Jews).

"But even in a pandemic,the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten."

Gorsuch wub-slaps Il Duce Cuomo:
"the Governor has chosen to impose no
capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists,
and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage
companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are
all essential too. So, at least according to the Governor, it
may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick
up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the
afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who
knew public health would so perfectly align with secular
convenience?"

"Even if the Constitution has taken a holidayduring this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...20a87_4g15.pdf

In other news:

Governor Frau Brown, Communazi, Oregon, is telling citizens to call the police on any neighbor that has more than six people in the house:
"Days before Thanksgiving, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said she believes residents who know their neighbors are violating the most recent round of COVID-19 protocols, which includes capping the number of people allowed in your home at six, should call the police."
Sheriff says wub off wub:
"On Friday, the Marion County Sheriff’s office said in a statement, “We recognize that we cannot arrest or enforce our way out of the pandemic, and we believe both are counterproductive to public health goals.""

Obviously Frau Brown needs to recruit her own Stasi. Antifa could do the job...

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/pol...4qB7OaDuFaW7nQ
Back to New York:
Sheriffs are refusing to enforce holiday restrictions ordered by Il Duce.

Il Duce Cuomo, killer of the elderly, responds by calling the Sheriffs dictators.

Sheriffs respond:
"He has also called Sheriffs “dictators” for following the Constitution rather than his orders, which we also find ironic."
https://www.syracuse.com/state/2020/...son-limit.html
(Being better than the proles, Il Duce had planned on breaking his own rules until getting called on it...)
https://abc7ny.com/ny-governor-andre...id-19/8231416/

Governor Frau Gretchen, CN, Michigan, (who also killed thousands in nursing homes) previously seen being smacked by the Michigan Supreme Court for issuing unconstitutional orders is back at it:
https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...ns/6304540002/

[Cope]

Gorsuch wub-slaps Il Duce Cuomo:
"the Governor has chosen to impose no
capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists,
and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage
companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are
all essential too. So, at least according to the Governor, it
may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick
up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the
afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who
knew public health would so perfectly align with secular
convenience?"

This is the most beautiful thing I have read in weeks. Thanks for sharing.

[Infidel144]

This is the most beautiful thing I have read in weeks. Thanks for sharing.

De nada.
If you have not already, you should listen to Alito's recent speech.

[TheLeft]

Question. If God is omnipotent, why does one need to go and worship in a church or synagogue anyway? Can people not pray at home? I'm sure <insert deity here> wouldn't want a deadly illness spread about in his/her name, not when there is a blindingly obvious alternative...

[conon394]

This is the most beautiful thing I have read in weeks. Thanks for sharing

I don't spend hours in a hardware store singing and talking. I can get the essential tarp I need for my roof at the hardware store in about 5 minutes and am out.

[swabian]

Where are you getting those stats from, and what conclusions can you draw from them.



I have heard of long term lung problems and loss of smell and taste. I don’t know how severe they are, how common they are, and I certainly haven’t heard of rashes, or hair loss.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?

13,218,845 cases

269,302 deaths

2,035% mortality

The common flu has a mortality rate of about 0.12%

I mean... how more clear does it have to become that this pandemic is even worse than the historical Spanish flu? This obstinacy is bloody embarassing. Shame on you.

[Infidel144]

Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation

Context: The human development territories have been severely constrained under the Covid-19 pandemic. A common dynamics has been observed, but its propagation has not been homogeneous over each continent. We aimed at characterizing the non-viral parameters that were most associated with death rate.


Methods: We tested major indices from five domains (demography, public health, economy, politics, environment) and their potential associations with Covid-19 mortality during the first 8 months of 2020, through a Principal Component Analysis and a correlation matrix with a Pearson correlation test. Data of all countries, or states in federal countries, showing at least 10 fatality cases, were retrieved from official public sites. For countries that have not yet finished the first epidemic phase, a prospective model has been computed to provide options of death rates evolution.


Results: Higher Covid death rates are observed in the [25/65°] latitude and in the [−35/−125°] longitude ranges. The national criteria most associated with death rate are life expectancy and its slowdown, public health context (metabolic and non-communicable diseases (NCD) burden vs. infectious diseases prevalence), economy (growth national product, financial support), and environment (temperature, ultra-violet index). Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate.


Conclusion: Countries that already experienced a stagnation or regression of life expectancy, with high income and NCD rates, had the highest price to pay. This burden was not alleviated by more stringent public decisions. Inherent factors have predetermined the Covid-19 mortality: understanding them may improve prevention strategies by increasing population resilience through better physical fitness and immunity.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...04339/full#SM6

[swabian]

Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate.

If the US would not have taken any measures at all, the mortality rates would have shot up to 10% easily. Which would imply that the US would lose most of her population aged above 60. There are plain and obvious facts and then there are bad and biased studies and plain scientific trash.

We are at the end of the pandemic. During spring next year, the vaccines will be distributed and by winter next year, the pandemic will have mostly disappeared in most countries.

The stats on Sars-Cov-2 are therefore final: Even a highly advanced country like the USA loses 2% of her infected population, not because of negligence, but because of delayed reaction to the outbreak. This is a fact as much as that the sun rises in the morning. No study can falsify this, because this already constitutes reality. It has happened.

[Infidel144]

If the US would not have taken any measures at all, the mortality rates would have shot up to 10% easily. Which would imply that the US would lose most of her population aged above 60. There are plain and obvious facts and then there are bad and biased studies and plain scientific trash.

We are at the end of the pandemic. During spring next year, the vaccines will be distributed and by winter next year, the pandemic will have mostly disappeared in most countries.

The stats on Sars-Cov-2 are therefore final: Even a highly advanced country like the USA loses 2% of her infected population, not because of negligence, but because of delayed reaction to the outbreak. This is a fact as much as that the sun rises in the morning. No study can falsify this, because this already constitutes reality. It has happened.

As surely as the schnapps bottle rises in the morning, I eagerly await you publishing your paper in the literature. Be sure to inform me when it is.
You don't know what the infected population is. You only have some idea of the confirmed cases.

[swabian]

I'm reflecting the documented and internationally acknowledged facts. But good that you mention infection rates as well.

We must assume that, without any measures, the infection rate would be as high as 99% and to this number of people, the unleashed lethality of 10% is what would have to be assumed. Yes that would mean that 10 % of the US population would die and definitely most of the US population aged above 60. Pretty much all people above 75 would simply suffocate and die.

The Spanish Flu inflicted this kind of casualties with a historical lethality of 1%, because the total number of infections globally was vast. If we would replace Sars-Cov-2 with the Spanish Flu in history, the world might have faced not 20-40, but 50-150 million deaths between about 1918 and 1922. This is what we are facing right now, and thanks to our advancement in technology (which most importantly implies the ability to spread information much more rapidly and reliably), we can can suppress the outbreak to its current state. But it is not yet gone. So please, people, be a little more patient. Why is this so much to ask?

[Infidel144]

We must assume that

Again, I await you publishing your paper in the literature...

[swabian]

Yeah, ok. I don't take you seriously either. I can't, sorry..

Just accept the 2% mortality rate. This should give you enough worries and anxiety, if you have any understanding of exponential growth at all (and yes, i studied mathematics).

[TheDarkKnight]

2,300 deaths recorded yesterday in my country. One of them was the aunt of a dear friend who didn't think the virus existed.

No, I mean that. They pretty much spent their last few hours in utter disbelief that they were dying of this.

I hate my country, and I absolutely hate everyone that has played their part in this situation getting this bad.

What a sad, humiliating continuing event. This is not the country I grew up believing in. Not by a longshot.

[Surgeon]

On the flipside some uplifting news! Grandma doesn't want family to be afraid of killing grandma, so grandma kills herself:

When 90-year-old Nancy Russell died last month, she was surrounded by friends and family. They clustered around her bed, singing a song she had chosen to send her off, as a doctor helped her through a medically-assisted death.

[Cyclops]

Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation...
Conclusion: Countries that already experienced a stagnation or regression of life expectancy, with high income and NCD rates, had the highest price to pay. This burden was not alleviated by more stringent public decisions. Inherent factors have predetermined the Covid-19 mortality: understanding them may improve prevention strategies by increasing population resilience through better physical fitness and immunity.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...04339/full#SM6

I'm struggling to wrap my head around it but to the extent I can that seems to make some sense.

My feeling is the US was vulnerable to this in ways that (for example) my country was not. Pretty sure trump was a negative to the extent he could do anything but there isn't a politician alive in the present system that could have imposed much in the way of effective controls given political gridlock, existing public health problems and so on.

[pacifism]

This is why elections matter. We're already noticing the loss of Justice Ginsberg.

The state of New York had adopted a COVID policy around the idea of having more restrictions in smaller areas that are particularly more susceptible to spreading the disease. If an establishment creates a hot spot, it can be reasonably expected to have more restrictions put on it. So a Supreme Court ruling that a religious institute cannot have harsher restrictions than a secular one with all things being equal would be fairly reasonable. What I find unreasonable is the idea that all things being held equal here.

The Diocese’ legal team in Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo argued that religious buildings were effectively gerrymandered into more restrictive zones, which means that the details of how the state should consider drawing these zones should be considered by the court. It is fairly common knowledge that religious services can spread COVID easily. A church service with hours of talking, singing, and so on creates a risk of spreading those aerosols and water droplets than, say going to a bike shop. From a purely epidemiological standpoint, most religious services are like a concert. A concert is an example of a non-essential gathering that would have harsher restrictions than houses of worship do. In my opinion, for First Amendment issues in light of COVID, houses of worship aren't really comparable to essential businesses as much as they are to nonresidential gatherings. So unless there is a clear effort to disrupt religious services in addition to disrupting the spread of COVID when we take a look under the hood for New York’s policies, I think that a bold ruling would be a little bit dangerous. But it appears the majority opinion did not do that and only examined these restrictions as being a violation of the first amendment:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

“To begin with, New York’s 10-person and 25-person caps on attendance at religious services in red and orange zones (which are areas where COVID–19 is more prevalent) are much more severe than most other States’ restrictions, including the California and Nevada limits at issue in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020), and Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___ (2020)....

“Moreover, New York’s restrictions on houses of worship not only are severe, but also are discriminatory. In red and orange zones, houses of worship must adhere to numerical caps of 10 and 25 people, respectively, but those caps do not apply to some secular buildings in the same neighborhoods. In a red zone, for example, a church or synagogue must adhere to a 10-person attendance cap, while a grocery store, pet store, or big-box store down the street does not face the same restriction. In an orange zone, the discrimination against religion is even starker: Essential businesses and many non-essential businesses are subject to no attendance caps at all.

“The State’s discrimination against religion raises a serious First Amendment issue and triggers heightened scrutiny, requiring the State to provide a sufficient justification for the discrimination… But New York has not sufficiently justified treating houses of worship more severely than secular businesses.

“The State argues that it has not impermissibly discriminated against religion because some secular businesses such as movie theaters must remain closed and are thus treated less favorably than houses of worship. But under this Court’s precedents, it does not suffice for a State to point out that, as compared to houses of worship, some secular businesses are subject to similarly severe or even more severe restrictions.”
- Justice Kavanaugh, concurring opinion

“Nor may we discount the burden on the faithful who have lived for months under New York’s unconstitutional regime unable to attend religious services. Whether this Court could decide a renewed application promptly is beside the point. The parties before us have already shown their entitlement to relief. Saying so now will establish clear legal rules and enable both sides to put their energy to productive use, rather than devoting it to endless emergency litigation. Saying so now will dispel, as well, misconceptions about the role of the Constitution in times of crisis, which have already been permitted to persist for too long.

“It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques.”
- Justice Gorsuch, concurring opinion

Taken from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...20a87_4g15.pdf

So that doesn’t make me particularly confident in how carefully the majority of the court was considering the science behind the state of New York’s policy. Unfortunately, the like the annual flu season, there is a bit of a storm brewing with COVID, so rulings like these will probably have tangible effects on the death toll. New York – since May – has been doing relatively well for a U.S. state of its size, in part using these policies. The idea that Christians who seek to evangelize to others aren’t courteous enough to willingly make any sacrifices for something so profane as public health seems like poor optics to me.

Six Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholic - the majority opinion had only one non-Catholic - so maybe some accusations of popery might make a comeback? Just kidding, they don’t seem to be kneeling before Francis on this one.

[Aexodus]

So that doesn’t make me particularly confident in how carefully the majority of the court was considering the science behind the state of New York’s policy.

Why should they?

[pacifism]

Well, science is what we use to fight diseases effectively, for one thing.

[antaeus]

Well, science is what we use to fight diseases effectively, for one thing.

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.

[Aexodus]

We're supposed to listen to the experts right? So what's John Roberts' background in medical science? Being an 'expert' isn't a catch-all for everything.

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?

What I will say is, that any rules on social distancing have to apply equally, and in America I hope their first amendment which is a great thing, helps. This isn't happening, I've seen the two tier policing in America, Britain, Ireland, and elsewhere. Protests allowed to go ahead, protests not allowed to go ahead, elites wining and dining in the middle of lockdown, all sorts.

So laws that only lock down and house arrest certain types of people, strike em down, strike em all down.

Edit: I am aware that many Americans, and probably many foreigners like me don't understand that the Supreme Court aren't lawmakers. They shouldn't be making policy. However I sense that the last 20 years has done damage to their reputation. Or not depending on your agenda.

Anyway, back to corona.