LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Objectively intelligent. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=884)

LessinSF 04-26-2020 01:11 AM

Re: Objectively intelligent.
 
Was $5 billion enough? https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/fede...SEtsFuC-5W9yws

Icky Thump 04-26-2020 07:08 AM

Re: Well, this sucks.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 528311)
I'm not so reassured by "most". YMMV.

Translation: TAIWAN NUMBER ONE!!!! CHINA NUMBER NINETEEN!!!

sebastian_dangerfield 04-26-2020 03:47 PM

Re: Stop burning the house to smoke out the mouse.
 
Quote:

I don't understand what you mean or what you're asking. The virus has already killed .14% of the population of New York City, and the best evidence is that it has infected 21% of that population. That is pretty strong evidence that it kills at least .7% of the people who get it, far higher that the Santa Clara study suggests. And we also know that it is killing more people than that, because of this phenomena of additional deaths over the usual number, though that is hard to measure.
Okay. My bad. You're actually focused on counting the under-reported deaths but not the under-reported cases. You can't assume they run in parallel (for every 10 cases, 1 death). But nor can you focus on the numerator and ignore the denominator.

I've seen the critiques of the Standford study. There's a level of inaccuracy. But that doesn't mean the concept - the unassailable fact - that there are enormous numbers of uncounted people who've been exposed to this disease, is untrue.

Quote:

The anecdata is not a study, but suggests that the official death rate is an undercount. The phenomena are pretty well established, if not the magnitude. Do you disagree with that?
No. But I think the under-reporting of cases has to be factored as well. When someone says, "Many more people are dying of it!" the necessary question raised is, "Okay, well how many unreported cases are there?" Focusing on the numerator or denominator alone is pointless.

Quote:

Unless learning more means that a lot of people are dying, we don't have a cure or a good way to treat the symptoms, and we need to do what we're doing to avoid mass contagion that will kill a lot more people. Every indication is that a lot of places have avoided what has been happening in New York and Milan by enforcing social distancing. Stopping now is like saying, hey, it's raining, but I'm not getting wet, so I guess I can throw away this umbrella.
Who is suggesting we stop social distancing? Sane people are not suggesting that at all. The only people suggesting that are the loons who are protesting.

Reopening businesses while continuing social distancing is the middle path forward. Those who must be in close proximity to people will use PPE, those who aren't will use masks and distance themselves, as everyone has already been doing when they go to the store.

The only challenge I see is for sporting events, concerts, bars, and restaurants. That's going to be tricky.

Quote:

I really don't want to go to the Covid ward in the Kaiser hospital in San Jose. If you want to take your chances, why would I try to talk you out of it. But when you call for lifting the social distancing, you are saying that everyone else should accept that risk too -- that because you are happy to be cavalier with your own life, everyone else should be too.
Except I'm not calling for lifting social distancing. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Wear a mask, distance, and if you work in health care, wear a face mask, N95, and a gown.

Quote:

If there's anything we should have learned in the last two months, it's that the decisions people make on these issues have enormous costs to everyone else. When you are cavalier with your own life, it affects others around you.
Except again, I'm not. I'm wearing a mask when I go out, and I'm washing my hands aggressively, compulsively. I have older in-laws who visit and I'm not interested in killing them.

Quote:

That's hard for a libertarian to accept, so it's better just to find people saying that the risks are really low, and pretend the problem away.
I'm saying the risk will be lower than the hyperbolic predictions of the media (WaPo seems to be singularly fixated on stories about young, healthy victims, who are extreme statistical outliers) because the emerging math suggests the ratio between unreported case increase # and unreported death increase # is going to drive down the percentage death rate.

Quote:

eta: The death toll in NYC is up again today, above 11,800, so that .139% figure from yesterday is now .142%.
The study that came up with that 21% was done at grocery stores. Adjust it to account for those who were staying at home with the disease because they are too sick to leave the home or self-quarantining based on symptoms.

What you have in that study is useful, but incomplete - a percentage based on those healthy enough to be out and about.

We don't know what the adjustment would be, but we know it would cause the unreported # to increase. The question is whether a corresponding unreported covid death # increases at a similar rate.

Also, regarding the increased overall death #, how can you assume a significant number of them are covid related? We know a significant number of them are people who died of other causes because they could not get care from an overburdened ER, or chose to forego care out of fear of acquiring covid at the hospital. Net those against the gross death increase and I suspect you'll see the spread between the unreported cases and unreported deaths drive the death rate down to a fraction of that .142%.

And then on top of that, adjust for viral load unique to NYC. In dense areas, one can be hit with this virus over and over before he knows he has it. In a locale like FL, OTOH, where the predicted explosion of cases has not materialized, people acquiring Covid are not likely to endure repeated exposures. That renders NYC's death rate a poor analogue for the rest of the country.

Additionally, adjust for NYC's unique exposure to the European mutation of Covid that ripped through Italy. It appears the Chinese variant that stalked the west coast (and much of the rest of the country if the stories about it being here since December prove true) is not as deadly.

One final adjustment - pull out the health care workers in NYC who have been infected. They're not representative of the population at large as they're being daily submersed in a uniquely virus rich environment.

The emerging math draws a picture of a cruel and capricious disease with an elevated kill rate in densely populated areas and much lower kill rate in less densely populated areas. Genetics and co-morbidities also play a part. But in aggregate, it appears a lot closer to the regular flu than the Spanish Flu.

This suggests novelty and fear of being the outlier are driving a lot of our reactions, which is understandable. As we acquire solid information, however, we must be willing to let those initial fearful reactions fade a bit in favor of a more circumspect approach. That would be the "middle path" which involves reopening incrementally with precautions, including social distancing, in place. It also involves putting aside this crazy tribalism that has people pitting health vs. economics. These things are inextricably intertwined and not in competition.

I say this as someone who has 0.000% chance of not acquiring this at some point, given what my spouse and I are doing to make money we need to survive (and to keep employees at work). But I'd also say this to anyone who thinks he isn't going to get this. Chances are much, much greater that you will in fact get it. Your chances of avoiding it long enough for a vaccine to emerge are low, even with social distancing. Your best hope is that you can hold out long enough for a therapy that stops the virus from putting you in the hospital.

I think most people understand they're going to be forced to take risks and will sooner or later dance with this virus. But they're moving thru a mix of the anger, bargaining, and depression phases of the five stages of grief, and having a tough time coming to acceptance, lashing out at the notion of doing so. Right, well, we all wish we had a better hand. But these are the cards dealt.

I think looking at the bright side, that this isn't going to kill a whole lot of us, is helpful. YMMV.

LessinSF 04-26-2020 04:28 PM

Re: Stop burning the house to smoke out the mouse.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 528314)
. Who is suggesting we stop social distancing? Sane people are not suggesting that at all. The only people suggesting that are the loons who are protesting.

I am. At least in California and San Francisco, the curve has been flattened. There are enough unused healthcare and hospital resources that they have resumed "non-essential" surgeries. Taken at face value that the lockdown orders were to prevent an overwhelming of the healthcare system, that concern is apparently now moot..

Quote:

.I think most people understand they're going to be forced to take risks and will sooner or later dance with this virus. But they're moving thru a mix of the anger, bargaining, and depression phases of the five stages of grief, and having a tough time coming to acceptance, lashing out at the notion of doing so.
You should be right, but no. Most people I deal with seem to think that their home-stay, mask, and social distancing avoidance will make them free from exposure. People I normally consider smart are fighting me on the fact that it is endemic. If you haven't been exposed, you will be. To use a cliche, the cat is out of the bag. But, way fucking after the fact, we have political tools like our mayor (London Breed) ordering thhe wearing of face masks for no good reason.

sebastian_dangerfield 04-26-2020 04:45 PM

Re: Stop burning the house to smoke out the mouse.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 528315)
I am. At least in California and San Francisco, the curve has been flattened. There are enough unused healthcare and hospital resources that they have resumed "non-essential" surgeries. Taken at face value that the lockdown orders were to prevent an overwhelming of the healthcare system, that concern is apparently now moot..


You should be right, but no. Most people I deal with seem to think that their home-stay, mask, and social distancing avoidance will make them free from exposure. People I normally consider smart are fighting me on the fact that it is endemic. If you haven't been exposed, you will be. To use a cliche, the cat is out of the bag. But, way fucking after the fact, we have political tools like our mayor (London Breed) ordering thhe wearing of face masks for no good reason.

We have way more beds than we need in my state as well. But why take a chance with relaxing social distancing? The extremists (the unlettered sorts referenced in your second paragraph) will pounce on even the slightest cluster of cases to demand a resumption of lockdown. I think it’s deeply unwise to abandon social distancing quickly. It must be done incrementally, as exposures drive us closer to the 60-70% we need for herd immunity.

As to your second paragraph, I’ve struggled with how to address that illogic. My wife says I should not be as blunt as you and I have been here. But the counter to that is that to allow that delusional thinking to persist stymies efforts to develop a sensible solution. Every person thinking he can duck this thing until we get a vaccine is a problem. I disagree with you about the number of these people among us, but whatever it is, I definitely think that they all need to have the narrative in their head adjusted to reality. People need to wrap their psyches around the idea they are very likely to get it before this is under control.

24/7 news is the biggest problem here. It’s a miracle opportunity for them — endless doom porn. And it serves their interests to make it worse by scaring people as much as possible. The more fear, the longer it takes for the economy to resume, the more people stay shut-in and read more doom porn. And the media loves pushing the “economy vs. health concerns” false choice. It’s the new Red v. Blue they can serve their credulous audiences. 24/7 news has a captured market it can keep and grow by causing the economy to get worse. It’s a golden ticket for them.

Icky Thump 04-26-2020 05:25 PM

Re: Stop burning the house to smoke out the mouse.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 528315)
I am. At least in California and San Francisco, the curve has been flattened. There are enough unused healthcare and hospital resources that they have resumed "non-essential" surgeries. Taken at face value that the lockdown orders were to prevent an overwhelming of the healthcare system, that concern is apparently now moot..

Too soon = 1918 Philly. History. Slow, controlled reentry. Make all stores open, doing pickup only.

Quote:

You should be right, but no. Most people I deal with seem to think that their home-stay, mask, and social distancing avoidance will make them free from exposure. People I normally consider smart are fighting me on the fact that it is endemic. If you haven't been exposed, you will be. To use a cliche, the cat is out of the bag. But, way fucking after the fact, we have political tools like our mayor (London Breed) ordering thhe wearing of face masks for no good reason.
Masks and distancing will slow stuff down a bit like putting your hand over your head in a rain storm because you don't have an umbrella. And while they may minimally prevent someone from getting a virus they will substantially prevent someone from giving a virus. Masks are just NOT a part of this country's culture and they should be.

Early January, Pre-Covid, my wife and I were sick and we went to a local urgent care on a Saturday to get tested for the flu, which we had. We wore masks. An Asian guy walked in and did a double take saying "I never saw a Caucasian wear a mask before." Perhaps we were culturally indoctrinated to that from a trip to Japan late last year where, I'd say 80% of the people on the subway were wearing masks.

On to the law topic, at my place no one has broached the subject of when juries might get impaneled again. I got hushed for saying Spring 2021, at least in civil cases.

Icky Thump 04-26-2020 05:31 PM

Re: Stop burning the house to smoke out the mouse.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 528316)
Every person thinking he can duck this thing until we get a vaccine is a problem.

>>There are as yet no vaccines or antiviral drugs to prevent or treat human coronavirus infections.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 04-26-2020 05:43 PM

Re: Stop burning the house to smoke out the mouse.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 528318)
I think Ebola is the only coronavirus we have ever developed a vaccine for, correct?

Ebolavirus is not a form of coronavirus. We haven't developed any vaccine for a coronavirus.

There is some indication though that BCG, the vaccine used for TB in much of the less developed world, has an impact on susceptibility to coronavirus suggesting that vaccines can be done. I know of a couple companies working on vaccines that aren't in the eye of the press, and they have some pretty smart people who think it is doable.

Icky Thump 04-26-2020 06:05 PM

Re: Stop burning the house to smoke out the mouse.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 528319)
Ebolavirus is not a form of coronavirus. We haven't developed any vaccine for a coronavirus.

There is some indication though that BCG, the vaccine used for TB in much of the less developed world, has an impact on susceptibility to coronavirus suggesting that vaccines can be done. I know of a couple companies working on vaccines that aren't in the eye of the press, and they have some pretty smart people who think it is doable.

Yes, I misread.

>>There are as yet no vaccines or antiviral drugs to prevent or treat human coronavirus infections.

Tyrone Slothrop 04-26-2020 06:17 PM

Re: Stop burning the house to smoke out the mouse.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 528314)
Okay. My bad. You're actually focused on counting the under-reported deaths but not the under-reported cases. You can't assume they run in parallel (for every 10 cases, 1 death). But nor can you focus on the numerator and ignore the denominator.

I've seen the critiques of the Standford study. There's a level of inaccuracy. But that doesn't mean the concept - the unassailable fact - that there are enormous numbers of uncounted people who've been exposed to this disease, is untrue.

It's very simple. More than .14% of the population of NYC is already dead. [eta: Now up to .145%] If you want to figure out the lower bound of the mortality rate there, and if you accept the sample that says that 21% of the population has been exposed, the mortality rate is at least .7. We know it's higher, but that's not the point. The guy who wrote that article has impressive credentials, but he is not thinking very hard about his numbers. The math is not hard.

Quote:

I'm saying the risk will be lower than the hyperbolic predictions of the media (WaPo seems to be singularly fixated on stories about young, healthy victims, who are extreme statistical outliers) because the emerging math suggests the ratio between unreported case increase # and unreported death increase # is going to drive down the percentage death rate.
So we're doing that thing again where you explain that you're reacting to something stupid someone said somewhere else? You posted an article from the Hill, IIRC, and I responded to it. Yes, the risk will be lower than some unspecified hyperbolic prediction that someone else said somewhere else. So what?

Quote:

The study that came up with that 21% was done at grocery stores. Adjust it to account for those who were staying at home with the disease because they are too sick to leave the home or self-quarantining based on symptoms.
Obviously, we don't have enough testing to really know basic facts about the disease's spread, which ought to be cause for concern, not a lacuna to fill with reassuring speculation.

Quote:

Also, regarding the increased overall death #, how can you assume a significant number of them are covid related? We know a significant number of them are people who died of other causes because they could not get care from an overburdened ER, or chose to forego care out of fear of acquiring covid at the hospital. Net those against the gross death increase and I suspect you'll see the spread between the unreported cases and unreported deaths drive the death rate down to a fraction of that .142%.
Dude, think about what you are saying for just a second. If people are dying in greater numbers because they don't want to go to the hospital to get sick, in a public health sense those people are dying because of the pandemic, whether or not they're infected. It's like arguing that the people who jumped from the WTC on 9/11 weren't victims of terrorism.

Quote:

And then on top of that, adjust for viral load unique to NYC. In dense areas, one can be hit with this virus over and over before he knows he has it. In a locale like FL, OTOH, where the predicted explosion of cases has not materialized, people acquiring Covid are not likely to endure repeated exposures. That renders NYC's death rate a poor analogue for the rest of the country.
Did you make that up yourself?

Quote:

Additionally, adjust for NYC's unique exposure to the European mutation of Covid that ripped through Italy. It appears the Chinese variant that stalked the west coast (and much of the rest of the country if the stories about it being here since December prove true) is not as deadly.
False. You should seriously think about changing where you get your news.

Quote:

One final adjustment - pull out the health care workers in NYC who have been infected. They're not representative of the population at large as they're being daily submersed in a uniquely virus rich environment.
What is wrong with you?

If you disregard the people who get killed by the virus, the death rate is a lot lower. I will give you that.

Quote:

The emerging math draws a picture of a cruel and capricious disease with an elevated kill rate in densely populated areas and much lower kill rate in less densely populated areas. Genetics and co-morbidities also play a part. But in aggregate, it appears a lot closer to the regular flu than the Spanish Flu.
I can't believe it's late April and you are still suggesting this is like the flu.

It's funny, when you talk about the death toll from flu, do you disregard the people who were exposed multiple times in dense cities, and who had co-morbidities, and who were healthcare workers? No, of course you don't. Because you're not trying to minimize that number.

Quote:

This suggests novelty and fear of being the outlier are driving a lot of our reactions, which is understandable. As we acquire solid information, however, we must be willing to let those initial fearful reactions fade a bit in favor of a more circumspect approach. That would be the "middle path" which involves reopening incrementally with precautions, including social distancing, in place. It also involves putting aside this crazy tribalism that has people pitting health vs. economics. These things are inextricably intertwined and not in competition.
The debate seems to be between people who think it makes sense only to re-open when the number of cases drops, we have better testing capabilities, and we can contact trace people who get sick, and the people like yourself who are too impatient to wait for those things and who are saying, fuck it, let's go.

Quote:

I say this as someone who has 0.000% chance of not acquiring this at some point, given what my spouse and I are doing to make money we need to survive (and to keep employees at work). But I'd also say this to anyone who thinks he isn't going to get this. Chances are much, much greater that you will in fact get it. Your chances of avoiding it long enough for a vaccine to emerge are low, even with social distancing. Your best hope is that you can hold out long enough for a therapy that stops the virus from putting you in the hospital.

I think most people understand they're going to be forced to take risks and will sooner or later dance with this virus. But they're moving thru a mix of the anger, bargaining, and depression phases of the five stages of grief, and having a tough time coming to acceptance, lashing out at the notion of doing so. Right, well, we all wish we had a better hand. But these are the cards dealt.

I think looking at the bright side, that this isn't going to kill a whole lot of us, is helpful. YMMV.
50,000 dead already and "this isn't going to kill a whole lot of us."

If there were a flood and it killed 40% of the population of Allentown, Pa., would you say, look at the bright side -- this isn't going to kill a whole lot of us?

Not sure why you try so hard to be contrarian.

We are all taking risks right now. There is no zero-risk strategy. If you want to try to persuade people that you are weighing the risks and benefits right, you need to start by not bullshitting about how low the death rate is.

Tyrone Slothrop 04-26-2020 06:23 PM

Re: Stop burning the house to smoke out the mouse.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 528315)
I am. At least in California and San Francisco, the curve has been flattened. There are enough unused healthcare and hospital resources that they have resumed "non-essential" surgeries. Taken at face value that the lockdown orders were to prevent an overwhelming of the healthcare system, that concern is apparently now moot..

Not yet, but they're working on a plan to be able to do that. Part of the plan is that patients have to agree to no visitors, period. So let's just be clear that things are not back to normal, and the concern is not moot. OTOH, the hospitals are going to go broke with all of the money they are spending on new things to respond to the pandemic and without all the of revenue from usual sources.

Quote:

You should be right, but no. Most people I deal with seem to think that their home-stay, mask, and social distancing avoidance will make them free from exposure. People I normally consider smart are fighting me on the fact that it is endemic. If you haven't been exposed, you will be. To use a cliche, the cat is out of the bag. But, way fucking after the fact, we have political tools like our mayor (London Breed) ordering thhe wearing of face masks for no good reason.
Your mayor is ordering it for the same reason that the CDC recommends it and people in countries like China and Japan do it all the time. It helps. At my wife's hospitals, they masks all the time now, and not because London Breed told them to.

sebastian_dangerfield 04-26-2020 06:23 PM

Re: Stop burning the house to smoke out the mouse.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 528318)
>>There are as yet no vaccines or antiviral drugs to prevent or treat human coronavirus infections.

I understand that. I’m trying to delay getting it as there is evidence viruses can weaken as they age and mutate more frequently. There is not evidence they become more dangerous.

But I can only do so much. I’m regularly in a health care business. I’m basically running it from the finance side now.

I’m going to get it. Chances are you are going to get it. We are all probably going to get it.

Maybe some of us will get it after a consistently good therapy is found. Many of us won’t.

People need to stop thinking the world is frozen until there’s a vaccine or therapy or adequate contact tracing and testing. It’s not. No one is paying the fixed costs for anything with a piece of paper that says, “World frozen for now. Will pay when world unfrozen.” I wish it were that way, but it can’t be.

sebastian_dangerfield 04-26-2020 06:37 PM

Re: Stop burning the house to smoke out the mouse.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 528321)
It's very simple. More than .14% of the population of NYC is already dead. If you want to figure out the lower bound of the mortality rate there, and if you accept the sample that says that 21% of the population has been exposed, the mortality rate is at least .7. We know it's higher, but that's not the point. The guy who wrote that article has impressive credentials, but he is not thinking very hard about his numbers. The math is not hard.



So we're doing that thing again where you explain that you're reacting to something stupid someone said somewhere else? You posted an article from the Hill, IIRC, and I responded to it. Yes, the risk will be lower than some unspecified hyperbolic prediction that someone else said somewhere else. So what?



Obviously, we don't have enough testing to really know basic facts about the disease's spread, which ought to be cause for concern, not a lacuna to fill with reassuring speculation.



Dude, think about what you are saying for just a second. If people are dying in greater numbers because they don't want to go to the hospital to get sick, in a public health sense those people are dying because of the pandemic, whether or not they're infected. It's like arguing that the people who jumped from the WTC on 9/11 weren't victims of terrorism.



Did you make that up yourself?



False. You should seriously think about changing where you get your news.



What is wrong with you?

If you disregard the people who get killed by the virus, the death rate is a lot lower. I will give you that.



I can't believe it's late April and you are still suggesting this is like the flu.

It's funny, when you talk about the death toll from flu, do you disregard the people who were exposed multiple times in dense cities, and who had co-morbidities, and who were healthcare workers? No, of course you don't. Because you're not trying to minimize that number.



The debate seems to be between people who think it makes sense only to re-open when the number of cases drops, we have better testing capabilities, and we can contact trace people who get sick, and the people like yourself who are too impatient to wait for those things and who are saying, fuck it, let's go.



50,000 dead already and "this isn't going to kill a whole lot of us."

If there were a flood and it killed 40% of the population of Allentown, Pa., would you say, look at the bright side -- this isn't going to kill a whole lot of us?

Not sure why you try so hard to be contrarian.

We are all taking risks right now. There is no zero-risk strategy. If you want to try to persuade people that you are weighing the risks and benefits right, you need to start by not bullshitting about how low the death rate is.

1. We’re talking about the % of people the disease kills. The WTC analogy is inapt and you know it.

2. We are not waiting and cannot wait for contact tracing. Drive that through your skull. We don’t have that kind of time. (Don’t like that? Take it up with those lenders you’re so keen on protecting. Ask them how they’ll feel about choking down six months of 20% default rates. Get back to me with their responses.)

3. If we were talking about the death rate from the flu, I would absolutely include the analysis of co-morbidities, along with all other adjustments. In fact, we do exactly that already. Whenever we talk of flu deaths, we note they’re mostly confined to the compromised and elderly. So please, don’t raise a facile argument like that and pretend you’re saying something of value.

4. I’m not saying fuck it, let’s go. You continually ignore that because you can’t deal with the fact that I am actually arguing for continuing social distancing as much as possible. If you wish to argue with the “fuck it, let’s go” point, argue with Less.

5. 500,000 dead is nothing compared to what you’ll get if we don’t start incrementally, carefully, reopening. You’re one of the dimwits who’s only looking at the immediate health crisis side of the ledger. Wanna know what a depression is? A fucking health crisis. Mass death over a longer time period. You’re so myopically focused you don’t even see that all you’re doing is shifting the dates of deaths. X over near term vs. XXX over the longer.

ETA: You haven’t said as much, but I’d assume you favor a one size fits all approach. Please tell m I’m wrong and you’re not dumb enough to think we need to keep Bumfuck Falls, SD on lockdown until the numbers fall in Maryland.

ETA2: Thus is all academic. It’s reopening incrementally starting next month whether you like it or not. I hope it opens slowly and carefully, but Less may be predicting the future more accurately.

LessinSF 04-26-2020 07:54 PM

Re: Stop burning the house to smoke out the mouse.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 528322)
Your mayor is ordering it for the same reason that the CDC recommends it and people in countries like China and Japan do it all the time. It helps. At my wife's hospitals, they masks all the time now, and not because London Breed told them to.

How does it help? It slows transmission of what will be transmitted eventually. Once we are ready to handle the cases, there is no reason whatsoever that anyone needs to wear a mask.

LessinSF 04-26-2020 07:56 PM

Re: Stop burning the house to smoke out the mouse.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 528317)
Too soon = 1918 Philly. History. Slow, controlled reentry. Make all stores open, doing pickup only.

We are not 1918, and, even if, get on with it once we have the healthcare infrastructure to handle it.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:12 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com