LawTalkers - Objectively intelligent.

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)

Re: Boston's Healthy Homeless

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 528117)

Except lighthouses don’t go away. Unless a vaccine comes out fast we have to brave it, I think. I’m not sure of timeline, “reopening” so my firm can sit in our office and do nothing, cuz there is no work, ain’t helping (got a letter from our #3 client- “do not bill us for anything. We don’t make _____ now, we make ventilators now.” But at some point we have to go back to life and deal, yes?

Exactly. I’m think we’re going all in... Rehire, shrewdly use the PPP cash and try to sustain thru a likely fall resurgence of the virus.

The game here is to use cash wisely and outlast. The survivors in any sector are going to soak up a ton of market share from those who couldn’t carry. But it ain’t going to be easy.

Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 528127)

You are entirely an illiterate idiot. The packaging is a low-quality transmitter, as I said, because it’s porous. It’s also unlikely to be sneezed or spit upon, because of normal food safety protocols. Also, people accepting it are likely taking greater than normal protocols, including washing their hands. The packaging argument is the same as the food argument, except for heat. The people working there aren’t trying to get you infected, even if they don’t have PTO.

You falsely asserted that people not getting it via obviously low risk means implies that airborne transmission is the primary route, because you have never had any judgment about anything.

Woody Allen has a short story about a chess by mail game gone awry. Both you two should read it.

Re: Boston's Healthy Homeless

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 528131)

Who are you virtue signaling to now? That was a pre-Covid thing. You’re shtick in that regard is like a restaurant chain stock.

Is Adder actually Britta from Community?

Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 528121)

If you weren’t full of shit, you’d know why the bun isn’t a meaningful risk either, but you’re full of shit.

The best we know right now is that no one is getting it from inhalation. Could be, but not known. The best that we know is that it doesn’t remain viable for long on porous surfaces. The best we know is that even if you touch a surface that contains it, you need to then transport it to one of the mucus membranes in your eyes, nose and throat where it is be able to reproduce. The doctors and epidemiologists aren’t lying to you. There is no conspiracy to mislead you. You aren’t smarter than them. They may turn out to be wrong, but what they are saying now is that you are.

The most obvious answer is that even if it’s on people’s Chic-fil-a they aren’t getting enough on their hands and/or transporting it to where they can get infected. This isn’t particularly surprising, given that the food safety practices that prevent widespread cholera and listeria infections, for example, also work here. Hand washing and not sneezing of the food make a really big difference. I don’t know about you, but we also wipe down our takeout containers, transfer the food to containers we have cleaned and wash our hands before eating (no, I don’t think we are typical).

But go lie to the ER so you can get hydroxyquinine or whatever it is.

Please. It's "Chick-fil-a".

Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 528133)

Woody Allen has a short story about a chess by mail game gone awry. Both you two should read it.

I was thinking they need to get a room.

Re: Boston's Healthy Homeless

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 528128)

You. Are. A. Selfish. Moron.

None of this is about us. It’s about trying not to kill others, because we’re not empty, selfish shells.

THAT is the whole point of this thread, pointing out the idiocy of opening things up.

For every person who was symptomatic or tested positive who given current thought, is neither contagious (after symptoms are gone) nor at risk of infection, there are probably 2 currently asymptomatic people who could be carriers.

While the person with antibodies is saying "you're stupid for opening things up now but that's on you."

It's like jumping out of a plane and 200 feet from the ground saying "Hey this parachute worked, don't need it no more."

Re: Boston's Healthy Homeless

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 528137)

Opening things up slowly, with the least likely to suffer health maladies, in the lesser impacted areas, does not risk blowing out the health care system. It's dipping a toe into the water.

To the extent it causes a few healthy people to be infected, it's a benefit. Each incremental increase in people with immunity helps to push us toward herd immunity.

Conversely, keeping everyone at home indefinitely forces us into a position where we are held prisoner, waiting for a vaccine.

I'll say this as cleanly as possible so we can get past these points, because refusal to get past them is causing a lot of useless conversations in the media and among policymakers:

We are not staying on lockdown until there is a vaccine.

We are not staying on lockdown until testing and tracing are ubiquitous.

People need to understand that. Some people have trouble grappling with that. I don't know why, but I see no reason to engage them any more than I see a reason to engage anyone saying that the virus is transferred by 5G. So given this reality, we have to deal with this question, which Hank raised:

How can we most safely resume functioning to both avoid crashing the health care system and avoid a depression?

There is only one way: A framework like what Trump has proposed. Dipping a toe in the water where it seems safe to do so, and being prepared to accept that some people will get sick, and some will die, but that these are necessary sacrifices to achieve herd immunity (I think it occurs at 60%).

I'm not saying we have to seek herd immunity in a careful manner because I'm social Darwinist or selfish. I'm saying so for the same reason I think Hank has suggested it might be necessary: There is no other option. Waiting for testing and tracing to become ubiquitous of for a vaccine requires a timetable we can't endure without economic and consequently societal collapse.

We can do this by letting the under 50 without health problems resume working, then three weeks later letting the 50-60 crowd do so, then three more weeks later, letting the 60-70 crowd do so, then three more weeks later, finally allowing all people to go out.

But:

No mass gatherings
If you can work from home, continue to do so

The idea is to let small slices of the population out and see how it works.

The argument is not one of absolutes: Getting Back to Work! vs. Locking Down! The sane, rational approach is a middle path, tackling the problem as one of degree, balancing the economic necessities with health care capacity.

And of course, while all this is going on, on a parallel track, test the hell out of everybody and identify the at risk from the not at risk populations.

And also of course, start this in areas where the medical resources are not already slammed like NYC. Work up to the slammed areas, giving them a chance to recover capacity before relaxing anything.

Re: Boston's Healthy Homeless

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 528138)

There is only one way: A framework like what Trump has proposed. Dipping a toe in the water where it seems safe to do so, and being prepared to accept that some people will get sick, and some will die, but that these are necessary sacrifices to achieve herd immunity (I think it occurs at 60%).

Sorry, anyone who says this needs to have a little courage and go first.

Re: Boston's Healthy Homeless

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 528139)

Sorry, anyone who says this needs to have a little courage and go first.

I eat my cooking. I’ve been walking into a health care facility every other day and been in and out of grocery and other stores quite a bit.

I handled a closing the other day.

Not looking to get it (if it’s not happened already), but I’m working.

I was in packed quarters (like sardines) with people from all around the world at a film festival in late January/early February. If I was going to get it anywhere, it was there.

I’m acquiring an antibody test. I’ll likely know my position vis a vis this virus soon.

Re: Boston's Healthy Homeless

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 528140)

I’m acquiring an antibody test. I’ll likely know my position vis a vis this virus soon.

from Europe?

Re: Objectively intelligent.

So do any of you use gloves? They just seem a way to spread the virus to everything you touch. At the market I'm bare handed grabbing stuff, disinfecting before I touch anything (say my debit card) that must stay clean. And I use a dog poop bag when entering my PIN. A dog poop bag seems better for what good a glove can do- not touching stuff that has lots pf people touching it- and the bag throws away easier.

Re: Boston's Healthy Homeless

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 528141)

from Europe?

I think it’s made in NC. Lots of people have them, but a lot are inaccurate. Even the best one is not terrifically accurate. But it’s something.

Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 528142)

I had to use gloves at a closing. Thought the same thing. Bizarre. Everybody was wearing N95s. I have some reusable mask that makes you sound like Darth Vader when inhaling.

Coupled with my David Lee Roth/Bill the Butcher from Gangs of New York haircut, it was a pretty odd scene.

Re: Boston's Healthy Homeless

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 528143)

I think it’s made in NC. Lots of people have them, but a lot are inaccurate. Even the best one is not terrifically accurate. But it’s something.

Bought where?

Re: Boston's Healthy Homeless

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 528145)

Bought where?

Wholesaler. They're around. People are getting them to test their employees. I thought they were rare, but then you hear about businesses and docs with a bunch of them. I think people are pooling to buy in bulk. Can’t get them individually for reasonable price.

I think suppliers here overbought and we never saw the crisis levels anticipated, so now that supply is trickling into broader market.

But a lot of them are junk. You have to buy the Cellex one. And again, even that is not the most accurate thing in the world.

People are also buying those forehead thermometers a lot, to screen customers and workers. Seems a bit invasive, but I guess it’ll make people feel safe.