The Coronavirus, not the beer
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
How about the rules in the real world, where lots of people are still working and it is recommended you go outside fairly often? You are just not describing reality.
Happy you have come around of the stimulus though.
Well, luckily this is not at all the answer you were given when you asked for the 1900th time "WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE." Maybe read them for once.
Not really; the moonbat wishful thinkers like you are in control of the country and a number of states. We are opening up without having done any of the stuff that is necessary for preparing. I am probably more pessimistic than ever. My school is now talking about programs in the Spring being less likely than those in the fall because of the slow, but inevitable resurgence.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Can You Be a Libertarian in a Pandemic?
Interesting essay by Keith Whittington in Reason.
https://reason.com/2020/03/16/can-you-be-a-libertarian-in-a-pandemic/
The answer is yes, but Whittington also argues for some flexibility and common sense.
Libertarians should recognize that classical liberal principles rest on certain assumptions. Libertarians are not (generally) anarchists. They recognize that there is a need for the state to secure rights and address the wrongs that individuals can inflict on others. Where the government is needed to adequately secure rights and prevent harms, it should be competent and empowered to perform the task with which it has been entrusted. No one is well served by having a hulking but ineffectual state or an interventionist but incompetent government. Moreover, the control of the spread of infectious diseases is one of the classic things that we expect the state to do. It is in our long-term collective interest to accept restrictions on individual liberty that are necessary to contain the spread of a deadly disease and remedy its ill effects. Some limits on individual freedom are both necessary and proper in these circumstances that would emphatically not be necessary nor proper in more normal circumstances.
It is useful and necessary to question government action. There are bound to be reasonable disagreements on the best government action to take in particular circumstances. Some mistakes will be made along the way, and we should insist that those mistakes be identified and corrected whenever possible. But it neither a knock against libertarianism nor a sacrifice of libertarian principles to accept the fact that sometimes government action is needed, and a pandemic is one of times.
Interesting essay by Keith Whittington in Reason.
https://reason.com/2020/03/16/can-you-be-a-libertarian-in-a-pandemic/
The answer is yes, but Whittington also argues for some flexibility and common sense.
Libertarians should recognize that classical liberal principles rest on certain assumptions. Libertarians are not (generally) anarchists. They recognize that there is a need for the state to secure rights and address the wrongs that individuals can inflict on others. Where the government is needed to adequately secure rights and prevent harms, it should be competent and empowered to perform the task with which it has been entrusted. No one is well served by having a hulking but ineffectual state or an interventionist but incompetent government. Moreover, the control of the spread of infectious diseases is one of the classic things that we expect the state to do. It is in our long-term collective interest to accept restrictions on individual liberty that are necessary to contain the spread of a deadly disease and remedy its ill effects. Some limits on individual freedom are both necessary and proper in these circumstances that would emphatically not be necessary nor proper in more normal circumstances.
It is useful and necessary to question government action. There are bound to be reasonable disagreements on the best government action to take in particular circumstances. Some mistakes will be made along the way, and we should insist that those mistakes be identified and corrected whenever possible. But it neither a knock against libertarianism nor a sacrifice of libertarian principles to accept the fact that sometimes government action is needed, and a pandemic is one of times.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Surprised de Blasio is that high, but if the Cuomo numbers really surprise you, then you are living in a bubble.
sturg33
I
No I'm not surprised but other than transparency what has he done particularly well?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
[tw]1258189819102089216[/tw]
A little flattening out on the % positive number. Number of tests needs to rise some more. NY is #2 behind Rhode Island in testing per capita. I know someone involved in the effort. It has been a massive undertaking to get there. But they need to keep pushing the testing numbers higher. They know this. Cuomo to his credit has committed the resources.
A little flattening out on the % positive number. Number of tests needs to rise some more. NY is #2 behind Rhode Island in testing per capita. I know someone involved in the effort. It has been a massive undertaking to get there. But they need to keep pushing the testing numbers higher. They know this. Cuomo to his credit has committed the resources.
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Zack Cooper is an associate professor at the Yale School of Public Health and in Yale’s Department of Economics. He has advanced degrees and is an expert in his field. In spite of that I thought some of you might have an interest in this op-ed of his.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...p-testing-were-just-waiting-government-agree/
The weekly covid-19 testing regimen for President Trump and his staff, some of whom are tested even more frequently, is a blueprint for the rest of the country. But the White House has pushed back on experts’ calls for a massive surge in testing. The administration’s testing czar said last week that proposals to test millions of individuals daily were an “Ivory Tower, unreasonable benchmark,” and that “there is absolutely no way on Earth” millions could be tested daily.
To safely reopen the economy, experts say the United States needs about 20 million tests per day: a test for every American about every two weeks. The White House plans, however, call for facilitating testing for approximately 2 percent of the population per month. At current rates, it would take more than three years to test everyone in the United States for covid-19. This failure to expand testing places the burden of a hasty reopening squarely on blue-collar Americans — and risks a dangerous second wave later this year.
Testing millions daily can be done. A bipartisan team of experts convened by the Rockefeller Foundation — of which I am a member — drew up plans for scaling up testing from 1 million to 30 million weekly.
Manufacturers of tests and testing supplies, and the providers who deliver covid-19 tests, are facing a unique market failure. Firms generally recoup research, development and other fixed costs over long time horizons. But the pandemic has upended the usual model.
Huge numbers of tests are needed urgently. In all likelihood, presuming a vaccine is developed, the demand for testing will erode in 18 months. That means asking firms to bear huge costs to scale up production and figure out how to deliver tests without the usual runway to recoup startup expenses. Reaching the necessary volume of testing will cost more than we ever would have considered paying pre-pandemic.
Congress and the White House have not taken into account this market failure.
Ultimately, the United States faces a choice. We can reopen the economy without adequate testing, a move that raises the likelihood of a second wave of infections and places the costs of reopening squarely on the backs of essential workers. Alternatively, Congress could allocate more money for covid-19 testing and the White House could use those funds to test essential workers at the same rates White House staff are tested. This is both economically justifiable and our moral imperative.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...p-testing-were-just-waiting-government-agree/
The weekly covid-19 testing regimen for President Trump and his staff, some of whom are tested even more frequently, is a blueprint for the rest of the country. But the White House has pushed back on experts’ calls for a massive surge in testing. The administration’s testing czar said last week that proposals to test millions of individuals daily were an “Ivory Tower, unreasonable benchmark,” and that “there is absolutely no way on Earth” millions could be tested daily.
To safely reopen the economy, experts say the United States needs about 20 million tests per day: a test for every American about every two weeks. The White House plans, however, call for facilitating testing for approximately 2 percent of the population per month. At current rates, it would take more than three years to test everyone in the United States for covid-19. This failure to expand testing places the burden of a hasty reopening squarely on blue-collar Americans — and risks a dangerous second wave later this year.
Testing millions daily can be done. A bipartisan team of experts convened by the Rockefeller Foundation — of which I am a member — drew up plans for scaling up testing from 1 million to 30 million weekly.
Manufacturers of tests and testing supplies, and the providers who deliver covid-19 tests, are facing a unique market failure. Firms generally recoup research, development and other fixed costs over long time horizons. But the pandemic has upended the usual model.
Huge numbers of tests are needed urgently. In all likelihood, presuming a vaccine is developed, the demand for testing will erode in 18 months. That means asking firms to bear huge costs to scale up production and figure out how to deliver tests without the usual runway to recoup startup expenses. Reaching the necessary volume of testing will cost more than we ever would have considered paying pre-pandemic.
Congress and the White House have not taken into account this market failure.
Ultimately, the United States faces a choice. We can reopen the economy without adequate testing, a move that raises the likelihood of a second wave of infections and places the costs of reopening squarely on the backs of essential workers. Alternatively, Congress could allocate more money for covid-19 testing and the White House could use those funds to test essential workers at the same rates White House staff are tested. This is both economically justifiable and our moral imperative.
Runnin
Well-known member
Trump will never do the right thing. He is all about daily messaging, winning each day in his mind by attacking more people than he feels criticized him. He's not going to suddenly start caring about good government.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
crazy situation in New Mexico
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ba22ea-8f6b-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ba22ea-8f6b-11ea-a9c0-73b93422d691_story.html
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
yup
Don't bring reason into this you Nazi. Either we're completely free to genocide our elderly or all of rights are going to be taking away. There's no middle ground here.
It's been explained to you a bazillion times. The point in delaying it is do more research and find a viable treatment option and/or vaccine.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I just want to defend the good name of libertarianism against the version of it being peddled around here.
sturg33
I
Sorry you are scared. that's a ****ty way to live life.
sturg33
I
Actually no. The point of the lockdowns was definitively to "slow the spread" or to "flatten the curve" or to "not overwhelm the medical system."
Mission accomplished.
Now you want to "buy time" for a treatment or vaccine.
How much time are you willing to buy?
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
The greatest tyranny in this tyrannical country’s history was after Pearl Harbor when the country at its most tyrannical instituted the draft and tyrannically kept so many from freely accessing their second homes, going to the beach at the exact hour they wanted, or getting anything but a buzz haircut. People were tyrannically forced to stop working and do what was in the country’s best interest. Only the truest patriots screamed out “**** off Tyranny, THE BILL OF RIGHTS SAYS I CAN DO WHAT I WANT” and refused to bow to such tyranny. They saw the truth: the tyrants fighting the Nazis were the real Nazis.
Tyranny.
Tyranny.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Uh, not it isn’t. Flattening the curve is step 1 (and it is not clear we have even accomplished this), but at minimum you need to bend it downward before re-opening. You don’t need to get to zero, but if your R is 1 and you start relax the restrictions it goes right back up. But if you get the R back down to like 0.7 or 0.5, you have wiggle room to relax things.
The president’s own plan calls for phased re-opening based on observed “downward trajectory” in cases and deaths and testing %. You just keep repeating nonsense because you live in a fantasy world and choose your media based on its high garbage content.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
you forgot to say you are a big scaredy cat
sturg33
I
Was that also around the time we locked up Americans based on their race?