Covid-19 pandemic & Fake News - How you can help

swerve

Super Moderator
Yep. Something I've seen many times, & wholeheartedly agree with is "Your liberty stops at my skin". And also at my front gate.
 
Few would argue for complete personal liberty, as we are bound by social contracts of all kinds. Liberty is curbed in every social system, but to various degrees. My argument is not for removing such barriers altogether, but for following principles of a free society as the main guideline - in accord with relevant science. When the monkeys in power in California (I keep coming back to it because I live there) proudly announce their protective care measures because they follow science, it is nothing but a spit in the face of both liberty AND science. The only place where rules should be free to be as silly or smart as they wish is private business with public clientelle. It is government's accountability to preserve our freedoms. And nowadays the assault on these freedoms is rampant. And as we know, governments rarely give back the freedoms they take away.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
And as we know, governments rarely give back the freedoms they take away.
This strikes me as a paranoid way to view the problem. Multiple free western democracies (NZ, Australia, South Korea, Singapore etc etc) have managed to implement effective public lockdowns that have temporarily restricted or suspended the personal freedoms of individual citizens before relaxing again (multiple times in some cases).

The countries that have performed best in the pandemic so far seem to be those that have been able to temporarily and collectively set aside personal freedoms for the greater good. I'd posit that the inability of the US to respond to the crisis in this unified and coordinated way has been a key contributor to the horrid mess it currently finds itself in.
 
Last edited:
This strikes me as a paranoid way to view the problem. Multiple western democracies (NZ, Australia, South Korea, Singapore etc etc) have managed to implement effective public lockdowns that have temporarily restricted or suspended the personal freedoms of individual citizens before relaxing them again (multiple times in some cases).

The countries that have performed best in the pandemic so far seem to be those that have been able to temporarily and collectively set aside personal freedoms for the greater good. I'd posit that the inability of the US to respond to the crisis in a unified and coordinated way has been a key contributor to the mess it currently finds itself in.
A healthy dose of paranoia is never a bad idea when it comes to your personal freedoms being tampered with. And it calls for deeper scrutiny. What you and others posit as the reason for the spread in US is not very obvious to me. The dynamics of infection spreading in population is very complex, even more so than the notoriously difficult to master weather forecast. It is a multivariable problem and anyone claiming that this or that variable is the reason for this or that should be viewed with a grain of salt. I just came back from Florida and Illinois. Two drastically different approaches. One is similar to California's - obey or be punished, the other is the opposite - no one wears any masks anywhere in public (maybe 10%). Guess what, their Covid rates are similar (per population). Now go ahead and explain that.
Am I saying masks are a bad idea? No, but when governments institute sweeping rules that make no sense in many cases ( as I described earlier) it leaves me wondering if it should be left to the public's sense of self preservation backed up by a solid educational effort instead.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
It leaves me wondering if it should be left to the public's sense of self preservation backed up by a solid educational effort instead.
Do you have any data to support this? The success of lockdowns/suppression in countries like Singapore, China, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea is not consistent with your view. Simply hand waving the issue away as a multivariate problem ignores the fact that a suppression based strategy involving the temporary sacrifice of personal freedoms has been demonstrably effective in a variety of countries and contexts.

Rather, it strikes me that the failure to implement suppression early, widely and decisively enough is what has gotten other nations (like the US) into trouble. The genie is out of the bottle, hence the difficulty now being faced.

 
Last edited:
Do you have any data to support this? The success of lockdowns/suppression in countries like Singapore, China, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea is not consistent with your view. Simply hand waving the issue away as a multivariate problem ignores the fact that a suppression based strategy involving the temporary sacrifice of personal freedoms has been demonstrably effective in a variety of countries and contexts.

Rather, it strikes me that the failure to implement suppression early, widely and decisively enough is what has gotten other nations (like the US) into trouble. The genie is out of the bottle, hence the difficulty now being faced.

What exactly is it that's doing the suppressing? Sure, locking everyone down China-style is going to work, that will do the supression. But like I said, a civilized society must look at how to approach the problem and minimize the attack on personal freedoms. And that means you go beyond a computer program and examine what it is that actually works. Which government actually bothered to study how infectious the virus is in open air? And if there are studies (which will show what I wrote before), do you think they are being followed by any government? They are not, because no government cares if it's being heavyhanded or not. It's the same everywhere, except the definition of "heavyhanded" is different in China, Korea, Australia, and US, that's all.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
@PhysicsMan I acknowledge your expertise in your field. However like me you are not a medical specialist or epidemiologist and therein lies the problem. This COVID-19 virus has proven to be one nasty cunning little bugger and its only going to get worse before it gets better. In this case I prefer to put my trust in the medical professionals, especially the epidemiologists.

Freedom is a great thing, but like any right it has responsibilities. If a society accepts that individual freedoms also have those responsibilities to the greater good of the population then that society is a fair society. However when a society places the rights of the individual above the society at all costs, then that society is not a fair society, but a selfish egotistical self centred and narcissistic one, because the individuals within that society don't care about society members, whether they live or die. It's not their problem. History has shown us that such societies are doomed to fail because they eventually fall into anarchy and chaos.

You claim that us foreigners don't understand the freedoms that you Americans are so fond of claiming, but we actually do and whilst we see the benefits, we also see the fallacies as well, especially at the moment. We cannot understand why you have let 260,000 of your people die from a pandemic when you have the capabilities to have prevented a significant proportion of those deaths. We cannot understand why you let the virus ravage your nation without you doing anything substantive to mitigate it. To us this is not about individual freedoms, but plain callousness on the part of the White House and significant portions of the population in general.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
What exactly is it that's doing the suppressing? Sure, locking everyone down China-style is going to work, that will do the supression. But like I said, a civilized society must look at how to approach the problem and minimize the attack on personal freedoms. And that means you go beyond a computer program and examine what it is that actually works. Which government actually bothered to study how infectious the virus is in open air? And if there are studies (which will show what I wrote before), do you think they are being followed by any government? They are not, because no government cares if it's being heavyhanded or not. It's the same everywhere, except the definition of "heavyhanded" is different in China, Korea, Australia, and US, that's all.
This is simply not a viable or productive way to respond to a novel virus pandemic. When a brand new disease appears and starts spreading and killing people at the rate COVID19 has there is no time to wait around and study how infectious the virus is "in open air" (although that is being actively studied) before formulating a government response. Imagine using this attitude if the disease had an IFR north of 10%, rather than the ~1% COVID19 has been displaying. The results would be utterly catastrophic. Like ngati, I think you'd be best off leaving the matter to the experts...
 
Last edited:
@PhysicsMan

Freedom is a great thing, but like any right it has responsibilities. If a society accepts that individual freedoms also have those responsibilities to the greater good of the population then that society is a fair society. However when a society places the rights of the individual above the society at all costs, then that society is not a fair society, but a selfish egotistical self centred and narcissistic one, because the individuals within that society don't care about society members, whether they live or die. It's not their problem. History has shown us that such societies are doomed to fail because they eventually fall into anarchy and chaos.
I don't want such a society either. What I want is for the governments to at least try to preserve their societies' hard gained liberties (for those that have them). It may sound like paranoia, but history shows it is much harder to regain those freedoms once they are lost than to preserve them.
 
This is simply not a productive way to respond to a novel virus pandemic. When a brand new disease appears and starts spreading and killing people at the rate COVID19 has there is no time to wait around and study how infectious the virus is "in open air" (although that is being actively studied) before formulating a government response. Imagine using this attitude if the disease that had an IFR north of 10%, rather than the ~1% COVID19 has been displaying. The results would be utterly catastrophic. Like ngati, I think you'd be best off leaving the matter to the experts...
Aerosol behavior is very well known to those in the field. As soon as it was known that this virus is aerosol-transmitted they should've taken that into consideration. I am not a medical professional, but from the little I know even the most aggressive viruses require certain concentration to be inhaled to infect. It was known fairly early on what the ball park concentration limit figure for this particular virus was. Linking the two together shouldn't be taking half a year.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Aerosol behavior is very well known to those in the field. As soon as it was known that this virus is aerosol-transmitted they should've taken that into consideration. I am not a medical professional, but from the little I know even the most aggressive viruses require certain concentration to be inhaled to infect. It was known fairly early on what the ball park concentration limit figure for this particular virus was. Linking the two together shouldn't be taking half a year.
What's your point?
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
The point is simple. I don't want to do stupid things my government makes me do.
Fair enough. That said, if a coordinated (but inevitably imperfect) suppression strategy also includes doing a few stupid things for a finite period of time, I'd submit to you that it is a small price to pay for getting this thing under control.
 

cdxbow

Active Member
There are plenty of new strains every day considering how many viruses there are in the world. What is considered a pandemic depends on whether it can be politicized.
What a load of rubbish. A pandemic has a clear definition, nothing to do with politics rather to do with spread eg “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people”. Note also the definition includes nothing about severity,
......You claim that us foreigners don't understand the freedoms that you Americans are so fond of claiming, but we actually do and whilst we see the benefits, we also see the fallacies as well, especially at the moment. We cannot understand why you have let 260,000 of your people die from a pandemic when you have the capabilities to have prevented a significant proportion of those deaths. We cannot understand why you let the virus ravage your nation without you doing anything substantive to mitigate it. To us this is not about individual freedoms, but plain callousness on the part of the White House and significant portions of the population in general.
Ain't that the truth, how the most powerful country in the world, with the largest and most expensive health care system,, years of preparation (including the ignored playbook) and the largest medical science establishment do so badly?

Bad leadership.

That's all it took to undo all the other advantages the US had. Nothing epitomises this more than people stupid enough to politicise masks during a once in a century pandemic. If you wrote it as fiction people would not believe it.

Aerosol behavior is very well known to those in the field. As soon as it was known that this virus is aerosol-transmitted they should've taken that into consideration. I am not a medical professional, but from the little I know even the most aggressive viruses require certain concentration to be inhaled to infect. It was known fairly early on what the ball park concentration limit figure for this particular virus was. Linking the two together shouldn't be taking half a year.
Physicman you drill down to all sorts of details but the major management of a pandemic is simple and mainly behavioural. Limit interactions, use PPE, restrict travel, rapid contact tracing are the major big things. Some of the East Asian countries managed these without forced lockdown.

To do this you need clear, coherent messaging from the top, getting everyone on the same page. This is the single most important thing. Instead Mr Trump, as is often his way, spread confusion and doubt. The US response is the worst in the world and will be a case study in bad management for centuries to come. It's not scientist or doctor fault, it is Mr Trump and his enabling minions. It was not inevitable at the start.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Aerosol behavior is very well known to those in the field. As soon as it was known that this virus is aerosol-transmitted they should've taken that into consideration. I am not a medical professional, but from the little I know even the most aggressive viruses require certain concentration to be inhaled to infect. It was known fairly early on what the ball park concentration limit figure for this particular virus was. Linking the two together shouldn't be taking half a year.
One of the problems is that early on, the method of transmission was not known or understood. It was gradually realized that there was a respiratory component, but that too was thought to be droplet transmission and that the infection could not be aersolized. Also, there are certain parts of how/why the human respiratory system function that we still do not really understand. For instance it is well known and understood that when people exhale, they are not just expelling some of the air in their lungs, but also fine matter. What is known to occur, though the reasons are not known, is that some people, for some reason, tend to expel a greater amount of fine matter than others. This 'greater amount' is usually orders of magnitude greater . One of the early 'superspreader' events in the US, which was a church choir practice in WA state IIRC, mentioned the potential for fine matter to have been circulated during the practice.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
What exactly is it that's doing the suppressing? Sure, locking everyone down China-style is going to work, that will do the supression. But like I said, a civilized society must look at how to approach the problem and minimize the attack on personal freedoms. And that means you go beyond a computer program and examine what it is that actually works. Which government actually bothered to study how infectious the virus is in open air? And if there are studies (which will show what I wrote before), do you think they are being followed by any government? They are not, because no government cares if it's being heavyhanded or not. It's the same everywhere, except the definition of "heavyhanded" is different in China, Korea, Australia, and US, that's all.
This discussion convinces me why the US-CDN border should be closed until an effective vaccine program is underway.
 
For instance it is well known and understood that when people exhale, they are not just expelling some of the air in their lungs, but also fine matter. What is known to occur, though the reasons are not known, is that some people, for some reason, tend to expel a greater amount of fine matter than others. This 'greater amount' is usually orders of magnitude greater . One of the early 'superspreader' events in the US, which was a church choir practice in WA state IIRC, mentioned the potential for fine matter to have been circulated during the practice.
I have a pretty good idea why some people produce that fine matter more than others. I design aerosol generators, and the main requirement for a liquid to aerosolize is to impart enough speed to the liquid flowing though a restriction (orifice) to produce the shearing effect. If a person produces more of aerosol it means they have a narrower restriction in their throat somewhere, and/or they have powerful lungs that expel air at higher speeds.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I have a pretty good idea why some people produce that fine matter more than others. I design aerosol generators, and the main requirement for a liquid to aerosolize is to impart enough speed to the liquid flowing though a restriction (orifice) to produce the shearing effect. If a person produces more of aerosol it means they have a narrower restriction in their throat somewhere, and/or they have powerful lungs that expel air at higher speeds.
So no masks, no social distancing and let me guess, Jesus will sort everything. Good frigging luck.
 
So no masks, no social distancing and let me guess, Jesus will sort everything. Good frigging luck.
No, what that means is that if you're in a stagnant air room with such a person for a prolonged period of time, you're fucked, pretty much regardless of whether you have a mask or not. Droplets produced when a person breathes or talks are very fine and will negotiate their way into most masks given enough time. It's very hard to face fit a mask, and with facial hair you can forget about it. Only brief exposures can be blocked by masks in such circumstances.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
No, what that means is that if you're in a stagnant air room with such a person for a prolonged period of time, you're fucked, pretty much regardless of whether you have a mask or not. Droplets produced when a person breathes or talks are very fine and will negotiate their way into most masks given enough time. It's very hard to face fit a mask, and with facial hair you can forget about it. Only brief exposures can be blocked by masks in such circumstances.
Agree, prolonged exposure is an important factor but so is disregard of proven procedures that reduce infection rates. Canadian infection rates are not anything to hype but compared the US, significantly better. The only explanation is mask mandates and social distancing along with albeit pi$$ poor enforcement.
 
Top