Coronavirus Thread v.2

[Harmony]

This is what the school is telling parents to look for: 

● Fever (100.4°F or higher)
● New onset of moderate to severe headache
● Shortness of breath
● New cough
● Sore throat
● Vomiting
● Diarrhea
● New loss of sense of taste or smell
● Fatigue from unknown cause
● Muscle or body aches from unknown cause

Sounds like they should update that list.  Everything I've read about Delta includes runny nose or congestion as well.

And yeah, Walgreens supposedly carries the test kits.  But they have been out in our area.  From what I've gathered they can't keep them in stock for long.  And no matter what Stadler says about a bowl full of condoms, if they were made free and available 24/7, I'd make use of them.  And not because I'd feel free to blow my snot at people in a crowd but because I'd want to isolate myself if I came up positive and try to be a responsible human being.

But then again, I've always covered my nose and mouth when sneezing or coughing.  It was something that was taught to me as a toddler.  It's not rocket science.

[Stadler]

It blows, but it is what it is.

So we all just grin and bear it, and put up with the lowest common denominators?  Sorry boss, that's not how this cochise rolls.  You needn't boil everything down to "us" vs "them".  How 'bout boiling it down to acting responsibluy and in the best interests of public health?  You think someone who works in a kitchen has the right to say 'pass' on a hairnet jus cuz they've got 90s-era Nuno Bettncourt flowing locks?  That's not an "us" vs "them" issue, and neither is wanting to stay safe and healthy in the middle of a global pandemic.

Well, you're one Cochise out of 370 million +/- that live in the U.S. and Canada.   No offense, you're a friend, but as a general proposition you seem to be asking for a WHOLE lot more than I would from my government and expecting a level of performance that isn't reasonable or possible IMO when that government is a democracy that has to work for ALL 370 million.  Put another way, you have a higher level of... I don't know what the word is, but risk averseness  comes to mind.  I'm not interested in making the world act like I want them to with laws and jail.  If you're so bugged by them, sue them I guess, but I can't see that going anywhere. 

And as for the "us" versus "them", it IS always "us" versus "them".   Find me something since 9/11 that hasn't been (and hint, that was just a different "us" and a different "them").   Seriously you don't need me to point that out, do you?   it's the single biggest problem facing America today, IMO.

I'd love if everyone acted responsibly.  Nothing would make me happier.  When you have 370 million people, though, the measure of "responsibly" is not an open and shut case.  I had a long list of what I considered "responsible", but it came off as snarky, and I don't intend this to be snark.  I'm not interested in legislating morals or "good behavior".   I'm responsible for me, and if you (collective) aren't taking my best interest to heart, that's the reality I'm living in. 

[Stadler]

It blows, but it is what it is.

So we all just grin and bear it, and put up with the lowest common denominators?  Sorry boss, that's not how this cochise rolls.  You needn't boil everything down to "us" vs "them".  How 'bout boiling it down to acting responsibluy and in the best interests of public health?  You think someone who works in a kitchen has the right to say 'pass' on a hairnet jus cuz they've got 90s-era Nuno Bettncourt flowing locks?  That's not an "us" vs "them" issue, and neither is wanting to stay safe and healthy in the middle of a global pandemic.

I completely agree! I have been saying this for months now. Personal responsibility? I did it but the unvaccinated aren't doing it AND they are trying to inhibit others right to get vaccinated! Time for jail for these people.

Love the Nuno reference!

Guys, "personal responsibility" isn't making the other guy do what you want.   

[Stadler]

This is what the school is telling parents to look for: 

● Fever (100.4°F or higher)
● New onset of moderate to severe headache
● Shortness of breath
● New cough
● Sore throat
● Vomiting
● Diarrhea
● New loss of sense of taste or smell
● Fatigue from unknown cause
● Muscle or body aches from unknown cause

Sounds like they should update that list.  Everything I've read about Delta includes runny nose or congestion as well.

And yeah, Walgreens supposedly carries the test kits.  But they have been out in our area.  From what I've gathered they can't keep them in stock for long.  And no matter what Stadler says about a bowl full of condoms, if they were made free and available 24/7, I'd make use of them.  And not because I'd feel free to blow my snot at people in a crowd but because I'd want to isolate myself if I came up positive and try to be a responsible human being.

But then again, I've always covered my nose and mouth when sneezing or coughing.  It was something that was taught to me as a toddler.  It's not rocket science.

Your post confuses me; I was making two points, neither of which seem to have landed.   One, that "making it free" is a certain path to making them useless from a quality control perspective.   It was supposed to be funny, but the point was, the high end Trojans were not in the bowl at Uconn.

As for the rest, look at the posts above yours.  Most people aren't content to just be personally responsible; they want to force everyone else to be their level of responsible, and that's not how societies work.  I have no doubt you wouldn't blow your boogers on someone else - neither would I.  But making those tests free aren't going to make anyone who isn't already responsible something they are not.  And for those that aren't the requisite level of "responsible", it will only be an enabler.

[jingle.boy]

More stats from the NJ governor today:



The proof is in the pudding

Those stats are purposefully measuring the wrong thing to show a low %.  Here in Ontario, we're seeing a pretty consistent 20% of daily cases coming from vax'd people - which is consistent with the expectations.  Hospitalizations is closer to the 10% range, and deaths is low single digit %s.  These numbers above seem unbelievably low(er), to use the total vaccinated people as the denominator.

Has NJ been tracking vax status of cases since way back in January?  Ontario didn't start until just a few weeks ago.

[jingle.boy]

It blows, but it is what it is.

So we all just grin and bear it, and put up with the lowest common denominators?  Sorry boss, that's not how this cochise rolls.  You needn't boil everything down to "us" vs "them".  How 'bout boiling it down to acting responsibluy and in the best interests of public health?  You think someone who works in a kitchen has the right to say 'pass' on a hairnet jus cuz they've got 90s-era Nuno Bettncourt flowing locks?  That's not an "us" vs "them" issue, and neither is wanting to stay safe and healthy in the middle of a global pandemic.

Well, you're one Cochise out of 370 million +/- that live in the U.S. and Canada.   No offense, you're a friend, but as a general proposition you seem to be asking for a WHOLE lot more than I would from my government and expecting a level of performance that isn't reasonable or possible IMO when that government is a democracy that has to work for ALL 370 million.

Yes, *I'm* just one, but you damn well know there are 10s of millions that have a similar stance to mine, so there's no need to minimize me as a single voice.  That's like saying my one vote in an election is only one vote.  And yes, the government has to govern for all 370M, under the old saying of you can't please all of the people all of the time.  So (on the matter of pandemic response) my hope would be for governments to err on the side of public health FOR ALL.  Some citizens do in fact need to be saved from themselves.    And yes, I will ask for more out of my fellow citizens, and out of my government.

Put another way, you have a higher level of... I don't know what the word is, but risk averseness  comes to mind.  I'm not interested in making the world act like I want them to with laws and jail. 

I fully recognize I have a higher lever if risk aversion than the average bear.  I'm not interested in everyone acting like me, or looking for laws or jail for not vaccinating, but I'm totally fine with consequences.

Again, back to my first point ... I'm not content to simply throw up my arms and accept "it is what it is".  History is littered with examples of people not accepting 'it is what it is', for all kinds of issues at a macro and micro level.  YOU didn't just accept your kids bullying as "it is what it is", so that card is a pretty weak one.

[Stadler]

More stats from the NJ governor today:



The proof is in the pudding

Those stats are purposefully measuring the wrong thing to show a low %.  Here in Ontario, we're seeing a pretty consistent 20% of daily cases coming from vax'd people - which is consistent with the expectations.  Hospitalizations is closer to the 10% range, and deaths is low single digit %s.  These numbers above seem unbelievably low(er), to use the total vaccinated people as the denominator.

Has NJ been tracking vax status of cases since way back in January?  Ontario didn't start until just a few weeks ago.

How is that possible?   There's no other reliable math that gets a HIGHER percentage.  That math above is "vax cases/vax people".  "Total cases/vas people" makes no sense, because there is an incomplete correlation (the data set of the numerator is not the same as the data set of the denominator).   "Vax cases/total people" doesn't really make sense either, but since "total people" > "vax people", the percentage would be lower, not higher.   "Total cases/total people" makes logical sense, but doesn't tell us anything about the variable of "vaccinated". 

[jingle.boy]

What I'm saying is that yesterday, Ontario reported 554 new cases; 136 of them were from fully vaccinated individuals.  Ergo, 24.5% of cases are coming from vaccinated individuals (and over the past month, it's been pretty consistent at ~20%).  COVID hospitalizations ... 162 patients across the province; 28 from fully vaccinated individuals.  Ergo, 17% of hospitalizations are coming from fully vaccinated individuals.  ICU .... 8/113 are fully vax'd - 7%.*

I'm just saying publishing the stats like NJ does is a convenient way to show some very minuscule percentages.  I'd gather the corresponding %s of non-vax'd individuals - while higher - would still be relatively small. 

IMO, the more important comparisons is within the population of confirmed cases - not the total population.

*and as I type this, the former two measurements are higher than the trend over the last month - which is something health officials should be noting and paying attention to.  If more and more cases and/or hospitalizations are coming from fully vax'd people, that's a concern.  The fact that there's less than a third of a percent to even contract COVID is good news, but doesn't really tell much.  And it isn't terribly useful if there's only a 3% chance (I'm making that up) the non-vax population can contract COVID.  The percentages are still very low that ANYONE will contract it at any given point in time.

[Stadler]

It blows, but it is what it is.

So we all just grin and bear it, and put up with the lowest common denominators?  Sorry boss, that's not how this cochise rolls.  You needn't boil everything down to "us" vs "them".  How 'bout boiling it down to acting responsibluy and in the best interests of public health?  You think someone who works in a kitchen has the right to say 'pass' on a hairnet jus cuz they've got 90s-era Nuno Bettncourt flowing locks?  That's not an "us" vs "them" issue, and neither is wanting to stay safe and healthy in the middle of a global pandemic.

Well, you're one Cochise out of 370 million +/- that live in the U.S. and Canada.   No offense, you're a friend, but as a general proposition you seem to be asking for a WHOLE lot more than I would from my government and expecting a level of performance that isn't reasonable or possible IMO when that government is a democracy that has to work for ALL 370 million.

Yes, *I'm* just one, but you damn well know there are 10s of millions that have a similar stance to mine, so there's no need to minimize me as a single voice.  That's like saying my one vote in an election is only one vote.  And yes, the government has to govern for all 370M, under the old saying of you can't please all of the people all of the time.  So (on the matter of pandemic response) my hope would be for governments to err on the side of public health FOR ALL.  Some citizens do in fact need to be saved from themselves.    And yes, I will ask for more out of my fellow citizens, and out of my government.

I'm not minimizing you as a single voice; I'm asking you not to minimize those voices that disagree with you.   

Here's the rub:  I TOO agree that they should err on the side of public heath for all WHEN ALL ELSE IS EQUAL; but all else ISN'T equal.   Government has a DUTY, an OBLIGATION, to honor the fundamental rights of each and every citizen while they make those errors.   I don't agree that "erring on the side of public health" (and I love that phrase, because we are NOT talking about certainty here, we are talking about POSSIBLY improving the odds to a degree we cannot calculate with any certainty) trumps the fundamental rights established by our respective Constitutions.   If I want to go to a higher standard of personal care, I can do that myself.  If I don't want to, you cannot - legally - make me.

We live in a society with a false sense of certainty on things that CANNOT control our day-to-day.   Just because someone "might" die isn't enough; anywhere from 7,000 to 24,000 people died in the Revolutionary War fighting for the freedoms we have today.  To many of those people death was preferable to living under the thumb of Great Britain (who wasn't killing people randomly, who wasn't in any material way threatening the colonists in the manner of COVID).

Put another way, you have a higher level of... I don't know what the word is, but risk averseness  comes to mind.  I'm not interested in making the world act like I want them to with laws and jail. 

I fully recognize I have a higher lever if risk aversion than the average bear.  I'm not interested in everyone acting like me, or looking for laws or jail for not vaccinating, but I'm totally fine with consequences.

Again, back to my first point ... I'm not content to simply throw up my arms and accept "it is what it is".  History is littered with examples of people not accepting 'it is what it is', for all kinds of issues at a macro and micro level.  YOU didn't just accept your kids bullying as "it is what it is", so that card is a pretty weak one.

How do you get from your first paragraph there to your second?   It wasn't you - it was Hunnus - who suggested jail, I grant you, but what "consequences"?  If I don't get vaccinated, my chances of dying are greater; those are my consequences.  I have no problem if private entities restrict access based on vaccination, provided no fundamental rights are violated.  But beyond that, why should I also endure arbitrary consequences from people who have a different risk tolerance than I do?   I know, I know, "harm to you".   But if any given person doesn't get vaccinated, that's no guarantee you will get it (and if you are vaccinated your chances of dying decrease significantly so your risk is already lower than it would have been).   I've already addressed the issue of variants; we (the U.S.) are at 70% vaccinated; the world is less than 50%. If you argue that "vaccination reduces the chance of variants" (not a great argument, but I'll give it to you) the variant risk is far greater outside our boundaries and will remain that regardless of our "consequences".

I'm at a loss here as to why the most risk averse get to trample on the fundamental rights of all of us on an off-chance that it MIGHT impact your risk profile.   This is the same problem with guns (though I'll give you that at least with the vaccine there is SOME data that works in your favor).

[Stadler]

What I'm saying is that yesterday, Ontario reported 554 new cases; 136 of them were from fully vaccinated individuals.  Ergo, 24.5% of cases are coming from vaccinated individuals (and over the past month, it's been pretty consistent at ~20%).  COVID hospitalizations ... 162 patients across the province; 28 from fully vaccinated individuals.  Ergo, 17% of hospitalizations are coming from fully vaccinated individuals.  ICU .... 8/113 are fully vax'd - 7%.*

But those are misleading.  Let's say there are 1,000,000 drivers on the road at any given time.   Let's say there are 100 drunk drivers on the road any given time.  If there are 75 crashes, and 50 are drunk driving accidents, are you saying that we should count that as "33% sober drivers and 66% intoxicated drivers"?    That's misleading.   Your chances of getting home safety are orders of magnitude better sober than drunk.   

Though I don't disagree with you on the general premise of numbers being misleading.   There's this article slamming Tomi Lahren, because she deserves to be slammed because that's the nature of our discourse and she's deplorable, but funny enough, they never ACTUALLY refute her numbers, only keep repeating that they are "misleading" and sticking to the agenda.   Lahren IS right, to the extent that it matters, and it's not an inconsequential data point (even if it does potentially lead to bad decision-making for the group). 

I'm just saying publishing the stats like NJ does is a convenient way to show some very minuscule percentages.  I'd gather the corresponding %s of non-vax'd individuals - while higher - would still be relatively small. 

IMO, the more important comparisons is within the population of confirmed cases - not the total population.

Haha, the foot is on the other shoe here, since I would THINK you'd prefer the numbers that encourage those to get vaccinated!  Haha.  But statistically, I think you're incorrect here.   The problem with using the population of confirmed cases to compare vax versus non-vax is that the subset of POTENTIAL cases is not evenly distributed between them.   There's a name for this paradox, but I can't remember what it is; I read it in an article only about a week or so ago.   See my drunk driving example.

*and as I type this, the former two measurements are higher than the trend over the last month - which is something health officials should be noting and paying attention to.  If more and more cases and/or hospitalizations are coming from fully vax'd people, that's a concern.  The fact that there's less than a third of a percent to even contract COVID is good news, but doesn't really tell much.  And it isn't terribly useful if there's only a 3% chance (I'm making that up) the non-vax population can contract COVID.  The percentages are still very low that ANYONE will contract it at any given point in time.

But again, you have to control for all the other variables.  As more and more people become vaccinated, you're going to get a broader cross-section of people vaccinated but who are still vulnerable.  You're also going to have to account for a re-increase in testing since more and more places are now requiring "negative tests" to use their facilities.  It's like autism; you're going to now see more and more people counted as "cases" that wouldn't have been - independent of vax status - even two months ago.

The only things we know FOR SURE at this point is vaccines DO help to reduce the frequency and severity of COVID (the Israeli study I cited a while ago).  We're not sure, yet, but we THINK that the Delta variant is more contagious, but there is no evidence that the symptoms are more severe (that's from this morning's New York Times; you can google it).  Everything else is some combinatio of educated guesses, dice rolls, and wishful thinking.

[hunnus2000]

I need to clarify: I am not talking about jailtime for those that choose not to get vaccinated just restriction of freedoms. When I mentioned jailtime, I was referring to those who disrupt vaccination clinics and or rip masks off of teachers or threaten teachers doctors and school board members. There needs to be consequences for those actions.

That's my bad for not being clear enough.

[jingle.boy]

Here's the rub:  I TOO agree that they should err on the side of public heath for all WHEN ALL ELSE IS EQUAL; but all else ISN'T equal.   Government has a DUTY, an OBLIGATION, to honor the fundamental rights of each and every citizen while they make those errors.

You and I are going to continually disagree about what constitutes a "fundamental right".  Though, the ACLU just recently opined "Do vaccine mandates violate civil liberties? Some who have refused vaccination claim as much.  We disagree.  At the ACLU, we are not shy about defending civil liberties, even when they are very unpopular. But we see no civil liberties problem with requiring Covid-19 vaccines in most circumstances."

We live in a society with a false sense of certainty on things that CANNOT control our day-to-day.   Just because someone "might" die isn't enough

I'm throwing a BULLSHIT flag here.  Why do we have drunk driving laws then?  If that's not a comparable enough example, I'm sure I could come up with a few dozen more, but hopefully I need not do that to get my point across that as a society, we absolutely do set laws and norms to minimize situations where "someone might die".

How do you get from your first paragraph there to your second?   It wasn't you - it was Hunnus - who suggested jail, I grant you, but what "consequences"?  If I don't get vaccinated, my chances of dying are greater; those are my consequences.  I have no problem if private entities restrict access based on vaccination, provided no fundamental rights are violated.  But beyond that, why should I also endure arbitrary consequences from people who have a different risk tolerance than I do?

On the first point, I did randomly change lanes on you there... there's no connection between my two paragraphs, and my apologies for misunderstanding your earlier response.  On the bolded, I could ask the exact same question.

I'm at a loss here as to why the most risk averse get to trample on the fundamental rights of all of us on an off-chance that it MIGHT impact your risk profile.   This is the same problem with guns (though I'll give you that at least with the vaccine there is SOME data that works in your favor).

Again, I could say the same, but in reverse.  Alas, we (you and I specifically) have had this debate more than a few times now, and it ends up in the same stalemate.

[Ben_Jamin]

I need to clarify: I am not talking about jailtime for those that choose not to get vaccinated just restriction of freedoms. When I mentioned jailtime, I was referring to those who disrupt vaccination clinics and or rip masks off of teachers or threaten teachers doctors and school board members. There needs to be consequences for those actions.

That's my bad for not being clear enough.

Well yeah, and not because their unvaccinated. They should face jail time because that's harassment.

Same with the people that harassed Larry Elder. (While wearing a monkey mask). 


The government is sly with this restrictions of freedom. Reminds me of the leader who sends his goons to do his dirty work, sort of like how Charles Manson got his family to murder. The government told businesses, directing them, to take away freedoms because businesses have more leeway than the government does. Businesses have more freedoms.

Coercion leads to silenced voices as people don't want to push back and voluntarily submit to the coercion. To the point where some guy ended up doing this and businesses agreed and let him place these signs on their windows.

https://youtu.be/hu_3WFnf5mo

And in reality, these businesses are only caring because of Liability. And not because they care about their employees Health, they never cared before, what makes you think they really do care now.

[Stadler]

Here's the rub:  I TOO agree that they should err on the side of public heath for all WHEN ALL ELSE IS EQUAL; but all else ISN'T equal.   Government has a DUTY, an OBLIGATION, to honor the fundamental rights of each and every citizen while they make those errors.

You and I are going to continually disagree about what constitutes a "fundamental right".  Though, the ACLU just recently opined "Do vaccine mandates violate civil liberties? Some who have refused vaccination claim as much.  We disagree.  At the ACLU, we are not shy about defending civil liberties, even when they are very unpopular. But we see no civil liberties problem with requiring Covid-19 vaccines in most circumstances."

But we shouldn't disagree: I can't speak for Canada, but only one body gets to decide that here in the States and it's not you or me or the ACLU.  It's the Supreme Court.  The vaccine question is currently unclear in those terms.  (And for the record, I'm not arguing a particular position, I'm arguing how we get there; I personally can see a vaccination program that DOESN'T violate the Constitution, it just has to be done right, and if it was done right, I'd support it.  It just can't come from public bullying and shaming, which is where we are seemingly going now). 

I'm throwing a BULLSHIT flag here.  Why do we have drunk driving laws then?  If that's not a comparable enough example, I'm sure I could come up with a few dozen more, but hopefully I need not do that to get my point across that as a society, we absolutely do set laws and norms to minimize situations where "someone might die".

Because they generate tons of revenue for communities?  Because the insurance companies lobby like mofos?   Same reason we still have 55 mph speed limits on roads designed for 50% higher than that (or more).

And even if you want to give examples, that doesn't mean they are right.   I'm okay with DUI laws, but it's not because you MIGHT be harmed.  There's a whole lot more that goes into it.

On the first point, I did randomly change lanes on you there... there's no connection between my two paragraphs, and my apologies for misunderstanding your earlier response.  On the bolded, I could ask the exact same question.

AND

I'm at a loss here as to why the most risk averse get to trample on the fundamental rights of all of us on an off-chance that it MIGHT impact your risk profile.   This is the same problem with guns (though I'll give you that at least with the vaccine there is SOME data that works in your favor).

Again, I could say the same, but in reverse.  Alas, we (you and I specifically) have had this debate more than a few times now, and it ends up in the same stalemate.

If I understand the first question - and I'm not 100% sure I do - the two sides are not symmetrical, and I'm sorry if my posts have given that impression.   It's not a "steak" or "fish" zero sum game where you're getting a protein either way.   Fundamental rights exist regardless.  I don't have to do anything to get them, there is no test for them, and I don't have to prove them.  They are innate and inalienable.  There are very strict requirements for infringing on them, and it's all on you (collective) to meet those requirements.  There are tests.   The one in use today is the "strict scrutiny" test:  there has to be a compelling (necessary or crucial, not just preferred) state interest in curbing the right, the law has to be narrowly tailored to meet that interest, and it has to be the least restrictive way of achieving that interest.  Neither "narrowly tailored" or "least restrictive" means "easiest". 

So there's no "I can ask you the same thing"; no, I have the right.  You have to show why and how you are infringing on that. This is, in part anyway, why the recent abortion law in Texas is so controversial and why I think it will ultimately be struck down at some point.  What is the "compelling state interest" here?  And how does the law meet that interest?   

[Harmony]

This is what the school is telling parents to look for: 

● Fever (100.4°F or higher)
● New onset of moderate to severe headache
● Shortness of breath
● New cough
● Sore throat
● Vomiting
● Diarrhea
● New loss of sense of taste or smell
● Fatigue from unknown cause
● Muscle or body aches from unknown cause

Sounds like they should update that list.  Everything I've read about Delta includes runny nose or congestion as well.

And yeah, Walgreens supposedly carries the test kits.  But they have been out in our area.  From what I've gathered they can't keep them in stock for long.  And no matter what Stadler says about a bowl full of condoms, if they were made free and available 24/7, I'd make use of them.  And not because I'd feel free to blow my snot at people in a crowd but because I'd want to isolate myself if I came up positive and try to be a responsible human being.

But then again, I've always covered my nose and mouth when sneezing or coughing.  It was something that was taught to me as a toddler.  It's not rocket science.

Your post confuses me; I was making two points, neither of which seem to have landed.   One, that "making it free" is a certain path to making them useless from a quality control perspective.   It was supposed to be funny, but the point was, the high end Trojans were not in the bowl at Uconn.

As for the rest, look at the posts above yours.  Most people aren't content to just be personally responsible; they want to force everyone else to be their level of responsible, and that's not how societies work.  I have no doubt you wouldn't blow your boogers on someone else - neither would I.  But making those tests free aren't going to make anyone who isn't already responsible something they are not.  And for those that aren't the requisite level of "responsible", it will only be an enabler.

Well now your post confuses me even more.  Put aside "it was supposed to be funny" and tell me if you are suggesting that the more people have access to free Covid tests the less accurate they (the tests - not the people using them) will somehow be?  If quality control of a product goes out the window because of the amount of product made, we all should probably stop taking Ibuprofen and Tylenol.

And FTR, my post had nothing to do with what other do.  I was saying that for people who want to be responsible and WANT to test at home these tests should not be difficult to obtain.  They should not be so expensive that people who are below the poverty line couldn't afford one if they want one.

I don't know why you need to jump on people's posts and make it about something it's not.  I've never once claimed that I could control the actions of other people. 

[Stadler]

This is what the school is telling parents to look for: 

● Fever (100.4°F or higher)
● New onset of moderate to severe headache
● Shortness of breath
● New cough
● Sore throat
● Vomiting
● Diarrhea
● New loss of sense of taste or smell
● Fatigue from unknown cause
● Muscle or body aches from unknown cause

Sounds like they should update that list.  Everything I've read about Delta includes runny nose or congestion as well.

And yeah, Walgreens supposedly carries the test kits.  But they have been out in our area.  From what I've gathered they can't keep them in stock for long.  And no matter what Stadler says about a bowl full of condoms, if they were made free and available 24/7, I'd make use of them.  And not because I'd feel free to blow my snot at people in a crowd but because I'd want to isolate myself if I came up positive and try to be a responsible human being.

But then again, I've always covered my nose and mouth when sneezing or coughing.  It was something that was taught to me as a toddler.  It's not rocket science.

Your post confuses me; I was making two points, neither of which seem to have landed.   One, that "making it free" is a certain path to making them useless from a quality control perspective.   It was supposed to be funny, but the point was, the high end Trojans were not in the bowl at Uconn.

As for the rest, look at the posts above yours.  Most people aren't content to just be personally responsible; they want to force everyone else to be their level of responsible, and that's not how societies work.  I have no doubt you wouldn't blow your boogers on someone else - neither would I.  But making those tests free aren't going to make anyone who isn't already responsible something they are not.  And for those that aren't the requisite level of "responsible", it will only be an enabler.

Well now your post confuses me even more.  Put aside "it was supposed to be funny" and tell me if you are suggesting that the more people have access to free Covid tests the less accurate they (the tests - not the people using them) will somehow be?  If quality control of a product goes out the window because of the amount of product made, we all should probably stop taking Ibuprofen and Tylenol.

Tylenol and Ibuprofen are not free.  I was saying that the FREE-ness would potentially reduce the quality.  I was also saying that the more prevalent they are the less validity/integrity they would have (kind of tangentially related). 

And FTR, my post had nothing to do with what other do.  I was saying that for people who want to be responsible and WANT to test at home these tests should not be difficult to obtain.  They should not be so expensive that people who are below the poverty line couldn't afford one if they want one.

I don't disagree with that.

I don't know why you need to jump on people's posts and make it about something it's not.  I've never once claimed that I could control the actions of other people.

One man's skepticism on the "free" (and easy)* is another (wo)man's jumping on.  I'm truly sorry you felt that way, it wasn't my intent.





*"Every fucking home in America should be sent some free test kits and a pack of surgical masks".

[Harmony]

Tylenol and Ibuprofen are not free.  I was saying that the FREE-ness would potentially reduce the quality.  I was also saying that the more prevalent they are the less validity/integrity they would have (kind of tangentially related). 

OMG, really?  You just can't help it, can you?  Do you not get the actual point I was making here?

Please provide some evidence that the accuracy of a Covid test kit would magically be reduced in efficacy if it were made available for free.

[Stadler]

Tylenol and Ibuprofen are not free.  I was saying that the FREE-ness would potentially reduce the quality.  I was also saying that the more prevalent they are the less validity/integrity they would have (kind of tangentially related). 

OMG, really?  You just can't help it, can you?  Do you not get the actual point I was making here?

Please provide some evidence that the accuracy of a Covid test kit would magically be reduced in efficacy if it were made available for free.

Sorry, Harmony.  You're right, I'm wrong.   You win. 

[Harmony]

Tylenol and Ibuprofen are not free.  I was saying that the FREE-ness would potentially reduce the quality.  I was also saying that the more prevalent they are the less validity/integrity they would have (kind of tangentially related). 

OMG, really?  You just can't help it, can you?  Do you not get the actual point I was making here?

Please provide some evidence that the accuracy of a Covid test kit would magically be reduced in efficacy if it were made available for free.

Sorry, Harmony.  You're right, I'm wrong.   You win. 

Placating is so disrespectful.  Maybe try to be less of an ass.

[Grappler]

Regarding test efficacy, the rapid tests are known/believed to provide more false negatives than PCR tests.  PCR tests need to be sent out and handled in a lab, which is why it takes 2-3 days for results and they are believed to be more accurate for that reason.

If my kid's doctor's office will stand behind the results from a rapid test, I don't see why the school (or anywhere else) wouldn't accept it.

For the record, my daughter turned in the doctor's note to her teacher yesterday and we haven't heard from the school nurse at all regarding the rapid test/doctor's note vs. PCR test.  I just wish they had formal guidelines for parents - if your child is sick, take these steps.  At least we'd know what is being asked of us ahead of time, rather than getting a call in the afternoon, strongly suggesting that we have to scramble and get her tested when our intent is for her to go back to school the next day.

[jingle.boy]

Fundamental rights exist regardless.  I don't have to do anything to get them, there is no test for them, and I don't have to prove them.  They are innate and inalienable.  There are very strict requirements for infringing on them, and it's all on you (collective) to meet those requirements.  There are tests.   

So American.  And that wasn't meant as snark.  You seem look at responses and solutions through a distinctly American lens.  The virus has no such cares.  You Founding Fathers are not the arbiter of humanity's "fundamental rights".  And btw, the ACLU article I posted directly contradicted you - "Vaccines are a justifiable intrusion on autonomy and bodily integrity. That may sound ominous, because we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions. But these rights are not absolute. They do not include the right to inflict harm on others."

Like I said... round and round we go.  You're not going to see things the way I do, nor vice versa.

[bosk1]

@Jingle, Harmony, and Stadler:  I suggest that you all just take a step back and ratchet down the argument.  There's no need to go at each other, talk past each other, and go on the attack like you are doing.  It isn't productive to anything.  Most of this thread involves calm, rational discussion, which you are all more than capable of.  And that is what the thread should be.

[Stadler]

Tylenol and Ibuprofen are not free.  I was saying that the FREE-ness would potentially reduce the quality.  I was also saying that the more prevalent they are the less validity/integrity they would have (kind of tangentially related). 

OMG, really?  You just can't help it, can you?  Do you not get the actual point I was making here?

Please provide some evidence that the accuracy of a Covid test kit would magically be reduced in efficacy if it were made available for free.

Sorry, Harmony.  You're right, I'm wrong.   You win. 

Placating is so disrespectful.  Maybe try to be less of an ass.

So is calling someone an ass.  I expressed an opinion like every other poster here, and somehow it bothered you.   I neither intended that reaction, nor wanted it and sought to disengage from the ad hominem ("I don't know why you need to jump on people's posts" and "you just can't help it can you?").  Nothing more, nothing less.

[jingle.boy]

@Jingle, Harmony, and Stadler:  I suggest that you all just take a step back and ratchet down the argument.  There's no need to go at each other, talk past each other, and go on the attack like you are doing.  It isn't productive to anything.  Most of this thread involves calm, rational discussion, which you are all more than capable of.  And that is what the thread should be.

Um, ok?  I had no ill-will or "aggression" in my dialogue with Stadler.  Frankly, I enjoy our (his and mine) banter, even though we're coming from opposite ends.  I always do my best to come across in and understanding and respectful way, and always think that of Bill.  If any of my above posts did come across with any 'tone', it was unintended, and I apologize.

[Stadler]

Fundamental rights exist regardless.  I don't have to do anything to get them, there is no test for them, and I don't have to prove them.  They are innate and inalienable.  There are very strict requirements for infringing on them, and it's all on you (collective) to meet those requirements.  There are tests.   

So American.  And that wasn't meant as snark.  You seem look at responses and solutions through a distinctly American lens.  The virus has no such cares.  You Founding Fathers are not the arbiter of humanity's "fundamental rights".  And btw, the ACLU article I posted directly contradicted you - "Vaccines are a justifiable intrusion on autonomy and bodily integrity. That may sound ominous, because we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions. But these rights are not absolute. They do not include the right to inflict harm on others."

Like I said... round and round we go.  You're not going to see things the way I do, nor vice versa.

How else SHOULD I look at it?  For better or worse, we're divided into governmental subdivisions (nations).   That's who implements these programs we're talking about.   If there's a beef between two citizens of any of those nations, the government (in some form or fashion) resolves the dispute.  It's uncomfortable between you - a Canad - and me - an American - but say, between Hunnus and I, there's no other way of looking at things.   It's in fact the ONLY way of looking at things if we want to bind the other into some sort of action/adherence.

That line in the article you bolded is fact, but the one after it doesn't necessarily follow.  It is opinion, heavily dependent on what that "harm" is.  It's awkward to say it this way, but we DO have the right to inflict harm on others in the sense that the limitations on absolute rights are NOT solely predicated on "harm".   Would you agree that calling someone the n-word "harms" them?   Because the n-word is protected speech; there might be other consequences, but "free speech infringement" isn't one of them.   My right to "life" is not subordinate to yours; I have no duty, if we are both going down with the ship, to save you over me.  Jack took one for the team, but he was not OBLIGATED to. Self-defense here, as well.  My rights to due process and unreasonable search and seizure don't go away if the result is "harm" to you.   

I get that we won't agree, but it's bothersome - on a macro level, not a personal one - that there seems to be so much.... what's the word?  Misunderstanding?  No, more like lack of tolerance, for the opposing view.   There are so many opinions being stated as if they were "facts" and it's disturbing in the grand scheme of things. How do you expect our leadership to govern when we can't even agree on the ground rules?  And all I'm doing is putting up the mechanism for solving the discrepancy when we DON'T agree.  I'm not sure why that's so problematic.

[Stadler]

@Jingle, Harmony, and Stadler:  I suggest that you all just take a step back and ratchet down the argument.  There's no need to go at each other, talk past each other, and go on the attack like you are doing.  It isn't productive to anything.  Most of this thread involves calm, rational discussion, which you are all more than capable of.  And that is what the thread should be.

Um, ok?  I had no ill-will or "aggression" in my dialogue with Stadler.  Frankly, I enjoy our (his and mine) banter, even though we're coming from opposite ends.  I always do my best to come across in and understanding and respectful way, and always think that of Bill.  If any of my above posts did come across with any 'tone', it was unintended, and I apologize.

I feel the same way with Chad, but also offer an apology if need be, since I too have no intention of inflicting 'tone'.  I've already apologized to Harmony in post number 1730 and 1732 (the latter of which WAS sincere, though I can see why the rest of the post would call that into doubt.  I had hoped the thumbs up would soften it into the 'walk away' it was intended to be).

[King Postwhore]

Get a cyber room you two.

Of course if you're both vaccinated.

[Stadler]

Get a cyber room you two.

Of course if you're both vaccinated.

As long as he brings the beer.  And I'll wear a mask if need be.

[Lonk]

Get a cyber room you two.

Of course if you're both vaccinated.

As long as he brings the beer.  And I'll wear a mask if need be.

Just make sure it's one of this mask

[Adami]

And I'll wear a mask if need be.

Then what good will you be?

[jingle.boy]

I'll be bringing Rush beer. 

[bosk1]

Well, cool then if everyone is cool with the discussion.    As a third party to the discussion, it looked a bit overly aggressive and combative to me, and it's my job to step in and tamp that down where I see it.  If you all are good with each other then, carry on.

...but it's bothersome - on a macro level, not a personal one - that there seems to be so much.... what's the word?  Misunderstanding?  No, more like lack of tolerance, for the opposing view.   

Bingo.  Some tolerance, understanding, and empathy for opposing views goes a long way toward being able to coexist rather than simply entrenching in one's own echo chamber. 

[cramx3]

More stats from the NJ governor today:



The proof is in the pudding

Those stats are purposefully measuring the wrong thing to show a low %.  Here in Ontario, we're seeing a pretty consistent 20% of daily cases coming from vax'd people - which is consistent with the expectations.  Hospitalizations is closer to the 10% range, and deaths is low single digit %s.  These numbers above seem unbelievably low(er), to use the total vaccinated people as the denominator.

Has NJ been tracking vax status of cases since way back in January?  Ontario didn't start until just a few weeks ago.

It's not a percentage of cases but percentage against total vaccinated people. Similar to what the NY times posted recently that your chances of getting covid after vaccination is still very low, they estimated 1 out of 5000 chance. These numbers are pretty much how they are coming to that conclusion.

[lonestar]

Local radio talk show is having a go at Tucker over his "medical Jim Crow" comment, and made an interesting point about freedom and the consequences attached to it. To paraphrase.... we have the freedom to learn to read or not to. We can grow into adulthood being as illiterate as possible, just don't cry foul when you can't read or fill out a job application.

[Harmony]

From CBS Whitehouse correspondant, Weigia Yang:

The President will announce that all employers with 100 or more employees will be required to mandate COVID-19 vaccines or require testing at least once a week, and they’ll have to provide paid time off.

The new rule will impact over 80 million workers in private sector.

COVID-19 vaccinations will also be required for more than 17 million health care workers at hospitals and other facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement—roughly 50K providers. (This covers a majority of health care workers nationwide.)

Shit is about get real here, people.