Alex_Krycek

Nonsense.

Well, I envy the UK, that's for sure. Your government actually seems to be doing something about it.

So, one person is in a satisfactory financial position and doesn't have to work, or can work from home. Another must physically go to work to earn a living in order to survive. Does the financially stable person have the right to mandate that the poor person stay home and starve? Because in both cases, staying home or going out to work, the perceived risk on both sides is death. So who takes precedence? The rich or the poor?

Great piece by Robert Reich: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/25/covid-19-pandemic-shines-a-light-on-a-new-kind-of-class-divide-and-its-inequalities

Keyword: "limitations". You can't arbitrarily suspend someone's constitutional rights. You don't get to decide that; only the courts can. "Temporary"? You don't know if it will be temporary. Many of the so called experts are advocating some form of shutdown for years. Fine because it won't affect them. Not so great for average working people. Here's a fun read for you: Unemployment causes 45,000 suicides a year worldwide, finds study https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/11/unemployment-causes-45000-suicides-a-year-worldwide-finds-study That was when unemployment was low. Think what the number of suicides will be at with 20,000,000 people unemployed (and rising), and that's just in the United States. Depressions / recessions KILL. No matter how dismissive you choose to be, that is just as serious a threat as possibly dying from COVID, if not more serious.

I don't see any parallel with the "crowded theater" argument. Someone leaving their home to protest doesn't infringe upon my rights to self-quarantine if I want to. But that's one for the courts. Ok, so what do you propose the world do? Extend the shutdown indefinitely, so that the economy crashes and millions starve? Great - you just created a problem that's worse than the supposed cure. And you didn't answer my question. Which is worse: A.) the reality of losing your job and going bankrupt (or the economy crashing), or B.) potentially getting infected with a disease form which the vast majority of people recover?

Of course. And ultimately it is up to the legislature and the executive at the state level to determine whether a mandatory lockdown order infringes on people's right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". But people should certainly have the right to protest that it does.

Lockdown Protests Germany: https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2020/apr/26/coronavirus-dozens-arrested-in-berlin-protesting-against-lockdown-video https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-protests-idUSKCN2270RD Lockdown Protests France: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/paris-suburbs-protests-villeneuve-la-garenne/2020/04/25/55f5a40c-85a1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html Fallacious argument. The premise should be: should sex workers be stopped from working because they have the potential to get HIV / AIDS and spread it to others? By all accounts, that's a different question. Yes, the protesters might have COVID-19, or they might get it by leaving their homes. But right now they are being prevented from earning a living because of a potentiality, not a reality. And the reality is, if they don't work, they will starve. That is much less uncertain. So what takes precedence - the situation that might arise, or the situation that is?

Some interesting analysis of Hydroxychloroquine data from Roger Seheult, MD. Seems the jury is still out on the efficacy of the drug. (Hydroxychloroquine segment starts at 5:43) Seheult has advocated from the beginning that a randomized, double blind trial is needed to see if HC works or not.

No. Not one iota. That's a pretty weak argument. These protesters are staying within their own group outdoors for the most part. I don't see them parading through hospitals or entering the homes of those who don't want to participate. Also, a German court ruled last week that banning protests would be unconstitutional: The court said health concerns linked to the coronavirus pandemic are no grounds for a general ban on demonstrations. “The local authorities had incorrectly assumed that the provision by the Hesse state government to fight the coronavirus includes a general ban on gatherings of more than two people who don’t live in the same household and has therefore violated the constitutional right to assembly,” the court said. The Constitutional Court added that the city of Giessen as well as the two lower courts must use its ruling to make a new decision on whether to allow the protests to go ahead under certain conditions or to ban them. Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-protests-idUSKCN21Y220 The question: "What right does the government have to deny a citizen the opportunity to work? (thus greatly increasing the chances of bankruptcy, starvation, poverty, and potential death) is not being sufficiently addressed. As I mentioned before, this question is being arrogantly dismissed (as Cuomo did when he told people to "go get essential jobs".)

What exactly is your point?

Interesting commentary from two doctors on the front lines. Their view is the data doesn't justify continuing the shut down any longer.

This is a common tactic used by both sides these days: link a protest movement however you can to powerful special interest groups thus allowing you to dismiss the validity of the protest en masse. The right does it all the time with George Soros, dismissing left wing groups as "Soros backed". Now it seems the left is doing as well, calling these groups "Davos backed" etc. It's an deflection tactic to avoid understanding opposing viewpoints.

The only logical outcome when you deprive people of the basic necessities to live. Many people are facing death already - the Corona Virus is a small risk compared to being unemployed. The number of suicides has apparently skyrocketed in the last two months. So if you've got money, great, you can sit back and wag your finger condescendingly - as most of those in the political, scientific, and media establishment do. But if you're a working man or woman, you face a much different reality. While he rests comfortably on the taxpayer's dime in a plush office somewhere. On a related note, I saw Andrew Cuomo told the out of work protesters to "get an essential job". He might as well have told them to "go and eat cake".

Very interesting hypothesis by Prof. Isaac Ben-Israel based on global models: Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/278658

Interesting data released by Stanford estimating that the number of people infected by COVID in California may be 50 - 80 times higher than originally thought. If true this would significantly lower the death rate from 3-4% to .1%. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/antibody-study-suggests-coronavirus-is-far-more-widespread-than-previously-thought https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/antibody-study-suggests-coronavirus-is-far-more-widespread-than-previously-thought

Public Service Broadcasting: "Go" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIo6qwJarI

We both live in unprepared countries with ineffective strategies.

Solid interview. Biowarfare Experts On Coronavirus (COVID19)- Dr. Gerald Parker Associate Dean for Global One Health at Texas A&M and Professor Andrew S Natsios Executive Professor at The Bush School and Director of the Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs have a sit down with Patrick Bet-David about the Coronavirus Pandemic About the guests: Dr. Gerald Parker https://vetmed.tamu.edu/news/press-releases/cvm-global-one-health-expert-discusses-coronavirus-outbreak/ Andrew S. Natsios:https://bush.tamu.edu/faculty/anatsios/

Correction.

Testing is assumed. If the number of deaths increases as the confirmed cases do, then that shows that a country is doing something right. Some countries are testing far more than others, and their number of confirmed cases keeps rising, but the number of deaths does not - because they have some form of effective treatment regimen in place, combined with early detection which allows physicians to catch the virus before it has the chance to become terminal. Some countries, like South Korea, claim to have already passed the peak: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/09/asia/south-korea-coronavirus-intl-hnk/index.html South Korea has tested 140,000 people for the coronavirus. That could explain why its death rate is just 0.6% — far lower than in China or the US. So the metric isn't necessarily distorted by testing as the confirmed cases increase, unless a country has an ineffective strategy. https://www.businessinsider.com/south-korea-coronavirus-testing-death-rate-2020-3?op=1

Next step: just lie: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/life-after-lockdown-has-china-really-beaten-coronavirus It was only a matter of time before China reopened to save the economy; more countries will follow. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The US is so far behind at this point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bCMhG-523g

Suddenly Universal Basic Income doesn't seem like such a bad idea to most people. I guess it's not socialism anymore now that they're affected.

Obviously not. The point about intergenerational contact is interesting. It's ironic that consistent intergenerational contact was cited as one of the causes for longevity in a population. I have suspected this from the very beginning. COVID-19 has probably been around for much longer than originally though, going unnoticed.

So, can someone please elucidate the end-game regarding COVID-19? First, there' an attempt to flatten the curve so hospitals aren't overwhelmed, I understand that. But then what? I've heard no clear estimates from any government as far as how long this will last. Some say 3 months, some 6 months, some a year or more. What is the most likely scenario for how this pandemic plays out?