Jump to content

COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, brabus said:

No, I’m correct, but here’s the explanation...

228.7/100k is number of hospitalizations per population value, NOT per number of COVID cases. The .59% comes from 74,573 COVID hospitalizations out of a total of 12.7M COVID cases.

Alright homie, let's do the math. (I always used the population value not the number of covid cases)

228.7 per 100k equals

2287 per 1M equals

22870 per 10M equals

228700 per 100M

We have 330M population in the US, that's 3.3 times the 228700, or 745710 hospitalizations in the US of A.

745710 hospitalizations divided by 12.7M = 5.9%

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

These horror stories of police arresting people on the beach or dragging people out of church are way overblown.  The media is going to over-report anything that will get views and outrage--similar to

The Crozier situation has sparked many illuminating conversations up and down the chain.  No, we don’t know all details but the core issues ring true to anyone who has experienced mid-level authority

You went from making a reasonable point to saying religious people should all get together and give themselves coronovirus because they’re stupid.  Not sure why or how you made this leap, but maybe yo

Posted Images

23 minutes ago, brabus said:

In early summer did you also say we’d have 3+ million US deaths by end of the year? Because lots of people did, including several of my intelligent friends who said I was out of my mind to think we wouldn’t, “because science.” Your doomsday math is not steeped in fact and serves more for hyperbole purposes than anything. However, through the hyperbole I do understand your point that lives matter to some unmeasurable extent and you can’t just disregard an entire age demographic. I agree with you and others on that point. To that point....

Nope, there are nutters for every perspective. In fact, one side had folks that thought this would all be over by April when it "warmed up." Back in April, the President said that a mere 50-60k in total would die from Coronavirus. Seems a little incorrect now, doesn't it?

And here's a hypothetical for you to wrap your mind around. How do you know we wouldn't have had 3 million US deaths if we hadn't all worn masks and done these draconic lockdown measures? Unfortunately, this is a real catch-22, as you can't rerun the simulation.

23 minutes ago, brabus said:

Here’s my direct quote:

"Does a 12% positive test rate and a 99.86% survival rate warrant all of the current things going on?" - That's the one that I took issue with. Not the one where you actually included the whole picture. We're in semantics at this point. You're right that you said it multiple times beforehand, and I just don't like it when things that don't include all the information are said.

In regards to the CDC data, I still don't think you will find age mortality data. It's not there. I think this because I've spent dozens of hours looking at the CDC data. I'm sure you have as well, so let's not stoop to saying that we don't care. I believe you're well informed, and I think that you have interesting opinions. Of course I actually care about the data, but the more important thing in this discussion is to get on the same page.

40 minutes ago, Grabby said:

Warning: Long Rant

I respect your opinion, but I still disagree. The point made by you and Brabus was that this virus isn't that big of a deal in the big scheme of things because it kills older people that are already close to their expected end of life. A lot of viruses do that, including Cancer, heart disease, alzheimers, actually... almost all of them. Why do we care about them then? The comparison actually works fine, I believe.

The rest of your rant is about how the government is trying to take liberty away from you in draconian ways that make no sense and don't actually help. I agree with you. I never said anything opposite of that. In fact, we should definitely be balancing liberty with our COVID response, but it's a balance of the two. I simply said that you don't get to twist a narrative by asking "Does a 12% positive test rate and a 99.86% survival rate warrant all of the current things going on?" That's not the whole story. The actual question is "Does a 12% positive test rate and a 99.86% survival rate for those under 70 and a 10% mortality for those over 70 warrant all of the current things going on?"

40 minutes ago, Grabby said:

TL;DR - If you don't think your fellow Americans have done enough to combat COVID, or that they are being flippant and selfish by wanting life to continue, I don't see how others like me can ever take you seriously.  It makes one wonder if objectivity is dead in the age of social media and shock news.

I do believe it's selfish and flippant to want to just continue on with life without having a plan for how those actions will kill hundreds of thousands of people. Because the liberty crowd by large doesn't have a gameplan, they just want to open up. The general talking point is "old people and at risk people should figure it out and self-isolate, I demand my freedom and I want to go to Cancun." Give me a plan to take care of your fellow Americans' welfare while balancing this and I would love to discuss. Finally, I don't see how others like me can ever take you seriously based on what you said (just kidding, that is a super dramatic thing that you wrote though lol).

Edited by Negatory
Link to post
Share on other sites

I found it, finally. But you have to calculate it yourself.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics

That has total cases by demographics and total deaths so you can get death rate by dividing the two.

0-4: 0.03% death rate

5-17: 0.01% death rate

18-29: 0.05% death rate

30-39: 0.16% death rate

40-49: 0.41% death rate

50-64: 1.50% death rate

65-74: 5.59% death rate

75-84: 13.15% death rate

85+: 24.26% death rate

 

So for your first statistic, that those under 70 had a 99.86% survival rate, I technically can't evaluate based on the ages. But we can look at 0-64 and 0-74 and see if you're somewhere in between. Turns out that there is a 0.47% death rate for the whole population 0-64 (or a 99.53% survival rate). 99.53% may look the same/insignificant, but it's actually a 230% higher death rate than your stat you threw out. If you go 0-74, then it's a 0.89% death rate for that population, which is a 530% higher death rate than your stat. It matters, because people throw out flu morbidity all the time, which is closer to 0.1%.

Add in all the cases for the whole population of every age (as the flu's 0.1% does, by the way), and COVID, right now, today, has a 2.03% mortality rate, which is approximately 20 times higher than the flu. I totally understand that in the future they will say that this doesn't include all asymptomatic cases, so I expect this to go down, but there's the current "truth data" to go off of.

Edited by Negatory
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I do believe it's selfish and flippant to want to just continue on with life without having a plan for how those actions will kill hundreds of thousands of people. Because the liberty crowd by large doesn't have a gameplan, they just want to open up. The general talking point is "old people and at risk people should figure it out and self-isolate, I demand my freedom and I want to go to Cancun." Give me a plan to take care of your fellow Americans' welfare while balancing this and I would love to discuss. Finally, I don't see how others like me can ever take you seriously based on what you said (just kidding, that is a super dramatic thing that you wrote though lol).

"Take you seriously" was definitely overly dramatic, and in retrospect I would have altered what I wrote.  It doesn't accurately portray what I feel and I'm glad you called me on it.

That said, the reason I used a micro scale was to put it into a perspective that people can relate to.  Hundreds of thousands is a big number, no question.  But at some point we have to understand that the world population is fairly unfathomable to the human brain, as is the U.S. population, and in my eyes trying to ensure no one dies for any remotely avoidable reason is no reason to base policy when it comes at the expense of what makes life worth living. 

I cry at movies, get teared up when others suffer, and generally love people, especially old people.  But the most rational, objective part of my brain that I can access tells me that what we are doing is borderline insane.  I, by a large margin, prefer quality over quantity in nearly every aspect of life, to include life itself.  I don't demand that others feel the same way, but I find it frustrating when our quality of life is diminished to the extent is has been to marginally extend the lives of a very small amount of people, relatively speaking.  

My biggest question for those saying we don't have a plan is:  based off the incredibly marginal loss of total years of life, what is a good plan?  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  But is a pound of prevention worth an ounce of cure?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your way of looking at the problem and making it into a comparable scenario for a small city. It definitely highlights some of the absurdities, especially of how terrible stimulus bills are when it comes to actually helping out the people it's supposed to help: the American people. Other things that would be important, though, in that analysis would be that out of the 3300 people, 195 of them would be hospitalized at some point. 39 of them would need an ICU bed. There is only 1 ICU bed total in the town. 10 of them need a ventilator. There is only 1 ventilator.

From this analysis, you can now see that there is a timing problem. And, for a slightly different opinion, I honestly think that we all should have to pay some money to get through this. Probably a couple grand. It sucks, but that's a small price to pay to ease the burdens of mother nature on society, in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Negatory said:

Alright homie, let's do the math. (I always used the population value not the number of covid cases)

228.7 per 100k equals

2287 per 1M equals

22870 per 10M equals

228700 per 100M

We have 330M population in the US, that's 3.3 times the 228700, or 745710 hospitalizations in the US of A.

745710 hospitalizations divided by 12.7M = 5.9%

Seriously? Is this a Neil trap? Because if so, you totally got me. You just mixed two completely different data points (took the numerator from one and the denominator from the other) to generate a meaningless and irrelevant number. 
 

Data point 1: Rate per total population. This is all people, not just those who have/had COVID...so 330M total population is the denominator, not 12.7M cases.

228.7/100K means 0.23% of the population is/will be hospitalized for COVID over the course of the virus (and of course this is subject to change, but that’s what the data from the last 8 months shows). Go ahead and expand it out like you did, but 745,710 out of 330M is still 0.23%. Using the correct denominator for the dataset makes quite a difference.

Data point 2: Rate amongst COVID cases

74,573 hospitalizations resulted from 12.7M COVID cases = 0.59% of COVID cases result in hospitalization. If I did what you did, then I could have used 330M for this data point’s denominator and claimed the hospitalization rate for people who had/have COVID is 0.022%...which is clearly incorrect.

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

The actual question is "Does a 12% positive test rate and a 99.86% survival rate for those under 70 and a 10% mortality for those over 70 warrant all of the current things going on?"

I’m good with that. But to go one more level for full “genuine-off,” let’s add that under 70 = 90% of the population. Let’s also not leave off that 10% of 70+ isn’t going to die because 100% of them aren’t going to get COVID. I can’t find the positivity rate broken down in age groups for national data, but if the national average is 12%, well I don’t imagine the rate for 70+ is as high as you may think. Data shows the positivity rate is higher among younger age groups, which makes sense based on the difference in lifestyles, social interaction, etc. For example, the latest data from NYC shows 18-24 have a 1.5% higher positive rate than 65-74 and 2% higher than 75+ (source:https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page#perpos). I use NYC as an example because it’s on the higher end of the scale (worst? Haven’t looked at that comparison in a while). So that tells me the older groups have a lower national positivity rate than 12% because they’re not the demographic on the high end pulling the average up. So, let use 12% (generous) of the oldest 10% of the population will get COVID. Of that group, 10% will die (using your mortality rate form this post). Let’s say 30M in the 70+ group...360k deaths. But that’s likely too high due to using a 12% positivity rate.  For reference my state (which has done well) has a 0.04% death rate for 70-79 and 0.09% for 80+...so let’s not gloss over the relatively “good news” while solely highlighting the specific dumpster fires. Either way, it still sucks, but it’s certainly not the 2.2M figure you threw out for this age group a page or two back.

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

The point made by you and Brabus was that this virus isn't that big of a deal in the big scheme of things because it kills older people that are already close to their expected end of life.

You’re misunderstanding my point then. I have never said this isn’t a big deal or not important enough to deal with, but we must make data-driven, unemotional decisions when it comes to wide scale public policy. I even concurred with your idea on financially supporting 70+ to enable self-quarantine, etc. Social distance, fine. Masks when meeting close contact definition, fine. Those are reasonable solutions. Destroying people’s livelihoods, putting education on pause, exacerbating/creating more mental health problems, telling people they can’t have grandma to their house for thanksgiving, and a long list of ludicrously illogical edicts are not reasonable solutions, especially when considering the unemotional data. If this was Ebola with a 50% death rate, well maybe this crazy shit would have to happen...but we’re not there, not even in the slightest. So yeah, we should care and do what we can to help others, but it’s pure ignorance, fear/other emotion, and/or thirst for power/gov control that is driving these bigger things I mention. The data alone does not lead a rational person to conclude these things are required/OK. The data does support things like social distancing, improved hygiene, quarantine when you don’t feel well/have been in close contact with someone who’s sick, etc. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brabus said:

74,573 hospitalizations resulted from 12.7M COVID cases = 0.59%

I don't actually understand your line of reasoning, although I tried. I'm definitely wrong on some other parts, but on this one (total hospitalizations and units) I'm pretty sure I've got it. To highlight the absurdity of 74,573 total hospitalizations over the course of COVID, there are 89,954 people hospitalized literally today, bro:

https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-currently-hospitalized

Also, the 228.7/100k is not the "will be hospitalized" figure. That is the current proportion of the total US population that has been hospitalized to this point. That number can and will only increase.

For example, on August 22, it was 156.8/100k. On April 25 it was 40.4/100k. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/past-reports/05012020.html

1 hour ago, brabus said:

I’m good with that. But to go one more level for full “genuine-off,” let’s add that under 70 = 90% of the population. Let’s also not leave off that 10% of 70+ isn’t going to die because 100% of them aren’t going to get COVID. I can’t find the positivity rate broken down in age groups for national data, but if the national average is 12%, well I don’t imagine the rate for 70+ is as high as you may think. Data shows the positivity rate is higher among younger age groups, which makes sense based on the difference in lifestyles, social interaction, etc. For example, the latest data from NYC shows 18-24 have a 1.5% higher positive rate than 65-74 and 2% higher than 75+ (source:https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page#perpos). I use NYC as an example because it’s on the higher end of the scale (worst? Haven’t looked at that comparison in a while). So that tells me the older groups have a lower national positivity rate than 12% because they’re not the demographic on the high end pulling the average up. So, let use 12% (generous) of the oldest 10% of the population will get COVID. Of that group, 10% will die (using your mortality rate form this post). Let’s say 30M in the 70+ group...360k deaths. But that’s likely too high due to using a 12% positivity rate.  For reference my state (which has done well) has a 0.04% death rate for 70-79 and 0.09% for 80+...so let’s not gloss over the relatively “good news” while solely highlighting the specific dumpster fires. Either way, it still sucks, but it’s certainly not the 2.2M figure you threw out for this age group a page or two back.

Agree. It's not 2.2M unless literally every person got it and they won't. That's a more fair way to look at it that doesn't include either bias, as you have to consider that the majority of the population won't get it. Although I will say that if we had gone with the "herd immunity" strategy that was initially touted as maximizing liberty, it probably would have been closer to 50-60%. And if we go with an open everything up now strategy, it will be a significant chunk, which I think 12% is maybe in the ballpark. I'm skeptical about your state info for the death rates for older folks being that low, as well. Hawaii has the absolute lowest overall death to covid ratio out of any state in America, and theirs is at 1.32%. Maybe you meant 4% and 9%? Source: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days

Edited by Negatory
Hawaii not Maine
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guardian said:

Why is there only 1 ventilator?

First source I found said there were ~90k ventilators. Looked into it a bit more and it should likely be revised to 2-3 ventilators, as there are probably in the ballpark of 250k ventilators in America after the government bought some this year, although the exact number is unknown. https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)34505-0/pdf

Edited by Negatory
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guardian said:

Why is there only 1 ventilator?

Here’s a white paper from 2018 estimating approximately 20.5 ventilators per 100K population. 
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events/2018_clade_x_exercise/pdfs/Clade-X-ventilator-availability-fact-sheet.pdf

That equates to approximately 2/3 of a ventilator for a population of 3300 as in the example given. The point is, when you have a pandemic running unchecked, there aren’t enough ventilators. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about the stimulus bill earlier this year. I don't how the .gov figured out who should get it, but I got it. I was, and thankfully still am , working through this whole thing. I didn't need it and I don't think millions of people that were still working needed it. I have several relatives, and I bet there were many more, who didn't get it who were not working because of the lockdowns.

P.S. I gave mine to my wife because she said that would be the right thing to do.

Edit. When I said I don't how the .gov figured it I know what the qualifications are. Just don't know why they didn't look at employed/unemployed.

Edited by arg
Bacon
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice, gave or were taxed by your wife... hahaha, pretty much the same here but mine does the finances so I wouldn’t have known anyway had she not told me.
 

I just continent hop and see the various ways countries/governments are dealing with all this. Distance yourselves, mask up, Clampdown, freedom with just reduced clustering, bam lockdown, Mask/distance/takeout only regulations, bam lockdown again, hotel keys that work only once. Snitch on your neighbor having Thanksgiving - next pill to swallow = no sending gifts/virus. How ridiculous/draconian can we go remains to be seen. Vaccine or not it is just another way to die on the list of many others and just another learning curve to surmount.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Negatory said:

I'm definitely wrong on some other parts, but on this one (total hospitalizations and units) I'm pretty sure I've got it.

Yep, I think I misunderstood a CDC chart on total hospitalizations. The math process was sound, but an input variable was not. Chart below. I still don’t understand how they’re presenting the data in this chart, but it’s clearly not 74,573 cumulative total. My bad. FWIW, the cumulative figure I could find is 555k total hospitalization,  making it 4.4% hospitalization rate amongst cases. So, 95.6% of cases aren’t hospitalized, which is still a very high number (in a good way). That also is for all ages, so rate obviously goes down significantly when you get to the under 70 bracket. 
1E48CDE5-2685-4920-BA14-527936216CFF.thumb.jpeg.67ef8b347b339259a80c63e83405e1d9.jpeg

9 hours ago, Negatory said:

Agree. It's not 2.2M unless literally every person got it and they won't. That's a more fair way to look at it that doesn't include either bias, as you have to consider that the majority of the population won't get it. Although I will say that if we had gone with the "herd immunity" strategy that was initially touted as maximizing liberty, it probably would have been closer to 50-60%. And if we go with an open everything up now strategy, it will be a significant chunk, which I think 12% is maybe in the ballpark. I'm skeptical about your state info for the death rates for older folks being that low, as well. Hawaii has the absolute lowest overall death to covid ratio out of any state in America, and theirs is at 1.32%. Maybe you meant 4% and 9%? Source: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days

Cool, I think we’re mostly on the same page. The hard part about conversations over the internet: easy to misinterpret other’s. 
 

The overall point is 90% of the population has a 99+% survival rate (with 88% testing negative). Those numbers should be the bedrock on which we make large scale decisions, yet the media, social media, and govt officials are peddling fear to the masses built up to a point that is completely counter to those numbers. Don’t tell me there’s a CAT 5 hurricane literally hitting my house when it’s a light rain. Don’t tell me I must board up my windows and hoard supplies when all I need to do is shut the windows and wear a raincoat when I go outside. Hopefully that analogy makes sense. 

There’s a spectrum, and no I don’t side with the “full libertarian” we should do absolutely nothing crowd, but there’s a middle ground, and many governors have gone 90 right off the tracks from the middle ground. The widespread destruction of so many portions of our lives is not rationally supported by the data. Why we can’t find reasonable middle grounds in this country on anything is going to be our downfall if we don’t get our shit together.
 

 

Edited by brabus
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Negatory said:

I don't actually understand your line of reasoning, although I tried. I'm definitely wrong on some other parts, but on this one (total hospitalizations and units) I'm pretty sure I've got it. To highlight the absurdity of 74,573 total hospitalizations over the course of COVID, there are 89,954 people hospitalized literally today, bro:

https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-currently-hospitalized

Also, the 228.7/100k is not the "will be hospitalized" figure. That is the current proportion of the total US population that has been hospitalized to this point. That number can and will only increase.

Here's another site that tracks each states daily/cumulative Covid hospitalizations and the State's hospital bed capacity. Key words 'cumulative hospitalizations': New York currently leads the pack in cumulative hospitalizations - 'New York cumulative Covid hospitalizations = 89,995 (note: Texas might also be in the running for top dog but they, for some reason, don't report cumulative totals).

'COVID-19 hospitalizations by state: Nov. 24'

'Texas has the most COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the U.S., according to the COVID Tracking Project. 

'The Atlantic's COVID tracking project compiles data directly from the websites of local or state public health authorities. When data is missing from the websites, it supplements available numbers with information from official news conferences. Data was last updated Nov. 21, Nov. 22 or Nov. 23, depending on the state.'

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/number-of-covid-19-hospitalizations-state-by-state-july-15.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brabus said:

There’s a spectrum, and no I don’t side with the “full libertarian” we should do absolutely nothing crowd, but there’s a middle ground, and many governors have gone 90 right off the tracks from the middle ground.

This is the crux of the problem in current politics. We’re made to think we have significantly different views, but that’s because we basically have to choose one of two sides:

1) Dems: We aren’t doing enough and we need to lock everything down needlessly without considering one side

2) Repubs: We are doing too much and we need to remove everything we have done without considering one side

In reality I think we probably look at the problem very similarly. We need more compromises.

Honestly, this is where the president should “make his money,” by setting a national game plan and pushing down a path that hits both. Trump certainly didn’t do that well, and it doesn’t look like Biden’s going to, either. And when Biden encourages needless lock downs in cities with almost no one at risk, the cycle will continue.

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Negatory said:

This is the crux of the problem in current politics. We’re made to think we have significantly different views, but that’s because we basically have to choose one of two sides:

1) Dems: We aren’t doing enough and we need to lock everything down needlessly without considering one side

2) Repubs: We are doing too much and we need to remove everything we have done without considering one side

In reality I think we probably look at the problem very similarly. We need more compromises.

Honestly, this is where the president should “make his money,” by setting a national game plan and pushing down a path that hits both. Trump certainly didn’t do that well, and it doesn’t look like Biden’s going to, either. And when Biden encourages needless lock downs in cities with almost no one at risk, the cycle will continue.

 

Some Dems think the lock down theory applies to everyone and only applies to them when it’s convenient to do so. Denver’s mayor tweeted yesterday about staying at home for Thanksgiving due to the pandemic, help prevent spreading of the virus, etc. He then tweets that he flew from Denver to Mississippi to visit his daughter and wife for Thanksgiving because it “would’ve been safer for me to travel instead of them traveling.” Then asks for forgiveness as a “father and husband.”

Newsom did something similar a few weeks ago at a winery party since the group of 12 violated his own order of no groups to be bigger than three people.

“Rules for thee, not rules for me.”

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Rules for thee, not rules for me.”

To be fair, that applies to a lot of politicians from both parties. But yes, Newsom is tied for worst governor with several others...can’t decide who’s a bigger POS, but there’s several who keep trying to out-do each other for that coveted title. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, brabus said:

To be fair, that applies to a lot of politicians from both parties. But yes, Newsom is tied for worst governor with several others...can’t decide who’s a bigger POS, but there’s several who keep trying to out-do each other for that coveted title. 

Man, the governor here is certainly competing. Covid mandates make no sense what so ever. She was handed a 1.4B surplus when she was elected and blew through that in less than a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, arg said:

Man, the governor here is certainly competing. Covid mandates make no sense what so ever. She was handed a 1.4B surplus when she was elected and blew through that in less than a year.

SD? MI?  WA?  I guess not WA...they had the first round.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2020 at 10:15 AM, jazzdude said:

What are your thoughts on anti-vaxxers? On one hand, it's their right to deny receiving any vaccinations or put anything in their body they do not want there. It's their choice. The flip side is that if they get a preventable disease, a $10 vaccine costs turns into thousands of dollars of hospital bills. Pretty clear cut argument can be made for "play stupid games, win stupid prizes, pay for it yourself." Or worse, they get sick, and in turn infect someone who could not take the vaccine, maybe they were allergic to an ingredient or have another condition that medically prevents them from receiving that vaccine. Who pays there? Our decisions and acceptance of risk don't occur in a vacuum, and have impacts on others. This get exacerbated in dense population centers.

 

You do realize the government CAN FORCE EVERYONE to get the vaccine, there is clear and established case law (Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v Massachusetts), should they choose to enforce it.  I was SHOCKED to hear this was true....what about the 14th amendment?   I was even more shocked given the the circles that were discussing so I went to two outside judges I personally know and both confirmed and referred me to the SCOTUS ruling which has not be revisited and is now viewed as stare decisis....again, I was shocked.

At very high levels the discussion has been had and I know under Trump the government was not going force the population to get the vaccine.  I would imagine there would be an almost unbearable outcry, rioting, insurrection if the government went this route, but it is legally possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

You do realize the government CAN FORCE EVERYONE to get the vaccine, there is clear and established case law (Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v Massachusetts), should they choose to enforce it.  I was SHOCKED to hear this was true....what about the 14th amendment?   I was even more shocked given the the circles that were discussing so I went to two outside judges I personally know and both confirmed and referred me to the SCOTUS ruling which has not be revisited and is now viewed as stare decisis....again, I was shocked.

At very high levels the discussion has been had and I know under Trump the government was not going force the population to get the vaccine.  I would imagine there would be an almost unbearable outcry, rioting, insurrection if the government went this route, but it is legally possible.

They'll use the nudge rather than the shove.  Oh you want to fly, let me see your vax passport; well we can't let you into the gov building without a current and up to date vax passport; every fast food joint will have signs: No Shirt No Shoes No Vax - No Service; etc.....  Public lists of those without vaccine compliance because you know it's a matter of public safety / shaming / intimidation.  The enemies of liberty and personal choices learned the wrong things in high school from the required readings of 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, etc..

The slow moving tyranny of a python tightening its coils vice a sudden strike.

Edited by Clark Griswold
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

You do realize the government CAN FORCE EVERYONE to get the vaccine, there is clear and established case law (Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v Massachusetts), should they choose to enforce it.  I was SHOCKED to hear this was true....what about the 14th amendment?   I was even more shocked given the the circles that were discussing so I went to two outside judges I personally know and both confirmed and referred me to the SCOTUS ruling which has not be revisited and is now viewed as stare decisis....again, I was shocked.

At very high levels the discussion has been had and I know under Trump the government was not going force the population to get the vaccine.  I would imagine there would be an almost unbearable outcry, rioting, insurrection if the government went this route, but it is legally possible.

Review the history of the H3N2(swine flu) vaccine Gerald Ford distributed in 1976. 14 hospitalized and 1 dead before it was realized the cure was worse than the disease. The scandal lost him his reelection. 

Why people trust the government to get this right is beyond me. The government never has your personal interest at heart. It's just like the AF. At the squadron level your commander probably does care a lot about you. At the HAF level leadership doesn't give two shits. I bet politicians aren't lining up with their families first in line to get the vaccine. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites



You do realize the government CAN FORCE EVERYONE to get the vaccine, there is clear and established case law (Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v Massachusetts), should they choose to enforce it.  I was SHOCKED to hear this was true....what about the 14th amendment?   I was even more shocked given the the circles that were discussing so I went to two outside judges I personally know and both confirmed and referred me to the SCOTUS ruling which has not be revisited and is now viewed as stare decisis....again, I was shocked.
At very high levels the discussion has been had and I know under Trump the government was not going force the population to get the vaccine.  I would imagine there would be an almost unbearable outcry, rioting, insurrection if the government went this route, but it is legally possible.


Legal doesn't necessarily mean right or moral...

But I get your point. I also agree with Clark that it's not likely to be heavy handed (mandated vaccinations), but "highly encouraged" (aka required to participate in society/work/travel/etc).

There's also legal precedence built around typhoid mary (forced isolation/quarantine). Though this creates direct conflict between an individual's freedom against what's best for the society as a whole.

And yes, vaccines are generally good. Not debating that point. I will admit I'm a bit wary of the accelerated testing/trials though on the COVID vaccine, so I'm more willing to wait to get it vs being first in line for it
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...