TrickstaPriest

I've always known to keep clear of those feathered bastards.
 
 

IIRC, the current COVID-19 death count includes only those that can be verified by available means -- usually people that died in the hospital. Of the many more people who died at home, how many of their deaths were caused by the virus with very few people knowing it? And what happens if (and I hope this doesn't happen) someone dies by suicide after developing COVID-19 symptoms? Do those count as COVID-19 deaths?
 
The point is we may never know the number of people who actually died as a result of this virus -- and that the death count is underreported with no way to correct the figure.
 
I've been told to expect to spend another month in isolation. That sounds so incredibly unfun that words fail.
 
 

I'm sure it was written that way to prevent people from looking at a chart and cherry picking data to support their own agenda.  Given that 14 days is the incubation time, if you still have any net case increases, then you still have community spread.  And if you still have community spread, the virus cannot be controlled with contact tracing.  The only other way to get a handle on the spread is with mass testing, which the administration has totally failed at.
 
Or we can cross our fingers and hope that remdesivir or some other treatment turns out to be a silver bullet, but that is some Obama-level irrational hope.

My mechanic told me that talk radio is stating that California is reporting every death as Corvid related. I'm thinking two things. Quit listening to talk radio because it's a bunch of scammers who know better. State governments are lazy, but not that lazy.
CES

from Nature: Coronavirus as an opportunity to eviscerate environmental rules

That is probably why conservative states are opening too soon. They fear the cost of unemployment pay, esdpecially if Federal promises to help pay for it go astray as it appears they will. At the same time, it's brutal for workers -- who always get the wrong end of the stick these days, in goodf times or bad.
 
Workers of the world, despair. The Class Struggle is over -- and you lost.

I do hope the shutdown release works out.  Arizona and Texas are very lucky in that they are very spread out and they are very warm.  Under most circumstances I'd be highly concerned, but for the location.  I still think it's not great for the cities.
 
We are near the end of the normal flu season, but I think corona's been wandering in the US for only a part of that time.  February is the peak flu time for the US, and it only was just starting to spread then.

I did not give you permission, to load my likeness. 

My father-in-law's dealing with shortness of breath.  He's at the doctor's now, getting tested.

There is really no option to not ease restrictions from current levels over the next 12 to 18 months. That is literally impossible and will not happen, for many reasons including but not limited to things like current absence of preventative health care and dentistry, lack of political will, public compliance, and ongoing economic impact. A measured approach, with ongoing social distancing, mask requirements and so forth is inevitable. We are already planning for it. 
 
It needs to be thoughtful, measured and with ongoing case monitoring and tracking. There may need to be restrictions that ease then later tighten up. This has always been about managing surge and ICU impact, mitigation and not full prevention. 
 
California's governor will be providing a press conference at noon on what needs to be in place. (There are 6 factors we need in place and all aren't there yet)

4 Myths About Antibody Surveys Like the Recent Ones in New York
 
Tl;dr:
1. Myth: Antibodies Equal Immunity
2. Myth: Infection Rate Must Be Higher Than We Thought
3. Myth: We Can Reopen Everything Now
4. Myth: Reinfection Risks Are Known
 
This article doesn't even touch on the bias problems with the New York and Santa Clara surveys.

The population of Australia is only slightly smaller than that of Texas.
 
We have what is probably a more intensive lockdown than Texas.
 
Our current number of deaths: 83.

2 things:
"Herd immunity" involves having about 70% of the population previously exposed and effectively immune, so they can't pass it on and the rate of spread diminishes.
The WHO has stated that it's "not yet proven" that previous infections of COVID confer immunity to subsequent infection.  Until that's proven, herd immunity isn't even a thing.  
 
So we're far short of the infection levels necessary for herd immunity, and there's not even definitive proof we can achieve it yet.  A 0.5% Infection fatality rate would mean a million deaths if 70% of our population were infected.  Even 0.1 would mean 200k deaths.

Fat, because:
 
We are overworked and often have to subsist on cheap food which is nutritionally deficient (but quite easy to prepare or snag at a drive-through). Why are we overworked? That's another topic unto itself. Also, we often purchase said cheap food because of the effectiveness of advertising (thank you, lax advertising laws and the unmitigated targeting of children...both of which are perfectly "legal"). Furthermore, food which is cheap is often loaded with preservatives and substandard ingredients that manufacturers are free to include because, again, it is quite legal.
 
Generally speaking, a frugal shopper can save quite a bit of money by obtaining healthier ingredients, but, a cultural issue rears its head: we aren't motivated - from an early age - to view fast food and junk food as luxuries...they are insidiously pushed as near-staples. This isn't a matter of "We're fat because we're fat." There were and are a host of societal weaknesses* that lead us to this obesity epidemic. On the other hand, if you do become fat, at least you have a top notch healthcare network to fall back on no matter where you travel...right?
 
* Political corruption and a capitalist system with far too much elbow room at the top are chief among them.

Almost every socio-economic change for the betterment of people as a whole that I can think of in my lifetime, has been protested by entrenched financial interests as being so expensive it would beggar them, or unfairly targeting a specific industry, or too socially disruptive, or an infringement on their rights. Industrial pollution regulation. Emission standards for automobiles. Banning certain chemicals in manufacturing processes. Ending smoking in public places. Minimum wage. Collective bargaining. Unemployment insurance. Society adapted to every one of them, and went on just fine, and now almost everyone accepts them as a given. But it took plenty of government pressure to get there.

It does sometimes seem like our options are a quick slide or a slow walk.

I have family members with pre-existing conditions and totally understand! I'm glad you were able to get coverage. But I'd love it if everyone could have health care like in other industrialized nations.

I agree.  For our corporate overlords, greater rights for LGBT and racial and ethnic minorities are cheap consolation prizes to hand out as they tighten their grip on our nation's money and power.  The ever growing income income divide that separates the rich from the rest of us has gone from being an disturbing and odious reality to an existential threat.  The climate scientist of the world have let us know that quick and drastic action is required to prevent the worst possible affects of climate change from coming to pass.  Yet, still the billionaire class and their political and media flunkies resist efforts to address climate change because to address it might in the short run make them a little bit less wealthy.
 
So we agree about the problem.  The question become how to solve it.  With the largely unfettered privilege of the rich, our current age if often likened to the Gilded Age of the late 1800s.  It was the 4 year depression known as the  Panic of 1893 that strengthened the Progressive Movement and allowed for the election of a Republican controlled House and Senate (back when Republicans were still kind of the good guys) and Teddy Roosevelt.  Although Teddy was born into wealth and supported corporations, he did believe that federal controls were needed to curb the excesses of corporations and extremely wealthy.  From this desire, Roosevelt's Square Deal was born.
 
I think that Biden might want to be Teddy Roosevelt (after all what US president doesn't want Teddy), but I don't really think he has the charisma to pull it off. He might surprise me though, or maybe in 2024 or 2028 we might get president that is up to the challenge.  It isn't enough though to get the right president. Republicans are no longer the good guys, and both houses of congress need to be flipped for any sort of progressive agenda to be passed.  Right now the electoral drubbing Democrats took in 2010 still weighs against that.  It gave Republicans control of state houses across the country in time to allow them to draw the electoral maps following the 2010 census and gerrymander the districts.  
 
With the 2020 census we have a chance to redraw the congressional maps, if we can win back the statehouses.  The current gerrymandered maps make that a tall order but not impossible.  The trick to gerrymandering is to win as many districts as possible with the fewest possible votes.  This is accomplished by creating a handful of districts which your opponent wins by landslide while creating bunch of districts that you have just enough voters to reliably win.  The downside to this is strategy is in sea change elections you can loose almost everything because you have created a large number of safe(ish) districts and no truly safe districts.  We need to make 2020 a sea change election, so that once we get our Teddy Roosevelt they have a congress willing to pass the Square/New/Green Deal.
 
tl;dr - If it bothers you, forget the White House. Just make sure that we win the state houses.  

FYI the rest of the Heritage Foundation plan involved "phasing out" Medicare and Medicaid, so the ACA is actually a vast improvement over the plan. it's also why I can get health insurance now, for the record.  Millions are still not covered, but millions more have gotten coverage (affordable coverage) as a result of that compromise legislation.  Incremental change isn't worthless.  

on a basic level, I do get the protestors, it has nothing to do with haircuts (as one certain CNN host who is longer on wind than intelligence*, would have you believe).  People are desperate because money is low (Old Man has covered to why) for people.  People need money to pay mortgages (shelter). Buy food.  ANd other needed materials.  Those problems are real, they have to be dealt with.  You may or may not catch a disease.  Some people do consider a chance vs a sure thing, worry more about the latter.  And people do things they might not have done, when they feel necessities are threatened.
 
Some other bills and fees are more complicated.  But, what should have been done most of all, would be a halt/freeze on mortgage payments (including interest) until this blows over.  The banks can still get their money on a 3-4 months later basis, cant see how it hurts them all that much (essentially go along as if the 3 months or whatever it turns out to be never happened).  Bills are a bit more complicated, but solving that mortgage part, would've strung the money out further.
 
Of course,  on an actual level, protest, seems to be a bad idea, let's say.
 
*Note sure I am allowed to say the blunter version that popped up in my mind

Well, stupid tends to take others with them in general.

"You must learn patience, my student."
 
"Yeah, yeah.  Patience.  How long will that take?"

Things change quickly in 48 hours.
 
Sweden forced to withdraw erroneous Stockholm infection rate report
 
Sweden coronavirus case increases post record spike for second straight day
 
 

“Unfortunately the mortality rate is high due to the introduction (of the virus) in elderly care homes and we are investigating the cause of that,” he said. ["He" being Dr. Anders Tegnell, chief epidemiologist at Sweden’s Public Health Agency.]
 
"The number of cases in Sweden is almost double that in neighboring Denmark (it has 8,108 cases and has reported 370 deaths) and Finland (with just over 4,000 cases and 141 deaths) that imposed strict lockdown measures. Since their populations are each about 5 million — half of Sweden’s — the rates are about the same, although the comparison could be skewed by testing numbers in each country. Still, Sweden’s 1,937 death toll is far higher than its neighbors."
 
"Herd immunity" has traditionally been achieved through widespread use of vaccines. Sweden's attempt at a shortcut by avoiding strict lockdown might work out long term, but from the start the policy's critics warned it would put the most vulnerable Swedes at risk. Note the article also specifies that half of Sweden's deaths from the virus are elderly in care homes.