SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

[Arruda]

So is this something being deployed in the COVID battle do you know? Or something that's maybe done for the young ones with a better chance?

I do not know much about critical care, but it's something that, when available, it's used to replace lung and heart function. A ventilator forces air into your lungs, so it replaces/supports the breathing function (the mechanical effort our muscles do) and also allows high concentrations of O2, up to 100%, to be delivered (this can also be done with an O2 mask, but in those the patient breathes normally and out of his own effort) at optimum pressure.

Now if the exchange of gases between lung and blood is compromised (damage to the alveolar membrane, lungs filled with fluid) the oxygenation of the blood doesn't happen anyway, even if you can pump air into the lungs (breathing). Pumping air into the lungs is also useless if the heart can't pump the blood throughout the body. Here enters this complex system of extra-corporeal oxygenation of the blood as a possible last resort. It only makes sense to use it if the loss of lung function (oxygenation, not breathing) or heart function is expected to be reversible, so it won't save someone with terminal heart failure, etc.

It can, where available, be used when this level of artificial life support is required to keep someone alive whilst the underlying causes are corrected. So it can be used in Covid-19, as in many other situations.

 

[sammsky1]

But. That is not the cause of the problem is it.
What I am saying is that the cause needs to be determined and, should China be proven to be culpable, then China, should be made to pay for both the human and economic damage.

Like UK/USA were 'made to pay' for launching a war in Iraq based upon totally false and made up pretences, which killed 500,000+ innocent people?

 

[LazyRed-Ninja]

No, no, I really do know what it means and what it's from. He wrote that in a letter in 1755 in support of defense spending and taxation during the French & Indian War. The quote has been taken out of context and butchered by the internet.


https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said

The writer of this blog Benjamin Wittes, is he an absolute authority on the interpretation of Benjamin Franklin’s documents? I can reference writers with ‘similair’ credentials who state the opposite. So who is guilty of confirmation bias here? And why? This is also an off topic dialogue now.

 

[4bars]

It reads a lot like blame China for this and ignores the convention that it is a country's job to protect its own citizens and no one else's.

No country placed any significant travel restrictions on Chinese nationals until March.

No country implemented screening measures for travellers until March.

No country suggested their citizens had anything to worry about until March.

By then it was too late and here we are. People feel more comfortable blaming outsiders because it avoids criticism of their own.

It's easy to cry root cause and blame wet markets for this but that perspective ignores all of the subsequent failures of governments that should have been better prepared to deal with a potential pandemic orginating from that part of the world. Every single one of them failed.

You are partially right IMO

But we live in an international community and if you rely on that, ask China how they see the virus and they downplay it (as some source, probably antichina) in fears that they would take the measures that you mention, they would have some sort of responsability if true?

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Agree with you on this, especially in G20 nations. What do you think that happened?

I've no idea. There's a culture of appeasement in international relations when it comes to China and this has been going on for some time, but the level of unpreparedness for this is staggering. We had two month's lead time to prepare just a little (i.e. ensuring we had enough PPE etc). Total failure.

Ok. Understood.
It was probably inevitable that mistakes were made by individual governments when faced with an unprecedented pandemic on this scale.
And it has been acknowledged that we have a lot to learn from Germany for example.

But. That is not the cause of the problem is it.

What I am saying is that the cause needs to be determined and, should China be proven to be culpable, then China, should be made to pay for both the human and economic damage.

What we are experiencing now will have a number of different root causes. I don't think any one nation will ever be found truly culpable for this. As noted, this is a collective failure. Every government seems to have fecked up badly. We knew what was happening in Wuhan, we knew the potential for spread and we should have assumed we were due a global pandemic. There's a lot of hubris in this one and I think it's the largest factor.

Germany has perhaps given some insight into how to treat patients but they have over 100k cases, too. They also failed.

 

[JMack1234]

And move the infection from one location to another. Engage brain

Say that out loud, consider the situation, and see if it still sounds as good as it did when you typed it.

Thing is, I actually don't disagree with a short and managed lockdown to give the NHS time to get what capacity it can. All I was trying to say is that it's a nonsense to try and pretend that lockdown is easy and isn't much of a sacrifice. It's a massive, huge, gigantic sacrifice that the vast vast majority of people in this country are making very admirably.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

You are partially right IMO

But we live in an international community and if you rely on that, ask China how they see the virus and they downplay it (as some source, probably antichina) in fears that they would take the measures that you mention, they would have some sort of responsability if true?

Disagree. It is England's responsibility to assess any situation and do its part to protect English citizens. Same for Canada, France, Italy, the USA etc. The minute you rely on any other nation for the safety of your own without someting like a bilateral agreement or treaty in place you've probably failed.

 

[Revan]

How long do you think mass gatherings will be banned for after lockdown is lifted? Personally I feel additional 3 months is minimum but most likely until the end of year for 100+ people events.

100+ until people get vaccinated, so end of next year IMO.

 

[Arruda]

What I am saying is that the cause needs to be determined and, should China be proven to be culpable, then China, should be made to pay for both the human and economic damage.

What about all those parts of the world which negligently ignored the loud warnings and roadmaps to solve the problem that China gave us and made the pandemic far far worse? This includes the entire world apart from a few Asian countries. Will they also pay for the human and economic damage? Who pays who then?

 

[Buster15]

Like UK/USA were 'made to pay' for launching a war in Iraq based upon totally false and made up pretences, which killed 500,000+ innocent people?

Completely different issue.
That was not a global pendemic was it.

 

[finneh]

To be clear, what businesses do you think should have been allowed remain open but were forced to close by the government?

Pubs? restaurants? clothes shops?

Be specific.

I think every business should be "allowed" to trade as in my view that's their right. I don't believe in government having the ability to destroy decades of someone's work and livelihood on a whim.

Could the government implore, persuade, plead and even offer to cover their losses if they close? Of course. I'd have no problem with the government offering to cover three months turnover and having companies sign up to the scheme on their own free will. However forcing them to close in my view is outrageous. Just like forcing people to close their businesses and sell their homes to build HS2 is outrageous.

Let me return a question: how deadly would a virus need to be for you to be comfortable in the government for example seizing all your assets (to pay for the NHS) and putting you in a quarantine camp for an indefinite period of time? How about merely locking you in your home for 10 weeks, giving you state issued rations and imprisoning you if you left? Both examples might seem absurd but being arrested for watching a sunset alone on a bench would have likewise seemed like lunacy 8 weeks ago.

 

[Revan]

@Sassy Colin, much tighter. We can't travel at all outside of our district of residence, which isn't so bad if you are a resident of Rome, but not so good if you're registered to a village like we are. You can travel outside for work if you're still working, for medical emergencies and for other immediate situations of necessity. Other than that, you have to remain in your area as long as there is a shop selling basic essentials (which isn't much, really). All public outside spaces are closed off, even the benches in the village.

When you leave your house for anything, you have to carry ID and complete a form which gives every bit of your personal info and requires you to declare that you understand the law and the penalties, and the reason you're out of your home. If the police stop you and you don't have it or you're out for no proper reason, you'll get a big fine.

We have been told not to go out at all if possible and to limit our visits to the village shop to one a week. People cannot go out in pairs, only one adult at a time may be out of the house. You are supposed to stay very near your house if you need to take a dog out or have some outside time with your child - a lot of people don't have gardens, so that's very hard for them.

edit - and you have to wear a mask as soon as you step outside your home. I even wear one to take the rubbish to the bins.

You are somewhere in the North, right?

I guess a lot depends on the region. My family lives in Veneto, and like you, they need an autocertificate to go anywhere. However, they can also go out for a walk, as long as it is within 200 meters of the house and are not near someone from another household. Which is still better than nothing.

They also have to use masks when going out. Though mask shortage is a thing, and the state provided a mask for every person (with the masks needed to be consistently changed, I am not sure if that is a good thing or not).

 

[JPRouve]

What we are experiencing now will have a number of different root causes. I don't think any one nation will ever be found truly culpable for this. As noted, this is a collective failure. Every government seems to have fecked up badly. We knew what was happening in Wuhan, we knew the potential for spread and we should have assumed we were due a global pandemic. There's a lot of hubris in this one and I think it's the largest factor.

Germany has perhaps given some insight into how to treat patients but they have over 100k cases, too. They also failed.

The only thing that should come out of this is that we all need each others, politicians need to stop acting like twats while civil servants need to cooperate with their foreign peers with more efficiency. But what will actually happen is nothing, fingers will be pointed and political leaders will act as if they were victims while we, the public, will stupidly take sides when we should batter them all.

 

[4bars]

Disagree. It is England's responsibility to assess any situation and do its part to protect English citizens. Same for Canada, France, Italy, the USA etc. The minute you rely on any other nation for the safety of your own without someting like a bilateral agreement or treaty in place you've probably failed.

I agree mostly in what you said, but is difficult to asses when the information is opaque or even misleading. Specially if you are a member of WHO (like China) adn the information should flow through them but this information is not correct.

But again, I agree to a certain extend

 

[Alabaster Codify7]

The only thing that should come out of this is that we all need each others, politicians need to stop acting like twats while civil servants need to cooperate with their foreign peers with more efficiency. But what will actually happen is nothing, fingers will be pointed and political leaders will act as if they were victims while we, the public, will stupidly take sides when we should batter them all.

This is 110% accurate. This is what will happen to a tee, no ifs or buts.
There will be finger-pointing, name calling at the 'weird foreigners' who caused this whole mess, then the same governments doing the name calling to get the public on their side will shake hands and make friends with the same 'foreigners' and everything will return to normal with the public bickering over which side they have taken. Just life after the other pandemics in recent memory. It will be considered a tragic event, nobody's government will accept that they made any mistakes, and that will be that.

 

[Buster15]

What about all those parts of the world which negligently ignored the loud warnings and roadmaps to solve the problem that China gave us and made the pandemic far far worse? This includes the entire world apart from a few Asian countries. Will they also pay for the human and economic damage? Who pays who then?

Who pays who?
The who that was the root cause of not just the virus but who allowed the virus to get out of their country's border.

 

[antsmithmk]

100+ until people get vaccinated, so end of next year IMO.

No chance. Can you imagine the consequences to sport? Yes the big prem teams, F1, big boxing could live on via TV... But the lower leagues? Rugby bar Internationals would be a disaster.

 

[Sarni]

Agreed about events - if you cancel as organization, you're just following the others. If you let your event go ahead and it causes a new outbreak, it's bad PR forever and potentially even lawsuits, insurance issues, you name it. Even if it's allowed again, I can't see anyone taking the risk for the remainder of 2020.

How do you prevent a gathering of +100 people in a pub though? Constant surveillance and only a limited amount of people allowed in at the same time? Gonna need constant monitoring from the police, all around different countries. Hard to enforce imo.

Pubs and restaurants will have limits per floor space I think. It will be tricky to keep it but they will find a way - easier for restaurants as they can just limit the number of tables.

My company holds many company events across Europe with 100+ and mostly 1,000+ attending, from my point of view (financial planning) it’s really key to establish as soon as we can whether we will be able to do any of them in year to go as it will have significant financial implications. We are trying to do as many of them as possible online, they still cost money though it’s usually at worst 25% of physical events and some of them have been getting great feedback so far so I won’t be surprised if we maintain this format in the future. I’ve never really understood the purpose of holding so many small training events around the country when you could do it as one webinar. To be honest I couldn’t imagine a weirder year in my job, we literally closed the budget end of February and now all assumptions have basically gone down the drain so I have to liaise with 14 GMs from 38 different markets to do this again, with less than three weeks to manage all of it. Once I go through this I should be untouchable for this company.

 

[Sarni]

100+ until people get vaccinated, so end of next year IMO.

Could well be. It will be difficult for sports but they will have to live with limited income.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Who pays who?
The who that was the root cause of not just the virus but who allowed the virus to get out of their country's border.

We let the virus into our countries.

We allowed our people to travel for their spring/March breaks.

We didn't screen them when they came home.

Now look at us.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I think every business should be "allowed" to trade as in my view that's their right. I don't believe in government having the ability to destroy decades of someone's work and livelihood on a whim.

Could the government implore, persuade, plead and even offer to cover their losses if they close? Of course. I'd have no problem with the government offering to cover three months turnover and having companies sign up to the scheme on their own free will. However forcing them to close in my view is outrageous. Just like forcing people to close their businesses and sell their homes to build HS2 is outrageous.

Let me return a question: how deadly would a virus need to be for you to be comfortable in the government for example seizing all your assets (to pay for the NHS) and putting you in a quarantine camp for an indefinite period of time? How about merely locking you in your home for 10 weeks, giving you state issued rations and imprisoning you if you left? Both examples might seem absurd but being arrested for watching a sunset alone on a bench would have likewise seemed like lunacy 8 weeks ago.

So you think pubs, night clubs, restaurants, cinemas, theatres, shopping malls should have all been allowed stay open, in every city all over the world. Presumably with metros, tubes, buses, taxis all crammed full of people as usual. To ensure these businesses continue to make a profit. Because no government should be allowed interfere with their right to make money. Under any circumstances.

That’s. Incredible. Quite remarkable. I always took you for a bright bloke too.

 

[sammsky1]

I've no idea. There's a culture of appeasement in international relations when it comes to China and this has been going on for some time, but the level of unpreparedness for this is staggering. We had two month's lead time to prepare just a little (i.e. ensuring we had enough PPE etc). Total failure.
What we are experiencing now will have a number of different root causes. I don't think any one nation will ever be found truly culpable for this. As noted, this is a collective failure. Every government seems to have fecked up badly. We knew what was happening in Wuhan, we knew the potential for spread and we should have assumed we were due a global pandemic. There's a lot of hubris in this one and I think it's the largest factor.

I understand the geo-political reasons not to antagonise China, and even if that was desired, there isn't any nation or organisation who has enough clout to make the point.

But the level of unpreparedness is something that will haunt developed nations for a generation. The fact that no-one seems to have war-gamed this, and have push button protocols to follow is unforgivable. Even in UK, we knew the scale of what was happening in Wuhan in late January. Surely we could have built a UK factory to make our own PPE equipment, or galvanised an army of people to sew them at home? Worse case is we would have had a massive stockpile, which could later be used or sold.

The other thing that has really disappointed me is the lack of true international co-operation. It seems its each country on its own, doing the best it can, with only sporadic sharing of information and resources. What would have been better is for all major Governments to co-fund global vaccine programme, sending their best teams to work in collaboration with each other etc etc.

I think alot of this has to do with Trump's America First and Only policy. Had Obama or even Bush Jnr been President, I think USA would have led the world very well. Trump not stepping up also means he wont let anyone else do it either.

 

[Arruda]

Who pays who?
The who that was the root cause of not just the virus but who allowed the virus to get out of their country's border.

Every country allowed the virus to get out of their borders.

Most except China and a few others had enough time to know what to do.

This is a natural disaster.

 

[sammsky1]

Thing is, I actually don't disagree with a short and managed lockdown to give the NHS time to get what capacity it can. All I was trying to say is that it's a nonsense to try and pretend that lockdown is easy and isn't much of a sacrifice. It's a massive, huge, gigantic sacrifice that the vast vast majority of people in this country are making very admirably.

What's the sacrifice? Why is yours more difficult than people living in slums or shanty towns?

What are people in UK doing that is any more admirable than any other country in lock down? Why are we so special?

 

[sammsky1]

Completely different issue.
That was not a global pendemic was it.

So spreading suffering is only an issue when it doesn't involve UK or USA?

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

No chance. Can you imagine the consequences to sport? Yes the big prem teams, F1, big boxing could live on via TV... But the lower leagues? Rugby bar Internationals would be a disaster.

Could sell every other seat for a while maybe? Many lower league teams nowhere near full their stadium anyway. Or allow people in who test positive for antibodies. Or a combination of both.

 

[Revan]

No chance. Can you imagine the consequences to sport? Yes the big prem teams, F1, big boxing could live on via TV... But the lower leagues? Rugby bar Internationals would be a disaster.

Sport is not a very important thing. There are more important things like you know, people not dying, or the economy not collapsing. And putting tens of thousands of people in a stadium is a very bad idea when there is a contagious deadly virus going on.

 

[Revan]

Could well be. It will be difficult for sports but they will have to live with limited income.

Big clubs will be fine, most of the money comes from TV deals anyway.

Smaller clubs not so fine, but what can we do.

 

[Sarni]

Could sell every other seat for a while maybe? Many lower league teams nowhere near full their stadium anyway. Or allow people in who test positive for antibodies. Or a combination of both.

People still have to enter and exit the stadium, which is usually done in a way that makes it super easy for virus to spread.

 

[Ludens the Red]

100+ until people get vaccinated, so end of next year IMO.

Nah no chance. Like think about the amount of people that would effect. If we’re talking purely gatherings effected were talking sporting events, music events, bars, pubs, restaurants, theatres, factories, train stations.
Then after that we’re talking jobs, we’re talking bouncers, catering staff, bar staff, stewards, photographers, drivers, factory workers, and then the actual sports people themselves (forget pl footballers) think about lower league, women’s football. Musicians, performers. I dread to think of the consequences for all of these people if they can’t work for 18 months. Financially and mentally.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Arresting people for sitting on a bench 50m from the nearest person

Woahwoahwoah, woah. Woah.

She was asked to move along because, under her own admission, she had been sitting there for 90 minutes and asked to move along by the same officer 45 minutes beforehand. She misinterpreted the laws in which the police follow and who their oath is sworn to. She refused to move as she was "exercising mentally", which the officer did not believe was a suitable reason (her opinion on the terminology, frankly, means feck all at this point). She was cautioned that she would receive a fine, which she says she would refuse to accept. She was informed that she could dispute the fine if she wish, she still refused to accept it. She was asked to give her name and address, she refused.

Arresting her was the last option available to the officer, who had clearly wanted to find a less harsh solution to the whole situation. The reality is that these officers are putting themselves at personal risk to enforce the guidance of government to the best of their abilities, and the last thing they need is some attention seeking twat (which she was, look at how excited she sounded when she said "all these officers here because of me!") wasting their time.

The police are normal people. Some are wankers and some are just trying to do their jobs. At this moment in time their job is riskier. The last thing that we need is more of these fake "down with the system" types who think they can feck with people for a laugh instead of doing actual revolutionary actions. It's armchair activist twattery at its finest that puts their desire to make a statement above the safety of others.

One final thing. She sat on a park bench; so who sat on the bench before her? Did that person have the virus? Does she have it and the next person to sit on it will get it. What about when she left or arrived - she didn't just materialize on that bench from her front door. How did she get there? Who did she come into close contact with? All because she needed to meditate, which is something you can do in your own home. It was not a requirement for her to leave her home to begin with.

Pah, screw it. Maybe we're both right. There can be no doubt that someone with power will be looking at how this pandemic can benefit them, but I highly doubt it was Tom the Bobby.

 

[Penna]

You are somewhere in the North, right?

I guess a lot depends on the region. My family lives in Veneto, and like you, they need an autocertificate to go anywhere. However, they can also go out for a walk, as long as it is within 200 meters of the house and are not near someone from another household. Which is still better than nothing.

They also have to use masks when going out. Though mask shortage is a thing, and the state provided a mask for every person (with the masks needed to be consistently changed, I am not sure if that is a good thing or not).

We're in Marche. The Comune has also offered us masks now that they want everyone to wear one, but everyone's been wearing something for weeks anyway.

I think the Sindaci have been given authority to impose extra measures locally if they deem it necessary. Our guy is very hands-on, and has actually been very good in making sure that people in hardship get food immediately. Sometimes being in a small place is a boon, because everyone knows everyone else and folk don't get missed out.

 

[Adamsk7]

What’s happening in France? Worldometers reporting 11,000 new and 1400 deaths. That can’t be right....

 

[JMack1234]

What's the sacrifice? Why is yours more difficult than people living in slums or shanty towns?

What are people in UK doing that is any more admirable than any other country in lock down? Why are we so special?

When did I say that the UK was special? Or that my sacrifice is worse than someone in a slum or a shanty town? I was talking about the UK because that's country that I live and know but there's no doubt other countries have made much more of a sacrifice than us and we've made more of a sacrifice than other countries.

Next time, read what I wrote. Not what you want me to have written. If you can manage that?

 

[finneh]

So you think pubs, night clubs, restaurants, cinemas, theatres, shopping malls should have all been allowed stay open, in every city all over the world. Presumably with metros, tubes, buses, taxis all crammed full of people as usual. To ensure these businesses continue to make a profit. Because no government should be allowed interfere with their right to make money. Under any circumstances.

That’s. Incredible. Quite remarkable. I always took you for a bright bloke too.

I don't think they would all have stayed open. In fact I think the vast majority would have closed. Almost all of them if a decent compensatory scheme were introduced.

The common sense of the populace would have lead to huge reductions in their businesses and policies such as the 80% furlough payments would have lead to them temporarily shutting down of their own volition.

I suspect the small minority that stayed open would have implemented measures that would hugely stem infection rates (e.g. taking temperatures on arrival, ensuring no-one showing symptoms was permitted, ensuring tables were a few metres apart and that the people diving were part of the same family, increasing cleanliness, enforcing use of hand sanitizer, requesting that no-one 70+ or with underlying conditions entered).

I believe wholeheartedly that we could have achieved almost identical outcomes with zero use of force.

Again I'd be interested to know what level of mortality would cause you to be comfortable with the aforementioned couple of limitations to civil liberties?

 

[sullydnl]

I think every business should be "allowed" to trade as in my view that's their right. I don't believe in government having the ability to destroy decades of someone's work and livelihood on a whim.

Could the government implore, persuade, plead and even offer to cover their losses if they close? Of course. I'd have no problem with the government offering to cover three months turnover and having companies sign up to the scheme on their own free will. However forcing them to close in my view is outrageous. Just like forcing people to close their businesses and sell their homes to build HS2 is outrageous.

Let me return a question: how deadly would a virus need to be for you to be comfortable in the government for example seizing all your assets (to pay for the NHS) and putting you in a quarantine camp for an indefinite period of time? How about merely locking you in your home for 10 weeks, giving you state issued rations and imprisoning you if you left? Both examples might seem absurd but being arrested for watching a sunset alone on a bench would have likewise seemed like lunacy 8 weeks ago.

People also have a human right to highest attainable standard of health though, a right that obliges governments to respond to public health threats.

Sometimes different rights come into conflict with each other. Which, for example, can require those arguing for the protection of public health to allow restrictions on personal freedoms, or those arguing for the protection of personal freedoms to allow restrictions on public health.

In a context where a nearby country with an advanced healthcare system has not only seen its hospitals overwhelmed but also its crematoriums overwhelmed due to pandemic, it really shouldn't be so difficult for people to decide which set of rights are facing the most immediate threat or most desperately need to be prioritised.

 

[Revan]

Nah no chance. Like think about the amount of people that would effect. If we’re talking purely gatherings effected were talking sporting events, music events, bars, pubs, restaurants, theatres, factories, train stations.
Then after that we’re talking jobs, we’re talking bouncers, catering staff, bar staff, stewards, photographers, drivers, factory workers, and then the actual sports people themselves (forget pl footballers) think about lower league, women’s football. Musicians, performers. I dread to think of the consequences for all of these people if they can’t work for 18 months. Financially and mentally.

Restaurants, bars and pubs can deal with 100 people. Factories can reorganize to separate better people while keeping the functionality. Sports and musicians are entertainment so they come dead last in the list of priorities.

100 is just a number so it could be 200 or 500 or 1000, but I think there is no chance that we will see concerts or sport matches with thousands or tens of thousands of people attending them. That would be nuts, we are not doing this massive lockdown to have to do another lockdown another month after we open. People have to learn to deal with the life after covid 19 until we get vaccinated. We are still at a very early stage, so the situation will evolve, but life won’t go back to normal for quite a while.

 

[Shakesy]

This thread used to be informative. Precisely when did it become so damn tedious?

Masks, war on China or the death of freedom?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I don't think they would all have stayed open. In fact I think the vast majority would have closed. Almost all of them if a decent compensatory scheme were introduced.

The common sense of the populace would have lead to huge reductions in their businesses and policies such as the 80% furlough payments would have lead to them temporarily shutting down of their own volition.

I suspect the small minority that stayed open would have implemented measures that would hugely stem infection rates (e.g. taking temperatures on arrival, ensuring no-one showing symptoms was permitted, ensuring tables were a few metres apart and that the people diving were part of the same family, increasing cleanliness, enforcing use of hand sanitizer, requesting that no-one 70+ or with underlying conditions entered).

I believe wholeheartedly that we could have achieved almost identical outcomes with zero use of force.

Again I'd be interested to know what level of mortality would cause you to be comfortable with the aforementioned couple of limitations to civil liberties?

So a majority of pubs, clubs, restaurants, cinemas, malls, theatres etc etc would close, with the hordes of people who would naturally assume this soft touch approach by the government implies the virus really is “just a bad flu” (remember that bullshit?) all crammed into the minority that remain open. What could possibly go wrong? “Identical outcomes” my hole.

Your hypothetical scenario is pointless. We’re discussing a real scenario. With a real virus. No need for any straw men. For what it’s worth, I imagine what we’re seeing in parts of France or Spain right now is about as bad as it will get.

 

[Carolina Red]

The writer of this blog Benjamin Wittes, is he an absolute authority on the interpretation of Benjamin Franklin’s documents? I can reference writers with ‘similair’ credentials who state the opposite. So who is guilty of confirmation bias here? And why? This is also an off topic dialogue now.

Uhhh... yeah bud, if you want to appeal to his authority, he's been an editor for the Washington Post, written for Legal Times, The Atlantic, New Republic, Slate, The Weekly Standard, Policy Review, was quoted by Paul Krugman in the New York Times... he's kinda well known.

How about google the letter yourself. It's pretty specific and the use of it by people like you has been repeatedly called out for over a decade. Too bad you've never noticed.