Slitherine

quote:

Nice name calling there for now reason. I am definitely not a scarecrow.

quote:

I saw the photos taken of the crowded NYC subway

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Nice name calling there for no reason. I am definitely not a scarecrow.

I'm not sure if you are kidding or you don't know what a straw man is. start here https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-straw-man/

quote:

I take it that you never have seen the Wizard of Oz nor even Green Acres.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I saw the photos taken of the crowded NYC subway

yes, you did see a photo or two a month ago. The situation has been addressed and while not perfect is much better. Some were inconvenienced for the good of many.
The trolley is barreling down the track towards five grandmothers. You can pull the switch and redirect it so that it kills no one. But you have to wear a mask to buy a toaster oven. What do you do?

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I saw the photos taken of the crowded NYC subway

yes, you did see a photo or two a month ago. The situation has been addressed and while not perfect is much better. Some were inconvenienced for the good of many.
The trolley is barreling down the track towards five grandmothers. You can pull the switch and redirect it so that it kills no one. But you have to wear a mask to buy a toaster oven. What do you do?

No, you can't make it kill no one, that's the point.

1) It will kill many no matter what. We try to influence that to minimize the death toll.
2) Any and every action we take to minimize the death toll from COVID-19 also has other consequences, and those include deaths and disease other than COVID-19. A more balanced approach with broader vision is better than a narrow, myopic approach.

Consider that NY State nursing home edict. It mandated that patients be taken in (or back in) even if they have COVID-19. Are nursing homes set up to/capable of quarantining patients in an effective manner? None I've ever seen. They don't have the facilities or the resources. But the edict went even farther. It prohibited testing those patients for COVID-19. That point alone is bombastically stupid, the edict in its entirety even more so. The consequences were many deaths, perhaps thousands, among the most vulnerable to the disease.

Was that done on purpose? Of course not. So how could something so obviously stupid be done? Because the officials in charge were thinking too narrowly and too short-sighted. They were thinking about keeping the supply of hospital beds from being overwhelmed. They blew it.

And that example shows a direct COVID-19 consequence. The consequences outside COVID-19 itself (deaths and disease from other causes brought about by actions to address COVID-19) seem utterly beyond the thinking of many officials right now. Not to mention many in the media.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

A Message to the People of Pennsylvania from Dauphin County Board Chairman Jeff Haste

https://www.dauphincounty.org/news_detail_T14_R309.php

Harrisburg, the State Capitol is in Dauphin County.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

For the record nursing homes in NY State are barley regulated. It's the complete wild west. To some extent you get what you pay for but inspections are few and follow large numbers of complaints.......eventually. In the beginning I suspect they thought they were seeing a large number of flu deaths. When the numbers got crazy they probably didn't want to draw too much attention to themselves NY State absolutely failed people in nursing homes. It was the #1 failure and lots of people should be ashamed at what happened. When the time came for my parents they died at home or stayed at home until the last day or two. Most people don't die at home anymore. Not sure how we got there but I suspect it is partly a result of both parents (if there are 2 parents around) in many homes working full or part time. Anyway there is no central party making sure all the nursing homes are talking too each other. Hell, those hospitals were barley talking to each other. The nursing homes hid those deaths. Washington & New York are good examples of what not to do. I hope against hope that other states do a better job of this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I saw the photos taken of the crowded NYC subway

yes, you did see a photo or two a month ago. The situation has been addressed and while not perfect is much better. Some were inconvenienced for the good of many.
The trolley is barreling down the track towards five grandmothers. You can pull the switch and redirect it so that it kills no one. But you have to wear a mask to buy a toaster oven. What do you do?

No, you can't make it kill no one, that's the point.

1) It will kill many no matter what. We try to influence that to minimize the death toll.
2) Any and every action we take to minimize the death toll from COVID-19 also has other consequences, and those include deaths and disease other than COVID-19. A more balanced approach with broader vision is better than a narrow, myopic approach.

Consider that NY State nursing home edict. It mandated that patients be taken in (or back in) even if they have COVID-19. Are nursing homes set up to/capable of quarantining patients in an effective manner? None I've ever seen. They don't have the facilities or the resources. But the edict went even farther. It prohibited testing those patients for COVID-19. That point alone is bombastically stupid, the edict in its entirety even more so. The consequences were many deaths, perhaps thousands, among the most vulnerable to the disease.

Was that done on purpose? Of course not. So how could something so obviously stupid be done? Because the officials in charge were thinking too narrowly and too short-sighted. They were thinking about keeping the supply of hospital beds from being overwhelmed. They blew it.

And that example shows a direct COVID-19 consequence. The consequences outside COVID-19 itself (deaths and disease from other causes brought about by actions to address COVID-19) seem utterly beyond the thinking of many officials right now. Not to mention many in the media.

I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I saw the photos taken of the crowded NYC subway

yes, you did see a photo or two a month ago. The situation has been addressed and while not perfect is much better. Some were inconvenienced for the good of many.
The trolley is barreling down the track towards five grandmothers. You can pull the switch and redirect it so that it kills no one. But you have to wear a mask to buy a toaster oven. What do you do?

No, you can't make it kill no one, that's the point.

1) It will kill many no matter what. We try to influence that to minimize the death toll.
2) Any and every action we take to minimize the death toll from COVID-19 also has other consequences, and those include deaths and disease other than COVID-19. A more balanced approach with broader vision is better than a narrow, myopic approach.

Consider that NY State nursing home edict. It mandated that patients be taken in (or back in) even if they have COVID-19. Are nursing homes set up to/capable of quarantining patients in an effective manner? None I've ever seen. They don't have the facilities or the resources. But the edict went even farther. It prohibited testing those patients for COVID-19. That point alone is bombastically stupid, the edict in its entirety even more so. The consequences were many deaths, perhaps thousands, among the most vulnerable to the disease.

Was that done on purpose? Of course not. So how could something so obviously stupid be done? Because the officials in charge were thinking too narrowly and too short-sighted. They were thinking about keeping the supply of hospital beds from being overwhelmed. They blew it.

And that example shows a direct COVID-19 consequence. The consequences outside COVID-19 itself (deaths and disease from other causes brought about by actions to address COVID-19) seem utterly beyond the thinking of many officials right now. Not to mention many in the media.

I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if imposed earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/covid-social-distancing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual tactics.

quote:

lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The real issue with Cndn meat packing plants (maybe everywhere??) is not even so much the work environment as the the social setting for the workers. These are ****ty jobs and the workers are predominantly poorer immigrant populations. These populations are tight knit, often travelling together, socializing together and in many instances sharing cramped accommodations. Language and education only add more problems to efforts to stem the virus.

My German opponent says that is exactly the make-up of meat-packing there also.

Alberta would pretty much have this licked were it not for several large meat plant out-breaks.

Excellent point.

I thought that there were enough American high school dropouts that could do this work so that the US would not have to import un/undereducated people to do this work. Then the worker should be able to understand English, American style.

I understand that in big Canada land that they do have a guest/temporary worker program so they could ensure that those legal temporary/guest workers could understand enough English, Canadian style. One point of emphasis would be for those workers from a warm climate would be that they should procure and wear a good, warm touk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

The real issue with Cndn meat packing plants (maybe everywhere??) is not even so much the work environment as the the social setting for the workers. These are ****ty jobs and the workers are predominantly poorer immigrant populations. These populations are tight knit, often travelling together, socializing together and in many instances sharing cramped accommodations. Language and education only add more problems to efforts to stem the virus.

My German opponent says that is exactly the make-up of meat-packing there also.

Alberta would pretty much have this licked were it not for several large meat plant out-breaks.

Excellent point.

I thought that there were enough American high school dropouts that could do this work so that the US would not have to import un/undereducated people to do this work. Then the worker should be able to understand English, American style.

I understand that in big Canada land that they do have a guest/temporary worker program so they could ensure that those legal temporary/guest workers could understand enough English, Canadian style. One point of emphasis would be for those workers from a warm climate would be that they should procure and wear a good, warm touk.

???
Not sure what you are getting at here. Our migrant workers are exactly like your migrant workers - mostly from Mexico and Central America, and if they know any English they got that in their own country. They are willing to do arduous work because in their own country they could not earn as much for the same effort, and most Canadian "unemployed students" would rather sponge off their parents than try to do that difficult work.

It's a question of motivation - the migrant workers mostly send money back to their families while the Canadian students don't really need the money so badly. The (Canadian) ones really motivated to earn money for their education can usually find better paying, less difficult jobs because of their better education.

And these hard working migrants tend to be very tough, quite able to handle the cold with a bit of warm clothing. Mexico has some areas that are cold in winter too, because of elevation. Regardless, since most of the migrant work is in agriculture, they tend to be here in spring and fall, not so much in winter.

What we do have is a policy of treating them like valued people. During this epidemic, we require them to self-quarantine after crossing the border, but we give them enough money to do so because our food supply depends on their work. And all safety standards that apply to Canadian workers also apply to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States.

It's May 9th, and President Trump still doesn’t have an adequate national testing strategy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I saw the photos taken of the crowded NYC subway

yes, you did see a photo or two a month ago. The situation has been addressed and while not perfect is much better. Some were inconvenienced for the good of many.
The trolley is barreling down the track towards five grandmothers. You can pull the switch and redirect it so that it kills no one. But you have to wear a mask to buy a toaster oven. What do you do?

No, you can't make it kill no one, that's the point.

1) It will kill many no matter what. We try to influence that to minimize the death toll.
2) Any and every action we take to minimize the death toll from COVID-19 also has other consequences, and those include deaths and disease other than COVID-19. A more balanced approach with broader vision is better than a narrow, myopic approach.

Consider that NY State nursing home edict. It mandated that patients be taken in (or back in) even if they have COVID-19. Are nursing homes set up to/capable of quarantining patients in an effective manner? None I've ever seen. They don't have the facilities or the resources. But the edict went even farther. It prohibited testing those patients for COVID-19. That point alone is bombastically stupid, the edict in its entirety even more so. The consequences were many deaths, perhaps thousands, among the most vulnerable to the disease.

Was that done on purpose? Of course not. So how could something so obviously stupid be done? Because the officials in charge were thinking too narrowly and too short-sighted. They were thinking about keeping the supply of hospital beds from being overwhelmed. They blew it.

And that example shows a direct COVID-19 consequence. The consequences outside COVID-19 itself (deaths and disease from other causes brought about by actions to address COVID-19) seem utterly beyond the thinking of many officials right now. Not to mention many in the media.

I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/covid-social-distancing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I saw the photos taken of the crowded NYC subway

yes, you did see a photo or two a month ago. The situation has been addressed and while not perfect is much better. Some were inconvenienced for the good of many.
The trolley is barreling down the track towards five grandmothers. You can pull the switch and redirect it so that it kills no one. But you have to wear a mask to buy a toaster oven. What do you do?

No, you can't make it kill no one, that's the point.

1) It will kill many no matter what. We try to influence that to minimize the death toll.
2) Any and every action we take to minimize the death toll from COVID-19 also has other consequences, and those include deaths and disease other than COVID-19. A more balanced approach with broader vision is better than a narrow, myopic approach.

Consider that NY State nursing home edict. It mandated that patients be taken in (or back in) even if they have COVID-19. Are nursing homes set up to/capable of quarantining patients in an effective manner? None I've ever seen. They don't have the facilities or the resources. But the edict went even farther. It prohibited testing those patients for COVID-19. That point alone is bombastically stupid, the edict in its entirety even more so. The consequences were many deaths, perhaps thousands, among the most vulnerable to the disease.

Was that done on purpose? Of course not. So how could something so obviously stupid be done? Because the officials in charge were thinking too narrowly and too short-sighted. They were thinking about keeping the supply of hospital beds from being overwhelmed. They blew it.

And that example shows a direct COVID-19 consequence. The consequences outside COVID-19 itself (deaths and disease from other causes brought about by actions to address COVID-19) seem utterly beyond the thinking of many officials right now. Not to mention many in the media.

I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/covid-social-distancing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

Erik,

You are the one 'shooting digs'. Fauci has said, more than once and on video, that Trump did what he asked the first time every time (including Trump not doing things Fauci asked him not to do). And that specifically includes Fauci going back on air to counter the misuse of his answer to a hypothetical question, the very one which you include here.

Your default is 'centralize everything', that you've made clear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States.

It's May 9th, and President Trump still doesn’t have an adequate national testing strategy.

Yes he does. He left it to the states/people as it is their responsibility under the tenth amendment to the US Constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Florida is not exactly hitting out of the park as far as nursing home mortality. https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/nation/florida-nursing-home-deaths-from-covid-19-spike-dramatically-up-to-22-at-a-single/article_8444c406-a2e3-5bef-a899-a6b675121e7b.html
Governor DeSantis seems to think this is funny and in the middle of this crisis calls his state "Gods Waiting Room". funny stuff. Tip of the iceberg as DeSantis has done everything in his power to keep these numbers secret. Luckily, the Miami Herald has been able to pry some of the information loose

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I saw the photos taken of the crowded NYC subway

yes, you did see a photo or two a month ago. The situation has been addressed and while not perfect is much better. Some were inconvenienced for the good of many.
The trolley is barreling down the track towards five grandmothers. You can pull the switch and redirect it so that it kills no one. But you have to wear a mask to buy a toaster oven. What do you do?

No, you can't make it kill no one, that's the point.

1) It will kill many no matter what. We try to influence that to minimize the death toll.
2) Any and every action we take to minimize the death toll from COVID-19 also has other consequences, and those include deaths and disease other than COVID-19. A more balanced approach with broader vision is better than a narrow, myopic approach.

Consider that NY State nursing home edict. It mandated that patients be taken in (or back in) even if they have COVID-19. Are nursing homes set up to/capable of quarantining patients in an effective manner? None I've ever seen. They don't have the facilities or the resources. But the edict went even farther. It prohibited testing those patients for COVID-19. That point alone is bombastically stupid, the edict in its entirety even more so. The consequences were many deaths, perhaps thousands, among the most vulnerable to the disease.

Was that done on purpose? Of course not. So how could something so obviously stupid be done? Because the officials in charge were thinking too narrowly and too short-sighted. They were thinking about keeping the supply of hospital beds from being overwhelmed. They blew it.

And that example shows a direct COVID-19 consequence. The consequences outside COVID-19 itself (deaths and disease from other causes brought about by actions to address COVID-19) seem utterly beyond the thinking of many officials right now. Not to mention many in the media.

I hope that the order was not done on purpose. But with some people you never know. Describe the Nazi concentration camps to them and some people will joke about them but they will not deny that is what they actually want.

I think both RangerJoe and witqs cold do to use some examples of how leaving it all to the States has helped, rather than a Federally mandated mitigation program implemented early.

You're both just shooting digs at NY and not actually talking about the issue, which is a bit of a problem around here. There are many tragedies in this several month period, and a lot of them could have been lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States. It's likely the lockdown could have been shorter, the cases less, deaths less and economy less affected overall if these things were tackled by the Federal Government earlier.

Fauci confirmed he advised a shutdown in late February. He also confirmed in an interview that there was " a lot of pushback" about shutting down at that point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52264860

I mean, obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down back then.

All of this sent Trump to Twitter in a fluster to talk about firing Fauci.

"Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large," it said. "Time to #FireFauci..."


This goes through figures using IHME to show how Federally mandated mitigation could have reduced deaths in the US if the government had imposed measures earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/opinion/covid-social-distancing.html

On March 16, the White House issued initial social distancing guidelines, including closing schools and avoiding groups of more than 10. But an estimated 90 percent of the cumulative deaths in the United States from Covid-19, at least from the first wave of the epidemic, might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier, on March 2, when there were only 11 deaths in the entire country. The effect would have been substantial had the policies been imposed even one week earlier, on March 9, resulting in approximately a 60 percent reduction in deaths.

To determine the impact of early interventions, we used growth rates in cumulative deaths calculated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington from the date that social distancing measures were introduced until the predicted end of the epidemic, and applied them to case numbers from earlier points when such measures could hypothetically have been put into effect.

Ok. Open for insults, derogatory comments, refutations based on pure emotion and other usual non-objective tactics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

lessened by an earlier Federal mandate to enforce mitigation measures and set up consistent guidelines for ALL of the States.

It's May 9th, and President Trump still doesn’t have an adequate national testing strategy.

Yes he does. He left it to the states/people as it is their responsibility under the tenth amendment to the US Constitution.

What part (article?) of the constitution outlines the US testing strategy

quote:

Tenth Amendment: Principle of Federalism through the provision of powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the individual states.


What is the Tenth Amendment?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The Tenth Amendment Defined:
The Tenth Amendment is fairly similar to an earlier provision outlined in the Articles of Confederation which stated that each individual state shall retain sovereignty, independence, freedom, while possessing every power, right, and jurisdiction that is not expressly delegated to the greater governing body of the United States. Following the ratification of the Constitution, framers wanted a similar amendment to limit the federal government to only powers delegated, meaning the denial of implied powers.
The First Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.
The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.
Stipulations of the Tenth Amendment:
The Tenth Amendment was instituted in the Bill of Rights to ensure that the federal government would only exercise the powers that were stated as permissible in the Constitution. All other powers that are not directly referred to in the United States Constitution were delivered to the individual states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Maryland is preparing for relaxed restrictions!

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Turns out NY State is doing better than most of the country in Covid-19 deaths at long term facilities. New York seems to be in the bottom third at about 20%. Many states are at 50% or above. Whats going on there? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/09/us/coronavirus-cases-nursing-homes-us.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

quote:

White residents account for 34% of the state’s known cases and 65% of deaths. Black Minnesotans account for 17% of confirmed cases and 6% of deaths.

Race is unknown or missing for 33% of cases and 25% of deaths, according to the Health Department.

quote:

An 18-year-old woman who was gravely wounded in a shooting in south Minneapolis earlier this week died Friday night, police said Saturday.

Arionna Buckanaga was shot late Monday when someone fired into the car she and a male companion were in on Cedar Avenue, causing the car to veer off the road and slam into a tree near 39th Street.

The male companion, whom police suspect was the intended the target of the attack, wasn’t injured.

Buckanaga was taken to HCMC in grave condition. Members of the Police Department’s crisis response team said they were told by Buckanaga’s family that she was on life support and had no brain function in the past days.
.
.
.
On Wednesday, griends and relatives gathered in Minneapolis to pray, chant and share stories of Buckanaga.

A group of men sat in a circle, thumping on a calfskin drum and singing “to help her on her journey,” as one man said. Between songs, they invited people to sprinkle tobacco on the drum as a blessing.

As they played, a little girl walked through the crowd with a bowl of burning incense, as people leaned over and waved the swirling smoke over their bodies. Some wore face masks.

One of Buckanaga’s aunts, Rebecca, spoke at the vigil, thanking the crowd of more than 100 for coming and asking for their continued support of her family.

“This is really hard for them, and they have a long road ahead of them so they really, really need your prayers,” she said, adding the Ojibwe word for thank you: “Miigwetch.”

Another aunt, Jana Williams, said at the vigil that if Buckanaga died, it wouldn’t be in vain, as her relatives had decided to donate her organs.

“We may see her eyes looking back at us,” Williams said. “We may see her heart.”