Slitherine

quote:

A MESSAGE FROM DR. MARGARET FUNK (INFECTIOUS DISEASE EPIDEMIOLOGIST)

"Hey everybody, as an infectious disease epidemiologist, at this point I feel morally obligated to provide some information on what we are seeing from a transmission dynamic perspective and how they apply to the social distancing measures.

Like any good scientist I have noticed two things that are either not articulated or not present in the "literature" of social media. Specifically, I want to make two aspects of these measures very clear and unambiguous.

First, we are in the very infancy of this epidemic's trajectory. That means even with these measures we will see cases and deaths continue to rise globally, nationally, and in our own communities in the coming weeks.

Our hospitals will be overwhelmed, and people will die that didn't have to.

This may lead some people to think that the social distancing
measures are not working. They are.

They may feel futile. They aren't.

You will feel discouraged. You should.

This is normal in chaos. But, this is also normal epidemic trajectory. Stay calm.

This enemy that we are facing is very good at what it does; we are not failing. We need everyone to hold the line as the epidemic inevitably gets worse.

This is not my opinion; this is the unforgiving math of epidemics for which I and my colleagues have dedicated our lives to understanding with great nuance, and this disease is no exception.

We know what will happen; I want to help the community brace for this impact.

Stay strong and with solidarity knowing with absolute certainty that what you are doing is saving lives, even as people begin getting sick and dying.

You may feel like giving in. Don't.

Second, although social distancing measures have been (at least temporarily) well-received, there is an obvious-but-overlooked phenomenon when considering groups (i.e. families) in transmission dynamics.

While social distancing decreases contact with members of society, it of course increases your contacts with group (i.e. family) members. This small and obvious fact has surprisingly profound implications on disease transmission dynamics.

Study after study demonstrates that even if there is only a little bit of connection between groups (i.e. social dinners, play-dates/playgrounds, etc.), the epidemic trajectory isn't much different than if there was no measure in place. The same underlying fundamentals of disease transmission apply, and the result is that the community is left with all of the social and economic disruption but very little public health benefit.
You should perceive your entire family to function as a single individual unit; if one person puts themselves at risk, everyone in the unit is at risk.

Seemingly small social chains get large and complex with alarming speed.

If your son visits his girlfriend, and you later sneak over for coffee with a neighbor, your neighbor is now connected to the infected office worker that your son's girlfriend's mother shook hands with.

This sounds silly, it's not.

This is not a joke or a hypothetical.

We as epidemiologists see it borne out in the data time and time again and no one listens.

Conversely, any break in that chain breaks disease transmission along that chain.

In contrast to hand-washing and other personal measures, social distancing measures are not about individuals, they are about societies working in unison.

These measures also take a long time to see the results.
It is hard (even for me) to conceptualize how 'one quick little get together' can undermine the entire framework of a public health intervention, but it does. I promise you it does. I promise. I promise. I promise.

You can't cheat it. People are already itching to cheat on the social distancing precautions just a "little"- a play-date, a haircut, or picking up a needless item at the store, etc.

From a transmission dynamics standpoint, this very quickly recreates a highly connected social network that undermines all of the work the community has done so far.

Until we get a viable vaccine this unprecedented outbreak will not be overcome in grand, sweeping gesture, rather only by the collection of individual choices our community makes in the coming months.

This virus is unforgiving to unwise choices.

My goal in writing this is to prevent communities from getting ‘sucker-punched' by what the epidemiological community knows will happen in the coming weeks.

It will be easy to be drawn to the idea that what we are doing isn't working and become paralyzed by fear, or to 'cheat' a little bit in the coming weeks.

By knowing what to expect, and knowing the importance of maintaining these measures, my hope is to encourage continued community spirit, strategizing, and action to persevere in this time of uncertainty."

#covid19 #stayhome #socialdistancing #flattenthecurve #quarantine #solidarity #stopthespread

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Lawsuit swell as store owners in the US demand to open.

Their object to the strict measures now in place declaring them "anti constitutional".

Formally they are right. In the US the liberty of travel is a constitutionally protected right. Even inside states, any restriction of travel is a constitutional violation of the "Privileges or Immunities Clause" included in the Amendment XIV of the US Constitution. So, any restriction to free movement in the US is actually against the law.

However the government could argue that:

A) This kind of emergency is of a nature that the drafters of the Constitution couldn't predict. There was no knowledge, at the time, of the nature of infectious diseases (and still quarantining of ships was common and accepted).

B) Given the gravity of the situation, the measures will remain in place in the interest of public safety - until they can be debated in a more structured situation. Something like this never happened, so there has never been a case in point.

This problem can be easily summed up: your right to keep your shop open so to bring food on the table vs. putting you and others at risk of getting a very serious disease. It will be an interesting legal battle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

Anti-inflammatory Drugs May Exacerbate Coronavirus Infection
Mar 16, 2020

https://www.technologynetworks.com/drug-discovery/news/tackling-coronavirus-avoiding-anti-inflammatory-drugs-and-prioritizing-paracetamol-332109

"Over-the-counter anti-inflammatory drugs, such as ibuprofen, should be avoided if you have coronavirus symptoms because they could worsen the condition, warns French authorities.

The British Pharmacological Society has responded to concerns that the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), could exacerbate symptoms of the novel coronavirus infection, COVID-19.** [Updated, March 18, 2020]

The World Health Organization on March 18, 2020 released a statement via Twitter, that it "is aware of concerns on the use of ibuprofen for the treatment of fever for people with COVID-19."
"

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Lawsuit swell as store owners in the US demand to open.

Their object to the strict measures now in place declaring them "anti constitutional".

Formally they are right. In the US the liberty of travel is a constitutionally protected right. Even inside states, any restriction of travel is a constitutional violation of the "Privileges or Immunities Clause" included in the Amendment XIV of the US Constitution. So, any restriction to free movement in the US is actually against the law.

However the government could argue that:

A) This kind of emergency is of a nature that the drafters of the Constitution couldn't predict. There was no knowledge, at the time, of the nature of infectious diseases (and still quarantining of ships was common and accepted).

B) Given the gravity of the situation, the measures will remain in place in the interest of public safety - until they can be debated in a more structured situation. Something like this never happened, so there has never been a case in point.

This problem can be easily summed up: your right to keep your shop open so to bring food on the table vs. putting you and others at risk of getting a very serious disease. It will be an interesting legal battle.

It is also a violation of the interstate commerce clause since so many goods come from other states.

If the defence is that it is an unforeseen pandemic, pandemics have occurred before so that is no defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Lawsuit swell as store owners in the US demand to open.

Their object to the strict measures now in place declaring them "anti constitutional".

Formally they are right. In the US the liberty of travel is a constitutionally protected right. Even inside states, any restriction of travel is a constitutional violation of the "Privileges or Immunities Clause" included in the Amendment XIV of the US Constitution. So, any restriction to free movement in the US is actually against the law.

However the government could argue that:

A) This kind of emergency is of a nature that the drafters of the Constitution couldn't predict. There was no knowledge, at the time, of the nature of infectious diseases (and still quarantining of ships was common and accepted).

B) Given the gravity of the situation, the measures will remain in place in the interest of public safety - until they can be debated in a more structured situation. Something like this never happened, so there has never been a case in point.

This problem can be easily summed up: your right to keep your shop open so to bring food on the table vs. putting you and others at risk of getting a very serious disease. It will be an interesting legal battle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Lawsuit swell as store owners in the US demand to open.

Their object to the strict measures now in place declaring them "anti constitutional".

Formally they are right. In the US the liberty of travel is a constitutionally protected right. Even inside states, any restriction of travel is a constitutional violation of the "Privileges or Immunities Clause" included in the Amendment XIV of the US Constitution. So, any restriction to free movement in the US is actually against the law.

However the government could argue that:

A) This kind of emergency is of a nature that the drafters of the Constitution couldn't predict. There was no knowledge, at the time, of the nature of infectious diseases (and still quarantining of ships was common and accepted).

B) Given the gravity of the situation, the measures will remain in place in the interest of public safety - until they can be debated in a more structured situation. Something like this never happened, so there has never been a case in point.

This problem can be easily summed up: your right to keep your shop open so to bring food on the table vs. putting you and others at risk of getting a very serious disease. It will be an interesting legal battle.

Interesting stuff. From a non-US layman's point of view the Constitutional Amendment and the case law quoted in the Wiki article seems to be more about the transference of residence and accompanying legal rights from state to state rather than the day to day movements of citizens within or between states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

In emergencies, police power (that's a technical legal term) can override constitutional provisions, allowing emergency action. Thus, cities can level buildings during a major fire without first going through condemnations proceedings, etc. In the case of this pandemic, the courts are going to be inclined to support broad application of the police power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Lawsuit swell as store owners in the US demand to open.

Their object to the strict measures now in place declaring them "anti constitutional".

Formally they are right. In the US the liberty of travel is a constitutionally protected right. Even inside states, any restriction of travel is a constitutional violation of the "Privileges or Immunities Clause" included in the Amendment XIV of the US Constitution. So, any restriction to free movement in the US is actually against the law.

However the government could argue that:

A) This kind of emergency is of a nature that the drafters of the Constitution couldn't predict. There was no knowledge, at the time, of the nature of infectious diseases (and still quarantining of ships was common and accepted).

B) Given the gravity of the situation, the measures will remain in place in the interest of public safety - until they can be debated in a more structured situation. Something like this never happened, so there has never been a case in point.

This problem can be easily summed up: your right to keep your shop open so to bring food on the table vs. putting you and others at risk of getting a very serious disease. It will be an interesting legal battle.

Interesting stuff. From a non-US layman's point of view the Constitutional Amendment and the case law quoted in the Wiki article seems to be more about the transference of residence and accompanying legal rights from state to state rather than the day to day movements of citizens within or between states.

It guarantees this too, true, but I think that the key point is in this paragraph:

"The right of citizens to travel from one state to another was already considered to be protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the original, unamended Constitution.[[23] [OK, so there was no need for me to dig for this clause...] For example, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court listed a number of rights of citizens which "it cannot be supposed that [the founders] intended to secure" for free black people, one of which was "the right to enter any other State whenever they pleased."[24] Moreover, the right to travel has additional components, such as the right to take up residence and become a citizen of a different state."

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




I posted that a few weeks ago. It was also suggested to use acetaminophen which goes by a different name in Europe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




I posted that a few weeks ago. It was also suggested to use acetaminophen which goes by a different name in Europe.

In order to keep up with things this thread will have adopt a Homeric style.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Do you have to download the image and then upload it back up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Do you have to download the image and then upload it back up?

No, if you are using the image embed code button and punching in a location from elsewhere, it might be to do with crap tacked on the end of the image location address.

If there is a ? and a string of other stuff on the end after .jpg, or .png, try deleting it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I noted a week or two back that Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the U.S. Civil War. He didn't get permission. He didn't have legal authority. He simply did it. That allowed authorities and the military to arrest and detain people indefinitely. They had no right to a hearing or trial or charges. Lincoln was most concerned about pro-South democrats in Ohio and adjacent regions. He wasn't willing to tinker with things while the union was in danger. As the war went on, the rights were restored - a bit battered but there.

What worries me here (not much, but some) is that, in times of stress, things may snap. In the midst of this, I hope we don't have some kind of shooting of the Archduke Ferdinand somewhere in an anxious world. Or, as Michael Crichton put it, a "cascade effect."

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I noted a week or two back that Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the U.S. Civil War. He didn't get permission. He didn't have legal authority. He simply did it. That allowed authorities and the military to arrest and detain people indefinitely. They had no right to a hearing or trial or charges. Lincoln was most concerned about pro-South democrats in Ohio and adjacent regions. He wasn't willing to tinker with things while the union was in danger. As the war went on, the rights were restored - a bit battered but there.

What worries me here (not much, but some) is that, in times of stress, things may snap. In the midst of this, I hope we don't have some kind of shooting of the Archduke Ferdinand somewhere in an anxious world. Or, as Michael Crichton put it, a "cascade effect."

Now you are getting to what I was saying in a previous post - the virus has piled an intolerable stress on a world system already under stress and there are many spots that can erupt. Let me suggest a scenario:
- the virus gets into the refugee camps in Turkey or Greece and because of the lack of hygiene facilities, medical care, suitable housing, etc. it spreads very rapidly.
- desperate to flee the virus, camp residents riot and burst out into the surrounding countryside
- desperate to keep the virus from infecting their citizens, the host country uses brutal measures to stop the fleeing refugees, including live fire
- other nations having a religious or cultural link to the refugees demand that the host country stop the brutality. They do not.
- countries surrounding the incident mobilize ... it's August 1914.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Lawsuit swell as store owners in the US demand to open.

Their object to the strict measures now in place declaring them "anti constitutional".

Formally they are right. In the US the liberty of travel is a constitutionally protected right. Even inside states, any restriction of travel is a constitutional violation of the "Privileges or Immunities Clause" included in the Amendment XIV of the US Constitution. So, any restriction to free movement in the US is actually against the law.

However the government could argue that:

A) This kind of emergency is of a nature that the drafters of the Constitution couldn't predict. There was no knowledge, at the time, of the nature of infectious diseases (and still quarantining of ships was common and accepted).

B) Given the gravity of the situation, the measures will remain in place in the interest of public safety - until they can be debated in a more structured situation. Something like this never happened, so there has never been a case in point.

This problem can be easily summed up: your right to keep your shop open so to bring food on the table vs. putting you and others at risk of getting a very serious disease. It will be an interesting legal battle.

Interesting stuff. From a non-US layman's point of view the Constitutional Amendment and the case law quoted in the Wiki article seems to be more about the transference of residence and accompanying legal rights from state to state rather than the day to day movements of citizens within or between states.

It guarantees this too, true, but I think that the key point is in this paragraph:

"The right of citizens to travel from one state to another was already considered to be protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the original, unamended Constitution.[[23] [OK, so there was no need for me to dig for this clause...] For example, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court listed a number of rights of citizens which "it cannot be supposed that [the founders] intended to secure" for free black people, one of which was "the right to enter any other State whenever they pleased."[24] Moreover, the right to travel has additional components, such as the right to take up residence and become a citizen of a different state."

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Do you have to download the image and then upload it back up?

No, if you are using the image embed code button and punching in a location from elsewhere, it might be to do with crap tacked on the end of the image location address.

If there is a ? and a string of other stuff on the end after .jpg, or .png, try deleting it.

Ian R, what you describe is embedding a link to a picture on another site. His question was about embedding the picture, which is what was shown to him in screenshots.