Unintended consequences shouldn't be overlooked

[army judge]

I don't like abortion either and would like to see the number of abortions in this country significantly reduced. But when making the argument let's at least use accurate data.

I have don't like or dislike abortion.

I am against murder, however, no mater what cute, medical name we are told to call it.

 

[mightymoose]

Mightymoose, your math is off. Like way off.

You got me. I neglected to move my decimal two spaces.
0.35% infected, of which 5.85% have died.
Still not numbers I'm prepared to worry about.

Consider that if the numbers reported are inaccurate due to testing then it is reasonable to expect that the number of infected is higher with more recoveries, however deaths are the same, which means death rate from the infection is lower.

 

[mightymoose]

Second, those numbers are as low as they are because states that started to see spikes in cases took action early enough to keep the infection from spreading wildly.

There is no evidence to that. It is an assumption made because the action was taken, but there is no way to know what difference it made. As we have all seen, people have gone about their business anyway. Other than stores closing at different hours I have seen no significant changes in the area where I live.
Social distancing is a sham. People don't have the discipline for it.

 

[army judge]

Social distancing is a sham. People don't have the discipline for it.

As is wearing the cheap disposable or cloth masks.
Those things merely create a moisture filled environment for the wearer to better infect himself/herself.

Those masks make the wearer feel "safe", while helping keep others safe if the wearer is INFECTED.

If the masks are an effective preventative and protective aid for the wearer, doesn't it make sense to wear protective clothing, too?

If one wears a mask sans protective outer gear, one should change clothing BEFORE entering her automobile or home after venturing out into the contaminated, unsafe world outside of one's sanitized cave (aka - living space); lest one risks contaminating it's nest/cave.

If you are an infected individual, wearing a mask DOES inhibit your ability to infect others.

However, if you were infected ONLY with a common cold (not the virus), wearing a mask would help limit your ability to pass the cold to others.

Whether you are infected with a cold or the virus, IF you stayed in your cave or nest, would be far better for others and yourself than venturing out into the world wearing a mask HOPING not to infect others.

As @mightymoose said:

Social distancing is a sham. People don't have the discipline for it.

Not only do MOST people lack the discipline to stay six feet (or more away from others), prove it to yourself.

Watch how close people get to you when you stand in a supermarket aisle selecting the item you wish to purchase.

Sure, the person might be wearing a mask, but most people think that mask gives them immunity.

I wear a mask and disposable clothing over my clothing.
I also wear disposable shoe protectors, and decontaminate in my specially constructed decontamination shed BEFORE reentering my cave.

I also spray disinfectant throughout the inside of my vehicle before and after every use of said vehicle.

The mask is an illusion of safety without practicing additional safety protocols.

<==========================>

There are four key things everyone should know about the CDC's face mask recommendations:

1) A mask can be made from simple materials . It can be a basic covering that you make yourself using materials you find around the house—even a T-shirt. The CDC does not recommend using surgical masks or N95 respirators (devices worn to block airborne particles). These are critical supplies needed by health care workers who may be at high risk for exposure to COVID-19 infection.

2) A mask is meant to protect others, not yourself. Whether or not you are feeling sick or have COVID-19 symptoms, there is evidence that if you have the virus, you may be able to transmit it to others when you speak, cough, or sneeze.

3) The mask recommendation is not for everyone. The advice doesn't apply to children younger than 2, people who have trouble breathing, or anyone who is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.

4) Don't abandon other preventive measures. The president's Coronavirus Guidelines for America, 30 Days to Slow the Spread remains the cornerstone of the national effort to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus. These guidelines also urge Americans to work or study from home if they can, avoid gatherings of more than 10 people, and practice good hygiene that includes hand washing and not touching your face.

Wait—Now I Should Wear a Mask?

COVID-19: Surgical masks may help, but not as first line of defense

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Second, those numbers are as low as they are because states that started to see spikes in cases took action early enough to keep the infection from spreading wildly. Without that, they'd be a lot higher.

Wait a minute. Most of the states that took the least draconian measures or took them later don't show significantly higher rates today. My state is an example.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Wait a minute. Most of the states that took the least draconian measures or took them later don't show significantly higher rates today. My state is an example.

Then your state has not yet seen a spike in the number of cases it has. You better hope that it stays that way. Not all states have been as fortunate, including mine. But I suspect that should the cases start to pile up in your state and deaths go up significantly your state too will impose more restrictive measures.

 

[Tax Counsel]

You got me. I neglected to move my decimal two spaces.
0.35% infected, of which 5.85% have died.
Still not numbers I'm prepared to worry about.

I'm not surprised since you have determined that this is not a big deal no matter what the experts say about how the virus spreads. That fits into your desire not to be restricted. I totally get not wanting to be restricted. I don't like that either. But I understand the need for it and I understand that many (though perhaps not all) of the state and local actions taken to combat it are indeed both constitutional and legal. So I go along with the restrictions not just for my health, but for the health of those around me. You don't seem to be concerned about the potential you may have of infecting others, which to me is disappointing.

Consider that if the numbers reported are inaccurate due to testing then it is reasonable to expect that the number of infected is higher with more recoveries, however deaths are the same, which means death rate from the infection is lower.

That much I agree with. And it'd be great to finally get comprehensive data to better assess the risks we face. Right now the data we have is concerning. If it turns out that the disease is less deadly than medical experts think based on current data that's great for everyone. But we can't decide our policy based on the HOPE that the disease is actually much less deadly than it currently appears.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I am against murder, however, no mater what cute, medical name we are told to call it.

I understand the sentiment. But as a lawyer and judge you will get what I am about to say. Murder is a killing of another person that is ILLEGAL. Most abortions in this country are not illegal due to the protection of abortion by the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. So no, technically abortion is NOT murder because it is not illegal. I totally get that you believe it should be illegal and prosecuted as murder and for the most part I'd agree with that too. But I used the term abortion rather than murder because right now, like it or not, abortion is not defined as murder.

 

[army judge]

Most abortions in this country are not illegal due to the protection of abortion by the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

That decision was rendered by the same court that gave us these INFAMOUS decisions: Dred Scott v. Sanford (However, in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by granting citizenship to all those born in the United States, regardless of their race.), Brown v. Board of Education, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Marbury v. Madison; to name a few.

Most abortions in this country are not illegal due to the protection of abortion by the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. So no, technically abortion is NOT murder because it is not illegal.

Neither was slavery illegal, according to the Dred Scott decision, blacks were equivalent to chattel. Even though that decision didn't impact me (as I wasn't alive in 1857), it stains the allegedly august court you appear to admire. That court is populated by human beings. As a human being, I know that we make bad decisions regularly. Like the Roe v Wade case which allows babies to be slaughtered.

I also think the word "murder" and "homicide" are often used as stand-ins for each other.

Whatever YOU wish to call it, abortion extinguishes lives.

You are free to use abortion as a substitute for murder.

I prefer to use murder, infanticide, or homicide; as my "go to" words for abortion.

That said, my mother chose to carry my worthless carcass to term, and for that alone, I'll love her until the day I die.

 

[cbg]

 

[army judge]

"Those darn "wear a face covering" mandates forced ME to do it!", said unidentified Santee, CA shopper.



Growing outrage over Santee shopper wearing KKK-style hood

Leaders denounce Santee Vons customer wearing KKK hood

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Then your state has not yet seen a spike in the number of cases it has. You better hope that it stays that way. Not all states have been as fortunate, including mine. But I suspect that should the cases start to pile up in your state and deaths go up significantly your state too will impose more restrictive measures.

It is a little unscientific to be making such assumptions before there is any data in. But when we look for that let's not forget all states are going to see a rise in positives as testing increases.

I really think this is going to come down to, like most divisions in our country now and in the future, urban v. rural. Maybe we will review as a nation the idea of putting so many of our eggs in several big baskets.

My state is effective this week reducing restrictions. In fact, I get to get my first haircut in months at 10:30 this morning.

 

[adjusterjack]

I wasn't alive in 1857

You weren't?
LOL


(You walked right into that one.)

 

[army judge]

You weren't?
LOL


(You walked right into that one.)

I'm old, but two digits are all I need to report my age currently.

I can only hope to reach 163 years of age, or more.

With one condition, if course, I also retain my mental acuities.

 

[army judge]

This saga is becoming very interesting.

I see problems for those who are bullying the citizenry all in the name of public health, yet no one is doing anything to cure or remediate THE HOMELESS epidemic.

No one is addressing the increasing numbers of drug and alcohol abusers.

No one seems concerned about the transmission of STDs.

This contempt citation will soon be overturned, as will the $7,000 "fine".

BTW, this woman wanted to work, not eat slop outta the gubmint slop trough.

Felons and all other manner of miscreants are being released from incarceration, but gubmint bullies - wearing black robes - demand citizens apologize for working.

Behave yourself peasants, your betters command obedience.


Dallas salon owner jailed for reopening in violation of court order

 

[justblue]

I'm old, but two digits are all I need to report my age currently.

I can only hope to reach 163 years of age, or more.

With one condition, if course, I also retain my mental acuities.

But those are BIG DIGITS !!

 

[army judge]

Open your bar in Odessa, TX, the despots and impotent peepulls will "sic" SWAT on you.


Ector County SWAT team raids bar for protesting to reopen

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Were they protesting to reopening or protesting by reopening?

In either case, the use of SWAT was overkill.

If they were simply protesting but not reopening it was a violation of their constitutional rights.

 

[Tax Counsel]

That decision was rendered by the same court that gave us these INFAMOUS decisions: Dred Scott v. Sanford (However, in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by granting citizenship to all those born in the United States, regardless of their race.), Brown v. Board of Education, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Marbury v. Madison; to name a few.

The same court, different justices. And while you may distain the decisions in Brown and Marbury, I happen to believe that the decisions in both those cases were quite correct. Indeed, it was the Brown case that effectively put an end to the terrible result in Plessy that supported the idea of "separate but equal". So why you put both those cases on the list is puzzling to me as the one directly contradicts the result in the other.

Neither was slavery illegal, according to the Dred Scott decision, blacks were equivalent to chattel. Even though that decision didn't impact me (as I wasn't alive in 1857), it stains the allegedly august court you appear to admire.

I have not expressed any view of the Court as an institution nor my view of the various justices that have, over the course of our nation's long history sat on the bench of that court. I merely pointed out that which you seem here to acknowledge: murder means an illegal killing of another, and the fact is that right now abortion is legal and thus not murder.

I also think the word "murder" and "homicide" are often used as stand-ins for each other.

Many people think those two words the same. But they aren't. Homicide is simply the killing of another person. See Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Ed., which contains the simple definition "The killing of one person by another." Abortion would certainly be that. Murder is a homicide that is illegal. Exactly what defines murder is, of course, set out in the applicable federal and state criminal statutes.

Whatever YOU wish to call it, abortion extinguishes lives.

On that we agree.

 

[welkin]

That much I agree with. And it'd be great to finally get comprehensive data to better assess the risks we face. Right now the data we have is concerning. If it turns out that the disease is less deadly than medical experts think based on current data that's great for everyone. But we can't decide our policy based on the HOPE that the disease is actually much less deadly than it currently appears.