Those party kids are hardcore
Those party kids are hardcore
Those maintenance men at 2:16 weren't social distancing.
lost in melb. (09-08-2020)
By Michael Barone - New York Post
Were lockdowns a mistake? To that nagging question, the answer increasingly seems to be yes.
Certainly, they were a novelty. As novelist Lionel Shriver writes, “We’ve never before responded to a contagion by closing down whole countries.” As I’ve noted, the 1957-58 Asian flu killed between 70,000 and 116,000 Americans, between 0.04 percent and 0.07 percent of the nation’s population. The 1968-70 Hong Kong flu killed about 100,000, 0.05 percent of the population.
The US coronavirus death toll of 186,000 is 0.055 percent of the current population. It will go higher, but it’s about the same magnitude as those two flus, and it has been less deadly to those under 65 than the flus were. Yet there were no statewide lockdowns; no massive school closings; no closings of office buildings and factories, restaurants and museums. No one considered shutting down Woodstock.
Why are attitudes so different today? Perhaps we have greater confidence in government’s effectiveness. If public policy can affect climate change, it can stamp out a virus.
Plus, we’re much more risk-averse. Children aren’t allowed to walk to school; jungle gyms have vanished from playgrounds; college students are shielded from microaggressions. We have a “safetyism mindset,” as Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff write in “The Coddling of the American Mind,” under which “many aspects of students’ lives needed to be carefully regulated by adults.”
So the news of the COVID-19 virus killing dozens and overloading hospitals in Bergamo, Italy, triggered a flight to safety and restriction. Many Americans stopped going to restaurants and shops even before the lockdowns were ordered in March and April. The exaggerated projections of some epidemiologists, with a professional interest in forecasting pandemics, triggered demands that governments act.
The legitimate fears that hospitals would be overwhelmed apparently explain the (in retrospect, deadly) orders of the governors of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan requiring elderly care facilities to admit COVID-infected patients. And the original purpose to “flatten the curve” segued into “stamp out the virus.”
But the apparent success of South Korea and island nations — Taiwan, Singapore, New Zealand — in doing so could never be replicated in the continental, globalized United States.
Governors imposing continued lockdowns claimed to be “following the science.” But only in one dimension: reducing the immediate number of COVID-19 cases. The lockdowns also prevented cancer screenings, heart-attack treatment and substance-abuse counseling, the absence of which resulted in a large but hard-to-estimate number of deaths. What Haidt and Lukianoff call “vindictive protectiveness” turned out to be not very protective.
Examples include shaming beachgoers though outdoor virus spread is minimal; extending school shutdowns though few children get or transmit the infection; closing down gardening aisles in superstores; and barring church services while blessing inevitably noisy and crowded demonstrations for politically favored causes.
The new thinking on lockdowns, as Greg Ip reported in the Wall Street Journal last week, is that “they’re overly blunt and costly.” That supports President Trump’s mid-April statement that “A prolonged lockdown combined with a forced economic depression would inflict an immense and wide-ranging toll on public health.”
For many, that economic damage has been of Great Depression proportions. Restaurants and small businesses have been closed forever, even before the last three months of “mostly peaceful” urban rioting. Losses have been concentrated on those with low income and little wealth, while lockdowns have added tens of billions to the net worth of Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.
The anti-lockdown blogger (and former New York Times reporter) Alex Berenson makes a powerful case that lockdowns delayed, rather than prevented, infections.
There are old lessons here. Governments can sometimes channel but never entirely control nature. There is no way to entirely eliminate risk. Attempts to reduce one risk may increase others. Amid uncertainty, people make mistakes. Like, maybe, the lockdowns.
huh... Who'd a thought.
FBD (09-08-2020), Teh One Who Knocks (09-08-2020)
Fkn Cheeto..!!
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/ci...t-wearing-mask
Citizens Stop Spanish Police From Arresting Woman For Not Wearing Mask
“In Spain, police tried to arrest a woman for not wearing a mask. Dozens of people took off their masks and then helped the woman,” states the description accompanying the video.
That's because the odds of being killed by a BLM protester are higher than dying of covid at a Trump rally.
KevinD (09-11-2020), Muddy (09-15-2020), Pony (09-13-2020), Teh One Who Knocks (09-11-2020)
By Joseph Curl - The Daily Wire
COVID-19 is going high fashion.
The luxury retailer Louis Vuitton (LV) is launching a new plastic face shield that will retail for $961, the New York Post reports. The shield will go on sale Oct. 30 at select LV locations as part of the French brand’s 2021 Cruise Collection.
In a statement, Louis Vuitton called the shield “an eye-catching headpiece, both stylish and protective.”
CNN offered this description: “The ‘eye-catching’ LV Shield transitions from clear to dark in sunlight, protecting wearers from the sun. It also features golden studs engraved with Louis Vuitton’s brand name and an elastic, monogrammed headband. The visor can also be worn upward as a classic peaked cap, according to the label.”
LV isn’t the only retailer offering high-end COVID-19 wear. Burberry recently announced a new line of face masks that will sell for about $115, and Off-White also has masks that run about $100, TMZ reports. Balenciaga and Dolce & Gabbana, too, will offer face coverings in similar price ranges.
But the reviews aren’t so good.
“This is a ridiculously high-priced logo-covered item for rich people,” writes Shannon Palus in a Slate piece. “A supercheap face shield would probably protect you just as well from floaty bits of coronavirus as this fancy one.”
And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) still cautions on face shields that “effectiveness is unknown at this time.” Face masks are preferable, the CDC notes.
From the CDC website:
A face shield is primarily used for eye protection for the person wearing it. At this time, it is not known what level of protection a face shield provides to people nearby from the spray of respiratory droplets from the wearer. There is currently not enough evidence to support the effectiveness of face shields for source control. Therefore, CDC does not currently recommend use of face shields as a substitute for masks.
However, wearing a mask may not be feasible in every situation for some people for example, people who are deaf or hard of hearing—or those who care for or interact with a person who is hearing impaired. Here are some considerations for individuals who must wear a face shield instead of a mask: Although evidence on face shields is limited, the available data suggest that the following face shields may provide better source control than others:
- Face shields that wrap around the sides of the wearer’s face and extend below the chin.
- Hooded face shields.
Face shield wearers should wash their hands before and after removing the face shield and avoid touching their eyes, nose and mouth when removing it. Disposable face shields should only be worn for a single use and disposed of according to manufacturer instructions. Reusable face shields should be cleaned and disinfected after each use according to manufacturer instructions or by following CDC face shield cleaning instructions.
Neck gaiters are also not effective, experts say. A group of researchers from Duke University recently conducted a study on the effectiveness of masks, ranging from hospital-grade N95 respirators to simple bandanas. “Of the 14 masks and other coverings tested, the study found that some easily accessible cotton cloth masks are about as effective as standard surgical masks, while popular alternatives such as neck gaiters made of thin, stretchy material may be worse than not wearing a mask at all,” The Washington Post reported.
PorkChopSandwiches (09-15-2020)