Will the Coming Season be Different Because of COVID-19?

[Mojouw]

We can agree on this.... but it aint just Trump.

Sure. But if the federal government actually did its job, then state and local government officials wouldn't have had a chance to make bad decisions.

I think about it this way. There are virus and public health experts at the federal, state, county, and very local level that all could be advising leadership on what is or is not a good idea. Just based on pay and prestige, the federal government officials would be the "best" (at least in a relative ranking) and the very local would the "worst". So kinda like pro ball and then the different levels of the minors. By the major leagues (the Feds) basically refusing to anything (aside from bailing out the rich); they forced the decision into the minor leagues, in some cases all the way down to low A ball.

Like Truman said, the buck stops here. So the whole breakdown lands at Trumps feet.

[steelreserve]

Everything I have read says that the rise in cases in various parts of the US started prior to or right at the start of the first protests. Health officials say this spike is likely related to the increased public interactions starting with the Memorial Day holiday weekend. Further, it will be over the next few days that the data is tallied and sifted to determine if there is a second spike or further rise related to protest activities.

I can't seem to find the article that I read that walked through all the timelines and what not.

As to what it all means and what should and should not be done; that is an individual opinion and all that. My only point was to post that there are some "lazy" narratives floating around that a ton of recent evidence says that the most up to date #'s are this and that. What anyone does with the information that this bug is 10x's more fatal for infected folks than it is for people infected with the flu is worth noting.

There's no rise, though. It's been a steady downward trend in new cases throughout the right-wing protests, throughout the state reopenings, and throughout the BLM protests. Spikes once a week as numbers come in on someone's predetermined reporting schedule, but each spike lower than the previous one.

As for the practical implications -- forget it, the lockdown is over, you guys called it off. No takebacks now.

You all can stay at home if you want; I'm through with it, and so is everyone else who is not hell-bent on being miserable. The chips will fall where they may, and no, I will not be seeing you in the ICU. The results are in. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[Mojouw]

There's no rise, though. It's been a steady downward trend in new cases throughout the right-wing protests, throughout the state reopenings, and throughout the BLM protests. Spikes once a week as numbers come in on someone's predetermined reporting schedule, but each spike lower than the previous one.

As for the practical implications -- forget it, the lockdown is over, you guys called it off. No takebacks now.

You all can stay at home if you want; I'm through with it, and so is everyone else who is not hell-bent on being miserable. The chips will fall where they may, and no, I will not be seeing you in the ICU. The results are in. Fool me twice, shame on me.

At this point, you are having a debate that I am not having. I was only pointing out that there is great deal of loudly stated nonsense information on how deadly this thing is.

I was not advocating for anything other than an abundance of caution about the levels of optimism that we all start to view the next several months. If you expect the best and plan for the worst, it gets pretty hard to take a ton of things straight in the teeth. In my narrow corner of the world, I think that schools and students currently have wildly unrealistic expectations and plans about what September through November will bring.

FWIW, I wasn't miserable during this at all. I was in a privileged minority whose income was not impacted during the bulk of it and was comfortable in the location I had to quarantine in. From this point on? No idea. Lots of economic uncertainty on my end and no clear path to more clarity. But that stuff doesn't make me miserable. Hell, it takes far more than hanging out in my house avoiding annoying people for 3 months to get to "misery". But I certainly understand that for many the recent months have been horrible and clearly no one wants to repeat that.

[silver & black]

Sure. But if the federal government actually did its job, then state and local government officials wouldn't have had a chance to make bad decisions.

I think about it this way. There are virus and public health experts at the federal, state, county, and very local level that all could be advising leadership on what is or is not a good idea. Just based on pay and prestige, the federal government officials would be the "best" (at least in a relative ranking) and the very local would the "worst". So kinda like pro ball and then the different levels of the minors. By the major leagues (the Feds) basically refusing to anything (aside from bailing out the rich); they forced the decision into the minor leagues, in some cases all the way down to low A ball.

Like Truman said, the buck stops here. So the whole breakdown lands at Trumps feet.

Aren't the States responsible for deciding what they do and don't do? Trump runs the country on the federal level. He oversees the country as a whole and is responsible for protecting America's interest on the world stage.The Governors run the States. Lay the blame where it belongs.

[Mojouw]

Aren't the States responsible for deciding what they do and don't do? Trump runs the country on the federal level. He oversees the country as a whole and is responsible for protecting America's interest on the world stage.The Governors run the States. Lay the blame where it belongs.

FEMA
HOMELAND
CDC
National Guard
Whatever that emergency powers act that could've been kicked in to direct national manufacturer and distribution.
Federal stockpiled that weren't mobilized.

All these are federal items/agencies that were not mobilized. Trump decided to devolve all decisions to the states. Didn't have to be that way. In fact the "playbook" says to not do that but since it was last revised under the Obama administration, he chucked it out.

[Mojouw]

So here's a random thought with zero blame hidden behind it. I've been dinking around on the internet and like no other comparable places have even an order of magnitude similar rates of deadly use of force by police. So why do we? We are literally the only 1st world location that has thousands of people killed in police interactions each year. Are we more violent by definition? If so why?

[steelreserve]

So here's a random thought with zero blame hidden behind it. I've been dinking around on the internet and like no other comparable places have even an order of magnitude similar rates of deadly use of force by police. So why do we? We are literally the only 1st world location that has thousands of people killed in police interactions each year. Are we more violent by definition? If so why?

The first part of it would be the prevalence of guns, almost without a doubt. The one thing that nearly all people killed by police have in common is that 90% or more of them were armed. This cuts across all racial and economic lines. That does not necessarily mean people are getting in shootouts with police because they are just more violent here. But because merely having a weapon in your possession when the police are trying to arrest you makes it exponentially more likely that you will get shot; you have a very narrow margin of error for ANYTHING that might look threatening.

Of course, one obvious reaction is "ban guns," but to me, that is not it. No one carries a gun by accident, so if you knowingly take a huge risk - I am not going to shed too many tears for the couple thousand (out of hundreds of millions of gun owners) that get themselves killed recklessly, and I am certainly not willing to give up my right to be armed because of the worst possible idiot.

The other component that I see is perhaps an unconventional theory, but one that I wish would be looked into. A very high percentage of those who get into violent encounters with the police have mental problems or drug problems, and the two of those go together quite often. What changed drastically in that regard over the past 30 or 40 years?

What happened is that there are effectively no long-term mental health facilities in the United States anymore, since they shut down all the insane asylums in the 1970s and 1980s. It was a well-meaning idea -- instead of "putting people away," try to rehabilitate as many as possible -- but it was a terrible case of wishful thinking to think that everyone could be rehabilitated. Even if, say, 90% of them could, that still leaves a huge number of people who are beyond help, and actually needed to be there.

Instead, what's left is a system of short-term or medium-term mental health wards, where people are sent for a few months and then released back out into the world, crossing your fingers that they have been "rehabilitated." Then for the people beyond help, the next step is an encounter with the police because they did something crazy, and we ask, "Why are these people out on the streets?!" Then possibly they spend a stretch in jail, then back to another rehabilitation program, then repeat the cycle.

Basically, they have replaced insane asylums with a rotation back and forth between mental wards and prison, with brief and very risky interludes where these incredibly volatile people are out in society at large. The only way they end up back in "treatment" is if they do something dangerous again - cross your fingers that nobody gets hurt and nothing important gets ruined. The only long-term mental facilities are the psychiatric units of prisons, if you seriously hurt or killed someone.

At any rate, that is likely where a lot of violence originates. Asylums may not be pleasant or desirable places, but when the alternative is that you have hundreds of thousands of people at a time wandering around in society with explosive mental illnesses, you understand why they existed.

[tom444]

.................................................. ........................snip...................... ......................................

-- but it was a terrible case of wishful thinking to think that everyone could be rehabilitated. Even if, say, 90% of them could, that still leaves a huge number of people who are beyond help, and actually needed to be there.

Instead, what's left is a system of short-term or medium-term mental health wards, where people are sent for a few months and then released back out into the world, crossing your fingers that they have been "rehabilitated." Then for the people beyond help, the next step is an encounter with the police because they did something crazy, and we ask, "Why are these people out on the streets?!" Then possibly they spend a stretch in jail, then back to another rehabilitation program, then repeat the cycle.

.................................................. ............................................snip.. .................................................. ..................


.

Rehabilitated is a very strange word to use when you're talking about people with long term physiological diseases like manic depression, schizophrenia, or even some type of personality disorder which I suspect you may be familiar with.

[Mojouw]

The first part of it would be the prevalence of guns, almost without a doubt. The one thing that nearly all people killed by police have in common is that 90% or more of them were armed. This cuts across all racial and economic lines. That does not necessarily mean people are getting in shootouts with police because they are just more violent here. But because merely having a weapon in your possession when the police are trying to arrest you makes it exponentially more likely that you will get shot; you have a very narrow margin of error for ANYTHING that might look threatening.

Of course, one obvious reaction is "ban guns," but to me, that is not it. No one carries a gun by accident, so if you knowingly take a huge risk - I am not going to shed too many tears for the couple thousand (out of hundreds of millions of gun owners) that get themselves killed recklessly, and I am certainly not willing to give up my right to be armed because of the worst possible idiot.

The other component that I see is perhaps an unconventional theory, but one that I wish would be looked into. A very high percentage of those who get into violent encounters with the police have mental problems or drug problems, and the two of those go together quite often. What changed drastically in that regard over the past 30 or 40 years?

What happened is that there are effectively no long-term mental health facilities in the United States anymore, since they shut down all the insane asylums in the 1970s and 1980s. It was a well-meaning idea -- instead of "putting people away," try to rehabilitate as many as possible -- but it was a terrible case of wishful thinking to think that everyone could be rehabilitated. Even if, say, 90% of them could, that still leaves a huge number of people who are beyond help, and actually needed to be there.

Instead, what's left is a system of short-term or medium-term mental health wards, where people are sent for a few months and then released back out into the world, crossing your fingers that they have been "rehabilitated." Then for the people beyond help, the next step is an encounter with the police because they did something crazy, and we ask, "Why are these people out on the streets?!" Then possibly they spend a stretch in jail, then back to another rehabilitation program, then repeat the cycle.

Basically, they have replaced insane asylums with a rotation back and forth between mental wards and prison, with brief and very risky interludes where these incredibly volatile people are out in society at large. The only way they end up back in "treatment" is if they do something dangerous again - cross your fingers that nobody gets hurt and nothing important gets ruined. The only long-term mental facilities are the psychiatric units of prisons, if you seriously hurt or killed someone.

At any rate, that is likely where a lot of violence originates. Asylums may not be pleasant or desirable places, but when the alternative is that you have hundreds of thousands of people at a time wandering around in society with explosive mental illnesses, you understand why they existed.

I wonder how many of the 1,000+ (that is the number I keep seeing repeated) that die via police encounters each year are mentally ill? How many are armed? I haven't found a detailed breakdown like that yet. It would be interesting to know -- like is it a fear of armed criminals by police or is it actually encountering armed criminals?

This indicates that either the presence or the perceived presence of a firearm is a massive variable and that mental health is not https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ but that is only one source and not that detailed of an analysis.

Another interesting bit about the mentally ill, I think it was Reagan that basically shuttered mental health facilities -- https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/d...elessness-here and https://www.motherjones.com/politics...ealth-america/

[43Hitman]

I wonder how many of the 1,000+ (that is the number I keep seeing repeated) that die via police encounters each year are mentally ill? How many are armed? I haven't found a detailed breakdown like that yet. It would be interesting to know -- like is it a fear of armed criminals by police or is it actually encountering armed criminals?

This indicates that either the presence or the perceived presence of a firearm is a massive variable and that mental health is not https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ but that is only one source and not that detailed of an analysis.

Another interesting bit about the mentally ill, I think it was Reagan that basically shuttered mental health facilities -- https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/d...elessness-here and https://www.motherjones.com/politics...ealth-america/

Started before Reagan. He just got the blame. Here is a lengthy article about it from the archives.

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/s...nts-began.html

THE policy that led to the release of most of the nation's mentally ill patients from the hospital to the community is now widely regarded as a major failure. Sweeping critiques of the policy, notably the recent report of the American Psychiatric Association, have spread the blame everywhere, faulting politicians, civil libertarian lawyers and psychiatrists.
But who, specifically, played some of the more important roles in the formation of this ill-fated policy? What motivated these influential people and what lessons are to be learned?
A detailed picture has emerged from a series of interviews and a review of public records, research reports and institutional recommendations. The picture is one of cost-conscious policy makers, who were quick to buy optimistic projections that were, in some instances, buttressed by misinformation and by a willingness to suspend skepticism.
Many of the psychiatrists involved as practitioners and policy makers in the 1950's and 1960's said in the interviews that heavy responsibility lay on a sometimes neglected aspect of the problem: the overreliance on drugs to do the work of society.


Here's another article from 2018:
https://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/20...-health-myths/

[Mojouw]

Started before Reagan. He just got the blame. Here is a lengthy article about it from the archives.

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/s...nts-began.html

THE policy that led to the release of most of the nation's mentally ill patients from the hospital to the community is now widely regarded as a major failure. Sweeping critiques of the policy, notably the recent report of the American Psychiatric Association, have spread the blame everywhere, faulting politicians, civil libertarian lawyers and psychiatrists.
But who, specifically, played some of the more important roles in the formation of this ill-fated policy? What motivated these influential people and what lessons are to be learned?
A detailed picture has emerged from a series of interviews and a review of public records, research reports and institutional recommendations. The picture is one of cost-conscious policy makers, who were quick to buy optimistic projections that were, in some instances, buttressed by misinformation and by a willingness to suspend skepticism.
Many of the psychiatrists involved as practitioners and policy makers in the 1950's and 1960's said in the interviews that heavy responsibility lay on a sometimes neglected aspect of the problem: the overreliance on drugs to do the work of society.


Here's another article from 2018:
https://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/20...-health-myths/

interesting. So he got the blame because he kinda sunk the final nail, I guess.

But that seems like a track record of mistakes and bad ideas over decades.

Although, it fits with the whole post war ethos that science and chemistry would eventually fix all medical issues. Whoops.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

FWIW, I wasn't miserable during this at all. I was in a privileged minority whose income was not impacted during the bulk of it and was comfortable in the location I had to quarantine in. From this point on? No idea. Lots of economic uncertainty on my end and no clear path to more clarity. But that stuff doesn't make me miserable. Hell, it takes far more than hanging out in my house avoiding annoying people for 3 months to get to "misery". But I certainly understand that for many the recent months have been horrible and clearly no one wants to repeat that.

Yeah, I'm of similar mindset that limiting my travel for 3 months is nowhere near misery. I was still working from home and around family, neighbors, wifi, etc. I feel grateful for the situation I am in and understand lots more people out there have real hardships, but its not the need to go to a restaurant, bar, gym or barber that is gonna push me to misery. I lost a grandfather in WWII and the way he likely died is real misery, as is the grief my grandmother and family likely felt. Its a long way off from running out of things to watch on Netflix.

[Mach1]

Rehabilitated is a very strange word to use when you're talking about people with long term physiological diseases like manic depression, schizophrenia, or even some type of personality disorder which I suspect you may be familiar with.

You mean like being a troll?

[tom444]

You mean like being a troll?

You live in Idaho and pretend to be a Steeler fan. Who's the troll?

[Mach1]

You live in Idaho and pretend to be a Steeler fan. Who's the troll?

Well it is Steeler Nation not cheater nation.

[steelreserve]

Well it is Steeler Nation not cheater nation.

Shit, this guy lives in Boston and pretends to be a Patriots fan.

[T&B fan]

Well it is Steeler Nation not cheater nation.

ooh , that hurt

[tom444]

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

This signaled the start of the Jared Stidham era. Gonna be fun.

[tom444]

This signaled the start of the Jared Stidham era. Gonna be fun.

Of course that had nothing to do with Stidham. I actually give Vrabel props for that. Very smart.


Go Jared!!!

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Go Jared!!!

Is that a picture of him? I honestly watched him play several times on TV in college, but could not pick him out of a police lineup. All I know is he is apparently an elite white gun owner and likes to throw INT's.

[tom444]

]Is that a picture of him?[/B] I honestly watched him play several times on TV in college, but could not pick him out of a police lineup. All I know is he is apparently an elite white gun owner and likes to throw INT's.

I couldn't tell you. It was on google.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

So the FDA pulled even the emergency use indication for the malaria drug in the treatment of COVID19.

But otherwhere in the pharmaceutical world it appears early reports are that the prescription steroid dexamethasone may help reduce death of those with severe cases of COVID.

Hydroxychloroquine: US revokes emergency approval of malaria drug for Covid-19
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-authorization

[tom444]

So the FDA pulled even the emergency use indication for the malaria drug in the treatment of COVID19.

But otherwhere in the pharmaceutical world it appears early reports are that the prescription steroid dexamethasone may help reduce death of those with severe cases of COVID.

Hydroxychloroquine: US revokes emergency approval of malaria drug for Covid-19
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-authorization

I just heard that.

[Mojouw]

Anyone heard anymore about the line of research that was indicating that the respiratory system was just a point of entry and the virus really wanted to attack the vascular system? I feel like there was a ton of reports on that and then crickets. I know I could just Google it, but thought some on here might just already know.

[Hawkman]

A friend of mine who lives in NYC was saved by some placenta treatment that was experimental in Israel. He was in an induced coma for ten days. You can Google it.

[El-Gonzo Jackson]

Anyone heard anymore about the line of research that was indicating that the respiratory system was just a point of entry and the virus really wanted to attack the vascular system? I feel like there was a ton of reports on that and then crickets. I know I could just Google it, but thought some on here might just already know.

I work in the medical field and just some observational info suggests it has a vascular component to it. I do know that there are patients with COVID that develop endocarditis (infection in heart valve), renal failure requiring dialysis and the inflammation in kids similar to Kawasaki disease. Those seem to suggest that the respiratory system may be point of entry, but the virus spreads vascular.

[Mojouw]

I work in the medical field and just some observational info suggests it has a vascular component to it. I do know that there are patients with COVID that develop endocarditis (infection in heart valve), renal failure requiring dialysis and the inflammation in kids similar to Kawasaki disease. Those seem to suggest that the respiratory system may be point of entry, but the virus spreads vascular.

thanks.

This is the most recent I could find: https://www.dicardiology.com/article...mpact-covid-19

[silver & black]

Anyone heard anymore about the line of research that was indicating that the respiratory system was just a point of entry and the virus really wanted to attack the vascular system? I feel like there was a ton of reports on that and then crickets. I know I could just Google it, but thought some on here might just already know.

No. I've been waiting for more on this also. It makes sense seeing as how ventilators didn't seem to work very well. This whole CV-19 thing seems to be an enigma wrapped in a riddle.

[steelreserve]

Anyone heard anymore about the line of research that was indicating that the respiratory system was just a point of entry and the virus really wanted to attack the vascular system? I feel like there was a ton of reports on that and then crickets. I know I could just Google it, but thought some on here might just already know.

I posted an article about that a couple pages back in this same thread. Sounded like it was gaining legitimacy, then everything switched to 24/7 race war. Now that that's trailing off in the news, the virus is apparently supposed to be back on again, so maybe that theory will get some attention.

However, since it is one of the few cases in which actual scientific progress has apparently been made, and people mostly seem interested in calling each other stupid, I have my doubts.