All things Corona Virus

[OriZ 3,157]

9 hours ago, Dashinka said:

I agree that governments most likely do not have the power, but business owners can refuse service if you don’t dress appropriately with shoes, shirts, and in some cases masks.

100% any business owner can make their own rules. However with government involvement this kind of reminds me of seatbelts. I seem to remember you used to work in something traffic related so not sure how you feel about it, but I am totally against seatbelt laws. That is for several reasons:

 

1. Like with many other things, once government standardization is introduced, competitive innovation is eliminated. The first seatbelts weren't invented because government said so...they were invented to add another feature of safety(originally to improve the safety of race cars). They were then improved upon continually until government basically stepped in and said this is how it needs to be done. Now there's no incentive to keep improving them.

 

2. This is a clear example of you hurting yourself by doing/not doing something and not anyone else.

 

3. While there's no doubt they save more lives than they cost, there is also a risk to wearing them. For government to decide for you to take that risk, I feel is wrong.

 

The third point I also feel is the most relevant to masks as well. 

 

VT was actually one of the last states to make not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense. Up until a year or two ago, you couldn't be pulled over or fined for not wearing one, unless you were being fined for a different offense already. I wasn't happy when they changed that.

Edited May 20, 2020 by OriZ

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

47 minutes ago, OriZ said:

VT was actually one of the last states to make not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense. Up until a year or two ago, you couldn't be pulled over or fined for not wearing one, unless you were being fined for a different offense already. I wasn't happy when they changed that.

Is that what people in VT tell themselves when they re-elect the only Socialist in the US Senate? They conveniently forget all the other stuff that goes along with it?

[OriZ 3,157]

3 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Is that what people in VT tell themselves when they re-elect the only Socialist in the US Senate? They conveniently forget all the other stuff that goes along with it?

What?

[Dashinka 24,523]

8 hours ago, OriZ said:

100% any business owner can make their own rules. However with government involvement this kind of reminds me of seatbelts. I seem to remember you used to work in something traffic related so not sure how you feel about it, but I am totally against seatbelt laws. That is for several reasons:

 

1. Like with many other things, once government standardization is introduced, competitive innovation is eliminated. The first seatbelts weren't invented because government said so...they were invented to add another feature of safety(originally to improve the safety of race cars). They were then improved upon continually until government basically stepped in and said this is how it needs to be done. Now there's no incentive to keep improving them.

 

2. This is a clear example of you hurting yourself by doing/not doing something and not anyone else.

 

3. While there's no doubt they save more lives than they cost, there is also a risk to wearing them. For government to decide for you to take that risk, I feel is wrong.

 

The third point I also feel is the most relevant to masks as well. 

 

VT was actually one of the last states to make not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense. Up until a year or two ago, you couldn't be pulled over or fined for not wearing one, unless you were being fined for a different offense already. I wasn't happy when they changed that.

I am all against government overreach, and making laws that impose on people’s freedoms such as what we are seeing right now.  That being said people need to take responsibility for their choices such as not wearing a seatbelt, or not wearing a motorcycle helmet, and don’t expect the taxpayers to care for them when their choices go wrong.  As to seatbelts, it is simple physics and though I understand not everyone understands Newtonian physics, I for one would never get in a car without using a seatbelt regardless of any government mandate.

[OriZ 3,157]

3 hours ago, Dashinka said:

I am all against government overreach, and making laws that impose on people’s freedoms such as what we are seeing right now.  That being said people need to take responsibility for their choices such as not wearing a seatbelt, or not wearing a motorcycle helmet, and don’t expect the taxpayers to care for them when their choices go wrong.  As to seatbelts, it is simple physics and though I understand not everyone understands Newtonian physics, I for one would never get in a car without using a seatbelt regardless of any government mandate.

I wasn't making an argument for or against wearing seatbelts. I was making an argument against government telling you you have to wear a seatbelt.

[Dashinka 24,523]

2 hours ago, OriZ said:

I wasn't making an argument for or against wearing seatbelts. I was making an argument against government telling you you have to wear a seatbelt.

Yes, I know.  However, if those folks that make those choices expect the taxpayers to pay for their choice if something goes wrong, then there can be an argument for these laws.  Personally, I think people should be fully responsible for their choices so there should be no reason for the laws.

[Dashinka 24,523]

Coronavirus: Immune clue sparks treatment hope
 

It has been found those with the most severe form of the disease have extremely low numbers of an immune cell called a T-cell. 

T-cells clear infection from the body.

The clinical trial will evaluate if a drug called interleukin 7, known to boost T-cell numbers, can aid patients' recovery.

It involves scientists from the Francis Crick Institute, King's College London and Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital.

They have looked at immune cells in the blood of 60 Covid-19 patients and found an apparent crash in the numbers of T-cells. 

Prof Adrian Hayday from the Crick Institute said it was a "great surprise" to see what was happening with the immune cells.

"They're trying to protect us, but the virus seems to be doing something that's pulling the rug from under them, because their numbers have declined dramatically.

In a microlitre (0.001ml) drop of blood, normal healthy adults have between 2,000 and 4,000 T-cells, also called T lymphocytes. 

The Covid patients the team tested had between 200-1,200.
 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52754280

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Coronavirus: Immune clue sparks treatment hope
 

It has been found those with the most severe form of the disease have extremely low numbers of an immune cell called a T-cell. 

T-cells clear infection from the body.

The clinical trial will evaluate if a drug called interleukin 7, known to boost T-cell numbers, can aid patients' recovery.

It involves scientists from the Francis Crick Institute, King's College London and Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital.

They have looked at immune cells in the blood of 60 Covid-19 patients and found an apparent crash in the numbers of T-cells. 

Prof Adrian Hayday from the Crick Institute said it was a "great surprise" to see what was happening with the immune cells.

"They're trying to protect us, but the virus seems to be doing something that's pulling the rug from under them, because their numbers have declined dramatically.

In a microlitre (0.001ml) drop of blood, normal healthy adults have between 2,000 and 4,000 T-cells, also called T lymphocytes. 

The Covid patients the team tested had between 200-1,200.
 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52754280

 

   Yikes. There is also research on inhibiting IL-7. It's a potent pro inflammatory cytokine and one of the drivers of the hyper inflammatory response associated with sepsis and lung damage. They noted that increased levels of IL-7 correlate with poorer outcomes. These guys should get together and compare notes. One of these trials won't end well. 

 

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0328-z

 

   https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30628-0/fulltext

 

     

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

[Dashinka 24,523]

7 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

Our governor just extended her stay at home orders through June 12th.  The wife and I took a drive today to mid-Michigan, not many people appeared to be listening to her.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

[Steeleballz 7,550]

10 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

 

           Making all people wear masks is not discriminatory (or illegal). Refusing to bake cakes for people based on their race, gender or sexual orientation is. Sorry to ruin your meme, but that's pretty clear cut really. Hopefully that clears up any residual confusion over two completely dissimilar issues.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

Egads man, you are a subversive influence

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

16 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

           Making all people wear masks is not discriminatory (or illegal). Refusing to bake cakes for people based on their race, gender or sexual orientation is. Sorry to ruin your meme, but that's pretty clear cut really. Hopefully that clears up any residual confusion over two completely dissimilar issues.

strange, the supreme court ruled in favor of the baker.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

strange, the supreme court ruled in favor of the baker.

 

    You may want to review the actual ruling. The ruling did not actually consider the anti discrimination aspect of the case, and allowed that similar cases may be heard in the future. The SC ruled that the Colorado labor board's hostility towards Jack Philips' religion violated his rights.