Prepping?

[Coreece 190]

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

If he didn't do any travel bans at all, it would still be around 220,000 today.

  Not sure if you were here yet, but back in April people here were bitchin about a handful of christians and how they were a just bunch of irresponsible selfish morons putting us all at risk for holding services and how they should just be locked in the church, denied medical treatment, fed through a mail slot and left to die if their God didn't heal them etc, etc, etc. 

Are you're really saying that it would've made no difference if trump didn't do the travel ban, that it would've made no difference if people continued to fly from all over the world to all 50 states without quarantining, that they could just come and go as they please to their unnecessary business meetings and then flood the hotels. . .maybe stop by and feed the Christians if they have some free time - a slab of ribs should fit nicely.

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

The real difference is probably way lower than 0.5%. That's pretty much the definition of completely useless.

Not when that number translates to thousands of deaths and tens of thousands more infected or hospitalized because of non-citizens that would've had no business being here in the midst of an outbreak.

Just curious, would universal healthcare over there foot the bill for Europeans that were treated in the US?

[ScottishJohn 25]

51 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Just curious, would universal healthcare over there foot the bill for Europeans that were treated in the US?

In the UK you would usually  take out some sort of travel insurance to cover you for medical emergencies in the USA (or other parts of the world).  As far as I know you are not forced to take out travel insurance before travelling to the USA but it is recommended.

In Europe you would get an E111 card that allows people in the European union to receive reciprocal health care  in other EU countries although there could be some costs depending on the country but these would be minimal.

John

[olofscience 480]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Are you're really saying that it would've made no difference if trump didn't do the travel ban, that it would've made no difference if people continued to fly from all over the world to all 50 states without quarantining, that they could just come and go as they please to their unnecessary business meetings and then flood the hotels.

Yes, I'm actually saying that.

After the cat was out of the bag with the virus entering through the useless travel bans, it made practically zero difference.

What made the difference afterwards was the lockdowns. Contact tracing is also possible in the earliest stages, but after about 2 weeks it will be overwhelmed if growth is unchecked.

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Not when that number translates to thousands of deaths and tens of thousands more infected or hospitalized because of non-citizens that would've had no business being here in the midst of an outbreak.

That number would be around 6,000 people with my very best case scenario estimate (2.7%). More likely it's only a few hundred difference, and you already get that many dying in a single day.

It's not intuitive, I know. It's hard to believe. But maths is not always intuitive. Even the Monty Hall problem still gets me.

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Just curious, would universal healthcare over there foot the bill for Europeans that were treated in the US?

What ScottishJohn said. Within the EU the countries arrange to have an exchange system to cover costs, the cost to the end user citizen will vary but is minimal.

[kallend 2,026]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

 

What ScottishJohn said. Within the EU the countries arrange to have an exchange system to cover costs, the cost to the end user citizen will vary but is minimal.

My daughter in law (US citizen) developed pneumonia during a trip to Paris in 2015.  Went to an ER for treatment expecting to pay a huge bill.  Quite surprised that the cost was minimal (I don't recall the exact amount but it was less than $100)

[gowlerk 2,190]

14 minutes ago, kallend said:

My daughter in law (US citizen) developed pneumonia during a trip to Paris in 2015.  Went to an ER for treatment expecting to pay a huge bill.  Quite surprised that the cost was minimal (I don't recall the exact amount but it was less than $100)

Occasionally a Canadian will be stupid enough to go on a winter jumping trip in the US without first buying travel health insurance. I will not ever contribute to the Go Fund Me for them if they get hurt. Because it is nearly inevitable that they are going to have to declare bankruptcy anyway. (mostly only very young people with no assets yet)

[jakee 1,489]

16 hours ago, Coreece said:

  Ya, as a general rule I'm not ok with shutting out our own and/or just leaving them for dead.   

Where do you think they would have been left? I just read a story about a Japanese tourist stuck in Peru since March who they just gave special dispensation to visit Machu Picchu. Sure, it sucks for him to be there but spoiler alert - he's still alive.

Quote

Moving forward, if travelers were notified that they'd be subject to a mandatory quarantine during another pandemic, it might help prepare them to respond more favorably.

No-one reads the small print. People will bitch and moan just as hard the next time around no matter what you warn them of beforehand.

[billvon 2,990]

20 hours ago, Coreece said:

What exactly do you think he fooled me into doing, and how does your copy/paste illustrate that?

You (and many Trump supporters) keep saying over and over that he implemented a travel ban that saved lives.  He closed the borders and kept COVID-19 at bay.

You: "We're talking about the travel ban in March"

Trump: "But we closed those borders very early, against the advice of a lot of professionals, and we turned out to be right. I took a lot of heat for that." 

Trump: We “closed down the borders to China and to other areas that are very badly affected"

Trump: “That was about the same time that I closed it down.  We closed it down to all of China, we closed it down to all of Europe"

There was no travel ban.  The borders were not closed.  Most people who wanted to travel from China still could (and did.)  There was no screening at the airports for weeks.  It did not slow down infection, because the people who were bringing the infection into the US were US citizens.

He fooled you into thinking that he had a travel ban in place, that travel was stopped, the borders were closed, and that that slowed down infection rates.

[brenthutch 444]

16 hours ago, jakee said:

But if this discussion was happening about whether there should be a popular vote or an EC you'd be arguing in favour of the popular vote?

No, I don’t think our country should be run via plebiscite.

[Coreece 190]

10 minutes ago, billvon said:

You keep saying over and over that he implemented a travel ban that saved lives.

On March 11 after it was labeled a pandemic, Trump called for travel restrictions and quarantining.  We both agree with those concepts in general.  Just because officials didn't give a shit or were to incompetent to implement those measures as effectively as they woulda, shoulda, coulda  doesn't mean that we don't still agree with those measures in general or that he somehow fooled both of us.

The travel restrictions did save lives, albeit not even remotely as many had we started earlier.  By Olof's gorilla math he says it was about 6000 lives, but whether it was 1000, 6000 or 20000 there would've still been tens of thousands of other non-fatal infections prevented.  Now you guys can say that the addition of those numbers isn't significant or "almost indistinguishable," but those numbers represent people, and they are significant, and saving those lives wasn't "completely useless."

[Coreece 190]

7 hours ago, olofscience said:

9 hours ago, Coreece said:

Are you're really saying that it would've made no difference if trump didn't do the travel ban, that it would've made no difference if people continued to fly from all over the world to all 50 states without quarantining, that they could just come and go as they please to their unnecessary business meetings and then flood the hotels.

Yes, I'm actually saying that.

 When we were talking about this back in May you didn't even know that Trump called for travel restrictions and quarantining back in March.  When I provided the source per your request, you said oh "I didn't see it, but if I did there would be no complaints from me."

Then in that same post you said you thought March 13 was a little late, but "never late than never," which is exactly what I just said several posts ago.

 

And then earlier in this thread you said that "they weren't screened, they weren't quarantined, and here we are, 211,000 deaths later" as if they were one's driving the outbreak.  Now you're saying that none of that would've even made a difference anyway.

 

7 hours ago, olofscience said:

What made the difference afterwards was the lockdowns.

Ok which is why it's odd that at a time when many of us were pushing for social distancing, lockdowns and quarantining, you're now saying that it wouldn't have mattered if we just let non-citizens in from around world, coming and going to their business meetings, hotels and anywhere else without any quarantining whatsoever.

Talk about not thinking things through.

There were people here who felt the same way back then as you do now, but they already admitted that they would've been wrong about leaving travel unrestricted.  I know you're new here, but try to keep up with the rest of the group please.

Edited October 13, 2020 by Coreece

[gowlerk 2,190]

Covid most likely got a start in the US at the CES convention in Vegas in January. Well attended by people from around the world including of course Chinese tech industry reps. I'm sure more cases arrived after that as well, but the seed was likely already planted.

[olofscience 480]

17 minutes ago, Coreece said:

you're now saying that it wouldn't have mattered if we just let non-citizens in from around world, coming and going to their business meetings, hotels and anywhere else without any quarantining whatsoever.

Talk about not thinking things through.

Well, that was before I did my calculations. I told you, math is not intuitive.

My intuition is like yours so I said that at the time. But when I actually did calculations a few days ago it turned out that number was pretty small. I didn't believe it at first (and thought my logarithms were getting rusty) so I checked it several times.

Anyway - for my original assertion that you fell for Trump's BS, since I don't really have time to search your post history I'll concede and retract that statement. I must have mistaken you for Turtlespeed as you usually take his side. Now he's one to fall for pretty much everything.

[billvon 2,990]

23 minutes ago, Coreece said:

On March 11 after it was labeled a pandemic, Trump called for travel restrictions and quarantining.  We both agree with those concepts in general.  Just because officials didn't give a shit or were to incompetent to implement those measures as effectively as they woulda, shoulda, coulda  doesn't mean that we don't still agree with those measures in general or that he somehow fooled both of us.

But he didn't call for an effective ban, only to be foiled by some anonymous, probably liberal, incompetent people.  He called for an ineffective non-ban, and even that was made worse by the people he appointed.

However if you are now changing from talking about Trump's "travel ban" to talking about "Trump's attempt to reduce travel that failed" then I will agree with your terminology.

[mistercwood 287]

54 minutes ago, Coreece said:

you're now saying that it wouldn't have mattered if we just let non-citizens in from around world, coming and going to their business meetings, hotels and anywhere else without any quarantining whatsoever.

Talk about not thinking things through.

That's not what he's said at all.

Scenario A: Either a full travel ban from hotspots or mandatory quarantine for all incoming travelers. Everyone gets locked down regardless of citizenship.

Scenario B: No travel restrictions, no quarantine.

Scenario C: Let citizens return from hotspots freely, with no quarantining or tracing. Non-citizens blocked from travel, but this only reduces incoming numbers by say, 30%.

 

Trump said he called for Scenario A. This was bullshit. What actually happened was C.

B & C are functionally identical for the purposes of controlling spread. YES there are slight differences in the end case figures, no one is disputing that. What they are saying is that A was the method that would actually be a control. It never happened.

[wmw999 2,444]

To clarify scenario C, there was some attempt to get even US citizens to self-quarantine. I know this because my cousin actually did so, but no one checked, after telling her to.

Wendy P.

[NewGuy2005 53]

On 10/12/2020 at 3:59 PM, kallend said:

Where exactly is this manor located?  Is there a Lord of the Manor?

Yes.  His name is Lord Grantham.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

24 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

To clarify scenario C, there was some attempt to get even US citizens to self-quarantine. I know this because my cousin actually did so, but no one checked, after telling her to.

Wendy P.

Maybe so, but the process for coming into the country was incredibly stupid.

Long lines in tight spaces. Anyone who was contagious probably infected a bunch of others while waiting to clear customs. 

One thing that's being missed is the simple fact that we knew so little back then (and still don't know a whole lot).
The comparison with the flu back in February wasn't totally out of line. 
We know better now. 

Part of the whole 'scientific process' is that wrong assumptions will always be made. 
Learning from the mistakes and moving forward as knowledge and understaning improves is typical. 

Those who don't understand that will be the ones who go back to those old claims and ignore the fact that we know more now than we used to.

However, we DID know back then that it was a communicable disease. And that travel bans and quarantines would be effective no matter how contagious or dangerous it was.

But Trump totally dropped the ball. 
As I noted earlier, the 'ban' from China was half-assed. 
But travel from Europe (especially Italy & Switzerland) wasn't even 'half-assed' banned...

While the disease was clearly spreading.

There's some evidence (based on the genetics of the virus) that most of the cases in New York city came from Europe, not China. 

[Coreece 190]

57 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

you're now saying that it wouldn't have mattered if we just let non-citizens in from around world, coming and going to their business meetings, hotels and anywhere else without any quarantining whatsoever.

Talk about not thinking things through.

That's not what he's said at all.

He said in retrospect that he would've been ok with unrestricted travel because at that point it theoretically wouldn't have really mattered.  I was just describing what that would've entailed.  In the subsequent post below, he admitted that is what he was saying:

9 hours ago, olofscience said:

11 hours ago, Coreece said:

Are you're really saying that it would've made no difference if trump didn't do the travel ban, that it would've made no difference if people continued to fly from all over the world to all 50 states without quarantining, that they could just come and go as they please to their unnecessary business meetings and then flood the hotels.

Yes, I'm actually saying that.

 

[jakee 1,489]

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No, I don’t think our country should be run via plebiscite.

Then it's not true for you to say you prefer the EC because it's in the constitution. 

[brenthutch 444]

6 hours ago, jakee said:

Then it's not true for you to say you prefer the EC because it's in the constitution. 

And rule via plebiscite is not in the Constitution.  

[jakee 1,489]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

And rule via plebiscite is not in the Constitution.  

But that’s not why you don’t like it. In a discussion on what you support and why, it is irrelevant.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

33 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

Over there, I am the Designated Liberal Gun Owner.

I always enjoy how liberals are simply defined as anti gun. Tell that to the gopher I wasted this afternoon.

[ryoder 1,590]

36 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I always enjoy how liberals are simply defined as anti gun. Tell that to the gopher I wasted this afternoon.

 

[wmw999 2,444]

Sasse made it clear in his rant that he hates Trump as a nearly-everything, but that he is a conservative through-and-through, and allied with him because of conservative appointments and the like. The problem isn't just Trump, is the power-is-the-end approach to politics in the Republican party. Amy Coney Barrett appears to be an impeccably qualified candidate (as was Merrick Garland); the reason to vote against her (for a conservative) is the manner in which she was appointed, not her qualifications. And that's a shame.

One can disagree with her viewpoints (and I do, but few who actually have worked with or for her speak against her. If she is, in fact, confirmed, I really hope she gives honest consideration to issues (as it appears the others have done -- any justice who is seen as "turncoat" periodically is probably doing exactly that).

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

9 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

I could be wrong, but I sense that *most* Americans have just HAD IT with all the hatred, the violence, the division, and the lies/crazy stuff. And that there is going to be a major shift in leadership coming, and some respect returning to the White House. I thought of it kind of like Pearl Harbor...we sat out that war for two years and then the wake up call came. 

The truth has been (historically) that Americans can be slow to react sometimes, but when they finally do, it is usually decisively. I think instead of Pearl Harbor this time it has been the pandemic, the hatred, and the riots. 

I know several people who are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans. They are cleaning customers for the most part. Because let's face it...you have to be well-to-do to afford a service like that. We don't work cheap. And amazingly, over the last three weeks, all of them have told us individually that they are voting for Joe Biden. They don't necessarily enjoy this a couple of them said...but they see no other choice. (That link above wasn't an advertisement. We have a waiting list for new service longer than your arm. :) ) 

I also see that some Republican Senators are finally turning their backs on Trump. Ben Sasse from Nebraska was the latest. You probably saw the article the other day where he blasts Trump REALLY hard. ("He flirts with dictators," etc just Google if you haven't seen his town hall statements.) My hope is that enough of them will see the light and realize their party is being destroyed from the inside by Trump...and hopefully refuse to vote for confirmation on Amy Coney 'Dodge-the-Questions' Barrett. 

It's also possible US Senator Susan Collins out of Maine might not confirm either. She's under a lot of pressure there and Maine residents have had just about enough of her. A confirmation vote for Barrett that almost ensures the ACA will be eliminated is the last thing she needs in an election year. There are a couple of others sweating bullets right now on re-election, which frankly...they deserve since they supported Trump blindly for nearly four years. I have no sympathy for anyone who doesn't have the guts to do what's right. In case you didn't know, as far as Congress goes....Republicans will withhold prime committee appointments to their US Representatives if that rep votes against something supported by the party, no matter how ridiculous that 'something' happens to be. It's how they keep the rank and file in Congress in line. Dems do this to a certain extent as well (to be fair about it) but nothing on the level that Republicans will do with their own. 

As far as 'prepping,' I don't prep for zombies or the Apocalypse. I prep for a possible natural disaster, which is much more likely than zombies. We're set well for food, med supplies, communications, power, water, shelter etc. If everything were suddenly cut off completely, we could last about two months easily. A lot longer on some things, although after two months the food and water would start to run short, I'll admit. However, prepping is an ongoing process and I keep improving our situation on that. I figure we're still better prepared than 95% of everyone else. It wasn't easy. Lots of Amazon orders, smart shopping, and spreading out the costs over a long period of time certainly helped. 

 

If you are right it will be because you only need 50.1% to claim "most". No matter what happens on November 3 the country will still be in a very sad state.

Edited October 17, 2020 by JoeWeber