“Why are You Against the Quarantine?”

Short one today.

88-16885

That question was asked in another forum.

So, why?  Well, it’s pretty straightforward.

  • Because rising unemployment kills people.
  • Because food shortages (which we will have) and outright famine (which, if we don’t have here, other people will because the food we normally export we’ll be keeping to make up the shortages here) kill people.
  • Because delaying other medical testing and treatment in fear of “the Rona” will kill people.
  • Because people going violently “stir crazy” by being cooped up at home and not able to engage in their normal activities kills people.

Because the quarantine kills people too. It is only once you acknowledge that and take a cold hard look at the actual numbers on both sides can you even begin to chart a best course that preserves the lives and the quality of life of the American people.  It would help if they would also take a realistic view of what the actual threat is posed by COVID19 instead of using “models” that exaggerate and inflate the effects of COVID19 (which the author of said models had a history of doing).  It would help if they didn’t attempt to treat every place as though it were New York City with its reliance on densely packed public transport (no better way to spread disease).  It would help if they’d base recommendations on realistic of the transmitability and threat of COVID19 and not use it as an excuse for instituting a wish-list of controls on the American People.
Instead we get people attempting to instigate a stampede: and just like the Plains Indians used to stampede bison off of cliffs, the folk instigating a stampede never do it for the benefit of the ones being stampeded.

The cliff awaits us.  I, for one, would like to get out of the stampede before we reach it.  How about you?

11 thoughts on ““Why are You Against the Quarantine?””

  1. Because being scared and stressed and depressed can make you more likely to getting sick.
    Because being sedentary is horribly bad for people’s health in general.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Amen.
    Also, we are running the entire country like it is Manhattan, Boston, or another crowded place with a subway and light rail. Were I in St. Paul, I would behave much differently than were I in Valentine, Nebraska.
    Food shortages will partly come from shutting down places which don’t need such rules and partly from the concentration of processors and packers in the places which do need such rules. Such extreme reaction is preventing the move of food distribution to safer places.

    – – –

    By the way, that is a very odd looking buffalo jump.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Minor quibble: It’s not quarantine, it’s imprisonment. Quarantine is used for those who are already infected, not everyone regardless of their viral status (so to speak).

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I know that and you know that. And I do make that point, But in answering the question (from whence came this post) I didn’t want to cloud up the issue with that and go directly to why what the person meant was a bad idea and why I was against it, as implemented. Same reason I didn’t get into all the ways the various restrictions being labeled as part of that “quarantine” don’t even make sense. (Boating, no more than 10 people, okay, but drop a line off the boat making it “fishing” and that’s a violation? In what way does that make sense?)

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Still having the same argument, two months in. Then they said it was for “curve flattening” but now that the curve has flattened, they say we are awaiting a vaccine.

    A cynical person might wonder if they are arguing in good faith.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Governor Gavin Nuisance has stated that he doesn’t want to “fully” reopen California until there is a vaccine – minimum 18 months out.

      Democrats are not known for arguing in good faith – or, for that matter, doing anydamnthing else in good faith. If you should shake hands with a Democrat, be sure to count your fingers when you get it back.

      Like

  6. I am against the general lockdown (for that is what it is – were it only against people who tested positive, it would be a “general quarantine.” The net was cast FAR too broadly to call it that…) because it is, quite simply, a gross overreaction to something that was, say, determined to be 10-12% fatal in the first place, and now it’s down around 0.5% fatal, given recent numbers I’ve seen (out of NYC, no less.) I’d cite the article if I could remember where it was.

    The R-naught is estimated to be higher – ~5.7 – but that could be for SARS-CoV-2A, the new strain they’ve discovered. But, either way, that’s actually a /good/ thing for us – it would run through the populace FASTER, and we’d acquire our “herd immunity” faster.

    We should let people get back to a “modified normal” (restaurants, for instance, should pull some tables and space out the rest to achieve the two-metre “social distance” spacing between parties…) let most people go on about their business, and let those who are vulnerable self-isolate to their own satisfaction. If they are willing to venture forth in PPE, they are quite free to do so. If they would rather stay at home, and have some young’un to do their shopping and errands for them and drop everything off, while they stay housebound? That’s cool too. I’m a VERY flexible fella. Hell – if they want to venture forth and simply take their chances like everyone else? Groovus – have a good time! Good fortune (as the British SAS says, “Who Dares, Wins.”)

    Meanwhile, we’re not dealing with a crashed economy, a stir-crazy population, a (likely) uptick in violence resulting from said stir-craziness. Can we rebuild? Sure – but it’s going to take a while, since we’ve had to borrow trillions against future productivity (that said, if we DO decide to sue China for this, we should sue them to cancel the markers they hold against us. I think that would be appropriate, and allow us to get on with rebuilding much more efficiently.)

    Rebuilding is necessary, notwithstanding the bone-sick STUPID idea that the erstwhile “Squad” came up with of minting a one-ounce platinum coin with a face value of $1Tn (seriously? You stamp a number on an ounce of platinum and it’s suddenly worth that much? Gold eagles were worth ten dollars because they had ten dollars’ worth of gold in them. Double eagles had twenty. Cartwheels had a dollar’s worth of silver, and half eagles had five dollars’ worth of gold. See how that works? What’s the spot price on platinum – because I guaranfuckingTEE you it’s not anywhere NEAR $1,000,000,000,000 – not by several orders of magnitude. What made specie money valuable was the intrinsic value matched the face value (which is also what anchored the economy and kept inflation at bay. Look at what happened pre- and post-1972, once Nixon tools us off the Gold Standard, and you could no longer redeem banknotes for metal. And it’s only gotten WORSE over the last 50 years, because our government firmly believes in “Freedom of the Press.”) Wasn’t at least part of AOC’s mis-education in economics?)

    I’d love to see the dollar value of a Troy ounce of gold fixed (at, say, $5,000/ozt?) and the dollar tied back to it. Banknotes once again become gold and silver certificates. High-value notes become platinum and palladium certificates. Banknotes may also be redeemed for gemstones or other items of intrinsic value held by the government. STABLE items and metals must be used, which means that the “petrodollar” is just as dead as “fiat money.” And, if the government wants to print more money, it had damned well better come up with more gold/silver/platinum/palladium/rhodium/whatever – no jiggering of the metals’ valuations is allowed. Debasement of the currency shall be punishable by summary imprisonment. Whoever gives the order to debase the currency gets locked up for a couple of whiles – ten years sound fair? And, of course, the order is voided out of hand. (Even with removal of the Gold Standard, our currency – the coinage – was still debased. Silver was removed from “silver” coins in 1963, and copper was removed from pennies in 1983. Now “silver” coins are mainly nickel and zinc, and pennies are zinc slugs with a copper wash. And pennies STILL cost something like three cents to make! If you can get pre-1984 pennies, they’re 95% copper/5% nickel, and are worth more as scrap metal than they are as money. I keep mine around for casting feed, for anything I want to cast in copper with high wear resistance – nickel is nice like that. I’ve accumulated about 75# of them so far.) And bring back high-denomination coins. Cartwheels, half eagles, eagles, and double eagles will cover us up to $20. We could probably start going into platinum to cover $50, $100, and $500. Palladium, or other rare earth metals, could be used for $500, and would be used to cover $1,000, $5,000, and $10,000 (optionally, a gem inset could be used to reduce the size of the coin by increasing its “value density.” What say you?) I think it would be nice to be able to go buy a vehicle, or a nice firearm, and only have to hand over a few coins – instead of having to pull out a wad of bills and peel them off, one by one, until you get to the right amount (in case you haven’t guessed, I like cash. I like having the ability to “fall off the grid” for a while, every now and again. “Track THIS, honkus!”)

    But, I digress – we were originally discussing the quarantine, and I got into the economy. Pull it back in…

    It’s difficult to say which is going to be the bigger problem – the lockdowns, or the economic effects. Face it – the economy is all but crashed, and will damned near need to be started over. (Thus, the idea of suing China for cancellation of debt. This will be a monstrous help!) But how long are these “lockdowns” going to last? To hear Governor Nuisance tell it, out here in California, a “return to normal” just isn’t going to happen until a vaccine is developed and proven – so, minimum eighteen months. Other Democrat governors are similar – but I think that’s more ego than practicality talking. Santa Clara County (Democrat-controlled) has recently decided to mandate everyone wear face masks when in any store or public venue. Even home-made masks from household fibres.

    NIOSH did a comparative study on the effectiveness of masks in 2010. Results? Among other things, they determined that:
    – Masks made from household fabrics stopped 3% of particles, /and/ /were/ /absorbent/ (more on that in a moment.)
    – Surgical masks, as issued, stopped 56% of particles, and were /not/ absorbent.
    – N95 Counter-Viral masks, as issued, stopped 99.9% of particles, and were /not/ absorbent.

    Why is absorbency important? Chew on this for a moment – you’re in a setting that requires you to wear a mask, and decontaminate afterward. You’re wearing a medical-issue mask. You’ll get sprayed down, your mask will get cleaned, will NOT absorb anything for you to suck down with the air (will probably stop all of it from getting to your face, in fact,) and you’ll be able to safely remove the mask after you get out of the shower.

    Same situation – but you’re wearing a mask made from household fibres. The pores in the T-shirt you made the mask from are MUCH larger – as in 2-3 orders of magnitude larger, and usually visible to the naked eye from close up – which is why the damned thing doesn’t stop anything. And, remember how it’s absorbent? It’s going to soak up virus particles, keeping them on your face and saving them for later. This means you /keep/ /getting/ /exposed/, /by/ /your/ /mask/ – the very thing that is supposed to /protect/ you is actually /increasing/ your chances of getting sick! Couple that with the fact that I see quite a number of people pulling them down under their noses, and they may as well not be wearing them at all in the first place. (Mask doesn’t do you any damned good AT ALL if you pull it down under your nose…) Your chances of catching COVID with a homemade mask are WAY higher!

    And, considering our last directive was to save the medical masks for medical personnel and wear homemade, one is impelled to wonder if there isn’t an agenda in play (can’t help it – that’s what happens when you pick up too much information. You end up thinking “What if?” about WAY too many things!)

    So, the lockdowns can backfire, and the mask directive is fairly likely to backfire (NYC has seen some 2/3 of their hospital admissions for COVID-19 come directly from private residences, which fraction does NOT fount the 16% of admissions that came from nursing homes and elder care facilities.) How’s that lockdown working out for you guys, hm?

    Leaving aside the documented cases of people who have NEVER left the house since the State of Emergency was declared, and ended up getting COVID anyhow (one such case was, I believe, in North Carolina. The patient considered herself “High Risk” for comorbidities I don’t recall, lived alone, and self-isolated. Had a friend that did her running about and shopping for her. She cleaned everything that came in. Still got it. DAFUQ?)

    The way I see it, it DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU DO. You’re either going to get it or not get it, at the discretion of the Fates. If you get it, the odds are generally in your favour – I’ve been reading that anywhere from 50-80% of people who catch SARS-CoV-2 remain asymptomatic and acquire immunity. Apparently, at least half of the people who DO develop symptoms make a full recovery with supportive care at home, provided by another household member (husband ministering to his wife, for instance.) If you DO go to the hospital and do NOT get intubated, your odds are good. If you go to the hospital AND get intubated, your odds drop considerably. COVID patients develop a thick mucous secretion in the trachea, bronchi, and lungs that resembles mucilage in consistency, and it’s entirely possible that positive pressure ventilation merely pressurizes this mucous into the alveoli. As this happens, it matters less and less how much air you’re feeding into the lungs, and at what pressure – the patient is drowning, and the ventilator is assisting in the drowning at that point. What CRITICALLY needs to happen at that point is to break up and evacuate the mucous FIRST.

    So, here’s a new plan to offer up:
    1) Devise modifications to business. Maintaining “customer counts” in stores isn’t a bad idea, it helps keep social distancing simple (“Social distancing” isn’t a bad idea. “Total lockdown” IS.) Restaurants need to rearrange the furniture. Allot for INCREASES to sick pay allowance, since you’re likely to need them more (part and parcel of “presenteeism” is “not having any more sick time, and not being able to afford to stay home.”) Encourage office-oriented businesses to have as many of their employees telecommute as possible, and as many meetings as practicable should be held virtually, via telecommunication services (video conferencing, conference calls, chat rooms, whatever.)
    2) Devise any NECESSARY regulations to govern behaviour that may be needed, based in SCIENCE (and not “politics” or “optics.” Don’t “look like you’re doing something,” fucking “DO SOMETHING RIGHT!”) Consult with experts in the field, who have opinions on both sides of the question you’re asking. Ask them both, “Why?” Consider BOTH answers in your decision-making and decide on your own, but definitely DO seek out expert advice. Forget image and re-election – if you do things right, you’ll deserve to be re-elected, and people should remember that. DO NOT FORGET – These regulations won’t be needed forever. Build in both a “sunset” and a “renewal” provision – the “renewal” provision should be able to be activated not more than three times, the “sunset” provision should be the default action for no action taken on the bill/law.
    3) Public Outreach. Now that you have devised changes needed and regulations required, it’s time to let everyone know. For businesses, start letting them know in trade publications, about two weeks before putting it out on the newswire. Advise citizens of measures going into effect and modifications being made, while mods are being made, and prior to the measures taking effect, and that these measures and modifications are part of restrictions being relaxed.
    4) Measures take effect AS and WHEN stated, absent a DAMNED GOOD REASON for not doing so. Time to rebuild trust in the government – it’s been lacking for some time, and for good reason. While this stage is in effect, the framework of the next stage can be devised and revealed as tentative while the details are being hammered out. Start over with Point Two.
    Rinse, repeat until all restrictions are lifted. A definite timeline should be published that “All restrictions will be lifted NOT LATER THAN…” – and STICK TO THAT DATE. This means that you will have everyone “back to normal” on OR BEFORE that date (before is preferred.) No open-ended crisis declarations. No “waiting for a vaccine” that may take years to develop. Nope – come up with a timetable of not more than, say, eighteen months (with rapid initial phasing to make the economy active again!) and bloody STICK TO IT.

    What we’ve been doing is shooting ourselves in our collective foot – or, more accurately, the state capitals have been shooting their constituents in their collective feet. (Was Trump wise to leave state-level measures to state governors? Absolutely! North Dakota & Wyoming will not require the same measures as California or New York – each of which has more population than /both/ of the Dakotas /and/ Wyoming, combined! Trump did his part – cutting off travel from China was a good start – the virus was identified there first, therefore travel gets stopped from there first. And, despite the cries of “racism!” and “xenophobia!” ring out, consider this:
    – Chinese is not a “race.” Chinese is a /nationality./ “Asian” is not even a “race” – it is an ETHNICITY. /H./ /sapiens/ /sapiens/ is a race.
    – Trump cut off travel FROM CHINA, not travel by Chinese nationals. If you were coming through China, expect your layover to take a while as a result. Wouldn’t matter if you were Russian, or Hindoo, or Pakistani, or …
    – Trump has the executive power under US Code (I don’t recall the section offhand, but it’s in the title governing immigration) to put a hold on immigration of a certain group or class of people as he sees fit, for as long as he sees fit, while he’s in the Oval Office, provided such debarment serves the national interests (security, health, economic, &c) of the United States and her Citizens. He may do so by Executive Order, without input from Congress, without consulting Congress, and Congress can do nothing about it. Just like the “Muslim Travel Ban” – perfectly legal, perfectly proper (under the circumstances,) and not without precedent (I think Eisenhower did it first. He just didn’t have frothing-at-the-mouth bark-at-the-moon mad liberals crying “Islamophobia!” “Xenophobia!” “Racism!” from the rooftops. Here’s the problem there:
    – If we are “Islamophobic,” it’s because fundamental Islam MADE US THAT WAY, by their actions. Or are we supposed to give those poor, misunderstood killers some cocoa, some cookies, and a hug when we see them?
    – If we were “Xenophobic,” we’d have shut down immigration totally. That dog won’t hunt.
    – Racism? Islam doesn’t even rise to being an “ethnicity,” it’s a /religion/. Yes, it’s a religion that embodies its own code of laws within (Shari’a) that they insist upon following, even to the point of supplanting whatever law was preeminent wherever they’re living beforehand (as they’re trying to do in Europe – and, I believe, here,) but there are black Muslims, white Muslims, yellow Muslims, red Muslims, … Muslims of all ethnicities, found worldwide – so they can’t be said to be homogeneous enough to be considered a “race,” even if that logic otherwise DID apply!

    Nice try, Lefty Loonies, but I see through your bullshit. The China travel ban was no more “racially” or “ethnically” motivated than the “partial Muslim travel ban,” where travel was restricted for holders of passports from countries known to sponsor state-level Islamic Jihad-type terrorism.

    In either case, what else were we supposed to do?

    Anyhow, back to it – a generalized lockdown for something like this is an overreaction, pure and simple. An “advised personal” lockdown would be more appropriate – quarantine the confirmed and suspected ill, encourage those who are particularly vulnerable (due to age, comorbidities, underlying conditions that are not comorbidities, …) to self-isolate, and all those who are healthy (or who have acquired an immunity) to get on with business as usual and keep the economy growing. We may still need bailouts FOR THE PEOPLE (if a company couldn’t save up for a rainy day, they weren’t planning ahead and bailing them out should be strongly considered. And, if something is “too big to fail,” leave it alone. If you’re right, they’ll still be there next month. If you’re wrong, THEY are in the right place to get dissolved and subsidiaries sold out to their competitors The problem with ‘too big to fail’ is that it’s ‘too big to exist,’ and therefore should not have been allowed to get that large. And, something /that/ damned big should not be in the position of needing a bailout in the first place.

    Oy, that’s enough of that. Discuss.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I, for one, am not against quarantine. What I *am* against is:
    * moving goalposts for ending the quarantine
    * maintaining it to the point it creates more collateral mortality than it saves in lives
    * using it as a blunt instrument, with no allowance for differences in population density and climate. Even France (which is roughly the size of California) differentiates its 94 Départements/provinces into 3 groups; Germany likewise differentiates by Bundesland/federal member state
    * the advancement of hidden agendas under the cloak of “saving lives from COVID19”
    * and especially the use of COVID19 as a political football (the nearly psychotic level to which this happens in the USA strikes this international COVID19 watcher here as one of a [hideous] kind)

    Like

    1. A lot of Democratic pols have forgotten that they aren’t the Lords Temporal of America, but democratically elected representatives of a constitutional republic. Their power is only what the people of the USA grant them.

      During a crisis, people tend to be willing to go along with certain measures, especially those that make sense to them. But, that patience is very limited, especially if the goal post keep moving and the end is not in sight. People don’t like uncertainty from governments, especially if they keep changing the story.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s