> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> MichaelE wrote:
>>> Do Legal Restrictions Account for the Downward Trend in New COVID-19
>>> The New York Times thinks so, but the data do not fit that hypothesis
>>> very well.
>>> Jacob Sullum | 8.24.2020 2:45 PM
>>> (Ffikretow | Dreamstime.com)
>>> Three weeks after newly identified COVID-19 cases began falling in the
>>> United States, The New York Times is acknowledging the downward trend, which
>>> it attributes to "effective restrictions." That explanation fits neatly with
>>> the paper's reflexive enthusiasm for lockdowns, but it does not fit the
>>> data very well.
>>> Consider Arizona, where the seven-day average of daily new cases, according
>>> to Worldometer's tallies, rose more than tenfold between Memorial Day and
>>> July 7. Alarmed by that increase, Gov. Doug Ducey ordered gyms, bars, movie
>>> theaters, and water parks to close on July 23, while indoor dining in
>>> restaurants continued at 50 percent of capacity, a cap Ducey imposed on July
>>> 11. But the downward trend in new cases, which had fallen by 82 percent from
>>> the July 7 peak as of yesterday, began well before the new restrictions
>>> could have had a measurable impact (taking into account the typical five-day
>>> lag between infection and symptoms that might cause people to seek testing).
>>> That suggests other factors are at least partly responsible for the
>> It is likely that folks residing in Arizona were just as alarmed as
>> their Governor by the July 7th news of the "tenfold" increase of
>> COVID-19 cases since Memorial and started staying home soon after July
>> 7th which is many days before the legal restrictions were ordered on
>> July 23rd.
>> This illustrates how the pandemic can be stopped if **everyone**
>> volunteered to stay at home until there are no more COVID-19 cases.
> One big problem is that the public health establishment discredited
>"However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as
>risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national
>public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in
>the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest
>protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators' ability to
>gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive
>stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders.
>Those actions not only oppose public health interventions, but are also
>rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives.
>Protests against systemic racism, which fosters the disproportionate burden
>of COVID-19 on Black communities and also perpetuates police violence, must
>After saying no to so many things, a significant number of public health
>experts have determined that massive protests of police brutality are an
>exception to the rules of COVID-19 mitigation. Yes, these protests are
>outdoors, and yes, these experts have encouraged protesters to wear masks
>and observe six feet of social distance. But if you watch actual footage of
>protests—even the ones where cops are behaving badly themselves—you will see
>crowds that are larger and more densely packed than the public beaches and
>parks that many mayors and governors have heavily restricted. Every
>signatory to the letter above may not have called for those restrictions,
>but they also didn't take to a public forum to declare them relatively safe
>under certain conditions.
>"For many public health experts who have spent weeks advising policymakers
>and the public on how to reduce their risk of getting or inadvertently
>spreading the coronavirus, the mass demonstrations have forced a shift in
>perspective," The New York Times tells us.
>But they could have easily kept the same perspective: Going out is
>dangerous, here's how to best protect yourself. The added well, this cause
>is important, though, makes the previous guidance look rather suspect. It
>also makes it seem like the righteousness of the cause is somehow a
>mitigating factor for spreading the disease.
>Examples of this new framing abound. The Times interviewed Tiffany
>Rodriguez, an epidemiologist "who has rarely left her home since mid-March,"
>but felt compelled to attend a protest in Boston because "police brutality
>is a public health epidemic." NPR joined in with a headline warning readers
>not to consider the two crises—racism and coronavirus—separately. Another
>recent New York Times article began: "They are parallel plagues ravaging
>America: The coronavirus. And police killings of black men and women."
>Police violence, white supremacy, and systemic racism are very serious
>problems. They produce disparate harms for marginalized communities:
>politically, economically, and also from a medical standpoint. They
>exacerbate health inequities. But they are not epidemics in the same way
>that the coronavirus is an epidemic, and it's an abuse of the English
>language to pretend otherwise. Police violence is a metaphorical plague.
>COVID-19 is a literal plague.
>These differences matter. You cannot contract racism if someone coughs on
>you. You cannot unknowingly spread racism to a grandparent or roommate with
>an underlying health condition, threatening their very lives. Protesting is
>not a prescription for combatting police violence in the same way that
>penicillin is a prescription for a bacterial infection. Doctors know what
>sorts of treatments cure various sicknesses. They don't know what sorts of
>protests, policy responses, or social phenomena will necessarily produce a
>less racist society, and they shouldn't leverage their expertise in a manner
>that suggests they know the answers.
>It's clear that we've come to the point where people can no longer be
>expected to stay at home no matter what. Individuals should feel empowered
>to make choices about which activities are important enough to incur some
>exposure to COVID-19 and possibly spreading it to someone else, whether that
>activity is reopening a business, going back to work, socializing with
>friends, or joining a protest against police brutality. Health experts can
>help inform these choices. But they can't declare there's just one activity
>that's worth the risk."- Robby Soave
>"It's not that public health folks are wrong that racism and police
>brutality have significant public health consequences; while coronavirus has
>the potential to kill hundreds of thousands in a short period of time, over
>the long-term racism and state violence can cause even greater harm.
>But here's the thing: while it's understandable that people want to take to
>the streets to protest racism and state violence, there is no
>epidemiological or other scientific evidence that such protests will have
>positive public health effects by spurring positive social and political
>change. Any scientist or public health expert who suggests otherwise is
>engaging in political and sociological speculation that is not only beyond
>their expertise, but that really beyond anyone's expertise. But it's worse
>when such speculation purports to be scientific, from experts whose
>credibility is crucial for containing the current and future pandemics."-
>Some of my social media friends have been insisting for some time that many
>of the hardcore lockdown/social distancing advocates were less concerned
>about public health and more about imposing their own value system against
>what they considered an unenlightened public, and some subset of those
>people actually welcomed the lockdown because they prefer people to live on
>the government dole that to allow "capitalist exploitation." I'm not, to say
>the least, a big fan of the political and public health establishment, but I
>nevertheless thought this was too cynical, and I did (and still do) think
>that many aspects of the lockdown were justified by public health needs.
>Yet today we see Mayor DeBlasio arguing that protesting racism is more
>important than being banned from attending religious services indefinitely,
>and Governor Murphy of New Jersey stating that protests against racism may
>flout social distancing rules, but he's going to continue to enforce them
>against lockdown opponents.
>Worse yet, Slate reports that:
>Facing a slew of media requests asking about how protests might be a risk
>for COVID-19 transmission, a group of infectious disease experts at the
>University of Washington, with input from other colleagues, drafted a
>collective response. In an open letter published Sunday, they write that
>"protests against systemic racism, which fosters the disproportionate burden
>of COVID-19 on Black communities and also perpetuates police violence, must
>be supported."… By Tuesday afternoon, more than 1,000 epidemiologists,
>doctors, social workers, medical students, and other health experts had
>signed the letter.
>So much for the "expert public health community."
>I don't think anyone who knows me would describe me as at all credulous, but
>I think I need to get even more cynical.
>A final thought: For many of the left, anti-racism is basically a religion,
>and they don't want the Covid crisis to interfere with an important
>anti-racism ritual, protest. But when it comes to accommodating actual
>religion, like having a religious quorum at a funeral? Feh, that's not
>important."- David Bernstein
Again, Psalm 127:1
>> Thus, the only **healthy** way to end the COVID-19 pandemic is for us,
>> the people of America, to rapidly find out at any given moment,
>> including while On-line, who among us are unwittingly contagious (i.e.
>> pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic) in order to convince them to call
>> their doctor and voluntarily self-quarantine per their doctor in hopes
>> of stopping this pandemic so that our economy can recover here in the
>> In the interim, I am indeed wonderfully hungry (
) and hope you, Michael, also have a
>> healthy appetite too.
>> So how are you ?
> I am wonderfully hungry!
While wonderfully hungry in the Holy Spirit, Who causes (Deuteronomy
8:3) us to hunger, I note that you, Michael, not only don't have
COVID-19 but are rapture (Luke 17:37) ready and pray (2 Chronicles
7:14) that our Everlasting (Isaiah 9:6) Father in Heaven continues to
give us "much more" (Luke 11:13) Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) so
that we'd have much more of His Help to always say/write that we're
"wonderfully hungry" in **all** ways including especially caring to
(John 15:12 as shown by
) with all glory (
) to GOD (aka HaShem, Elohim, Abba, DEO), in