Coronavirus news

[J. Thomas Shelley]

FWIW, the very common sense, libertarian guidance offered by one of our Townships for Halloween activities:

https://www.westmanchestertownship.com/township-trick-or-treat-2/

Trick or Treat activities for West Manchester Township are traditionally held on October 31st from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Individuals or families wishing to participate in Trick or Treat activities should leave their porch or front yard lights on during this timeframe... Due to the continued concerns associated with the spread of COVID-19, individuals and families should assess all risks associated in participating in these events and make their own decision as whether or not to participate. Individuals and families deciding to participate in any events are encouraged to social distance or wear a mask in such instances when social distancing is not possible. In the case of inclement weather, individual developments or organizations are free to reschedule their events accordingly. West Manchester Township bears no responsibility for individuals, families or organizations deciding to participate in any Trick or Treat activities.

According to the local newspaper this is the ONLY municipality of the 83 in the County to have issued any type of COVID disclaimer. 

[peter_speckhard]

https://outsidevoices.substack.com/p/the-nyts-partisan-tale-about-covid

Here is a response to the recent NYT article about the partisan nature of vaccine resistance.

[Dave Benke]

Brooklyn:

School:  Mask and Vaccine mandate for all staff and adults in the building.  Other adults not normally admitted (parents).  Vendors, etc. admitted only with masks.

Church:  No vaccine mandate.  All worshipers are to wear masks.  Zero pushback on worshiper mask mandate.  If no mask, one is provided. 
This in our context does not seem out of the ordinary.  Actually, it seems pretty much the norm.  Three worship services weekly.

Dave Benke

[J. Thomas Shelley]

South central Pennsylvania:

Preface:  Statewide indoor mask mandate for the unvaccinated was to end at 70% vaccination or June 28, whichever came first.  June 28 arrived but vaccination still lagged. Nevertheless, the Governor was more or less true to his word and the masks came off.

 The PA Department of Health reported today that 69.1% of the Commonwealth (>18) is now fully vaccinated.

School:  Mask  mandate for all persons, student staff and adults in the building.   Vendors, etc. admitted only with masks.
This by order of the Governor via the Secretary of Education, imposed two weeks after the beginning of most school years.  School masking policy had been left to individual School Boards (we have 500) but the Governor did not like that local control did not go his way when only about 10% of the districts had required masks. 

School Board meetings have become very contentious, in part because the rules were changed mid-game, in part because the rule changing process itself was changed from local to "top-down; and in part because the Governor's order includes after-hours use of the buildings; which is where most School Board meetings are held.  Boards have attempted with various degrees of success to demand that attendees mask-up; in some cases they carry on irrespective of compliance; in other cases they refuse to continue the meeting in the absence of 100% compliance.

Church:  No vaccine mandate.  Masks optional.   If no mask, one is provided only for those who desire.  About 20% of the worshipers mask.  Sometimes more, sometimes less.  Their choice.  Orthodox ecoomia.

Food Festival:  No vaccine mandate, no mask mandate, no signage.  Only a handful of our workers masked; solely their choice.  Incredibly, about 20% of the patrons donned a mask either approaching the door or just after entering despite the lack of signage.  Mostly of one demographic. 

[Charles Austin]

Peter:
https://outsidevoices.substack.com/p/the-nyts-partisan-tale-about-covid
Here is a response to the recent NYT article about the partisan nature of vaccine resistance.

Me:
This may surprise you, but I did not find the original NYTimes story particularly informative or helpful. Sometimes statistics and the interpretations of the numbers seem to me to be like slitting open a pigeon and reading the entrails to determine the future or make a decision.
It is clear that Republicans have been less enthusiastic about things like vaccinations, masks, shut-downs and other efforts to mitigate the effects of the virus. Whether they are sickening or dying more than their blue-tinged neighbors is probably hard to certify.
And what is gained by deciding which adherents of a particular political philosophy are more affected by the virus?  Nothing useful, say I.

[Donald_Kirchner]

It is clear that Republicans have been less enthusiastic about things like vaccinations...

Really?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republican-senate-leader-mitch-mcconnell-makes-big-covid-vaccine-push-n1278169

How many conservatives hereon have manifested an anti-vax position?

And we all know your nemesis' position on vaccines. Pro-vaccination.

[peter_speckhard]

Being con on mandates and vaccine passports is not the same thing as being con on vaccines. It takes into account the downside of mandates— loss of liberty— and deals sympathetically rather than contemptuously with those who for reasons of their own do not want to get vaccinated. After all, “Give me liberty or give me death” is mainstream enough to be the state motto of New Hampshire. Death is not the very worst fate. Tyranny is worse. That’s why people are willing to die to defeat tyrannical regimes. And since every ruler tends toward tyrant, it is best to nip the gradual transformation in the bud. Allowing some people to die by Covid by their own anti-vaccine choice is tragic, but better than empowering the government to force them to get vaccinated against their will.

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.aier.org/article/the-great-barrington-declaration-one-year-on/

This is a very interesting history of the p.r. and propaganda battles that have plagued discussion of the topic and led to it being seen in partisan terms.

[Michael Slusser]

Mandates are a matter for dispute within parties as well; witness the fight in Idaho:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/10/06/idaho-lieutenant-governor-executive-order/

As acting governor, Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin (R) issued an executive order Tuesday afternoon banning state officials from requiring covid-19 “vaccine passports” from new or current employees. Little quickly promised to undo McGeachin’s order as soon as he returned from touring the U.S.-Mexico border with a group of fellow Republican governors.

This is the second time the state’s top two officials have battled after Little left the state and McGeachin seized the opportunity to issue an executive order in his absence. While Little attended a Republican governors’ conference in Nashville in May, McGeachin banned local governments from issuing mask mandates. Little, saying he wanted those local governments to have control over their communities, rescinded her order when he returned the next day.

Little wants to protect local control; McGeachin by exerting state control wants to protect individual control. Or so it seems.

Peace,
Michael

[JEdwards]

Being con on mandates and vaccine passports is not the same thing as being con on vaccines. It takes into account the downside of mandates— loss of liberty— and deals sympathetically rather than contemptuously with those who for reasons of their own do not want to get vaccinated. After all, “Give me liberty or give me death” is mainstream enough to be the state motto of New Hampshire. Death is not the very worst fate. Tyranny is worse. That’s why people are willing to die to defeat tyrannical regimes. And since every ruler tends toward tyrant, it is best to nip the gradual transformation in the bud. Allowing some people to die by Covid by their own anti-vaccine choice is tragic, but better than empowering the government to force them to get vaccinated against their will.

In Ohio, there is proposed legislation that would prevent private businesses from mandating vaccination for their employees.  Here is where "protecting liberty" gets a little more complicated.  Individuals may complain that an employer mandate infringes on their liberty of conscience or various other forms of liberty.  But conservatives have generally argued that private business should have the liberty to run their businesses as they see fit, absent clear injury to third parties.  The business owner is presumably in the best position to determine what policies will promote retention of employees, employee health, customer satisfaction, etc., and to weigh these competing interests.  If he/she judges wrongly, the market will inflict punishment.  What's wrong with that?
Peace,
Jon

[Brian Stoffregen]

Being con on mandates and vaccine passports is not the same thing as being con on vaccines. It takes into account the downside of mandates— loss of liberty— and deals sympathetically rather than contemptuously with those who for reasons of their own do not want to get vaccinated. After all, “Give me liberty or give me death” is mainstream enough to be the state motto of New Hampshire. Death is not the very worst fate. Tyranny is worse. That’s why people are willing to die to defeat tyrannical regimes. And since every ruler tends toward tyrant, it is best to nip the gradual transformation in the bud. Allowing some people to die by Covid by their own anti-vaccine choice is tragic, but better than empowering the government to force them to get vaccinated against their will.

Well, the choice is between liberty and death. The downside of letting people be unvaccinated, unmasked, crowded together is sickness, hospitalization, and death. What's worse about the downside is that the unvaccinated, unmasked, and crowding together folks can cause others to get sick, be hospitalized, and die.


I curtail my desire to drive 120 mph on the lonely, little travelled Interstate through our town. I wish I had the freedom to travel that stretch of road as quickly as possible (without risk of tickets); but I don't. The downside is that I would be more likely to crash and die; and I could cause others to crash and die, too. For my own safety and the safety of others I follow the speed limit mandates.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Being con on mandates and vaccine passports is not the same thing as being con on vaccines. It takes into account the downside of mandates— loss of liberty— and deals sympathetically rather than contemptuously with those who for reasons of their own do not want to get vaccinated. After all, “Give me liberty or give me death” is mainstream enough to be the state motto of New Hampshire. Death is not the very worst fate. Tyranny is worse. That’s why people are willing to die to defeat tyrannical regimes. And since every ruler tends toward tyrant, it is best to nip the gradual transformation in the bud. Allowing some people to die by Covid by their own anti-vaccine choice is tragic, but better than empowering the government to force them to get vaccinated against their will.

In Ohio, there is proposed legislation that would prevent private businesses from mandating vaccination for their employees.  Here is where "protecting liberty" gets a little more complicated.  Individuals may complain that an employer mandate infringes on their liberty of conscience or various other forms of liberty.  But conservatives have generally argued that private business should have the liberty to run their businesses as they see fit, absent clear injury to third parties.  The business owner is presumably in the best position to determine what policies will promote retention of employees, employee health, customer satisfaction, etc., and to weigh these competing interests.  If he/she judges wrongly, the market will inflict punishment.  What's wrong with that?
Peace,
Jon

My dad was a business owner. He did not know best about infectious diseases. That was not his expertise. I was trained to be a pastor. I do not know best about infectious diseases. We are not the experts in that field.

[Jim Butler]

It is clear that Republicans have been less enthusiastic about things like vaccinations,

I think you should have stopped at, "I didn't find the article all that helpful." Because after saying that, you argued his point.

Blacks and Latinos are also rather resistant. And I don't think most of them are Republicans.

And wasn't the administration that did the whole Warp Speed thingy a Republican one? And wasn't it your journalistic colleagues the ones who said that a vaccine before the end of this year would be impossible? And didn't a lot of them say they didn't want no "Trump vaccine"? The answer to all of those questions is "Yes." So, I'd drop this line of argument if I were you.

masks, shut-downs and other efforts to mitigate the effects of the virus.

The question is just how effective some of those things (e.g. shut-downs) actually are.

For example, how much effect did Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's order that stores could sell groceries but not plant seeds have on COVID infection in Michigan? How about the Rhode Island governor sending out the state police to find New Yorkers who were at their vacation homes in her state and tell them to leave? How about Governor Newsome shutting down restaurants while allowing catering companies to feed TV and movie productions? Finally, there was strange news that COVID apparently didn't spread if you participated in a BLM march, but if you protested some government edict, it was a super spreader event.

Suffice to say that there were lots of "efforts" to mitigate the virus that had no effect.

Epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina points out that the Delta variant has a distinct trend: 2.5 months of flare up and then retreat. This has been consistent around the world, regardless of mitigation efforts.
(https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com)

[Jim Butler]

Being con on mandates and vaccine passports is not the same thing as being con on vaccines. It takes into account the downside of mandates— loss of liberty— and deals sympathetically rather than contemptuously with those who for reasons of their own do not want to get vaccinated. After all, “Give me liberty or give me death” is mainstream enough to be the state motto of New Hampshire. Death is not the very worst fate. Tyranny is worse. That’s why people are willing to die to defeat tyrannical regimes. And since every ruler tends toward tyrant, it is best to nip the gradual transformation in the bud. Allowing some people to die by Covid by their own anti-vaccine choice is tragic, but better than empowering the government to force them to get vaccinated against their will.

Well, the choice is between liberty and death. The downside of letting people be unvaccinated, unmasked, crowded together is sickness, hospitalization, and death. What's worse about the downside is that the unvaccinated, unmasked, and crowding together folks can cause others to get sick, be hospitalized, and die.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html

[Dan Fienen]

Being con on mandates and vaccine passports is not the same thing as being con on vaccines. It takes into account the downside of mandates— loss of liberty— and deals sympathetically rather than contemptuously with those who for reasons of their own do not want to get vaccinated. After all, “Give me liberty or give me death” is mainstream enough to be the state motto of New Hampshire. Death is not the very worst fate. Tyranny is worse. That’s why people are willing to die to defeat tyrannical regimes. And since every ruler tends toward tyrant, it is best to nip the gradual transformation in the bud. Allowing some people to die by Covid by their own anti-vaccine choice is tragic, but better than empowering the government to force them to get vaccinated against their will.

Well, the choice is between liberty and death. The downside of letting people be unvaccinated, unmasked, crowded together is sickness, hospitalization, and death. What's worse about the downside is that the unvaccinated, unmasked, and crowding together folks can cause others to get sick, be hospitalized, and die.


I curtail my desire to drive 120 mph on the lonely, little travelled Interstate through our town. I wish I had the freedom to travel that stretch of road as quickly as possible (without risk of tickets); but I don't. The downside is that I would be more likely to crash and die; and I could cause others to crash and die, too. For my own safety and the safety of others I follow the speed limit mandates.

The issue is not just between having no restrictions or extremely restrictive draconian restrictions. The issue where to draw the line.


To take your example. The risks to yourself and others of driving 120 mph on your Interstate reasonably warrant imposing a lessor speed limit to reduce the risk that your driving on that road would pose to yourself and others. On the other hand, that stretch of road (and all others) would be greatly reduced if a 30 mph speed limit would be imposed. Accidents at 30 mph are less likely to result in crippling or deadly injuries than accidents at 45 mph, 55 mph, or 75 mph. So, in order to reduce the risks to the driver, passengers, and others on or near the road, should we impose a 30 mph speed limit?


It seems apparent that such a speed limit on all highways would be impractical and ill-advised. Such a speed limit or even lower is imposed on residential areas where there is little separation between traffic going in different directions, pedestrians, etc. Some roads are constructed to reduce the risk of higher speeds and given higher speed limits. Always there is a calculation of the risks of higher speeds versus cost in time and inconvenience of imposing lower speed limits. And the danger of some (many?) who would ignore what the public would consider excessively low speed limits. Even here in rural Michigan I am frequently passed by drivers who find my habitual 55 mph speed where that is the posted speed limit too slow.


Have business/school/church shutdowns and travel restrictions been effective and justified? That can be questioned without taking the position that no restrictions are ever warranted. The same for mask mandates and vaccination mandates. People can question whether the loss of liberty implied by mandates are warranted by the risks of not imposing them without being totally against mandates in all situations. Unfortunately, the science upon which we could reasonably base these decisions is not always clear, and is not always the predominate factor for those in favor of mandates or opposed.