"New Chinese Covid-19 cases raise fears of fresh wave" Topic

… of infections as disease returns to Wuhan

"Two separate Covid-19 outbreaks in China, including one in Wuhan, have heightened fears of a fresh wave of infections across the country.

Shulan, a city in China's northeastern Jilin province, went into "wartime mode" after a rise in local cases over the weekend, while an official was sacked in Wuhan, where the disease first emerged, for his handling of the situation.

Shulan has reported 14 cases over the past two days, all of which were linked to a 45-year-old woman who was diagnosed with Covid-19 on Thursday…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Apparently they have testing and tracking in place. We do not.

Gotta wonder what "wartime mode" means to the CCP.

I simply don't believe anything the CCP is saying about the virus anymore.

Yup, spreading like wild fire with 14 whole new cases.

Ah yes, the tracking …

The only way to make coronavirus tracking apps really work is to accept the burden of false alarms and track every person, all the time, everywhere. This is only possible in a totalitarian state such as China, yet even the Chinese government doesn't have the resources to implement such extreme levels of monitoring. With advances in artificial intelligence, it is possible that it soon will—and when that day comes, China will be prepared for the next pandemic. The rest of the world will probably take the virus over the cure.

link

What fresh wave the original never went anyplace just hid a bit

But there is more Fear in claiming that a 2nd and 3rd wave is coming.

More Fear = More Panic

Means more Control & Power and less Rights & Freedom.

Mithmee, you really believe that, don't you?

What rights and freedoms have you lost as a result of ‘them' seizing more control and power?

If those (short term) restrictions on your lifestyle have reduced the likely death toll from C-19 in the USA by 100,000 (OK, a wild guess, plucked out of thin air but humour me), is that an acceptable personal sacrifice or is your FREEDOM more important?

Yes I do.

Oh and as you can see none of what they did have reduced nothing.

So to answer this:

If those (short term) restrictions on your lifestyle have reduced the likely death toll from C-19 in the USA by 100,000 (OK, a wild guess, plucked out of thin air but humour me), is that an acceptable personal sacrifice or is your FREEDOM more important?

You should value Freedom above all else.

So short answer would be…

No

Because Freedom is far more important.

OK, but what rights and freedoms have you lost in the last 6-8 weeks since the Great Panic began?

Churches and businesses have been shut down. Travel restricted. No groups larger than 10 people.

Freedom to worship, property effectively seized since the owner can't use it the way he wants. Freedom of movement. Freedom to assemble/associate.

So the rights of the individual to do those things in whatever way we choose outweighs any responsibility we may have to our friends, neighbours and the wider society in which we live, whatever the prevailing circumstances?

Yes it does.

Freedom is that important.

You give any of it up for any reason, you will never get it back.

But this very instance proves that people are getting it back, and no illegal appropriation of rights has occurred.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution, or in either English or US law, that says every right is protected in every circumstance! In fact, the Supreme Court has an extensive record of every case in which such issues are argued and their constitutionality. Name a right that hasn't for some reason, either temporarily or Constitionally, been restricted.

The record on Quarantine and its applications is as old as the Nation! Property has been legally seized throughout our history for a variety of reasons. Trump is doing it right now in seizing land along the border for his silly wall. Freedom of movement has been somewhat restricted throughout our history during wartime, various plagues and epidemics, as well as during panics from various causes. Freedom to assemble has a long history, outside of public health, of being restricted for crowd control, and civil unrest. Churches have always been under the law and its proscriptions on many counts; ranging from building codes, fire laws, traffic laws, a number of health codes, real estate transactions, and any number of non-religious activities that they attempt to do. They have always been liable to public health laws, including shuttering during disease epidemics.

In short, the right wing loonies are being totally unreasonable, making accusations that do not stand up to rational debate, and in NO way are arbitrary assaults on their liberties or Freedoms. Their exaggerated claims are, in fact, quite un-american, non-Constitutional, devoid of legal precedent, and, frankly, stupid.

Personal opinions tainted by certain political ideology are far from unbiased.

Yup and we know which side Repiq is on.

The above comments on rights and the Constitution are not personal opinion but historical fact. If you are so sure it is opinion find any reasonably informed legal opinion that diverges from the above.

As someone in an ‘at risk' group, sorry but I'm relieved Mithmee isn't a neighbour.

Living in a country which, like the USA, has a level of FREEDOM unmatched in 90% of the world, I'm happy to accept some minor inconvenience and loss of income for a few months if it helps out my neighbours and reduces the (real) risk I'm not going to be gasping my last breath 20-odd years before it's necessary.

If only it was just wearing a mask.

Memes like that are mere attempts at propaganda in an attempt to propagate ridicule at the majority who have honest concerns.

Rule #5 of Saul Alinsky.

Errr….Mr. Myers you are not a majority, but a relatively small minority. I wish your concerns and arguments were honest, they would be easier to discuss.

Rule #1 of life: eschew obsfuscation.

Actually Repiq,

There are more of us than you think.

Oh and McKinskry,

Just how are you going to force individuals like me to wear a mask?

Just how are you going to force individuals like me to wear a mask?

Force? Outside of walking into a hospital or a fire station, force is unlikely as most jurisdictions will not use force unless you are violating a locations stated right to choose terms of entry. In public while I appreciate selfish twits identifying themselves as such without the need to wait for them to open their mouths, they are free to be as anti-social as they wish just as I am free to avoid them by six feet or greater.

As an EMT, if someone is in need, by policy, we are required to have a mask on the patient before we can treat them regardless of trauma or medical condition. If they are AAOx4, they have the right to refuse in which case we will stand by until they pass out or bleed out and then put a mask on them and treat them so I guess that kind of counts as force.

It shouldn't be necessary to be forced to do so – it's being respectful of your neighbours and a responsible member of society to do so.

Most people know instinctively what's right and wrong and behaviour and norms change until 95%+ adhere to the ‘rules': drunk driving was the subject of jokes 50-60 years ago, now its (rightly) unacceptable. You still have every right to get drunk as a skunk, but you have no right to endanger others through your irresponsible actions.

People grumbled when compulsory wearing of seatbelts in cars and helmets when riding motor cycles was introduced here – examples of ‘them' taking away our freedoms? – but absolutely the right thing to do and now no longer an issue for all but a tiny minority of selfish sociopaths (though you may prefer to characterise them as freedom-loving rugged individualists).

Here is the force they want:

link

wmyers,

So very true.

drunk driving was the subject of jokes 50-60 years ago, now its (rightly) unacceptable

Gee, still does not stop them from doing it.

link

Still I will not wear a mask because there is no reason to wear one in the first place.

This is not as contagious as you think it is.

Oh and not as deadly either.

So you will have to use force in order to get me to wear one. So are you willing to do that?

Not at all – if your conscience and sense of social responsibility doesn't tell you why your attitude sucks, why should I waste my breath or energy?

As always, Wheatons Law seems a pretty good starting point but maybe that's not included in the freedoms that you feel so strongly about.

Hope your neighbours, co-workers, fellow gamers at the local games store etc admire/share your rugged individualism or you may find yourself socially distanced for some time to come – but I suspect that won't bother you much either.

Live long and prosper.

rugged individualism

Sounds just like the ideals that made so many nations great throughout history!

While the opposing ideals are what brought great nations down historically.

fellow gamers at the local games store

Gee, Washington State and our most wonderful (Not) Governor shut down everything.

but I suspect that won't bother you much either.

Not one bit.

Oh and destroying the economy and putting over 36+ million out of work will be more of an impact than COVID 19.

Inflated death count, forced shutdowns, arresting individuals who shouldn't be arrested oh and letting the scum out of prison & jails.

I wonder if the media will be allowed to fully report and explore any increased in crime from that.

Mithmee, once your local game store opens, but with social distancing rules in place, and maybe an obligation to wear a mask if playing a game there, would you refuse to follow the rules, insist on them respecting your freedom to do as you think fit, stay away until all restrictions are lifted or something else?

McKinstry:

Brilliant illustration sequence! Pretty much sums it up for me.

would you refuse to follow the rules, insist on them respecting your freedom to do as you think fit,

Yes I would refuse to follow the rules.

So if they require you to wear a mask I will not shop there until they get rid of that stupid rule.

Masks?

(posted by a nurse I know)

Standard verbiage to provide legal defense against product liability lawsuits.

And your point is?

Yup because there will be individuals who will think that by wearing that so call mask that they will have total protection and will never get COVID 19.

Though they could wear it and still get COVID 19.

Not likely since it not easy to get COVID 19 due to the numbers so far but they could on the off chance get it.

Even if they wear that mask.

Yup because there will be individuals who will think that by wearing that so call mask that they will have total protection and will never get COVID 19.

Though they could wear it and still get COVID 19.

Not likely since it not easy to get COVID 19 due to the numbers so far but they could on the off chance get it.

Even if they wear that mask.

So wearing a mask works but it doesn't work, is necessary but it's unnecessary? You need to sort out your argument.

A mask is principals used to reduce the risk of you spreading the virus to other people when coughing etc, it's not really there to protect you from infection in the way medical-grade PPE does though it's better than nothing.

So it's there to protect others but some aren't prepared to make that small sacrifice because it somehow infringes their ‘rights' .

Health professional wear N-95 or better masks to protect them from getting the virus since they are deliberately doing things that risk exposure. N-95 masks fit tightly, are not terribly comfortable and restrict your breathing along with fogging most eyewear. It also doesn't help one bit if your eyewear, gown, gloves or other PPE get contaminated and you doff them improperly or if you touch your face with any contaminated PPE (mostly gloves) as the darn N-95's slip down your face, bump up against eyewear and after x number of years, not touching your face is really hard.

Non-95 masks are not and never were intended to make the wearer safe from Covid. They are to prevent an asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic onset undiagnosed infected person from spreading the disease. Since by definition an asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic onset undiagnosed infected does not know they have it, the mask is for others at risk from that person.

We do not put N-95 masks on patients even if they are Covid suspect. Any patient with respiratory issues will not be helped by the restricted airflow from an N-95. A simple regular masks protects us and if we transport, we use a plexiglass box over the patient with a ducted fan to outside the rig using negative air pressure.

Unless someone has been living under a rock or is incapable of understanding the past few months of communication in every form everywhere, it should be blindingly obvious that non-N-95 masks are worn for others, not the wearer.

If you really think that those mask noted above is going to stop anything…

Think again since those are some very flimsy mask.

It's like the cloth ones. They're just a placebo.

link

link

I do not believe in placebo's either.

So if you want a mask that might work.

link

From the Government of Canada website you linked.

Wearing a homemade facial covering/non-medical mask in the community has not been proven to protect the person wearing it and is not a substitute for physical distancing and hand washing.

However, it can be an additional measure taken to protect others around you, even if you have no symptoms. It can be useful for short periods of time, when physical distancing is not possible in public settings, such as when grocery shopping or using public transit.

Are you asking us to pee on you?!

You've stated a lot of really "far-out" stuff on here but this may take the cake!

(Or be right up there with your take on global warming …)

Are you asking us to pee on you?!

No, it's a simple analogy re: the usefulness of masks with a dose of humor. Same basic message as the the Czech government ad campaign centered around the message of "My mask protects you, and your mask protects me".

Only if it's an effective mask, though.

Otherwise it can (and will!) promote dangerous and risky behaviours and greatly increase the spread any potential germ/virus/etc, not to mention put many at-risk who otherwise would not put themselves so – all because of, essentially, deception.

Now that would be, literally, more than a mere fatal flaw.

Only if it's an effective mask, though.

This is not hard. Masks protect others. Other people protect you by wearing a mask.

Nobody is saying wear the mask to protect yourself although there is some risk mitigation. Unless you have an N-95 or better, the virus can penetrate cloth but assuming you encounter your local village idiot who is asymptomatic while not wearing a mask and coughs, sneezes or even talks loudly in a closed environment, it may shield you from the worst of said idiots thoughtless behavior although if you touch the front of the mask and then your face without washing hands, you are still hosed.

Unless you are going into a known risky Covid environment, wearing an N-95 or greater mask is uncomfortable, limits your breathing and is totally unnecessary and may keep a mask from someone who genuinely needs it.

Martin, the ‘urine test' is an excellent way of illustrating how masks can help in limiting the spread of the virus.

Pity that the message is lost on some, who seem to interpret things rather too literally, which is a worry for wider society.

Wearing a face covering/mask is just a more efficient way of making sure people cough into a cotton handkerchief, as a way of reducing but not eliminating the spread of the virus.