The Walls Come Down: No Travel Betwen US and Europe for 30 Days

[Broomstick]

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/illi ... &r=US&IR=T

There are rumors that some of the PPE for Chicago was actually brought in through Gary Airport (definitely some of the Indiana PPE has). There's already a pile of agreements between Chicago and Lake County, Indiana regarding cooperation on that airport, but having the jets fly into a small airport (that is nonetheless equipped to handle international flights) in a Republican-controlled state might have been another way of diverting the Fed's attention.

[MKSheppard]

Florida blocks COVID-19 information from public as Gov. Ron DeSantis touts transparency

FLORIDA SURGEON GENERAL REMOVED FROM GOVERNOR DESANTIS' CORONAVIRUS BRIEFING AFTER SAYING SOCIAL DISTANCING NECESSARY UNTIL THERE'S A VACCINE

Commissioner Bergosh wants meeting on why county is withholding daily coronavirus report

DeSantis administration keeping crucial jobless data, other coronavirus info secret

Florida's governor keeps hitting new lows in the battle against coronavirus

Under pressure, DeSantis releases names of elder care homes with COVID-19 cases. Originally Gov. DeSantis kept quiet on it

When inmates started dying of COVID-19, Florida kept it quiet until it leaked out

[Zaune]

Texas, though, with major cities like Dallas, Houston, Austin... that just does not strike me as a good idea to let up on restrictions.

On the other hand, Texas has a rather higher concentration of heavily armed shitkicking morons. At some point it's going to come down to deciding what the least bad option is, relax the restrictions and accept the risk of a second wave of infections and deaths or continue upholding them and accept the need to put down literal insurrection.

[Eulogy]

At some point it's going to come down to deciding what the least bad option is, relax the restrictions and accept the risk of a second wave of infections and deaths or continue upholding them and accept the need to put down literal insurrection.

On the one hand, appeasing would-be tyrants by sacrificing innocents. On the other, watering the tree of liberty with the blood of said would-be tyrants. Hmm, decisions decisions.

[Jub]

On the other hand, Texas has a rather higher concentration of heavily armed shitkicking morons. At some point it's going to come down to deciding what the least bad option is, relax the restrictions and accept the risk of a second wave of infections and deaths or continue upholding them and accept the need to put down literal insurrection.

Step 1: Reassert a ban on mass gatherings of any kind.
Step 2: Strictly enforce these bans with arrests, weapons seizures, and heavy fines.
Step 3: Be ready to use force if the idiots are stupid enough to push the issue.

[MKSheppard]

North Dakota

in my county we had 12 cases of COVID. In just a few days it has become 100 and possibly more.

A wind turbine blade manufacturer did not take it seriously. They did not close the lunchroom or locker room, they did not modify the manufacturing floor to facilitate any kind of social distancing, they basically didn't do shit and now they are shut down.
900 people sent home just like that.

116 cases total, 99 in my county.

You can debate the severity of COVID and it's mortality rate but one thing that is certain it that it is highly infectious. I spreads like wildfire if you don't limit the interactions of people.

Pisses me off because we have gone to great lengths to keep working safely here. Probably have folks with friends and family family that were exposed... its only a matter of time. Only about half the staff was tested so far.

What a shit show.

[aerius]

We have most of our leaders and politicians along with pretty much everyone in this thread saying that we can't lift the lockdowns too early or we'll get a massive flood of new infections and undo everything we've sacrificed and then some.

Question. Has anyone bothered to work out a ballpark number for the infection rate, total infections, and how long the lockdowns will need to last before we have herd immunity? And if you did, how likely is it that our critical infrastructures & supply chains will stay intact for that time?

You can use Iceland as an example of how infectious the disease can be to give a good estimate. However, it seems that prior to the lockdown in Iceland, the infectious rate has not reach the 60-70 percent of the population to have herd immunity.

Lockdowns do not help with herd immunity as it reduce contact and exposure to the virus.

That's the part that people don't want to talk about. Most research papers I've seen so far put the generation time for the virus at somewhere around 5 days, though I've seen anywhere from 4 days to 8 days. Going by the reported case numbers in Canada we've dropped R0 to about 1.4 or so with the lockdowns and there's 35,000 infected people, or 0.1% of our population in round numbers. Run the math and the doubling time is about 10 days, and you'll need 9-10 doubling cycles to reach herd immunity.

That's 3 more months of what we're doing right now before we can lift the restrictions without getting a spike in cases. The US is about 10 days ahead of us on the curve going by the official numbers so they'll get to reopen on the 4th of July. Let's just say I don't like the chances for the US making it that far without having something blow up.

[Zaune]

On the one hand, appeasing would-be tyrants by sacrificing innocents. On the other, watering the tree of liberty with the blood of said would-be tyrants. Hmm, decisions decisions.

I'm not in love with the idea of giving in to the militiabros either, but filling the hospitals with gunshot victims to prevent filling the hospitals with COVID-19 cases solves precisely jack shit.

[MKSheppard]

filling the hospitals with gunshot victims to prevent filling the hospitals with COVID-19 cases solves precisely jack shit.

Chicago and Baltimore are filling their hospitals with gunshot victims.

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2020/04/ ... ast-years/

BALTIMORE (WJZ) — Despite the coronavirus pandemic and stay-at-home orders, the homicide rate in Baltimore City is trending ahead of last year’s record.

So far this year, there have been 75 homicides in Baltimore. Compare that to 71 on this date last year.

In 2019, 348 murders, a rate of 57 killings per 100,000 people. That is the worst rate in Baltimore history.

So... what's the difference.

[Solauren]

More then likely, it's stress causing people to snap.

Or, people killing or attempting to kill people that think might be infected...

[Jub]

On the one hand, appeasing would-be tyrants by sacrificing innocents. On the other, watering the tree of liberty with the blood of said would-be tyrants. Hmm, decisions decisions.

I'm not in love with the idea of giving in to the militiabros either, but filling the hospitals with gunshot victims to prevent filling the hospitals with COVID-19 cases solves precisely jack shit.

Then have your police forces shoot to kill and authorize them to humanely finish off the wounded. It's an awful choice to have to make but if the militia-bros won't fall in line the best possible response is putting them down hard and fast to show why you don't oppose the government without a damned good reason.

[bilateralrope]

We have most of our leaders and politicians along with pretty much everyone in this thread saying that we can't lift the lockdowns too early or we'll get a massive flood of new infections and undo everything we've sacrificed and then some.

Question. Has anyone bothered to work out a ballpark number for the infection rate, total infections, and how long the lockdowns will need to last before we have herd immunity? And if you did, how likely is it that our critical infrastructures & supply chains will stay intact for that time?

At the numbers we have for New Zealand, I don't see herd immunity happening before we get a vaccine. But the government seems to be aiming to eliminate it within the country. The government has started random testing of people with no symptoms or connection to known infected people. There are no positive tests from the random testing so far, so elimination might be possible.

We are getting a decision on if we are going to relax the lockdown at 4pm today.

[aerius]

At the numbers we have for New Zealand, I don't see herd immunity happening before we get a vaccine. But the government seems to be aiming to eliminate it within the country. The government has started random testing of people with no symptoms or connection to known infected people. There are no positive tests from the random testing so far, so elimination might be possible.

Countries with limited cases have a shot at containing & eliminating the virus. South Korea might be able to do it too since they've cut off the vectors after their initial super-spreader event.

Here in North America we've fucked up in pretty much every possible way, it's a total clown show.

[Zaune]

Then have your police forces shoot to kill and authorize them to humanely finish off the wounded. It's an awful choice to have to make but if the militia-bros won't fall in line the best possible response is putting them down hard and fast to show why you don't oppose the government without a damned good reason.

No. Just... no. I am not going to sit down and explain exactly why that would be a fucking terrible idea because I don't have the mental resources or the patience or the alcohol to help me recover afterwards, but... Fuck. Stop making me not be the least reasonable person in the room, okay? That's a bad thing. You do not want to be the person who makes me, who has spent more time on the psych ward than anybody else on this board, look sane by comparison. When I am looking sane by comparison to anyone else then something has gone really, really wrong.

*sigh* Sorry about that, everyone, it's been a trying week.

[The Romulan Republic]

At some point it's going to come down to deciding what the least bad option is, relax the restrictions and accept the risk of a second wave of infections and deaths or continue upholding them and accept the need to put down literal insurrection.

On the one hand, appeasing would-be tyrants by sacrificing innocents. On the other, watering the tree of liberty with the blood of said would-be tyrants. Hmm, decisions decisions.

This.

As much as I find Jub's talk about authorizing police to euthanize the wounded horrifying and sociopathic, and as much as a violent clash would be awful at any time and particularly horrific now, if it comes down to a choice between letting the militias run roughshod over public safety and fighting them, I say fight.

You capitulate to people like that, all it does is send them the message that threats work, that they can get whatever they want by waving their guns around, and it'll encourage them to push further and further. This is why negotiating with terrorists doesn't work.

If the militias (or Trump) really want a war, we can't prevent that, other than by giving into everything they demand. And given the kinds of demands they'll make, that price is way too fucking high. Governors just need to make sure that the militias fire the first shots, so they and their Fuhrer can't spin it as "Democratic tyranny shooting peaceful protesters" or something.

Keep the lockdowns in place as long as the medical professionals deem necessary, perhaps allow limited demonstrations if they're under fifty people and stay at least six feet apart. If they don't comply with those rules, send the police to break them up. If the militias start shooting, crush them with the National Guard. That's the appropriate course of action if you believe in the rule of law.

[Zaune]

This.

As much as I find Jub's talk about authorizing police to euthanize the wounded horrifying and sociopathic, and as much as a violent clash would be awful at any time and particularly horrific now, if it comes down to a choice between letting the militias run roughshod over public safety and fighting them, I say fight.

You capitulate to people like that, all it does is send them the message that threats work, that they can get whatever they want by waving their guns around, and it'll encourage them to push further and further. This is why negotiating with terrorists doesn't work.

If the militias (or Trump) really want a war, we can't prevent that, other than by giving into everything they demand. And given the kinds of demands they'll make, that price is way too fucking high. Governors just need to make sure that the militias fire the first shots, so they and their Fuhrer can't spin it as "Democratic tyranny shooting peaceful protesters" or something.

Keep the lockdowns in place as long as the medical professionals deem necessary, perhaps allow limited demonstrations if they're under fifty people and stay at least six feet apart. If they don't comply with those rules, send the police to break them up. If the militias start shooting, crush them with the National Guard. That's the appropriate course of action if you believe in the rule of law.

I would agree with you if I were more confident that a non-negligible fraction of the National Guard wouldn't defect to the militias, or that Trump wouldn't send federal troops to support the "heroic resistance fighters for FREEDOM" regardless of who shot first, and that by the time the ensuing omniclusterfuck ran its course we wouldn't all be longing for the days when COVID-19 was our biggest problem.

I think it goes without saying that I'm not opposed to the idea of the remaining sane parts of the US government fighting the militias: It's just that currently, I think there's at least a 50/50 chance the militias would win.

[Raw Shark]

Texas, though, with major cities like Dallas, Houston, Austin... that just does not strike me as a good idea to let up on restrictions.

On the other hand, Texas has a rather higher concentration of heavily armed shitkicking morons. At some point it's going to come down to deciding what the least bad option is, relax the restrictions and accept the risk of a second wave of infections and deaths or continue upholding them and accept the need to put down literal insurrection.

Depends on how you mean "concentration..." Vermont may have an overall population density of roughly 3/5 Texas', but it's more evenly-distributed over a vastly smaller land area, and guns and cows that shit are definitely a thing there. The moron part is, of course, more subjective.

[Ralin]

I think it goes without saying that I'm not opposed to the idea of the remaining sane parts of the US government fighting the militias: It's just that currently, I think there's at least a 50/50 chance the militias would win.

As Simon Jester said years back, it's easy to mock people for the whole "Grab ma musket!!!" bullshit and say they'd be drone striked out of existence. But if we're ever in a situation where a substantial fraction of the US is in actual no shit rebellion against the government some part of the military is probably going to side with them. Just like they did last time.

[The Romulan Republic]

This.

As much as I find Jub's talk about authorizing police to euthanize the wounded horrifying and sociopathic, and as much as a violent clash would be awful at any time and particularly horrific now, if it comes down to a choice between letting the militias run roughshod over public safety and fighting them, I say fight.

You capitulate to people like that, all it does is send them the message that threats work, that they can get whatever they want by waving their guns around, and it'll encourage them to push further and further. This is why negotiating with terrorists doesn't work.

If the militias (or Trump) really want a war, we can't prevent that, other than by giving into everything they demand. And given the kinds of demands they'll make, that price is way too fucking high. Governors just need to make sure that the militias fire the first shots, so they and their Fuhrer can't spin it as "Democratic tyranny shooting peaceful protesters" or something.

Keep the lockdowns in place as long as the medical professionals deem necessary, perhaps allow limited demonstrations if they're under fifty people and stay at least six feet apart. If they don't comply with those rules, send the police to break them up. If the militias start shooting, crush them with the National Guard. That's the appropriate course of action if you believe in the rule of law.

I would agree with you if I were more confident that a non-negligible fraction of the National Guard wouldn't defect to the militias, or that Trump wouldn't send federal troops to support the "heroic resistance fighters for FREEDOM" regardless of who shot first, and that by the time the ensuing omniclusterfuck ran its course we wouldn't all be longing for the days when COVID-19 was our biggest problem.

This is why I think its very, very important that the Right fire the first shots in any conflict, that we don't attack them preemptively or in an overly-heavy-handed manner. Because that will play a major role in whether the military sides more with them, or with the governors, and indeed who their oaths require them to side with.

It'll also vary state by state, of course, as National Guard units are drawn from their states.

There was a similar issue at the start of the Civil War- Lincoln considered secession illegal from the start, but he waited until the South fired on Fort Sumpter (some argue, manuevered them into firing on Fort Sumpter) before declaring war, because if he had invaded the South without "provocation", he would have probably lost all the border states to the Confederacy, and had far less support even in the North. Whereas the casus belli of Fort Sumpter united a lot of the North and border states behind the war (though they still lost Virginia, which greatly prolonged the war).

I think it goes without saying that I'm not opposed to the idea of the remaining sane parts of the US government fighting the militias: It's just that currently, I think there's at least a 50/50 chance the militias would win.

I'm actually not so pessimistic. A lot of the rank and file are (or were) Trumpers, though he hasn't done himself any favors with stuff like the messy Syrian withdrawl, driving General Mattis out, or the firing of Captain Crozier. I also expect that most of the military will simply follow their orders. But a lot of the officers are very, very anti-Trump. They won't go against him openly if it means violating their oaths, but I am very skeptical that they will back him to the hilt in illegally seizing power and suppressing lawful state governments. They will, however, back him if it means putting down an illegal rebellion.

Which is why its really, really important that the militia, not state governors or the Democratic Party, are seen as the instigators of any conflict, in the eyes of the armed forces. That will probably determine more than anything else whether we can win, and how bad the conflict gets.

[loomer]

On the one hand, appeasing would-be tyrants by sacrificing innocents. On the other, watering the tree of liberty with the blood of said would-be tyrants. Hmm, decisions decisions.

I'm not in love with the idea of giving in to the militiabros either, but filling the hospitals with gunshot victims to prevent filling the hospitals with COVID-19 cases solves precisely jack shit.

Then have your police forces shoot to kill and authorize them to humanely finish off the wounded. It's an awful choice to have to make but if the militia-bros won't fall in line the best possible response is putting them down hard and fast to show why you don't oppose the government without a damned good reason.

Must you continually kramer into this thread to demand the execution of thousands?

[Zaune]

This is why I think its very, very important that the Right fire the first shots in any conflict, that we don't attack them preemptively or in an overly-heavy-handed manner. Because that will play a major role in whether the military sides more with them, or with the governors, and indeed who their oaths require them to side with.

It'll also vary state by state, of course, as National Guard units are drawn from their states.

There was a similar issue at the start of the Civil War- Lincoln considered secession illegal from the start, but he waited until the South fired on Fort Sumpter (some argue, manuevered them into firing on Fort Sumpter) before declaring war, because if he had invaded the South without "provocation", he would have probably lost all the border states to the Confederacy, and had far less support even in the North. Whereas the casus belli of Fort Sumpter united a lot of the North and border states behind the war (though they still lost Virginia, which greatly prolonged the war).

In a scenario like what happens if one of these rallies turns into a shoot-out, the comparison is less Fort Sumter and more Bloody Sunday: Big protest march on an extremely contentious issue so the mood is ugly, there are lots of heavily armed security forces present who have strong reasons to suspect there will be armed insurgents in the crowd*, someone thinks they see a weapon being aimed and panics... Shit, meet fan. By the time anyone could piece together what really happened the damage would have been done, because both sides would be enthusiastically blaming each other and not much interested in listening to anything that didn't fit their preferred narrative.

* That the militiabros are openly carrying firearms is better in one way because the potential threats are clearly identifiable instead of potentially being anyone, but worse in another because it's a calculated threat and not conducive to deescalation.

[The Romulan Republic]

This is why I think its very, very important that the Right fire the first shots in any conflict, that we don't attack them preemptively or in an overly-heavy-handed manner. Because that will play a major role in whether the military sides more with them, or with the governors, and indeed who their oaths require them to side with.

It'll also vary state by state, of course, as National Guard units are drawn from their states.

There was a similar issue at the start of the Civil War- Lincoln considered secession illegal from the start, but he waited until the South fired on Fort Sumpter (some argue, manuevered them into firing on Fort Sumpter) before declaring war, because if he had invaded the South without "provocation", he would have probably lost all the border states to the Confederacy, and had far less support even in the North. Whereas the casus belli of Fort Sumpter united a lot of the North and border states behind the war (though they still lost Virginia, which greatly prolonged the war).

In a scenario like what happens if one of these rallies turns into a shoot-out, the comparison is less Fort Sumter and more Bloody Sunday: Big protest march on an extremely contentious issue so the mood is ugly, there are lots of heavily armed security forces present who have strong reasons to suspect there will be armed insurgents in the crowd*, someone thinks they see a weapon being aimed and panics... Shit, meet fan. By the time anyone could piece together what really happened the damage would have been done, because both sides would be enthusiastically blaming each other and not much interested in listening to anything that didn't fit their preferred narrative.

* That the militiabros are openly carrying firearms is better in one way because the potential threats are clearly identifiable instead of potentially being anyone, but worse in another because it's a calculated threat and not conducive to deescalation.

Possibly. There's really no way to know how something like that ends, and I hope we won't find out. But its looking more and more likely that we will.

[MKSheppard]

Ignoring TRR's hysterical screeching, it's worth noting that Northam in VA waited until the Corona lockdown was in effect to sign the rump remainder of gun control bills he asked for; precisely when nobody could protest him; hence trump's tweet on VA:

LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!

It's worth noting that the MARYLAND DEMOCRATS passed a gun control bill that bans private sales of long guns (including shotguns) as part of a Universal Background Check push; and they took until about 1 APRIL to send the bill to Hogan.

We'll see if Hogan signs it.

[mr friendly guy]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-20/ ... e/12163652

Boris Johnson has missed not one, not two, not three, but five meetings on the coronavirus. But Michael Gove defends him. You know the same guy who says if China had given us another one month warning that would totally make a difference. Yeah, I guess he would have turned up for the sixth meeting.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ignoring TRR's hysterical screeching, it's worth noting that Northam in VA waited until the Corona lockdown was in effect to sign the rump remainder of gun control bills he asked for; precisely when nobody could protest him; hence trump's tweet on VA:

LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!

It's worth noting that the MARYLAND DEMOCRATS passed a gun control bill that bans private sales of long guns (including shotguns) as part of a Universal Background Check push; and they took until about 1 APRIL to send the bill to Hogan.

We'll see if Hogan signs it.

Shep defends incitement of armed insurrection during a pandemic, then tries to distract from it by singling me out for personal attack/ridicule, as though I'm the only person complaining about the Right's actions here and the Trumpers' ILLEGAL SEDITION can just be handwaved as "TRR hysteria".

I don't suppose you'll offer any evidence that Democrats deliberately waited for Coronavirus to get bad to suppress protests, as opposed to government legislation taking time and COVID-19 interupting a lot of ongoing things. No, of course not. You'll just scream "BUT TRR!", and hope to distract/derail the thread.

Its the same old narrative the Reich has been pushing for years- creating the impression that any regulation whatsoever is part of a sinister Democratic conspiracy to seize all the guns, to manufacture a casus belli for Treason.