Our Constitution was Shortsighted

ldsrptcvt said:

the freedom to infect people with a potentially fatal disease? Yeah, I know jerks are allowed to do all kinds of things that are a nuisance to society, things that infringe on others' rights. I put up with a lot. But this crosses the line. You might as well allow murder.

Click to expand...

unless we are going to cross a line as a society, and line up these people against a wall....and have them shot

yeah....we dont have a lot of options

it sucks....and it is frustrating as hell that your neighbor could be risking your life, your families lives, and their is NOTHING you can really do about it

ReubenSherr said:

Out of the four states you listed,

New York is testing the highest percentage of their population (0.75%) (63,000 tests out of 8,399,000 people)
California is testing the second highest percentage of their population (0.23%) (90,000 tests out of 39,510,000 people)
Connecticut is testing the third highest percentage of their population (0.18%) (6,500 tests out of 3,565,000 people)
Massachusetts is testing the lowest percentage of their population (0.13%) (9,500 tests out of 6,893,000 people)

This completely refutes your claim that more testing results in less cases - New York looks good, Massachusetts and Connecticut do not, compared to California

This data also refutes your methodology for calculating the amount of testing done in each state (the nonsense about the number of tests that are positive being under 3%)

Click to expand...

I don’t claim that testing results in less cases. Testing by itself does nothing if you don’t use it.

What does result in less cases is testing, quarantine and contact tracing. You test, find someone infected and you quarantine them. Then you trace all their recent contacts, test and quarantine. Each person quarantined then saves anyone they might infect from getting infected plus anyone those people might infect, etc, etc, .... down the chain of infections over time.

If you look at the stats below you will see that problem with California is that they do not have enough contact tracing capability. Their contact tracers are overwhelmed with the number of new cases each day. The can only trace about a fifth (21%) of the new cases so they are not able to identify and quarantine 79% of the people who have come into contact with an infected person. The other states all have enough contact tracing capability (100%) to trace all of their new infections.

I’m not sure what you are getting at with “This data also refutes your methodology for calculating the amount of testing done in each state (the nonsense about the number of tests that are positive being under 3%).” However, using the number of positive tests is not “my” way it’s how epidemiologists look at the adequacy of testing. But what do they know? They only do it for a living.

Below are the stats along with the comments copied from the website I gave you earlier. The website was developed with the guidance of epidemiologists to show how the infections are growing or shrinking in each state/county and also the relevant factors that contribute to their results.

California:
INFECTION RATE
Active cases are rapidly increasing
1.20

POSITIVE TEST RATE
6.5%
Indicates adequate testing

CONTACTS TRACED
Insufficient tracing to stop the spread of COVID
21%. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<this is CA’s problem!!!!

New York:

INFECTION RATE
COVID is still spreading, but slowly
0.96

POSITIVE TEST RATE
Indicates widespread testing
1.1%

CONTACTS TRACED
Enough tracing to help contain COVID
100%

Connecticut:

INFECTION RATE
Active cases are decreasing
0.69

POSITIVE TEST RATE
Indicates widespread testing
0.8%

CONTACTS TRACED
Enough tracing to help contain COVID
100%

Massachusetts:

INFECTION RATE
Active cases are decreasing
0.87
POSITIVE TEST RATE
Indicates widespread testing
2.4%
CONTACTS TRACED
Enough tracing to help contain COVID
100%


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Glitch said:

Providing government presents evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt the accused is infected, contagious, and an immanent threat to the public, they can quarantine the individual. It must be a legitimate trial, not an illegal kangaroo court like you fascist leftists love to use.

Click to expand...

you didn't respond to my comment

AlphaOmega said:

Lets test that to see if you are a liar. Show me your posts denouncing the rioters for spreading diaease. Lets hope you have one and aren't a liar.

Click to expand...

I don't need to post anything specific; my statement covers all

gdgyva said:

unless we are going to cross a line as a society, and line up these people against a wall....and have them shot

yeah....we dont have a lot of options

it sucks....and it is frustrating as hell that your neighbor could be risking your life, your families lives, and their is NOTHING you can really do about it

Click to expand...

another way the Constitution fails us

George50 said:

I don’t claim that testing results in less cases. Testing by itself does nothing if you don’t use it.

What does result in less cases is testing, quarantine and contact tracing. You test, find someone infected and you quarantine them. Then you trace all their recent contacts, test and quarantine. Each person quarantined then saves anyone they might infect from getting infected plus anyone those people might infect, etc, etc, .... down the chain of infections over time.

If you look at the stats below you will see that problem with California is that they do not have enough contact tracing capability. Their contact tracers are overwhelmed with the number of new cases each day. The can only trace about a fifth (21%) of the new cases so they are not able to identify and quarantine 79% of the people who have come into contact with an infected person. The other states all have enough contact tracing capability (100%) to trace all of their new infections.

Click to expand...

Are you indicating that Massachusetts and Connecticut are currently using full contact tracing? That would change things for me

George50 said:

I’m not sure what you are getting at with “This data also refutes your methodology for calculating the amount of testing done in each state (the nonsense about the number of tests that are positive being under 3%).” However, using the number of positive tests is not “my” way it’s how epidemiologists look at the adequacy of testing. But what do they know? They only do it for a living.

Click to expand...

You indicated the California does the least amount of testing, out of the four states listed, and the reason you gave was that their number of positive tests under 3% was higher than the other states

When I directly calculated the percentage if people tested in each state, California came out higher than either Massachusetts or Connecticut

I don't have a post from an epidemiologist to refer to, just your post referring to something you read about the way they measure testing, and I can't tell what the context is, or how they would explain the discrepancy above

ldsrptcvt said:

another way the Constitution fails us

Click to expand...

It is a management failure not a Constitutional failure.

With regard to the Constitution of the United States of America, there's a rather simple question to ask when considering a 'strict construction' talking point. It is this:

Is the Constitution of the United States of America intended to serve we, the people, or are we to serve the Constitution?

It is a distinction with at least some importance, nu?

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Sent from my old PC, using a cheap keyboard.

Our federal Constitution is not ambiguous in any way.

ReubenSherr said:

Are you indicating that Massachusetts and Connecticut are currently using full contact tracing? That would change things for me

Click to expand...

Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York all currently have enough staffing to trace 100% of the contacts. California currently only has enough staff to trace 20% of the contacts.

If you go to the link I provided earlier and scroll down you can see a graph of each factor including contact tracing capability over time. Here’s the link for Massachusetts.

Covid Act Now


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

ReubenSherr said:

You indicated the California does the least amount of testing, out of the four states listed, and the reason you gave was that their number of positive tests under 3% was higher than the other states

When I directly calculated the percentage if people tested in each state, California came out higher than either Massachusetts or Connecticut

I don't have a post from an epidemiologist to refer to, just your post referring to something you read about the way they measure testing, and I can't tell what the context is, or how they would explain the discrepancy above

Click to expand...

I’m not trying to say California does the least amount of testing measured in the actual number of tests but rather of the states above the other states are doing a better job than California of finding the infected so they can be isolated. The ADEQUACY of testing is measured by the percentage of positive tests.

Think of it this way. The goal is to try to have a small number of people left over that are infected but we haven’t tested them. To use an exaggerated example to make the point clear, let’s say two states each have the same population and each do 50,000 tests. If the first state finds only 1 positive case then chances are there are few people out there who are infected compared to the second state where 20,000 people test positive. The second state needs to do a lot more testing if they want to have a small number of people left over that are infected but we haven’t tested them.

Currently Thailand and Australia find only about 1 positive per 1,000 tests (or a .1% positive) while the US average is about 1 positive per 10 tests (10% positive). Of course the percent positive by state varies widely.

Connecticut currently has a 0.8% positive test rate. California is at 6.7%.

Covid Act Now


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

George50 said:

Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York all currently have enough staffing to trace 100% of the contacts. California currently only has enough staff to trace 20% of the contacts.

Click to expand...

This is all well and good, but this was your post:

"I don’t claim that testing results in less cases. Testing by itself does nothing if you don’t use it. What does result in less cases is testing, quarantine and contact tracing."

If Massachusetts and Connecticut are not already using contact tracing, then there is no current data to back up your claim.

George50 said:

I’m not trying to say California does the least amount of testing measured in the actual number of tests but rather of the states above the other states are doing a better job than California of finding the infected so they can be isolated. The ADEQUACY of testing is measured by the percentage of positive tests.

Click to expand...

Again, your original claim was that increased testing is the key to lowering infection rates, and you used Massachusetts and Connecticut as examples.

California has had a higher percentage of their population tested than either Massachusetts or Connecticut, yet California still has a higher infection rate than the other two states.

If you're claiming that the key is more adequate testing, that's extremely difficult to document. If you're defining the adequacy of a state's testing system by the "percentage of positive tests being less than 3%," there are too many other variables that come into play. California may have a higher percentage of positive tests due to the fact that it's currently being flooded with tourists, bringing the virus to California with them, that doesn't mean that their testing system is less effective than Massachusetts or Connecticut's system.

If a state has a low percentage of positive tests compared to the number tested, it could be because, as you say, people are proactively going to get tested. But it could just as easily be because the virus has weakened in that geographic area, due to the fact that that geographic area has already experienced a dramatic peak early in the pandemic, and that area is on the downside of its projected curve.

danielpalos said:

Our federal Constitution is not ambiguous in any way.

Click to expand...

But it does allow for extenuating circumstances; and if the Bible is constantly interpreted by various Christians (do you know, for instance, that the 7th Day Adventists are certain you will go to hell if you don't observe Saturday as the sabbath?), certainly the Constitution gives us the ability to re-visit verbiage in the context of modern day problems.

ldsrptcvt said:

But it does allow for extenuating circumstances; and if the Bible is constantly interpreted by various Christians (do you know, for instance, that the 7th Day Adventists are certain you will go to hell if you don't observe Saturday as the sabbath?), certainly the Constitution gives us the ability to re-visit verbiage in the context of modern day problems.

Click to expand...

If you don't like the individual liberties being protected by the US Constitution get some of your fascist leftist buddies in Congress to propose an amendment to abolish them. The last time the US Constitution was amended was in 1992, which is pretty up to date. The fact that you don't like what the Supreme Law of the Land says is just too damn bad. My advice is to get use to it. Your fascist leftist ways will never become mainstream. The US was founded on the principles of protecting life, liberty, and property. Principles that I know you absolutely abhor. Your attempts to deprive Americans of those founding principles will never succeed.

ldsrptcvt said:

But it does allow for extenuating circumstances; and if the Bible is constantly interpreted by various Christians (do you know, for instance, that the 7th Day Adventists are certain you will go to hell if you don't observe Saturday as the sabbath?), certainly the Constitution gives us the ability to re-visit verbiage in the context of modern day problems.

Click to expand...

Our First Amendment is there, for a reason. And, it is the First Amendment not the Second Amendment.

SkyChief said:

The founding fathers had no idea about COVID-19.

To be fair, neither did we in November 2019.

All things considered, the founding fathers did pretty good. . . .

Click to expand...

Funny, Tony knew and communicated in 2017 that the current administration WOULD experience an epidemic.

You and I might not have known about it, but certain government players knew about it.

Kinda like certain government players knew to buy American and United Airlines stock short days or weeks before 911. As Madison noted, men holding power OUGHT to be mistrusted.

ReubenSherr said:

This is all well and good, but this was your post:

"I don’t claim that testing results in less cases. Testing by itself does nothing if you don’t use it. What does result in less cases is testing, quarantine and contact tracing."

If Massachusetts and Connecticut are not already using contact tracing, then there is no current data to back up your claim.

Click to expand...

I gave you the links but you won’t click on them. If you would click on them you would see that each of those states has had enough contact tracing capability to trace all their contacts starting in June. I guess it’s true that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

George50 said:

I gave you the links but you won’t click on them. If you would click on them you would see that each of those states has had enough contact tracing capability to trace all their contacts starting in June. I guess it’s true that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

Click to expand...

Contract tracing capability is irrelevant in terms of what you're trying to prove, there's no point clicking on the links.

In other words, there is no evidence that full scale contract tracing reduces infection rates, which is what you had been claiming, since the contract tracing hasn't been done yet.

I believe you that MA and CT have ability to contact trace, but there won't be any data correlating contact tracing with infection rates until these states start the process.

ReubenSherr said:

Again, your original claim was that increased testing is the key to lowering infection rates, and you used Massachusetts and Connecticut as examples.

California has had a higher percentage of their population tested than either Massachusetts or Connecticut, yet California still has a higher infection rate than the other two states.

If you're claiming that the key is more adequate testing, that's extremely difficult to document. If you're defining the adequacy of a state's testing system by the "percentage of positive tests being less than 3%," there are too many other variables that come into play. California may have a higher percentage of positive tests due to the fact that it's currently being flooded with tourists, bringing the virus to California with them, that doesn't mean that their testing system is less effective than Massachusetts or Connecticut's system.

If a state has a low percentage of positive tests compared to the number tested, it could be because, as you say, people are proactively going to get tested. But it could just as easily be because the virus has weakened in that geographic area, due to the fact that that geographic area has already experienced a dramatic peak early in the pandemic, and that area is on the downside of its projected curve.

Click to expand...

Your idea that the virus has some dramatic peak and then goes down by magic is nonsense. The virus doesn’t weaken due to a peak. It’s not some connected organism that gets tired or whatever. Each virus it a tiny little entity that knows nothing outside it’s self nor does it have some kind of memory as to whether there was a prior peak or not. The virus cases only go down due to some actions taken by people or governments OR through herd immunity which can occur through a vaccine or naturally. We don’t have a vaccine and all states are far from the percentage of infections needed to get to herd immunity naturally.

All states had an initial peak then some form of lockdown that stopped their initial exponential growth. Some states had higher initial peaks because the virus was introduced there earlier and/or their population density or chances for close human contact (such as heavy reliance on mass transit) favored the virus spread. A higher peak only makes it harder to come down from the peak to the point where you can come out of lockdown and get to the point where you can control the virus, not easier.

A lower initial peak does NOT mean that a second peak will happen. The problem is that people in some states are adhering to wearing masks and social distancing better than others and they are also testing, quarantine, and tracing adequately. In order to be able to test, quarantine and contact trace you also need to lockdown hard enough and long enough to get the cases down to a low enough level to be manageable. These are the states where the cases are declining instead of increasing. Those states that are not taking these measures are seeing a new peak, but it didn’t have to happen.

As far as tourists or whatever, each state has its own unique challenges that they need to manage or the virus will overrun them. If tourism is bringing in new infections then rather than just throwing up your hands and using that as an excuse you either need to staff up to handle the situation or limit tourism from highly infected areas as some states have done.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

ReubenSherr said:

Contract tracing capability is irrelevant in terms of what you're trying to prove, there's no point clicking on the links.

In other words, there is no evidence that full scale contract tracing reduces infection rates, which is what you had been claiming, since the contract tracing hasn't been done yet.

I believe you that MA and CT have ability to contact trace, but there won't be any data correlating contact tracing with infection rates until these states start the process.

Click to expand...

Again you don’t know what you are talking about. What makes you think they haven’t started? Do you really think that all the many thousands of contact tracers around the country have been sitting on their hands for months. Contact tracing started when the first infections started. Health authorities knew it needed to be done.

“On January 20, state and local health departments in the United States, in collaboration with teams deployed from CDC, began identifying and monitoring all persons considered to have had close contact† with patients with confirmed COVID-19 (2). The aims of these efforts were to ensure rapid evaluation and care of patients, limit further transmission, and better understand risk factors for transmission.”

Active Monitoring of Persons Exposed to Patients with Confirmed COVID-19 — United States, January–February 2020 | MMWR

Some areas are much more aggressive than others in staffing up though.

Here’s New York’s current situation from the link I gave you:

“Per best available data, New York has 9,600 contact tracers. With an average of 648 new daily cases, we estimate New York needs 3,240 contact tracing staff to trace all new cases in 48 hours, before too many other people are infected. This means that New York is likely able to trace 100% of new COVID infections in 48 hours. When this level of tracing is coupled with widely available testing, COVID can be contained without resorting to lockdowns.”

Here’s Florida’s

Per best available data, Florida has 1,600 contact tracers. With an average of 7,870 new daily cases, we estimate Florida needs 39,350 contact tracing staff to trace all new cases in 48 hours, before too many other people are infected. This means that Florida is likely able to trace only 4% of new COVID infections in 48 hours. These low levels of tracing suggest there may be an active outbreak underway in Florida, or almost no tracing capacity exists. Aggressive action urgently needed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It’s the quarantine part of test, quarantine and contact tracing that reduces new infections. When people are quarantined they can’t spread the disease.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

George50 said:

Your idea that the virus has some dramatic peak and then goes down by magic is nonsense. The virus doesn’t weaken due to a peak. It’s not some connected organism that gets tired or whatever. Each virus it a tiny little entity that knows nothing outside it’s self nor does it have some kind of memory as to whether there was a prior peak or not.

As far as tourists or whatever, each state has its own unique challenges that they need to manage or the virus will overrun them. If tourism is bringing in new infections then rather than just throwing up your hands and using that as an excuse you either need to staff up to handle the situation or limit tourism from highly infected areas as some states have done.

Click to expand...

Your first paragraph is nonsense. Every geographical area is on a separate curve, Cuomo himself repeated this over and over during his press briefings. If you remember, he asked other governors for equipment, promising to return the equipment when their state was in the peak of their curve.

Regarding your second paragraph, you’re losing track of your own argument. You claimed that California did less testing than Massachusetts, and that this was evidence that more testing equals less infections. California, in fact, does more testing than Massachusetts. The reason California has a lower percentage of negative cases is because they have to deal with tourists bringing the virus with them.

Regarding contact tracing, you’re wobbling back and forth. I asked if Massachusetts was currently doing extensive contact tracing, and you replied that they had high capability to do it in the future. Are you indicating that Massachusetts is currently doing EXTENSIVE contact tracing, the type you are claiming lowers the infection rate?

ldsrptcvt said:

After dueling for weeks about how a country should be able to protect itself from fatal epidemics, I've come to the conclusion that our founding fathers made no allowance for rapid containment of contagious diseases. Thus they have let us down and impede us in any war on disease, no mater how contagious and fatal. Constitutional barriers will kill us all in the end, because really bad diseases are in the pipeline, but we have no way to respond quickly as a nation. Oh well, all empires come to an end.

Click to expand...

The Constitution leaves out a lot but you are blaming the wrong people. The Founders assumed that when a President takes the oath of office he is competent and intelligent enough to use his powers to protect the American people from harm. With great power comes great responsibility and Trump is not up to that challenge. Thanks Putin. Now thanks to the Senate Republicans we have to wait until November to replace him. They also violated their oaths and need to be voted out too.