Coronavirus 2019-nCov: Political Thread

[pinstripers]

Faucci just recommended wearing two masks.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

Faucci just recommended wearing two masks.

LOL!! F him. What a joke.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

My opinion only, but this should have been something handled at the federal level.....and there seems to be some agreement among libertarians:

“Preventing the spread of infectious disease is within the legitimate functions of the minimal state, which most libertarians accept,” says Michael Huemer, a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, in Boulder.

“The minimal state’s functions include protecting people from physical threats posed by other people,” Huemer says. “That includes not only behavior that definitely causes physical harm, but also behavior that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others. Obviously, what is an unreasonable risk is a matter of judgment.”

In Washington, David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, says, “I wouldn’t say we have trouble holding on to libertarian principles. We believe in the presumption of liberty. But that presumption can be overcome in particular circumstances. And that’s part of our understanding of liberty.”

The issue in letting each state 'fend for themselves' is that you end up with 50 different ways of solving a problem. On the plus side, some states may come up with some very effective, innovative ways of solving their problem. On the negative side, there will be process gaps because you have 50 different ways of solving a problem.

So as in life, there are trade-offs with every decision that is made. Is a unified, cohesive strategy that everyone follows better? It might be if you are looking for a consistent outcome. If you are looking at this to incubate ideas, perhaps a decentralized approach might be better.

I don't think we've seen enough to say one approach or the other is best, at least not from my perspective. If we continue to see supply-chain issues (which may be more related to ramping up vaccine production and distribution and that some here have argued is a non-issue) a coordinated federal response would solve problems quicker and drive consistency. But I think it is too early to play Monday-morning quarterback at this point.

I just hope that we learn from this and we have some sort of a 'pandemic playbook' that can be used in the future if, God forbid, we have another pandemic.

So, when Hiden Joe fails in his vaccine roll out, will you have the same opinion? That is should be a federally handled thing? Guessing no. Either that or the excuse will be that he was left so far behind by Orange Man that there is no way he could have succeeded.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Faucci just recommended wearing two masks.

When asked if it would be beneficial to double up masks, he said he didn't see why it wouldn't as layers have been proven to reduce droplet exposure.

This doesn't apply to N95's though.

[pinstripers]

“Because, I mean, this is a physical covering to prevent droplets and virus to get in,” Fauci said. “So, if you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective and that’s the reason why you see people either double masking or doing a version of an N95.”

[wufan]

Faucci just recommended wearing two masks.

I’m going to wear 3!

[wufan]

“Because, I mean, this is a physical covering to prevent droplets and virus to get in,” Fauci said. “So, if you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective and that’s the reason why you see people either double masking or doing a version of an N95.”

He’s correct about this. In order to maintain less than 3 particles of coronavirus size per cubic meter in an aseptic environment, you need a 1 foot thick HEPA filter laminar flow and no obstruction.

I think if we add enough masks, we can get there!

Its the patriotic thing to do!

[wufan]

My opinion only, but this should have been something handled at the federal level.....and there seems to be some agreement among libertarians:

“Preventing the spread of infectious disease is within the legitimate functions of the minimal state, which most libertarians accept,” says Michael Huemer, a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, in Boulder.

“The minimal state’s functions include protecting people from physical threats posed by other people,” Huemer says. “That includes not only behavior that definitely causes physical harm, but also behavior that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others. Obviously, what is an unreasonable risk is a matter of judgment.”

In Washington, David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, says, “I wouldn’t say we have trouble holding on to libertarian principles. We believe in the presumption of liberty. But that presumption can be overcome in particular circumstances. And that’s part of our understanding of liberty.”

The issue in letting each state 'fend for themselves' is that you end up with 50 different ways of solving a problem. On the plus side, some states may come up with some very effective, innovative ways of solving their problem. On the negative side, there will be process gaps because you have 50 different ways of solving a problem.

So as in life, there are trade-offs with every decision that is made. Is a unified, cohesive strategy that everyone follows better? It might be if you are looking for a consistent outcome. If you are looking at this to incubate ideas, perhaps a decentralized approach might be better.

I don't think we've seen enough to say one approach or the other is best, at least not from my perspective. If we continue to see supply-chain issues (which may be more related to ramping up vaccine production and distribution and that some here have argued is a non-issue) a coordinated federal response would solve problems quicker and drive consistency. But I think it is too early to play Monday-morning quarterback at this point.

I just hope that we learn from this and we have some sort of a 'pandemic playbook' that can be used in the future if, God forbid, we have another pandemic.

I’m not an LP member or libertarian scholar. I’m a little surprised to see this, so hopefully some of our more in the weeds members can comment.

[C0|dB|00ded]

He’s correct about this. In order to maintain less than 3 particles of coronavirus size per cubic meter in an aseptic environment, you need a 1 foot thick HEPA filter laminar flow and no obstruction.

I think if we add enough masks, we can get there!

Its the patriotic thing to do!

That's the spirit!

It starts with masks. We could shut the pandemic down in the US in 6 weeks with 99% proper mask protocol adherence. Add in strict social distancing and no comingling w/ strangers inside buildings, and you'd do even better.

If everybody had taken this as serious as CB, we would have been mostly free and clear by last spring protecting millions from harm and saving trillions of dollars.

But Dotard's gonna Dotard. You tell people that this is gonna disappear magically one day soon and you lose half the population's cooperation (the dumb half).

[pinstripers]

**** YOU

[ShockerFever]

I’m going to wear 3!

I’m just not gonna breathe. Good luck getting in virus!

[1979Shocker]

I’m going to wear 3!

I believe Dr. Fauci said that wearing a one-layer mask would only stop 50% exposure to particles, a 2-layer mask would stop 75% exposure, and 3-layer mask would stop around 90% exposure.

Double-Masking: Doctors urge more protection against new COVID-19 mutation (wave3.com)

[wufan]

I believe Dr. Fauci said that wearing a one-layer mask would only stop 50% exposure to particles, a 2-layer mask would stop 75% exposure, and 3-layer mask would stop around 90% exposure.

Double-Masking: Doctors urge more protection against new COVID-19 mutation (wave3.com)

Did he provide any studies to back up those numbers, or is this line his herd immunity numbers where he just said what he thought people would best respond to?

[SubGod22]

I’m not an LP member or libertarian scholar. I’m a little surprised to see this, so hopefully some of our more in the weeds members can comment.

Most of the notable libertarians during this past year (to my recollection), people like Jo Jorgensen, Spike Cohen and Justin Amash and others, believed that the role of the federal government was to facilitate the opportunity for States and private industry to be more effective and do what they could/wanted in preparing for and handling of the virus. Government regulations prevented many companies from using/selling their test kits in the United States and instead forced them to sell to other countries, which helped some countries get on top of some things earlier than others.

Most libertarians seemed to be in agreement that a national mandate of any kind and a one sized fits all approach would have been a bad idea. Letting States decide the best approaches for themselves and learning what options were in fact best or failed and letting all adjust accordingly with much more data at hand. The approach needed in places like NYC (which was botched by leadership) was not the same thing needed in places like Wyoming.

We've already seen how some of the more severe approaches have done just as much harm, or more, than good in a number of places. Though, we can definitely find disagreement in that statement I'm sure. But the approach considered by those in leadership and positions of influence with the LP think the more local the approach the better for the pandemic, as it is with most things. The more localized most decisions are made, typically the better it is for those involved. Also, it's easier to influence needs and changes locally opposed to federally.

Cato has some good insight, but they also have a number of people there that may be libertarian leaning, but don't embrace the libertarian ideals as much as most members within the LP. Kind of like how politicians like Rand Paul have some libertarian ideals, but few would consider to be a libertarian on the whole.

[wufan]

SubGod22 , what do you think about the Mises caucus?