Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Ghengis Jon]

The SCOTUS picks are part of the problem, and this falls into the laps of politicians. Would you find a 7-2 conservative majority just as bad as a 7-2 liberal? Yes? No?

Politics has no place in the Supreme Court. Judges should be deciding if a law is Constitutional and if it applied correctly. The law and it's application should be right or wrong not right or left. The political litmus test the Senate unfailingly uses is disgusting. I was concerned with the Roberts pick but have been pleasantly surprised. He's performing like a judge not an activist. The rapist Kavanaugh I'm not so sure about.

Suppose RBG steps down next month. What will Moscow Mitch do? Will he state that it is too close to the election and the next President should offer up the candidate? That would be consistent. Or would he try and ram through another candidate based on politics rather than qualifications? I can speculate the answer to that one and its part of the problem. Perhaps the Constitution should be amended with time frames. I need to research the term 'advise and consent'. Quite literally, propose/review some candidates and then approve the choice submitted. The Senate has changed that to block opposition candidates, discourage honest answers during the selection process, and use the process for political extortion.

I like the 5-4 breakdown. Both sides of an issue get examined. I can't imagine the Founding Fathers wanting the SCOTUS to be political in any form. The Executive and Legislative branches' are by nature purely political, and the SC is a 'check and balance' between the two. Or at least its supposed to be.

[Dr. Strangelove]

John Kasich expected to speak on Biden's behalf at the Democrat Convention. Heh, wow

[iam416]

Politics has no place in the Supreme Court.

That you're actually criticizing Rs with this topic sentence is motherfucking astounding. ASTOUNDING. And I don't know where you actually stand on certain decisions, but there have been numerous recent decisionst that are entirely outcome drive -- i.e., POLITICS. And Roberts is mostly to blame -- siding with the 4 liberal justices.

But, I know you're not serious and I know you're completely out of your depth when you resort to shit like this "The rapist Kavanaugh I'm not so sure about."

Liney:

I, too, share your concerns. The Court is already a little too outcome driven (i.e., POLITICS over process). When Biden gets done they won't give a flying a fuck about the law or constituation or otherwise. It'll be strictly what they think is the best way to implement the progressive agenda. I'd be shocked, e.g., if the 2nd A isn't entirely gutted.

[Jeff Buchanan]

If you are of the conspiratorial mind that the left is undertaking a coup to replace the republic with a socialist utopia, the linked article is just the "evidence" you need to support your position.

The article is from The American Mind. Their web page is an on-line outlet for the Claremont Institute, a right wing conservative think tank. The institute was an early supporter of DJT's brand of conservatism and their essays seem to continue to support him. I have seen most of the arguments put forth by the author to the linked piece in varying degrees and places. This is the first time I have seen them on display as a compendium.

https://americanmind.org/essays/the-covid-coup/

You can stop here and read the article (be forewarned it is long and "Melvillian") or go on to my next post which contains my review and take on the author's arguments.

[Jeff Buchanan]

THE COVID COUP

The article was circulated to me by the group of MDs and HCPs that I am a part of and that comments on COVID matters. I wrote a response to it. In that reponse I opined that the articles fundamental hypothesis is its weakest. To wit, the left has planned and is executing a plan to empower a politically elite, ruling class to replace the Republic with an imagined Socialist utopia in a coup. That hypothesis is not new. To me it is over-the-top conspiratorial.

I do believe that as the author asserts,COVID data and many conclusions being drawn about it are flawed and probably unreliable in the whole. I believe the underlying cause of that is the failure by the federal government to mandate standardization of collecting and reporting protocols, leaving the states to create their own. This is a federal public health (PH) prerogative and one that failed. Therefore, it is not so much a conspiracy to manipulate the data by the ruling class that underlies the current circumstance but rather a failure of the federal PH apparatus.

I have argued this position here and have offered that the apparatus can be repaired. Rather than pointing fingers and assigning blame, hypothesizing coups by the left, advocacy directed at PH authorities should have as its purpose demanding accountability of PH and other federal officials to identify the problems within the national and state PH infrastructure and fix them going forward. To some extent, although I am not privy to details, I believe that is happening...... and of course, such efforts being characterized by the media as underhanded and politically motivated.

The author does a good job of obfuscating, then dismissing the PH impact of C-19. Much of his dismissiveness is based on the argument that the scientific and medical professions knew or should have known that SARS-CoV-2 was a benign virus with an IFR of less than 1/2 of 1%. He draws parallels to historical epidemics to support his argument. Current peer reviewed or pre-peer reviewed research that I have read, does not support this view. SARS-CoV-2 is a unique virus with transmissibility exceeding that of any virus previously studied with a low mortality but a high morbidity impact on PH. IOW, while the disease burden presented by C-19 lies on a continuum of none to death, it is by no means insignificant, as the author claims that it is.

The easily available and difficult to compromise evidence on national, state and local hospitalizations and criticality of admissions is a slam dunk refutation of the author's dismissal of the PH impact of C-19. While a spike in new case numbers represents a larger number of asymptomatic patients than it does symptomatic, seriously or critically ill patients, that still means a lot of people are going to die. Even with a low CFR and even lower speculated IFR, even with questionable cause of death reporting, one million Americans might die from the individually experienced disease burden of acquired C-19.

BTW, I'm not buying at all the author's assertion that death's attributable to C-19 are no higher than normal death rates over a selected period. I've seen plenty of graphs that shoot that assertion down. Period.

I addressed the author's contention that the current social unrest is a pillar, along with manipulated COVID data, of a strategic initiative of the left to empower a politically elite, ruling class to replace the Republic with an imagined Socialist utopia in a coup. All of us have heard this refrain. It is appealing to the right on it's face but does not, IMO, stand up to critical fact based analysis. I think two things on this subject: (1) Much of the unrest is happenstance and related to long standing social and economic inequality in the US unmasked by COVID. (2) Some of it is opportunistic activity undertaken by radical leftist/anarchist provocateurs.

Finally, I conclude with this: I did find the author's closing paragraphs that offer solutions to the current circumstance, such solutions to be found in the legitimate role of the legislative and judicial branches of the US government, to be decent. So, let's leave it at that...... you can now set aside the author's radical idea that the combination of C-19's impact and historically recurrent social unrest is being strategically manipulated by the left to undertake a coup to replace the Republic with a Socialist Utopia. While the corporate identity of America's body politic has shifted to the left of center there is nothing new or disturbing about this. I think the happenstance of means is troubling; I think the failure of presidential leadership is troubling; I think the failures of the federal government to effectively respond to the US pandemic is troubling. But none of these things are unfixable and I personally hold out hope for this country's capacity to deal with and rise above all of them.

[lineygoblue]

Oxford University's Covid vaccine is showing promise.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/coronavirus-vaccine-trial-oxford-university-shows-robust-immune-system-response

The study is showing a "robust" response to the virus. They are now in Phase III of testing. Best of luck to the Brits.

[lineygoblue]

That you're actually criticizing Rs with this topic sentence is motherfucking astounding. ASTOUNDING. And I don't know where you actually stand on certain decisions, but there have been numerous recent decisionst that are entirely outcome drive -- i.e., POLITICS. And Roberts is mostly to blame -- siding with the 4 liberal justices.

But, I know you're not serious and I know you're completely out of your depth when you resort to shit like this "The rapist Kavanaugh I'm not so sure about."

Liney:

I, too, share your concerns. The Court is already a little too outcome driven (i.e., POLITICS over process). When Biden gets done they won't give a flying a fuck about the law or constituation or otherwise. It'll be strictly what they think is the best way to implement the progressive agenda. I'd be shocked, e.g., if the 2nd A isn't entirely gutted.

Two of the biggest concerns I have are the 2nd amendment and also the right to freedom of religion and religious expression. I also agree that if we get to a 7-2 liberal majority on the Court that the 2nd amendment is toast. We'll get some sort of a decision that says the founding fathers never intended for the citizens to be able to wage war against the government, and that the government would never take up arms against its own people. Tell that to people in Hong Kong right now ...

Religious freedom is already teetering. I think the first thing that happens when the liberals take over the USSC is that cases will decide that tax exempt status on church properties will be done away with. That will be the gateway decision that further reduces religious freedoms. Future decisions will require religious organizations to adhere to certain government approved policies that disallow 'bigotry" or 'hate practices". So, if your faith believes that abortion is a sin, or gay marriage violates God's laws, then your faith will be considered illegal, and you will not be allowed to practice it openly. Proselytizing will be banned completely. If you're a Christian, you will not be allowed to talk to someone about Christ.

You say this can't happen in America? Have you listened to New York's Mayor DeBlasio lately? He was elected to run America's most populated city. LOTS of people voted for this man, and will do so again. Listen to other major liberal politicians when it comes to religious freedoms. How many have come out and flatly stated that religious freedoms are untouchable? Names please?

So, .. yes Jon. I think a liberal 7-2 majority on the USSC is definitely worse than the opposite. At least if the court went 7-2 conservative, the biggest threat would be to unfettered abortion. That's not nearly as dangerous as losing the 2nd amendment and religious liberty.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Here is a resource that has only recently begun to be recognized as another way, perhaps a better way, to assess a countries control of C-19. It is the inverse of the % + representation, i.e., the % of those tested + among all tests administered per day. In it's inverse, you are viewing the number of tests it takes to find one + case. A lower number suggest inadequate testing. Higher numbers are better. For example, Germany is conducting 263 tests/d to find one + case. The US conducts 12. Therefore, Germany's management in terms of testing of their pandemic is better than the US's.

I don't get this but expert epidemiologist suggest that testing that generates 3-30 tests for each + result suggest adequate testing. That rather contradicts that higher numbers suggest better disease management. I guess it depends. I think it would be correct to assume big numbers of tests to find 1 positive is good.

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing (Scroll down to Tests per Confirmed Case and select the display as a table)

I did this exercise with FL's testing data using this inverse method:

7/18 Data:

115K tests/16K positive (12% positivity - about the US average. You'd like to have this below 10%, 3-7% is ideal)

Dividing 115K by 16K = 7 tests to find 1 positive

7/19 Data:

79K tests/14K positive (15% positive > US average)

Dividing 79K by 14K = 6 tests to find 1

It's possible to view this data as, "holy shit the percent + is increasing," or, OTH, FL performed one more test to find 1 + than it did the day before - no big deal. Unknown to the uninformed however is the fact that the all states in the US and the state of FL, which Desantis claims is doing more testing than any state, are not doing enough compared to, say, Germany (caveat different ways of reporting but the data becomes more robust and reliable as this thing goes on. I can live with the comparison ..... Germany is doing a better job at the all-important job of testing than the US or any of it's states)

Admittedly, FL and the US for that matter, despite claims "we are doing a lot of testing," isn't doing what is necessary from an epidemiologic standpoint. Trying but, if there is an area to improve on, it is this through centralized logistics and distribution for testing and testing supply support, beefing up lab capacity to process a higher volume of testing. Simple but we hear plenty of accusative complaining but few reports on actions - and I think those are underway. We just don't hear about it. We do hear news reports that Trump is trying to "defund testing." I've looked at this claim and think, no surprise, it is inaccurate and misleading.

I can also look at Broward County's COVID Dashboard and see hospitalizations, all bed capacity, adult and pediatric ICU capacity and know there is plenty of capacity. I didn't do this for Palm Beach or Miami Dade; PB's numbers are better, Miami Dade's worse than Broward but neither by much in any direction.

Therefore, I can ignore Donna Shallala's and Debbie Waaserman's (Ds) pronouncements that Ron Desantis (R) should lock down the state. That would be utterly stupid and destructive. They should both be called out by the press but they won't be. Their calls will be augmented putting under pressure on local officials to do stupid shit instead of reasonable shit - so far, local officials are measured. Desantis is measured. That could change.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Oxford University's Covid vaccine is showing promise.

The study is showing a "robust" response to the virus. They are now in Phase III of testing. Best of luck to the Brits.

I have the complete study in .pdf format and have looked at it carefully. I know a good study when I see one. It's a good study. Unassailable? No and it will get its share of responsible criticism. Every peer reviewed study does and that process is exceedingly important.

But, the "results" and "Interpretation" sections are legitimately great news:

Findings Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p<0·05). There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493–1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96–317; n=127), and were boosted following a second dose (639 EU, 360–792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when measured in MNA80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R²=0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001).

Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support largescale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme.

The Oxford Vaccine looks like it just took the lead from Moderna's and Pfizer's vaccines. We'll see. It is likely though that 1 or possibly all 3 of the leaders will get governing US and EU body (FDA in the US) approval and enter a distribution phase (all of them are at some level of concurrent production) between November and December.

If you want to wade through the whole study, here it is:

https://marlin-prod.literatumonline....3620316044.pdf

[Tom W]

Two of the biggest concerns I have are the 2nd amendment and also the right to freedom of religion and religious expression. I also agree that if we get to a 7-2 liberal majority on the Court that the 2nd amendment is toast. We'll get some sort of a decision that says the founding fathers never intended for the citizens to be able to wage war against the government, and that the government would never take up arms against its own people. Tell that to people in Hong Kong right now ...

Dunno about that one- the gun control crowd wan't done any favors by the recent protests/riots. If organized, community funded law enforcement is going to devalued and over scrutinized while doing their job then a higher number of rational, law abiding citizens are going to see a need to find ways of defending themselves.

[CGVT]

Losing religious liberty? Good Lord. Nobody is telling you that you can't go to church, you can't worship your God of choice or practice your religion. BTW, do you have a problem with Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Druids? Wiccans? or is it just Christians that get freedom of religion in Liney World? They are telling you that you can't force your religious beliefs on anyone else and you can't hide behind your religion to discriminate. I

[lineygoblue]

Losing religious liberty? Good Lord. Nobody is telling you that you can't go to church, you can't worship your God of choice or practice your religion. BTW, do you have a problem with Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Druids? Wiccans? or is it just Christians that get freedom of religion in Liney World? They are telling you that you can't force your religious beliefs on anyone else and you can't hide behind your religion to discriminate

You had a pretty decent, but inaccurate rant going on there, until the last phrase of your statement.

"You can't hide behind your religion to discriminate"

That would make a good title for what will become laws under unchecked liberalism/socialism.

And the reason you've not seen me mention "Muslims Hindus Druids or Wiccans" is that I've got no problem with people who choose to worship whatever they choose. They can start a religion that worships ants for all I care. As a Christian, I would attempt to show them that there is a better, more fulfilling way to find peace with God than those ways, but if in the end they choose to worship shopping carts at Wal Mart, and marry sea turtles, I'd leave them alone to do so.

Christ did the same thing when others rejected Him. He left them alone. As for Jews, I think I've been very steadfast in this forum regarding my respect for the Jewish people in not only their right to worship freely, but also my support of the state of Israel. I believe Israel is a fulfillment of God's promise to the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I believe it is impossible to be a Christian, and hate Jews. Its not scripturally possible.

So, with that, today's Sunday school lesson concludes....

[*JD*]

Yep, some strange times we live in.

Am I the only one who watches the clowns running our country and feels sick, ashamed and embarrassed?

I'm still baffled how we let a low-life con-artist like Don become the leader of the free world.

[foxhopper]

I'm still baffled how we let a low-life con-artist like Don become the leader of the free world.

I'm still convinced Hillary would have been worse.

[Ghengis Jon]

...Two of the biggest concerns I have are the 2nd amendment and also the right to freedom of religion and religious expression....

The 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere. There are more firearms in this nation than there are people. One fact the NRA DOESN'T broadcast is that 45% of self identifying democrats own a firearm, contrary to the commie, gun-grabbing, atheist schtick the NRA spouts. I'm not sure if it was in the Federalist Papers or not, but one of the Founding Fathers opined on the issue of firearms. Going beyond sustenance and a militia, firearms were a defense against future tyranny. Coupled with conservatives, there are far too many dems and independents that own firearms for any type of rigid gun control. Sure there are do-gooders that will force something on the books, but these laws are invariably repealed or overturned. It seems to me the 2nd amendment is the most ardently defended, and safest, amendment. It doesn't matter how much AOC bellows or the NRA handwrings, firearms will always be a part of America.


I have not seen a single instance of religion being curtailed. When I ask my more devout friends to name a single example of how "Obama is rolling back religious protections", they can't. Because it's not happening. As far as tax exempt status goes, blame the mega-telechurches. They bilk millions from those in the twilight of their lives. What they don't line their pockets with, they overtly funnel the money to candidates for influence. They provide voting lists for their viewers/attendees with church approved choices. They sell congregation lists to (nudge nudge wink wink) "non-aligned" fundraisers. Those leeches are the ones risking the tax exempt status of all denominations.

And then there are those that try to force Christianity upon all, like Roy Moore. This is not a Christian nation, we are a nation of religious freedom founded by Christians. Read the 1801 Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate and signed by some whose signatures you will find on the Declaration of Independence. (The run up to that treaty is a great story.) But since most religions teach that THEIR religion is the only right one and all others are going to hell (or Ohio), it becomes challenging for people to be open minded. As we saw with Roy Moore, the 10 Commandments statue (?) had to go. Now if a 4 sided obelisk had been erected with each side having the 10 Commandments, something from the Torah, something from the Koran, and something from the Witches' Rede upon it, the obelisk might withstand legal scrutiny as it didn't insinuate only one religion abided here. Ever seen the "co-exist" bumper sticker with all the religious symbols spelling the word? I once heard someone bitch about that because of "all the pagan/heathen symbols" should not be allowed to be displayed along side the cross. More unnecessary culture war bs. People should practice their religion, not try to project it. Religious freedom, fortunately, is here to stay. Intolerance of other religions is a bigger problem.