OT: Corona virus

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

Anti-inflammatory Drugs May Exacerbate Coronavirus Infection
Mar 16, 2020

https://www.technologynetworks.com/drug ... mol-332109

"Over-the-counter anti-inflammatory drugs, such as ibuprofen, should be avoided if you have coronavirus symptoms because they could worsen the condition, warns French authorities.

The British Pharmacological Society has responded to concerns that the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), could exacerbate symptoms of the novel coronavirus infection, COVID-19.** [Updated, March 18, 2020]

The World Health Organization on March 18, 2020 released a statement via Twitter, that it "is aware of concerns on the use of ibuprofen for the treatment of fever for people with COVID-19."
"

I posted that a few weeks ago. It was also suggested to use acetaminophen which goes by a different name in Europe.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Lawsuit swell as store owners in the US demand to open.

Their object to the strict measures now in place declaring them "anti constitutional".

Formally they are right. In the US the liberty of travel is a constitutionally protected right. Even inside states, any restriction of travel is a constitutional violation of the "Privileges or Immunities Clause" included in the Amendment XIV of the US Constitution. So, any restriction to free movement in the US is actually against the law.

However the government could argue that:

A) This kind of emergency is of a nature that the drafters of the Constitution couldn't predict. There was no knowledge, at the time, of the nature of infectious diseases (and still quarantining of ships was common and accepted).

B) Given the gravity of the situation, the measures will remain in place in the interest of public safety - until they can be debated in a more structured situation. Something like this never happened, so there has never been a case in point.

This problem can be easily summed up: your right to keep your shop open so to bring food on the table vs. putting you and others at risk of getting a very serious disease. It will be an interesting legal battle.

It is also a violation of the interstate commerce clause since so many goods come from other states.

If the defence is that it is an unforeseen pandemic, pandemics have occurred before so that is no defense.

Then call it "Unprecedented Pandemic" and move on.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Lawsuit swell as store owners in the US demand to open.

Their object to the strict measures now in place declaring them "anti constitutional".

Formally they are right. In the US the liberty of travel is a constitutionally protected right. Even inside states, any restriction of travel is a constitutional violation of the "Privileges or Immunities Clause" included in the Amendment XIV of the US Constitution. So, any restriction to free movement in the US is actually against the law.

However the government could argue that:

A) This kind of emergency is of a nature that the drafters of the Constitution couldn't predict. There was no knowledge, at the time, of the nature of infectious diseases (and still quarantining of ships was common and accepted).

B) Given the gravity of the situation, the measures will remain in place in the interest of public safety - until they can be debated in a more structured situation. Something like this never happened, so there has never been a case in point.

This problem can be easily summed up: your right to keep your shop open so to bring food on the table vs. putting you and others at risk of getting a very serious disease. It will be an interesting legal battle.

Interesting stuff. From a non-US layman's point of view the Constitutional Amendment and the case law quoted in the Wiki article seems to be more about the transference of residence and accompanying legal rights from state to state rather than the day to day movements of citizens within or between states.

As an example - under UK homelessness law it is open for a local authority to deny responsibility to an applicant if they have a 'local connection' elsewhere. Potentially in the US that might be unconstitutional.

[Canoerebel]

In emergencies, police power (that's a technical legal term) can override constitutional provisions, allowing emergency action. Thus, cities can level buildings during a major fire without first going through condemnations proceedings, etc. In the case of this pandemic, the courts are going to be inclined to support broad application of the police power.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Lawsuit swell as store owners in the US demand to open.

Their object to the strict measures now in place declaring them "anti constitutional".

Formally they are right. In the US the liberty of travel is a constitutionally protected right. Even inside states, any restriction of travel is a constitutional violation of the "Privileges or Immunities Clause" included in the Amendment XIV of the US Constitution. So, any restriction to free movement in the US is actually against the law.

However the government could argue that:

A) This kind of emergency is of a nature that the drafters of the Constitution couldn't predict. There was no knowledge, at the time, of the nature of infectious diseases (and still quarantining of ships was common and accepted).

B) Given the gravity of the situation, the measures will remain in place in the interest of public safety - until they can be debated in a more structured situation. Something like this never happened, so there has never been a case in point.

This problem can be easily summed up: your right to keep your shop open so to bring food on the table vs. putting you and others at risk of getting a very serious disease. It will be an interesting legal battle.

Interesting stuff. From a non-US layman's point of view the Constitutional Amendment and the case law quoted in the Wiki article seems to be more about the transference of residence and accompanying legal rights from state to state rather than the day to day movements of citizens within or between states.

It guarantees this too, true, but I think that the key point is in this paragraph:

"The right of citizens to travel from one state to another was already considered to be protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the original, unamended Constitution.[[23] [OK, so there was no need for me to dig for this clause...] For example, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court listed a number of rights of citizens which "it cannot be supposed that [the founders] intended to secure" for free black people, one of which was "the right to enter any other State whenever they pleased."[24] Moreover, the right to travel has additional components, such as the right to take up residence and become a citizen of a different state."

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

In emergencies, police power (that's a technical legal term) can override constitutional provisions, allowing emergency action. Thus, cities can level buildings during a major fire without first going through condemnations proceedings, etc. In the case of this pandemic, the courts are going to be inclined to support broad application of the police power.

Freedom of Assembly has already been pretty much wiped out.....

The cries of 'my rights are being violated' are gonna fall on some seriously deaf ears.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Lawsuit swell as store owners in the US demand to open.

Their object to the strict measures now in place declaring them "anti constitutional".

Formally they are right. In the US the liberty of travel is a constitutionally protected right. Even inside states, any restriction of travel is a constitutional violation of the "Privileges or Immunities Clause" included in the Amendment XIV of the US Constitution. So, any restriction to free movement in the US is actually against the law.

However the government could argue that:

A) This kind of emergency is of a nature that the drafters of the Constitution couldn't predict. There was no knowledge, at the time, of the nature of infectious diseases (and still quarantining of ships was common and accepted).

B) Given the gravity of the situation, the measures will remain in place in the interest of public safety - until they can be debated in a more structured situation. Something like this never happened, so there has never been a case in point.

This problem can be easily summed up: your right to keep your shop open so to bring food on the table vs. putting you and others at risk of getting a very serious disease. It will be an interesting legal battle.

Interesting stuff. From a non-US layman's point of view the Constitutional Amendment and the case law quoted in the Wiki article seems to be more about the transference of residence and accompanying legal rights from state to state rather than the day to day movements of citizens within or between states.

It guarantees this too, true, but I think that the key point is in this paragraph:

"The right of citizens to travel from one state to another was already considered to be protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the original, unamended Constitution.[[23] [OK, so there was no need for me to dig for this clause...] For example, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court listed a number of rights of citizens which "it cannot be supposed that [the founders] intended to secure" for free black people, one of which was "the right to enter any other State whenever they pleased."[24] Moreover, the right to travel has additional components, such as the right to take up residence and become a citizen of a different state."

By interstate commerce, I meant the sale of goods. How many products sold in an establishment are actually made in that state? By shutting down the store, bar, restaurant, etc that sells those goods, then that is interfering with interstate commerce.

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




I posted that a few weeks ago. It was also suggested to use acetaminophen which goes by a different name in Europe.

In order to keep up with things this thread will have adopt a Homeric style.[;)]

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




I posted that a few weeks ago. It was also suggested to use acetaminophen which goes by a different name in Europe.

In order to keep up with things this thread will have adopt a Homeric style.[;)]

You mean iambic pentameter?

[Canoerebel]

I noted a week or two back that Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the U.S. Civil War. He didn't get permission. He didn't have legal authority. He simply did it. That allowed authorities and the military to arrest and detain people indefinitely. They had no right to a hearing or trial or charges. Lincoln was most concerned about pro-South democrats in Ohio and adjacent regions. He wasn't willing to tinker with things while the union was in danger. As the war went on, the rights were restored - a bit battered but there.

What worries me here (not much, but some) is that, in times of stress, things may snap. In the midst of this, I hope we don't have some kind of shooting of the Archduke Ferdinand somewhere in an anxious world. Or, as Michael Crichton put it, a "cascade effect."

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Do you have to download the image and then upload it back up?

No, if you are using the image embed code button and punching in a location from elsewhere, it might be to do with crap tacked on the end of the image location address.

If there is a ? and a string of other stuff on the end after .jpg, or .png, try deleting it.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Do you have to download the image and then upload it back up?

No, if you are using the image embed code button and punching in a location from elsewhere, it might be to do with crap tacked on the end of the image location address.

If there is a ? and a string of other stuff on the end after .jpg, or .png, try deleting it.

Ian R, what you describe is embedding a link to a picture on another site. His question was about embedding the picture, which is what was shown to him in screenshots.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I noted a week or two back that Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the U.S. Civil War. He didn't get permission. He didn't have legal authority. He simply did it. That allowed authorities and the military to arrest and detain people indefinitely. They had no right to a hearing or trial or charges. Lincoln was most concerned about pro-South democrats in Ohio and adjacent regions. He wasn't willing to tinker with things while the union was in danger. As the war went on, the rights were restored - a bit battered but there.

What worries me here (not much, but some) is that, in times of stress, things may snap. In the midst of this, I hope we don't have some kind of shooting of the Archduke Ferdinand somewhere in an anxious world. Or, as Michael Crichton put it, a "cascade effect."

Now you are getting to what I was saying in a previous post - the virus has piled an intolerable stress on a world system already under stress and there are many spots that can erupt. Let me suggest a scenario:
- the virus gets into the refugee camps in Turkey or Greece and because of the lack of hygiene facilities, medical care, suitable housing, etc. it spreads very rapidly.
- desperate to flee the virus, camp residents riot and burst out into the surrounding countryside
- desperate to keep the virus from infecting their citizens, the host country uses brutal measures to stop the fleeing refugees, including live fire
- other nations having a religious or cultural link to the refugees demand that the host country stop the brutality. They do not.
- countries surrounding the incident mobilize ... it's August 1914.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I noted a week or two back that Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the U.S. Civil War. He didn't get permission. He didn't have legal authority. He simply did it. That allowed authorities and the military to arrest and detain people indefinitely. They had no right to a hearing or trial or charges. Lincoln was most concerned about pro-South democrats in Ohio and adjacent regions. He wasn't willing to tinker with things while the union was in danger. As the war went on, the rights were restored - a bit battered but there.

What worries me here (not much, but some) is that, in times of stress, things may snap. In the midst of this, I hope we don't have some kind of shooting of the Archduke Ferdinand somewhere in an anxious world. Or, as Michael Crichton put it, a "cascade effect."

Now you are getting to what I was saying in a previous post - the virus has piled an intolerable stress on a world system already under stress and there are many spots that can erupt. Let me suggest a scenario:
- the virus gets into the refugee camps in Turkey or Greece and because of the lack of hygiene facilities, medical care, suitable housing, etc. it spreads very rapidly.
- desperate to flee the virus, camp residents riot and burst out into the surrounding countryside
- desperate to keep the virus from infecting their citizens, the host country uses brutal measures to stop the fleeing refugees, including live fire
- other nations having a religious or cultural link to the refugees demand that the host country stop the brutality. They do not.
- countries surrounding the incident mobilize ... it's August 1914.

Well ... yes, right up until "the countries surrounding the incident mobilise." Most of the refugees are from Syria, or refugees from Central Asia (Afghanistan, Iraq) or North Africa. None of these places have the interest or wherewithal to mobilise right now against any country in the European Union or Turkey, where most refugees are right now.

I don't see this going military in a historical nation vs nation kind of way. I see internal pressure of movement and economic restriction being the flash point. This is where disruption may occur and military might be called in. I can foresee a lot of areas where people are struggling or living day to day, (as RFalvo has pointed out in parts of Italy) where they form bands and begin unlawful activities to survive or take advantage of the situation.

This kind of thing could happen anywhere. We already have organised crime in every part of the world. If there are opportunities to be taken those elements might also be active.

London, for instance has a high rate of knife crime among gang affiliated teens and those who get in between them or are the target of their petty crime. What is happening now? No knife crime being reported at all. Are those people here? Yes. What happens when they see opportunities and have very little to lose as their normal income has been reduced and the usual oversight by police is lessened?

[obvert]

Here is a look at the World. A few things to note.

Sub-Saharan Africa does have cases almost throughout every country now. We know that testing there is low.

South America is along the same Equatorial range as much of Africa. Cases are higher there. Testing is higher. This makes me think large concentrations and effects of this virus will be felt and reported in Africa soon. The one caveat will be that testing may never be high there, and if not many cases will go unreported completely. Fatalities may be reported as any number of other diseases, and the younger populations might weather this better in many of the countries.

By the same token, densely populated countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and much of SE Asia still show only moderate numbers, but also have much less testing going on. Lockdowns are in place in most of these areas, but will they be effective without testing and reporting of mortality causes? I see this going on for a long time in those places.

[Zerberus_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Lawsuit swell as store owners in the US demand to open.

Their object to the strict measures now in place declaring them "anti constitutional".

Formally they are right. In the US the liberty of travel is a constitutionally protected right. Even inside states, any restriction of travel is a constitutional violation of the "Privileges or Immunities Clause" included in the Amendment XIV of the US Constitution. So, any restriction to free movement in the US is actually against the law.

However the government could argue that:

A) This kind of emergency is of a nature that the drafters of the Constitution couldn't predict. There was no knowledge, at the time, of the nature of infectious diseases (and still quarantining of ships was common and accepted).

B) Given the gravity of the situation, the measures will remain in place in the interest of public safety - until they can be debated in a more structured situation. Something like this never happened, so there has never been a case in point.

This problem can be easily summed up: your right to keep your shop open so to bring food on the table vs. putting you and others at risk of getting a very serious disease. It will be an interesting legal battle.

Interesting stuff. From a non-US layman's point of view the Constitutional Amendment and the case law quoted in the Wiki article seems to be more about the transference of residence and accompanying legal rights from state to state rather than the day to day movements of citizens within or between states.

It guarantees this too, true, but I think that the key point is in this paragraph:

"The right of citizens to travel from one state to another was already considered to be protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the original, unamended Constitution.[[23] [OK, so there was no need for me to dig for this clause...] For example, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court listed a number of rights of citizens which "it cannot be supposed that [the founders] intended to secure" for free black people, one of which was "the right to enter any other State whenever they pleased."[24] Moreover, the right to travel has additional components, such as the right to take up residence and become a citizen of a different state."

I don't know much about the way the U.S. handle their constituional rights, but I think it's a general topic of all modern states (at least those with constitutional rights[;)]) and not a special topic of this crisis.
Nearly all constitutional rights or basic liberties are not unlimited. They can't be,because they are often in concurrence to each other.

For example, in the current situation the right for free travel or free movement is in concurrence with another right, the right of life / physical integrity.
You can not freeze down one right nor the other totally, but you will have to find a balance between them. This balance will always depend on the actual situation. That means, the written words are the same since years or centuries, but every generation is giving these words its own meaning.

[obvert]

The NY Times is adapting their county by county data into some new maps. These shows hotspots and areas of growth both in cases and deaths. The maps on page are interactive and show data by area on the rollover.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... e=Homepage

[obvert]

Similarly they have some new growth rate graphics, also interactive to show the minutia in city cases and deaths across the US. On the same page linked above.

All of he little grey lines at the bottom of the left graphic are other city curves just starting. This is why it's going to be a long haul in some areas of the US, it seems.

[obvert]

Death count lagging, throwing curve off for the UK. I'm sure this is happening everywhere. Some deaths counted today happened 7-10 days before. The deaths for today may not be in the count for a week. This makes it hard to predict the flattening.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... l-is-wrong

Also ...

The number of triage calls and online assessments through the NHS are also useful to give us a sense of potential infection levels – 1.9m at the time of writing in England. But these are people with Covid-19 symptoms, not those with confirmed cases of the virus.

The most solid data we have showing the trajectory of the impact of this virus are deaths. That is why it is imperative that we have timely and reliable data – and why the seriousness of the problem is growing along with the death toll.

If 1.9 million calls are coming in with symptoms, I think we actually have MORE than that number of cases. I am now betting on a figure of 2-2.5 million active Covid cases here. Or 3-4% of the population currently. With the majority likely in London, that would mean around 10-12% of Londoners have Covid. So every time I go to the store or pass someone in a park, the chances are high that I am moving through a cloud of Covid. (Less likely to be near me outside, of course).

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

Do you have to download the image and then upload it back up?

No, if you are using the image embed code button and punching in a location from elsewhere, it might be to do with crap tacked on the end of the image location address.

If there is a ? and a string of other stuff on the end after .jpg, or .png, try deleting it.

Ian R, what you describe is embedding a link to a picture on another site. His question was about embedding the picture, which is what was shown to him in screenshots.

Right, so Sammy needs to use the matrix forum site image upload topic to get a host address. Or alternately you can put images on imgur (free) and use the direct link address.