Emergence of a Deadly Coronavirus

Post Reply New Topic

NURSING HOMES

At the moment our nursing homes have been pummeled by the coronavirus. In my county most of the infections and deaths are associated with infections among the patients and caregivers in nursing homes. Most people in nursing homes are elderly and have one or more co-morbidities. That makes them very vulnerable to COVID-19.

Paul Homewood is a thinker. He lives in the U.K. and sends out newsletters. Today he sent out an article on nursing homes in the U.K. analyzing the impact of the coronavirus on nursing homes. Analysis Of Latest Coronavirus Death Tolls

"Nursing Homes" in the U.K. are commonly referred to as "Care Homes". According to Wikipedia: In 2019, according to NHS England, there were about 17,000 nursing and residential care homes in England housing about 400,000 people. They were prescribed an average of seven medicines a day, and 14% of the residents were 85 or over.

The bottom line to his analysis is:

The suspicion is that many died in care homes after falling ill with coronavirus, just in the same way as happens with flu, gastro enteritis, bad colds and so on.

That does not mean that COVID-19 killed them any more than the bad cold did to others.

It is sad when anybody dies, but, without wanting to appear heartless, my guess is that when the year is over these excess deaths in care homes will be no more than a blip, and that mortality in care homes will be little different to an average year.

I disagree. The so-called "journalistic errors" are likely the liberal government trying to censor the truth. We call CNN the "Communist News Network" due to their liberal views. They are the ones presenting fake news. It is clear you support the left, and I support the far right. Indeed, I support individual freedom at any cost. Of course there need to be laws against murder, rape, theft, and other crimes but we do not need any more laws to restrict our freedom. Our president has condemned those governors who have taken people's rights away. I stand with him. I will no longer be posting in this thread. I am well enough informed to know my rights are being violated. Debating this with you is fueling negativity and harming my mental state even more. I will keep fighting against the oppression at any cost. You are entitled to believe as you choose. I will do the same.

Is it oppressive for the government to force people to wear seat belts? To restrict speed limits?
To restrict the driving age or alcohol consumption age?
To use condoms with HPV?
To enforce any preventative laws for our safety?

Those are all permanent laws. Mask wearing is temporary. Just curious how they compare.

Well said.

How’s your pneumonia by the way?

Not great, but I'm alive. lol. I have three more antibiotics and if I'm still the same Friday I'll be going to see my doctor.
She ordered me a new type of inhaler yesterday and it seems to be helping more than the first one.

Fingers crossed.

The Declaration of Independence reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

But these rights [unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness] are not absolute.
* For example, a convicted murder may feel they have an absolute right to freedom and demand that they should be set free from prison immediately.
* A rapist may feel he has the right to pursue his form of happiness.
* A drunk driver may feel he has the right to drive wherever he wants, whenever he wants.

Your rights leave off when they collide with the rights of others. That is why we the people establish governments and laws.

The next sentence in the Constitution reads "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

This means that we grant to our government the ability to create and execute our laws to control our freedoms or limit our freedoms in order to ensure the rights of others.

So is wearing a face mask oppressive? Does the government have the right to issue laws to ensure the safety of others?

But there are other deeper questions: Is wearing a face mask effective at protecting the lives of people? This thread has discussed this issue and various perspectives of this issue from almost the very beginning. [Refer to page 5 of this thread.]

Now you made a statement that I think is false. "You [jimmy m.] think it's ok for the government to force people to wear masks."
So you will need to search through all 374 pages of this thread and show me where I said that. I hadn't really given that much thought until now.

I have always held that it is my responsibility to protect myself and the lives of my family. Most types of face mask are ineffective at doing that. But there are some types of mask such as N95s that filter viruses and some that include metal salts that actually kill viruses. And those types would protect me and my family. And that I have the right to wear these types of masks and I have been doing that for several months now whenever I leave home and am up and about. And I strongly recommend that others do the same when these types of mask become available again and the threat from the coronavirus or even the common cold is present (which is primarily the winter months).

Last edited by jimmy m on 21 Apr 2020, 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Better inhaler must be a relief, as to the rest :fingersmostdefinitelycrossed:
Hope you’re managing to maintain a minimum of comfort through it

]Is it oppressive for the government to force people to wear seat belts? To restrict speed limits?
Yes. I wear a seat belt because I want to be safe but I do not agree with the government mandating it. I only abide by speed limits when I feel like doing so or when I see a cop. I do not think there should be speed limits except maybe in residential areas.
To restrict the driving age or alcohol consumption age?
In my opinion, allowing alcohol consumption should be up to the parents not the government. The parents, of course, should be responsible to ensure its safe use and be held liable if someone gets hurt or dies. Countries like some in Europe allow this. Driving is a touchy issue, and I'm not sure where I stand there.
To use condoms with HPV?
That is not a law it is a recommendation. It could never be enforced. The mask law is comparable to mandating everyone wear a condom whenever they have sex, which is not right or enforcable.
To enforce any preventative laws for our safety?
Except in extreme examples, like with drinking and driving, I believe in a minimum of government interference.

People who do not wear masks are not murderers or rapists. They are only causing a small threat (if any) to maybe 2 or 3 percent of the population, who should not be out in public without an N 95 mask anyway, and even then as little as possible. There are ways to get things to these people so they don't have to go out except for medical appointments where all involved SHOULD be mandated to wear a mask. Taking away everyone's rights for an unfortunate few is not right. What would happen if the high risk people went out and caught a regular cold, flu, or any other type of infection? They could be in danger even without corona virus. They should be protecting themselves by remaining isolated until the virus runs its course. The government and charities should help them do this. It is not the average citizen's duty to protect them.

Abstract principles are lots of fun aren’t they?

Technical point on age restrictions and drinking as pertaining to one European country (the one I live in): here it’s a criminal offence to sell alcohol too anyone under the age of eighteen or to anyone you suspect may give it to someone below that age, the legal onus is upon the business not the customer.
Parents giving alcohol to children in the privacy of their own homes is legal yes, but there are social customs which restrict the amount, frequency and age.
(I had beer for the first time age about ten, wine aged about fifteen: with meals, about 3 fluid ounces in both cases... as far as I’m aware this is normal.)

We also did have a period with no speed limits at all in the 1930s: unfortunately the number of people killed by recklessly fast driving on the part of someone else was judged too high and speed limits were reintroduced (turns out you can’t trust enough folks to look out for others life & limb for that to be a viable option)

Same goes for seatbelts, fair enough if you hit a tree on your own and break your neck going through the windscreen and no-one else is harmed: it’s literally your funeral.
Problem comes in when you’re launched out of your vehicle and into someone else’s, injuring them (happened to one of my uncles): why should anyone have the right to take that risk with someone else’s life & limb?

Also, knowingly infecting people with STDs is a criminal offence here, there was one case a few years back of a guy with HIV who had a string of one night stands without protection (on purpose, he wanted “vengeance” against women in general for his own infection): can’t remember if it was murder or manslaughter, but he was convicted on multiple counts.
(Yeah, there really are folks who do that: ain’t humans lovely)

Ever read Hobbes?

Sure, those who need them ought to be wearing N95 masks. But there aren't enough N95s for doctors trying to save people in hospitals right now.

Same here in sunny Berkshire. Cans of beer were offered up as a sunday lunch accompaniment from the age of about 10 or 11. Mostly went down the shandy route tbh as lager just doesn't taste all that great to a 10 year old.

^Weird cultures of perpetuating intergenerational alcoholism, which in turn now makes people more susceptible to contracting C-19. Bravo!

Illegal to give anyone under 19 alcohol here. 18 in Alberta and Quebec. 21 in the USA.

Of course it still happen, but not as a broad regional culture thing like some countries. More likely to happen in households of European immigrants than any other. (Surprise surprise!)

Bishops Finger, Ruddles & Old Speckled Hen was what my dad shared with me & my brother: proper ale
Oddly enough as an adult my drinking pattern is the same as my dad: two or three times a year, never enough to be drunk, and pay extra for craftsmanship.

There were some folks who put shandy in the kids lunchboxes at his school: he confiscated them and bought the kids orange juice from the corner shop as a replacement.

There was an interesting study published on September 2019. So it is pre-COVID-19. The conclusions of the study is worth a read:

The role of host factors in susceptibility suggests a clinically important conclusion: there is something unusual about the small minority of patients who develop critical illness following IAV [influenza A virus]. Therefore, extrapolating from human challenge and primary care studies of viral clearance is very likely to lead to error. Viral clearance among critically ill patients is slow and incomplete. Hence, the critically ill population should be regarded—by definition—as highly abnormal hosts.

Susceptible hosts may have impaired intracellular controls of viral replication (e.g. IFITM3, TMPRS22 variants), defective interferon responses (e.g. GLDC, IRF7/9 variants), or defects in cell-mediated immunity with increased baseline levels of systemic inflammation (obesity, pregnancy, advanced age). In the context of any of these susceptibility mechanisms, failure to clear the virus is an expected consequence, indicating that a full course of effective antiviral therapy is likely to benefit this population. In the future, understanding the biological mechanisms of susceptibility to severe IAV may yield therapeutic targets to modify the biology of the susceptible hosts in critical care and render them resilient.

Source: Host susceptibility to severe influenza A virus infection

^ The bit about the training of the immune system by the first IAV it encounters and the possible link to differential outcomes by age is interesting: wouldn’t have thought of it myself in a million years, but it seems so obvious having read it.