Vacationers flocked to the Lake of the Ozarks over the holiday weekend, flouting social distancing guidelines as they packed into yacht clubs, outdoor bars and resort pools in the Missouri tourist hot spot.
Images of the revelry rippled across social media, showing people eating, drinking and swimming in close quarters. In one picture shared by the news station KSDK, dozens of people could be seen crammed on an outdoor patio underneath a sign reading, "Please practice social distancing."
Trump and his sycophants have been constantly downplaying the seriousness of the Pandemic...from the start. And his loyal supporters believe him.
OTOH most Democrats have been presenting the facts (which are pretty grim).
So I wouldn't be surprised if most Trump supporters are not taking necessary precautions and are therefore accelerating the spread of the disease. In their communities.
OTOH most Democrats seem to taking it more seriously.
I wonder if in the near future this will result in a rapidly increasing infection (& and death) rate in Red states...and a decline in Blue states?
I wonder if in the near future this will result in a rapidly increasing infection (& and death) rate in Red states...and a decline in Blue states?
Which would mean, ironically, thart Trump's attempts at downplaying ther seriousness of the pandemic might actually be quite self-defeating in the long run???
But seriously-- doesn't it strike you as a bit self-defeating for him to try to convince his most dedicated followers to avoid common-sense precautions...by downplaying the seriousness of the virus? Going on and on about how important it is to "Open America"-- before its safe? Acting as a role model...by refusing to wear a mask?
Who do you think is going to listen to him, to follow his lead? Loyal Republicans? Or Democrats?
From the same damn experts that then flopped on them because they realize that you can't completely shut the damn economy down. People need to eat, get medication, repair and maintain vital things like the electrical grid, and deliver food and medication to stores and individuals. They damn well can't do that if we are all in complete lock down.
Can face masks help prevent the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Yes, face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as frequent hand-washing and social distancing, help slow the spread of the disease.
So why weren't face masks recommended at the start of the pandemic? At that time, experts didn't yet know the extent to which people with COVID-19 could spread the virus before symptoms appeared. Nor was it known that some people have COVID-19 but don't have any symptoms. Both groups can unknowingly spread the virus to others.
These discoveries led the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to do an about-face on face masks. The CDC updated its guidance to recommend widespread use of simple cloth face coverings to help prevent transmission of COVID-19 by people who have the virus but don't know it.
Some public health groups argue that masks should be reserved for health care providers and point to the critical shortage of surgical masks and N95 masks. The CDC acknowledged this concern when it recommended cloth masks for the public and not the surgical and N95 masks needed by health care providers.
Cloth masks
While surgical and N95 masks are in short supply and must be reserved for health care providers, cloth masks are easy to find and can be washed and reused.
Asking everyone to wear cloth masks can help reduce the spread of COVID-19 by people who have the disease but don't realize it. And countries that required face masks, testing, isolation and social distancing early in the pandemic seem to have had some success slowing the disease's spread.
Cloth masks are cheap and simple to make. Instructions are easy to find online. Masks can be made from common materials, such as sheets made of tightly woven cotton. The CDC website even includes directions for no-sew masks made from bandannas and T-shirts. Cloth masks should include multiple layers of fabric.
The general public: The virus can spread between people interacting in close proximity — for example via speaking, coughing, or sneezing — even if those people are not exhibiting symptoms. In light of this evidence, wearing a cloth face mask or covering in public places where social distancing can’t be observed will help reduce spread of the disease. For example, in a grocery store or on a bus, if you wear a face mask, you help protect those around you in case you cough or sneeze.
Masks aren't going to save you if you don't have Covid-19, It might reduce the risk of you spreading it to someone else if you do already have it. Think a cloth mask is really going to stop air and water particles from entering the human body? No wonder Covid-19 is still spreading, it isn't just the morons pictured; it is the morons thinking a thin layer of cloth is guaranteed to save them.
The whole point of wearing masKS is to protect others from oneself. So masks, along with social distancing, is most effective in preventing the spread of Covid. Even the CDC and other medical experts agree on that. Note how your own source states that! Granted, when the pandemic started, we didn't know anything about Covid. But as we learned more, recommendations and practices were adjusted to incorporate the new information. So thinking or stating masks do not help or protect one from Covid us not only erroneous, it's dangerous. And anyone who purposely does not wear a mask in public is irresponsible, inconsiderate, and just plain selfish and/or stupid!
Asking everyone to wear cloth masks can help reduce the spread of COVID-19 by people who have the disease but don't realize it.
This is from your own link. The CDC and state health departments have done what they can to educate people. Hell, there are even PSAs on how to slow the spread. It's not the government's fault if people can't understand simple 6th grade English.
'Where did you get the idea that masks offer any kind of serious protection? Most educated and intelligent people know better.Wearing masks is more virtue signaling than having anything to do with safety.
You've been hanging out with bigfish too damned long.
No Democrats ever downplayed the seriousness of Covid-19, right? It isn't like Nancy Pelosi encouraged masses of people to go to China Town to show support for the Chinese Americans. Nor did Mayor Bill De Blasio ride a subway packed with New Yorkers to show the disease wasn't a threat. I mean how could they ever be that stupid and still be able to criticize Trump.
Nor are the biggest hot spots for the outbreak all Democratic bastions of stupidity. I mean how could that be? Given the Democrats are so much smarter than Republicans.
I mean how can this be? Democrats take so much better care of their constituents than Republicans./S
Both sides have their morons. Both sides have politicians at every level that aren't doing what is best for their constituents. Either by overreacting to threat and crashing their state's economy, or downplaying it and allowing the virus to spread. Which is worse? That is what this political football going on is all about.
Bottom line is we aren't learning a damn thing about how to deal with future pandemics. Maybe the next one, and there will definitely be a next one, will kill enough of us to get the elitist morons in charge to pay attention.
I agree with you that Pelosi and De Blasio did a stupid, stupid, thing. But let's stop and ask ourselves how much did anyone know about COVID when they did those stupid, stupid, things?
If the infection and death numbers don't keep increasing in the USA it will be a miracle. Let's see what's going to happen. I'm glad I'm nowhere close to that insanity.
I do not know what to say, Buzz. Seems to me when dealing with a worldwide pandemic, no known cure, long asymptomatic infectious state, airborne transmission, transmission on surfaces for possibly days, etc. that people would understand that this is serious.
Some people are far removed from the direct effects of this virus and as a result, do not see the necessity of remaining socially distant. That is what you see in these counties in MO. No telling where the people are from who are attending these events, but the three counties surrounding the lake have 1 death attributed to the coronavirus.
Problem is, Lake of the Ozarks is a tourist attraction. These are not simply locals nor are they all Missourians. This is irresponsibility beyond words.
There is enough of them that dear leader can go visit them in quarantine and hold one of his bs rally's. He can hand out MAGA hats and toss rolls of paper towels.
No politician will ever round anyone up and throw them into isolation camps. Because prisons and jails are already hot spots for Covid-19 and real criminals are being released into the public to slow down the spread. Many that are violating this social distancing order do not have homes. So locking them down in place is not an option. Even if it is do you prevent them from going to work? Will their rent/mortgage be paid for during their isolation? What happens if their place of residence isn't deemed fit for habitation, will it be repaired at tax payer expense?
1) The political backlash would doom their careers.
2) The second 1 minority was thrown into an isolation camp the media would have a racist fit. So their careers would be over at double speed.
3) US citizens cannot be detained w/o due process. The courts are backed up due to the pandemic. Where are you going to hold all of these people while they await trial? How many judges are going to support sentencing for detention camps when there are no laws on the books? These are emergency rules enacted by governors- many of which don't have the damn power to enact them in the first place.
4) How are you going pay for all of these camps? Forget the just the simple logistics of electrics, food, water, and waste disposal. They will all require air conditioning/heating, internet, entertainment, etc (or do you think those interned will have lesser rights than real criminals in prison). How fast will they get built? Who is going to staff them all? What is going to prevent the guards, other detainees, etc from raping, stealing, and everything else that goes on in normal prisons. Maybe have the National Guard run them all, I am sure US soldiers will love being hated like that.
5) Want to see armed insurrection in the US? That would be the quickest way to it. This isn't WWII and US Citizens will not be nearly as tolerant.
I said if before, we are learning nothing from this pandemic. It is just one big political football for the two sides to play with. Maybe the next pandemic will wipe enough of us out that we will force the elitist morons in charge to do come up with some real solutions.
The problem is that although this group of idiots doesn't seem to care if they get the virus. They will spread out over Missouri after Memorial Day and will possibly infect people that are trying to do the right thing.
Well, the three counties that surround the Lake of the Ozarks: Camden,Miller and Morgan, have a combined population of about 81,000 people and a combined coronavirus cases of 50 with 1 person who has died of it. So the counties, thus far, have remained relatively unscathed. Thus, they can say,"What? Me worry?" as you see the mayor of Osage Beach doing in the video
I pray that this ability remains as time progresses.
The problem is that many of those people don't just live in those 3 counties. I bet that more than a few of them have traveled from North West Arkansas to visit because Lake of the Ozarks is probably no more than a couple of hours from Benton/Rogers. Benton/Rogers is the home of Wal-Mart. Many of the venders that sell to Walmart have offices and warehouses there.
I know. I used to live in Fort Smith, AR, and Newtonia, MO and have vacationed at Lake of the Ozarks myself.
Used to go to First Night Celebrations in Fayetteville and Eureka Springs was my favorite small town to visit. The lake is centrally located in MO and can draw people from Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas..... That is why I said:
I pray that this ability remains as time progresses.
Fascinating how quickly liberals become ultra-conservative.
The response to these gatherings should serve as warning. Only a simple majority is needed to end democracy. Democracy cannot protect itself from the majority.
Liberals, who are now ultra-conservative, are demanding that we conform to the dictates of self appointed experts that cannot agree among themselves. Ultra-conservative liberals are even demanding segregation, isolation, and detention for those who do not conform.
The United States is taking another step towards National Socialism.
What would be your approach if you were a governor or PotUS for maintaining adequate safety for the citizens under your watch?
As a governor, I would need to acknowledge that I cannot stop the virus. The virus is beyond the control of any governor or government and will spread, unchecked, if given the opportunity. As governor, it is beyond my capability to protect the public and make everyone safe.
As governor I could impose restrictions but that will require people to enforce those restrictions. And those enforcing the restrictions will be spreading the virus and some will die. As governor, I can imprison those violating the restrictions but that will create conditions that will spread the virus. As governor, I cannot protect the health and safety of the pubic by imposing restrictions.
Only the public can protect itself and control the spread of the virus. The governor or government cannot. If the public chooses to spread the virus, there is nothing the government can do to prevent that.
At this point, the pandemic will only be stopped by either achieving herd immunity or by thinning the herd through killing off the most vulnerable. The behavior of the public will determine how the pandemic ends.
What I could do as governor is distribute information, training materials, and the tools the public needs to protect itself. That would require a lot more than press conferences. Bulletins would need to be published and distributed to every household. Face masks, soap, and disinfectants would need to be made available to every household. Ideally the public would learn how to identify the warning signs of infection and, perhaps, do their own community surveillance.
Since I can't control the virus as a governor, I would need to rely upon the public to implement safety measures to protect themselves. But it would be necessary for me, as governor, to acknowledge that I can't force the public to protect itself. If the public chooses to thin the herd, that is the public's choice.
Why should a governor care for people who will not care for themselves?
Why should a governor care for people who will not care for themselves?
Yikes
So you would try your best to keep the public informed and rely upon individuals to 'do the right thing'. You would, I presume, allow bars, sporting venues, etc. to reopen and rely upon the owners and the patrons to manage the risks appropriately.
Have you noticed how human beings operate historically? Individuals do not simple 'do the right thing', especially if they are not concerned about the big picture (societal level pandemic). Speeders and red-light runners are thinking of their short-term, local interests and not factoring in the greater concern. People think first of themselves and their immediate families. They also think locally vs. globally and think short-term instead of medium and long-term.
What is taking place at the Lake of the Ozarks illustrates local, short-term interests. Do you think this is some rare anomaly?
I suppose it has escaped notice that the seeded article is about crowds of people violating social distancing restrictions that are already in place.
So you would try your best to keep the public informed and rely upon individuals to 'do the right thing'. You would, I presume, allow bars, sporting venues, etc. to reopen and rely upon the owners and the patrons to manage the risks appropriately.
Presumptions don't address the reality that crowds of people are violating restrictions that are already in place. While arresting violators and throwing them in jail would enforce restrictions; that action defeats the purpose of social distancing.
Have you noticed how human beings operate historically? Individuals do not simple 'do the right thing', especially if they are not concerned about the big picture (societal level pandemic). Speeders and red-light runners are thinking of their short-term, local interests and not factoring in the greater concern. People think first of themselves and their immediate families. They also think locally vs. globally and think short-term instead of medium and long-term.
Yes, I have noticed how humans have behaved throughout history. That behavior has been well documented in ancient texts. Lot's wife is an example of the consequences of ignoring precautions.
What is taking place at the Lake of the Ozarks illustrates local, short-term interests. Do you think this is some rare anomaly?
I recognize that the government is powerless to prevent human behavior. A governor can hold a press conference, wag their finger, and deliver some sort of political guilt trip. A governor can easily sign all sorts of restrictions but that won't be effective without enforcement.
The Bible presents a list of 'thou shalt not' restrictions. How well has that worked throughout history?
I suppose it has escaped notice that the seeded article is about crowds of people violating social distancing restrictions that are already in place.
Not at all, in fact I noted this article as an example of how trusting people to do the right thing is not a good strategy.
Presumptions don't address the reality that crowds of people are violating restrictions that are already in place.
People break laws too. Would you argue that we do away with laws because a minority of the population breaks them?
Note that people obey laws too. Look at how many people have abided by the precautions imposed by governors. Governors demonstrably can affect the behavior of the vast majority of their constituents.
Yes, it is difficult to impose rules on a population but clearly it can be done. With a pandemic, these sorts of measures absolutely must be taken. But as governor you would provide information and then just give up and let them sort things out on their own. I must admit that I did not expect this from you.
Only the public can protect itself and control the spread of the virus. The governor or government cannot. If the public chooses to spread the virus, there is nothing the government can do to prevent that.
For the most part, these are adults. It's time that we stop babysitting adults and we let natural selection takes over. If people are too stupid to understand why certain measures are put in place, then let nature handle it.
If people are too stupid to understand why certain measures are put in place, then let nature handle it.
Jeremy, I think you are forgetting that when the irresponsible people get infected they then can infect the responsible people.
A mask does very little to protect you from infection. What it does is protect others from you (at various degrees of efficacy; the average person does not have the most effective mask). Social distancing only works if the people are responsible. If an infected irresponsible person ignores social distancing you are the one at risk.
At a societal level, if there are infected irresponsible people mingling with the public then more people get infected. Since an infected person may be asymptomatic for days, they will (without knowing it) be putting others at risk. So even responsible people can be agents of infection.
We are not in a situation where a junkie kills him/herself through abuse (Darwin award candidate). This pandemic is not a situation where the irresponsible hurt only themselves; they hurt others at a geometric pace.
People break laws too. Would you argue that we do away with laws because a minority of the population breaks them?
When enforcing the law results in what the law is intended to prevent then little is accomplished. Enforcing social distancing restrictions would require placing people in conditions where social distancing cannot be accomplished. If the restrictions are intended to prevent spread of the virus then enforcing restrictions would result in spreading the virus.
However, if the intent of the law is to restrict free movement then enforcement would restrict free movement. But that doesn't have anything to do with controlling spread of the virus. The virus has only become a justification for the underlying intent to restrict free movement. Restricting free movement is what the restrictions and enforcement of restrictions actually accomplish.
Yes, it is difficult to impose rules on a population but clearly it can be done. With a pandemic, these sorts of measures absolutely must be taken. But as governor you would provide information and then just give up and let them sort things out on their own. I must admit that I did not expect this from you.
Except that is not what I said. What I said is the governor and government need to make the tools available that people need to protect themselves and control spread of the virus. The governor (and government) need to ensure masks are readily available, soaps and disinfectants are readily available, and that educational material is published so people know how to protect themselves and control spread of the virus.
Yes, as governor, I could impose restrictions on free movement. But it's necessary to understand those restrictions aren't really about controlling spread of the virus. Those restrictions would be about exerting control over people; not control over the virus. Too many exceptions would be necessary that would undermine the effectiveness of restricting free movement as a means of controlling the virus. As governor, I wouldn't have the capability to control spread of the virus; only the public can control spread of the virus.
Enforcing social distancing restrictions would require placing people in conditions where social distancing cannot be accomplished. If the restrictions are intended to prevent spread of the virus then enforcing restrictions would result in spreading the virus.
Are you arguing that enforcement of the law will sometimes require agents to get close to the offenders (and thus break the social distance)? Not sure what else the above might mean.
The virus has only become a justification for the underlying intent to restrict free movement.
Conspiracy theory?
What I said is the governor and government need to make the tools available that people need to protect themselves and control spread of the virus. The governor (and government) need to ensure masks are readily available, soaps and disinfectants are readily available, and that educational material is published so people know how to protect themselves and control spread of the virus.
Yes I know you would provide materials like masks too; that does not change my point. My point is that you would not try to mandate any measures of mitigation. You would not mandate the wearing of the masks, social distancing or stay-at-home. Your approach is to hope that the people will all be individually responsible. My reply noted how individuals are far more concerned with local, short-term interests and tend to downplay societal factor: that which affects others or has consequences later in time.
At a societal level with a virus that has reached a worldwide pandemic level because of the length of asymptomatic infections, ability to infect via airborne and surface life of hours to days and no known vaccine, governments need to step in. Clearly the stay-at-home, social distancing, etc. directives are followed by most people so the mandates are effective. At the very least, the mandates enable responsible individuals (patrons, store owners, etc.) the means to impose safety precautions. If not mandated by the governors do you think the same percentage of the population would be taking these measures seriously?
In short, laissez-faire governance is the height of irresponsibility when dealing with an emergency such as this pandemic. One irresponsible individual can infect many who then infect many without even knowing they were infected. This is exactly the type of situation where responsible government is needed.
As governor, I wouldn't have the capability to control spread of the virus; only the public can control spread of the virus.
A governor does not have absolute control, clearly, but this is not an all or none scenario. You are arguing that if you cannot have 100% control over the virus that you would pass out information, masks, etc. and then hope the public all operates in a responsible manner. You would not exercise the <100% control you have by virtue of your office to mandate (and enforce) precautions. Instead you would hope that the people, counter to human nature, do the right thing even in the context of a seed where we see just how irresponsible people can be.
I think you are forgetting that when the irresponsible people get infected they then can infect the responsible people.
I'm not forgetting it. You aren't going to stop people from getting sick. There are things that can be done, PPE, distancing, etc.
We are not in a situation where a junkie kills him/herself through abuse (Darwin award candidate).
We are in that situation. Dawin candidate, too stupid to get checked out or knows they are sick just has to go to get them some Jebus or go to the beach..... Let nature take over.
There are things that can be done, PPE, distancing, etc.
The precautions do not make us invulnerable. It is like being a safe driver and then getting blindsided by a drunk running a red light. All your precautions mean nothing if others are irresponsible.
We are in that situation. Dawin candidate, too stupid to get checked out or knows they are sick just has to go to get them some Jebus or go to the beach..... Let nature take over.
We are not in a condition where only the irresponsible people get infected; they will no doubt infect others who are responsible.
That is my point. This is not like a junkie who harms only himself; this is one irresponsible individual harming many responsible individuals.
Are you arguing that enforcement of the law will sometimes require agents to get close to the offenders (and thus break the social distance)? Not sure what else the above might mean.
The Manzanar approach will only create conditions favorable for spreading the virus.
Finger wagging and guilt trips haven't proven to be effective means of enforcement. And any sort of economic sanction (such as fines) won't be effective when the restrictions have already caused economic losses. The only effective means of enforcement is threat of incarceration. Packing people into jails for violating restrictions defeats the stated purpose of the restrictions.
Conspiracy theory?
The reality is that restrictions are being used to limit free movement of people. The logic used to justify the restrictions is that people spread the virus; therefore, restricting free movement of people controls spread of the virus. An infected individual, moving freely in public, can spread the virus to many others. And we have no way of knowing who is infected. Restrictions on free movement of people are a quick, easy means of taking action (and scoring political points). But the reality is that restrictions on free movement of people has not stopped spread of the virus.
The approach that is needed is to stop movement of the virus. The Federal guidelines for wearing masks, increasing personal hygiene, disinfecting surfaces, and recognizing signs of infection are directed toward stopping movement of the virus; not stopping movement of people. Implementing those guidelines require ready availability of masks, soaps, disinfectants, and educational material.
Don't order people to wear a mask and then threaten them with fines or jail. Hand them a mask, show them how to wear it, and explain how wearing a mask stops movement of the virus.
The virus is the enemy; not people. Even an infected individual moving about in public can defeat the virus by using the proper methods (listed in the Federal guidelines) to control movement of the virus.
Yes I know you would provide materials like masks too; that does not change my point. My point is that you would not try to mandate any measures of mitigation. You would not mandate the wearing of the masks, social distancing or stay-at-home. Your approach is to hope that the people will all be individually responsible. My reply noted how individuals are far more concerned with local, short-term interests and tend to downplay societal factor: that which affects others or has consequences later in time.
As governor, I have no need to punish people for violating guidelines or restrictions. The virus will impose its own punishment on people. If people are determined to act stupidly then a governor has no power to prevent that. The public has direct control over how many people die; a governor does not.
A governor cannot prevent individuals from drinking bleach, over dosing on vitamin D, or taking fish tank cleaner as a drug. A governor is not a baby sitter and adults are not toddlers.
A governor has no responsibility to empathize with the stupidity of the public. The hard facts are that the high number of fatalities in New York were caused by the public acting stupidly. And because the governor of New York did not provide the public with what was needed to control movement of the virus. The governor of New York chose the politically easy path of restricting free movement of people. The governor of New York failed to ensure the public had adequate means to control spread of the virus. The example of New York provides evidence that restricting free movement of people isn't nearly enough to exert control over spread of the virus.
Packing people into jails for violating restrictions defeats the stated purpose of the restrictions.
You are jumping to a ridiculous extreme.
My point was that governors should indeed impose restrictions such as social-distancing, stay-at-home, etc. commensurate with the level of the pandemic. At worst, the penalties (if any) would be shutting down businesses that refuse to follow the guidelines and monetary fines. But importantly, it is the official statement of restriction that has the most effect because it enables citizens and stores to impose guidelines 'under authority of the state' (rather than of their own making). Thus the guidelines are consistent and hold credibility when enforced by peer-pressure and store owners.
Without this restriction by authority, store owners and individuals would be far less likely to impose restrictions on patrons due to the backlash directed at them (not at the state).
To wit, a governor who simply communicates information and hands out gear and then leaves it up to the citizens to 'do the right thing' is utterly irresponsible given we are facing a pandemic where a few irresponsible individuals can infect many responsible individuals.
Vacationers flocked to the Lake of the Ozarks over the holiday weekend, flouting social distancing guidelines as they packed into yacht clubs, outdoor bars and resort pools in the Missouri tourist hot spot.
Images of the revelry rippled across social media, showing people eating, drinking and swimming in close quarters. In one picture shared by the news station KSDK, dozens of people could be seen crammed on an outdoor patio underneath a sign reading, "Please practice social distancing."
That's just gross. One giant toilet.
Yep. *involuntary yuck-shimmy*
In the video it says the official name of the pool party was Zero Ducks Given. So "clever".
We get it , you don't give a fuck if people get sick or die because of your behavior.
The party had the same name Zero Ducks Given back in 2018.
Reminds me of that famous "Lame Duck President" scene!
That was a fast move on the part of Pres Bush but that second shoe almost got him
It was like he had practice! Almost like it wasn't the first time he had to duck a shoe.
Incredible: incredible stupidity, incredible irresponsibility and incredible narcissism.
Trump and his sycophants have been constantly downplaying the seriousness of the Pandemic...from the start. And his loyal supporters believe him.
OTOH most Democrats have been presenting the facts (which are pretty grim).
So I wouldn't be surprised if most Trump supporters are not taking necessary precautions and are therefore accelerating the spread of the disease. In their communities.
OTOH most Democrats seem to taking it more seriously.
I wonder if in the near future this will result in a rapidly increasing infection (& and death) rate in Red states...and a decline in Blue states?
Which would mean, ironically, thart Trump's attempts at downplaying ther seriousness of the pandemic might actually be quite self-defeating in the long run???
Something to hope for, right?
Well, apparently Trump thinks so.
But seriously-- doesn't it strike you as a bit self-defeating for him to try to convince his most dedicated followers to avoid common-sense precautions...by downplaying the seriousness of the virus? Going on and on about how important it is to "Open America"-- before its safe? Acting as a role model...by refusing to wear a mask?
Who do you think is going to listen to him, to follow his lead? Loyal Republicans? Or Democrats?
Where did you get the idea that masks offer any kind of serious protection? Most educated and intelligent people know better.
Wearing masks is more virtue signaling than having anything to do with safety.
Where do you get the idea that masks don't offer protection?
From the same damn experts that then flopped on them because they realize that you can't completely shut the damn economy down. People need to eat, get medication, repair and maintain vital things like the electrical grid, and deliver food and medication to stores and individuals. They damn well can't do that if we are all in complete lock down.
Masks aren't going to save you if you don't have Covid-19, It might reduce the risk of you spreading it to someone else if you do already have it. Think a cloth mask is really going to stop air and water particles from entering the human body? No wonder Covid-19 is still spreading, it isn't just the morons pictured; it is the morons thinking a thin layer of cloth is guaranteed to save them.
The whole point of wearing masKS is to protect others from oneself. So masks, along with social distancing, is most effective in preventing the spread of Covid. Even the CDC and other medical experts agree on that. Note how your own source states that! Granted, when the pandemic started, we didn't know anything about Covid. But as we learned more, recommendations and practices were adjusted to incorporate the new information. So thinking or stating masks do not help or protect one from Covid us not only erroneous, it's dangerous. And anyone who purposely does not wear a mask in public is irresponsible, inconsiderate, and just plain selfish and/or stupid!
This is from your own link. The CDC and state health departments have done what they can to educate people. Hell, there are even PSAs on how to slow the spread. It's not the government's fault if people can't understand simple 6th grade English.
You've been hanging out with bigfish too damned long.
it will be the exact opposite of that.
most of the people who got infected - stayed home.
sunshine is your friend
True.
And the same is true of most of his followers as well!
Because no damn Democrats are that stupid right?
No Democrats ever downplayed the seriousness of Covid-19, right? It isn't like Nancy Pelosi encouraged masses of people to go to China Town to show support for the Chinese Americans. Nor did Mayor Bill De Blasio ride a subway packed with New Yorkers to show the disease wasn't a threat. I mean how could they ever be that stupid and still be able to criticize Trump.
Nor are the biggest hot spots for the outbreak all Democratic bastions of stupidity. I mean how could that be? Given the Democrats are so much smarter than Republicans.
I mean how can this be? Democrats take so much better care of their constituents than Republicans./S
Both sides have their morons. Both sides have politicians at every level that aren't doing what is best for their constituents. Either by overreacting to threat and crashing their state's economy, or downplaying it and allowing the virus to spread. Which is worse? That is what this political football going on is all about.
Bottom line is we aren't learning a damn thing about how to deal with future pandemics. Maybe the next one, and there will definitely be a next one, will kill enough of us to get the elitist morons in charge to pay attention.
I agree with you that Pelosi and De Blasio did a stupid, stupid, thing. But let's stop and ask ourselves how much did anyone know about COVID when they did those stupid, stupid, things?
If the infection and death numbers don't keep increasing in the USA it will be a miracle. Let's see what's going to happen. I'm glad I'm nowhere close to that insanity.
I do not know what to say, Buzz. Seems to me when dealing with a worldwide pandemic, no known cure, long asymptomatic infectious state, airborne transmission, transmission on surfaces for possibly days, etc. that people would understand that this is serious.
Some people are far removed from the direct effects of this virus and as a result, do not see the necessity of remaining socially distant. That is what you see in these counties in MO. No telling where the people are from who are attending these events, but the three counties surrounding the lake have 1 death attributed to the coronavirus.
We can only hope that this remains true.
Problem is, Lake of the Ozarks is a tourist attraction. These are not simply locals nor are they all Missourians. This is irresponsibility beyond words.
[Deleted]
Incredible understatement. But then, stupidity knows no limits.
Same thing happened in TexAss also.
Every one of them should have been rounded up and put into isolation.
Every one of them should have been rounded up and put into isolation.
But...but...that would go against Dear Leader's wishes!
There is enough of them that dear leader can go visit them in quarantine and hold one of his bs rally's. He can hand out MAGA hats and toss rolls of paper towels.
But....but....what about "FREEDOM"? What about "INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS"?
An individual's right ends when it puts a collective group in harm's way.
No politician will ever round anyone up and throw them into isolation camps. Because prisons and jails are already hot spots for Covid-19 and real criminals are being released into the public to slow down the spread. Many that are violating this social distancing order do not have homes. So locking them down in place is not an option. Even if it is do you prevent them from going to work? Will their rent/mortgage be paid for during their isolation? What happens if their place of residence isn't deemed fit for habitation, will it be repaired at tax payer expense?
1) The political backlash would doom their careers.
2) The second 1 minority was thrown into an isolation camp the media would have a racist fit. So their careers would be over at double speed.
3) US citizens cannot be detained w/o due process. The courts are backed up due to the pandemic. Where are you going to hold all of these people while they await trial? How many judges are going to support sentencing for detention camps when there are no laws on the books? These are emergency rules enacted by governors- many of which don't have the damn power to enact them in the first place.
4) How are you going pay for all of these camps? Forget the just the simple logistics of electrics, food, water, and waste disposal. They will all require air conditioning/heating, internet, entertainment, etc (or do you think those interned will have lesser rights than real criminals in prison). How fast will they get built? Who is going to staff them all? What is going to prevent the guards, other detainees, etc from raping, stealing, and everything else that goes on in normal prisons. Maybe have the National Guard run them all, I am sure US soldiers will love being hated like that.
5) Want to see armed insurrection in the US? That would be the quickest way to it. This isn't WWII and US Citizens will not be nearly as tolerant.
I said if before, we are learning nothing from this pandemic. It is just one big political football for the two sides to play with. Maybe the next pandemic will wipe enough of us out that we will force the elitist morons in charge to do come up with some real solutions.
The problem is that although this group of idiots doesn't seem to care if they get the virus. They will spread out over Missouri after Memorial Day and will possibly infect people that are trying to do the right thing.
Selfish narcissistic assholes.
Yes. They are trying eto imitate the role model set by "Dear Leader".
I hope to see the stats of newly infected people in states where these kind of idiots have gathered.
Well, the three counties that surround the Lake of the Ozarks: Camden,Miller and Morgan, have a combined population of about 81,000 people and a combined coronavirus cases of 50 with 1 person who has died of it. So the counties, thus far, have remained relatively unscathed. Thus, they can say,"What? Me worry?" as you see the mayor of Osage Beach doing in the video
I pray that this ability remains as time progresses.
A Lot of folks …. Don't have time.
35 Million out of work....which is way more than this "Death Count" drama the media loves touting.
How many more "Out of Work" folks can this country TRY to sustain ?
The "Bills" are piling up for more than 35 million folks !
We here are slowly reopening. Some jobs will return hopefully.
But they are so hard up they just have to go ignore social distancing and wearing of a mask at a pool bar?
The problem is that many of those people don't just live in those 3 counties. I bet that more than a few of them have traveled from North West Arkansas to visit because Lake of the Ozarks is probably no more than a couple of hours from Benton/Rogers. Benton/Rogers is the home of Wal-Mart. Many of the venders that sell to Walmart have offices and warehouses there.
I know. I used to live in Fort Smith, AR, and Newtonia, MO and have vacationed at Lake of the Ozarks myself.
Used to go to First Night Celebrations in Fayetteville and Eureka Springs was my favorite small town to visit. The lake is centrally located in MO and can draw people from Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas..... That is why I said:
I love Eureka Springs! We have to talk sometime
Good for them.
At least the rest of us stayed sheltered.
Ain't "CHOICE" GREAT !
I wonder when this "Immunization Drug" will be available ? Then we can actually see the Sun Rise and Set. I so look forward to that day.
Does anyone have any change ?
I need some change for TP.
Anyone ?
Change ?
"I need some TP for my bunghole" (Beavis and Butthead)
Did you see the latest "Big Bust" by law inforcement ?
They found 100 pounds of Toilet Paper hidden in crates and crates of "Cocaine" !
LOL...love it.
Fascinating how quickly liberals become ultra-conservative.
The response to these gatherings should serve as warning. Only a simple majority is needed to end democracy. Democracy cannot protect itself from the majority.
Liberals, who are now ultra-conservative, are demanding that we conform to the dictates of self appointed experts that cannot agree among themselves. Ultra-conservative liberals are even demanding segregation, isolation, and detention for those who do not conform.
The United States is taking another step towards National Socialism.
What would be your approach if you were a governor or PotUS for maintaining adequate safety for the citizens under your watch?
As a governor, I would need to acknowledge that I cannot stop the virus. The virus is beyond the control of any governor or government and will spread, unchecked, if given the opportunity. As governor, it is beyond my capability to protect the public and make everyone safe.
As governor I could impose restrictions but that will require people to enforce those restrictions. And those enforcing the restrictions will be spreading the virus and some will die. As governor, I can imprison those violating the restrictions but that will create conditions that will spread the virus. As governor, I cannot protect the health and safety of the pubic by imposing restrictions.
Only the public can protect itself and control the spread of the virus. The governor or government cannot. If the public chooses to spread the virus, there is nothing the government can do to prevent that.
At this point, the pandemic will only be stopped by either achieving herd immunity or by thinning the herd through killing off the most vulnerable. The behavior of the public will determine how the pandemic ends.
What I could do as governor is distribute information, training materials, and the tools the public needs to protect itself. That would require a lot more than press conferences. Bulletins would need to be published and distributed to every household. Face masks, soap, and disinfectants would need to be made available to every household. Ideally the public would learn how to identify the warning signs of infection and, perhaps, do their own community surveillance.
Since I can't control the virus as a governor, I would need to rely upon the public to implement safety measures to protect themselves. But it would be necessary for me, as governor, to acknowledge that I can't force the public to protect itself. If the public chooses to thin the herd, that is the public's choice.
Why should a governor care for people who will not care for themselves?
Yikes
So you would try your best to keep the public informed and rely upon individuals to 'do the right thing'. You would, I presume, allow bars, sporting venues, etc. to reopen and rely upon the owners and the patrons to manage the risks appropriately.
Have you noticed how human beings operate historically? Individuals do not simple 'do the right thing', especially if they are not concerned about the big picture (societal level pandemic). Speeders and red-light runners are thinking of their short-term, local interests and not factoring in the greater concern. People think first of themselves and their immediate families. They also think locally vs. globally and think short-term instead of medium and long-term.
What is taking place at the Lake of the Ozarks illustrates local, short-term interests. Do you think this is some rare anomaly?
Fascinating.
I suppose it has escaped notice that the seeded article is about crowds of people violating social distancing restrictions that are already in place.
Presumptions don't address the reality that crowds of people are violating restrictions that are already in place. While arresting violators and throwing them in jail would enforce restrictions; that action defeats the purpose of social distancing.
Yes, I have noticed how humans have behaved throughout history. That behavior has been well documented in ancient texts. Lot's wife is an example of the consequences of ignoring precautions.
I recognize that the government is powerless to prevent human behavior. A governor can hold a press conference, wag their finger, and deliver some sort of political guilt trip. A governor can easily sign all sorts of restrictions but that won't be effective without enforcement.
The Bible presents a list of 'thou shalt not' restrictions. How well has that worked throughout history?
Not at all, in fact I noted this article as an example of how trusting people to do the right thing is not a good strategy.
People break laws too. Would you argue that we do away with laws because a minority of the population breaks them?
Note that people obey laws too. Look at how many people have abided by the precautions imposed by governors. Governors demonstrably can affect the behavior of the vast majority of their constituents.
Yes, it is difficult to impose rules on a population but clearly it can be done. With a pandemic, these sorts of measures absolutely must be taken. But as governor you would provide information and then just give up and let them sort things out on their own. I must admit that I did not expect this from you.
For the most part, these are adults. It's time that we stop babysitting adults and we let natural selection takes over. If people are too stupid to understand why certain measures are put in place, then let nature handle it.
Jeremy, I think you are forgetting that when the irresponsible people get infected they then can infect the responsible people.
A mask does very little to protect you from infection. What it does is protect others from you (at various degrees of efficacy; the average person does not have the most effective mask). Social distancing only works if the people are responsible. If an infected irresponsible person ignores social distancing you are the one at risk.
At a societal level, if there are infected irresponsible people mingling with the public then more people get infected. Since an infected person may be asymptomatic for days, they will (without knowing it) be putting others at risk. So even responsible people can be agents of infection.
We are not in a situation where a junkie kills him/herself through abuse (Darwin award candidate). This pandemic is not a situation where the irresponsible hurt only themselves; they hurt others at a geometric pace.
When enforcing the law results in what the law is intended to prevent then little is accomplished. Enforcing social distancing restrictions would require placing people in conditions where social distancing cannot be accomplished. If the restrictions are intended to prevent spread of the virus then enforcing restrictions would result in spreading the virus.
However, if the intent of the law is to restrict free movement then enforcement would restrict free movement. But that doesn't have anything to do with controlling spread of the virus. The virus has only become a justification for the underlying intent to restrict free movement. Restricting free movement is what the restrictions and enforcement of restrictions actually accomplish.
Except that is not what I said. What I said is the governor and government need to make the tools available that people need to protect themselves and control spread of the virus. The governor (and government) need to ensure masks are readily available, soaps and disinfectants are readily available, and that educational material is published so people know how to protect themselves and control spread of the virus.
Yes, as governor, I could impose restrictions on free movement. But it's necessary to understand those restrictions aren't really about controlling spread of the virus. Those restrictions would be about exerting control over people; not control over the virus. Too many exceptions would be necessary that would undermine the effectiveness of restricting free movement as a means of controlling the virus. As governor, I wouldn't have the capability to control spread of the virus; only the public can control spread of the virus.
Are you arguing that enforcement of the law will sometimes require agents to get close to the offenders (and thus break the social distance)? Not sure what else the above might mean.
Conspiracy theory?
Yes I know you would provide materials like masks too; that does not change my point. My point is that you would not try to mandate any measures of mitigation. You would not mandate the wearing of the masks, social distancing or stay-at-home. Your approach is to hope that the people will all be individually responsible. My reply noted how individuals are far more concerned with local, short-term interests and tend to downplay societal factor: that which affects others or has consequences later in time.
At a societal level with a virus that has reached a worldwide pandemic level because of the length of asymptomatic infections, ability to infect via airborne and surface life of hours to days and no known vaccine, governments need to step in. Clearly the stay-at-home, social distancing, etc. directives are followed by most people so the mandates are effective. At the very least, the mandates enable responsible individuals (patrons, store owners, etc.) the means to impose safety precautions. If not mandated by the governors do you think the same percentage of the population would be taking these measures seriously?
In short, laissez-faire governance is the height of irresponsibility when dealing with an emergency such as this pandemic. One irresponsible individual can infect many who then infect many without even knowing they were infected. This is exactly the type of situation where responsible government is needed.
A governor does not have absolute control, clearly, but this is not an all or none scenario. You are arguing that if you cannot have 100% control over the virus that you would pass out information, masks, etc. and then hope the public all operates in a responsible manner. You would not exercise the <100% control you have by virtue of your office to mandate (and enforce) precautions. Instead you would hope that the people, counter to human nature, do the right thing even in the context of a seed where we see just how irresponsible people can be.
I'm not forgetting it. You aren't going to stop people from getting sick. There are things that can be done, PPE, distancing, etc.
We are in that situation. Dawin candidate, too stupid to get checked out or knows they are sick just has to go to get them some Jebus or go to the beach..... Let nature take over.
The precautions do not make us invulnerable. It is like being a safe driver and then getting blindsided by a drunk running a red light. All your precautions mean nothing if others are irresponsible.
We are not in a condition where only the irresponsible people get infected; they will no doubt infect others who are responsible.
That is my point. This is not like a junkie who harms only himself; this is one irresponsible individual harming many responsible individuals.
Obviously this is the tRump generation. They don't give a fuck if it hurts anyone else.
Like those morons in the anti-lockdown, anti-common sense 'protests'. They're carrying this all over the place also. I call them terrorists
Nerm-L was recently saying some nonsense about CO-VID19 and hospitals and some type of conspiracy.
I cannot keep up with these tRump conspiracy theories everywhere you turn.
I am surprised that some think that the precautions are part of some organized conspiracy.
Some people have quite the active imagination.
The Manzanar approach will only create conditions favorable for spreading the virus.
Finger wagging and guilt trips haven't proven to be effective means of enforcement. And any sort of economic sanction (such as fines) won't be effective when the restrictions have already caused economic losses. The only effective means of enforcement is threat of incarceration. Packing people into jails for violating restrictions defeats the stated purpose of the restrictions.
The reality is that restrictions are being used to limit free movement of people. The logic used to justify the restrictions is that people spread the virus; therefore, restricting free movement of people controls spread of the virus. An infected individual, moving freely in public, can spread the virus to many others. And we have no way of knowing who is infected. Restrictions on free movement of people are a quick, easy means of taking action (and scoring political points). But the reality is that restrictions on free movement of people has not stopped spread of the virus.
The approach that is needed is to stop movement of the virus. The Federal guidelines for wearing masks, increasing personal hygiene, disinfecting surfaces, and recognizing signs of infection are directed toward stopping movement of the virus; not stopping movement of people. Implementing those guidelines require ready availability of masks, soaps, disinfectants, and educational material.
Don't order people to wear a mask and then threaten them with fines or jail. Hand them a mask, show them how to wear it, and explain how wearing a mask stops movement of the virus.
The virus is the enemy; not people. Even an infected individual moving about in public can defeat the virus by using the proper methods (listed in the Federal guidelines) to control movement of the virus.
As governor, I have no need to punish people for violating guidelines or restrictions. The virus will impose its own punishment on people. If people are determined to act stupidly then a governor has no power to prevent that. The public has direct control over how many people die; a governor does not.
A governor cannot prevent individuals from drinking bleach, over dosing on vitamin D, or taking fish tank cleaner as a drug. A governor is not a baby sitter and adults are not toddlers.
A governor has no responsibility to empathize with the stupidity of the public. The hard facts are that the high number of fatalities in New York were caused by the public acting stupidly. And because the governor of New York did not provide the public with what was needed to control movement of the virus. The governor of New York chose the politically easy path of restricting free movement of people. The governor of New York failed to ensure the public had adequate means to control spread of the virus. The example of New York provides evidence that restricting free movement of people isn't nearly enough to exert control over spread of the virus.
You are jumping to a ridiculous extreme.
My point was that governors should indeed impose restrictions such as social-distancing, stay-at-home, etc. commensurate with the level of the pandemic. At worst, the penalties (if any) would be shutting down businesses that refuse to follow the guidelines and monetary fines. But importantly, it is the official statement of restriction that has the most effect because it enables citizens and stores to impose guidelines 'under authority of the state' (rather than of their own making). Thus the guidelines are consistent and hold credibility when enforced by peer-pressure and store owners.
Without this restriction by authority, store owners and individuals would be far less likely to impose restrictions on patrons due to the backlash directed at them (not at the state).
To wit, a governor who simply communicates information and hands out gear and then leaves it up to the citizens to 'do the right thing' is utterly irresponsible given we are facing a pandemic where a few irresponsible individuals can infect many responsible individuals.
the so-called science during this virus has been comical
millions dead they said.... not even close.
that was the first, and last time we lockdown healthy people.
don't expect to ever see that happen again.
More people spreading virus. Floyd protestors in Minneapolis.