CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

Quote

School  Closures Led to More Sleep and Better Quality of Life for Adolescents

University of Zurich study.  Not sure what it is worth. 
https://www.media.uzh.ch/en/Press-Releases/2022/Adolescent-Sleep.html

 

I myself had one kid who did great with remote and one who did not.  If I am honest though both are doing better in person.  Not sure how that falls into the debate.

 

[Anastasis 23699]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

It’s actually a good discussion (although he too bites on the fake take on Sotomayor’s statement, while being more careful to dissect Gorsuch’s apparent error - which actually wasn’t, when you break it down and listen carefully….same as Sotomayor’s).

The subdiscussion about the reasoning/basis for the OSHA mandate, or actually the lack thereof when it comes to what would be permissible and supportable reasoning, is strong. And the takeaway is accurate: OSHA COULD implement an enforceable mandate (somewhat different from this one), but the present one probably doesn’t cut it.

 

I love having the audio to listen to.  Really gives you a sense as to how the Court operates.  Interesting in particular for someone who doesn't see that shit first hand.

 

But I'll be god damned if the other side of that sword is watching political social media spread feces all over the wall in real time. 

[Brisketexan 106618]

School  Closures Led to More Sleep and Better Quality of Life for Adolescents

University of Zurich study.  Not sure what it is worth. 
https://www.media.uzh.ch/en/Press-Releases/2022/Adolescent-Sleep.html
 
I myself had one kid who did great with remote and one who did not.  If I am honest though both are doing better in person.  Not sure how that falls into the debate.
 

I imagine that - if we look at the whole pivoted objectively, which we surely won’t do - we will surely learn some things about the experience of education that are both positive and negative. What we know about adolescent sleep needs SHOULD change how we approach high school schedules. Would be nice if we could learn from this experience. Likewise, we have also learned that effective in-person instruction offers some real benefits over online in many circumstances. We had an experiment forced on us. Smart people would gather data, learn from it, and adjust our approach going forward.

We are not a smart people.

[Anastasis 23699]

22 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

"Serious" doesn't have to mean "hospitalized".

 

Jesus dude, you are arguing about this with a physician about how medical cases are described.  There are less than 3500 kids with COVID in the US admitted, and many of those cases are incidental positives during surveillance testing.  She got her stats confused because public health statistics are not really essential to the proceedings.  

Edited January 9, 2022 by Anastasis

[jimmyjazz 46972]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Jesus dude, you are arguing about this with a physician about how medical cases are described.

Jesus dude, Justice Sotomayor isn't a doctor.

Enough of this bullshit.  The hand-wringing over her statement is stupid.

[Brisketexan 106618]

 
I love having the audio to listen to.  Really gives you a sense as to how the Court operates.  Interesting in particular for someone who doesn't see that shit first hand.
 
But I'll be god damned if the other side of that sword is watching political social media spread feces all over the wall in real time. 

In my experience, but for Nina Totenberg and a sparse handful of others who SPECIALIZE in covering courts, media coverage of legal matters is hot garbage. They have zero understanding of the underlying legal standards and issues, and latch onto the most inconsequential facts/statements because they’re sexy. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read a story about one of my cases and thought “but…that’s not even what this case is about.”

The “numbers” cited by Sotomayor and Gorsuch (and again, if you listen accurately, neither one was off-base) aren’t “evidence” or set facts. They are indicators of, on the one hand, this being a serious viral and transmissible illness that puts everyone at some level of risk, and on the other hand, we’ve always had some level of that type of risk in the world without imposing workplace rules. Which are relevant considerations when the “grave danger” basis for OSHA regs is in play.

[Goredho 17627]

Not sure the best place to put this, but I figure here is as good as any.

[Nivek 17330]

 

 

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

University of Zurich study.  Not sure what it is worth. 
https://www.media.uzh.ch/en/Press-Releases/2022/Adolescent-Sleep.html
 
I myself had one kid who did great with remote and one who did not.  If I am honest though both are doing better in person.  Not sure how that falls into the debate.
 

I imagine that - if we look at the whole pivoted objectively, which we surely won’t do - we will surely learn some things about the experience of education that are both positive and negative. What we know about adolescent sleep needs SHOULD change how we approach high school schedules. Would be nice if we could learn from this experience. Likewise, we have also learned that effective in-person instruction offers some real benefits over online in many circumstances. We had an experiment forced on us. Smart people would gather data, learn from it, and adjust our approach going forward.

We are not a smart people.

I found distance learning to be great for my boy.   Fine for my daughter.  In both cases they appreciated going to school so much more when we went back.   Losing that ability to be around kids really gave them an appreciation for school.   

I loved it, I was able to see and even correct the teacher on a minor issue, but I really worked with the kids, and made sure they did their work.  If they had trouble with something, I was there to offer individual supplemental instruction and to show the kids how to solve math problems or elaborate on the relationships.   I think it will be a net positive experience for them as a whole because I am teaching them to appreciate the sourdough bread on the shit sandwich. 

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

Jesus dude, you are arguing about this with a physician about how medical cases are described.  There are less than 3500 kids with COVID in the US admitted, and many of those cases are incidental positives during surveillance testing.  She got her stats confused because public health statistics are not really essential to the proceedings.  

No he isn't.   He is stating that the layperson's definition of severe is not well defined whereas a medical professional may have clearer distinctions between severe and critical, or other levels.   Just like I cringe when the majority of you fucks say theory instead of hypothesis.   Lastly my misogynistic side might be coming out here, but when some women use certain terms (severe, freezing, amazing) I tend to think it is overstated.  Shit in 40 degree houston weather, my wife wants to send the kids to school with coats, sweaters, 2 shirts, and gloves.  I send them with a hoodie.   My kids prefer my style.   If I left them outside dressed her way I would be picking the leaves out of the coats and glove.  

This is really just about dogpiling a lib, and trying to make something out of nothing that impacts fuck-all.  

[Sawbonz 28081]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why do you believe that means "hospitalized"? 

I showed some very basic math earlier that points to 100K cases representing a 2.5% "severe illness" rate in children, assuming omicron is spreading evenly across all age groups.  That might be a bad assumption, but omicron is known to affect children proportionally more than any previous variant.  Would 2.5% of cases being "serious" give you pause?  What if it's 5%?

Have you ever heard the phrase “in serious condition” in a healthcare context that did not refer to hospitalized status? I’ve been in healthcare for 30 years, and I have not (well except for Ferris Bueller)
 

I have seen no studies for any variant that indicates 2.5% rate of serious illness in children, even if you want to assume “serious illness” doesn’t have to mean hospitalized. If you have a link showing otherwise please share. 
 

what she said is factually incorrect. You may be ok with that since she had good intentions wrt the point she was attempting to make. I am not

[hobbes2702 13351]

7 hours ago, Passive Aggressive Coach said:

Recap of what Supreme Court justices claimed as fact. It's quite amazing. (FYI grossly wrong) :

- 90% of hospitalized are unvaccinated

- over 100,000 children hospitalized

- 750 million positive cases yesterday

- vaccines stop transmission

- Omicron deadlier than Delta

- OSHA has broad police power

The actual quote is literally on this page but keep on lying.

[jimmyjazz 46972]

9 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Have you ever heard the phrase “in serious condition” in a healthcare context that did not refer to hospitalized status?

I already addressed that.  Justice Sotomayor is not a physician, and should not be expected to use the language in the same manner physicians do.

[hobbes2702 13351]

14 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Link to 100k children hospitalized w Covid? It was a stupid statement. It’s ok to acknowledge that

Link to where she said that

[Sawbonz 28081]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

Link to where she said that

Quote

We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators. We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition

This is what she said. If you want to say that quote doesn’t mean children in serious condition are hospitalized we aren’t speaking the same language and there is no point in further discussion 

[hobbes2702 13351]

17 minutes ago, Nivek said:

This is really just about dogpiling a lib, and trying to make something out of nothing that impacts fuck-all.  

 

[hobbes2702 13351]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

This is what she said. If you want to say that quote doesn’t mean children in serious condition are hospitalized we aren’t speaking the same language and there is no point in further discussion 

So your claim about what she said was false? 

[Sawbonz 28081]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I already addressed that.  Justice Sotomayor is not a physician, and should not be expected to use the language in the same manner physicians do.

Lay people do not to my knowledge go around talking about people in serious condition other than in the sense of hospitalizations. I don’t think that is your experience either but this is pointless

[Sawbonz 28081]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

So your claim about what she said was false? 

The quote is right there. It takes quite a bit of linguistic gymnastics to conclude my interpretation of what she said is false. 

[hobbes2702 13351]

13 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

  14 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Link to 100k children hospitalized w Covid? It was a stupid statement. It’s ok to acknowledge that

This is what you said. That is not what Sotomayor said. For someone who wants to dive into the pedantry of the statement you don’t seem very concerned about the clarity of your own.

[Sawbonz 28081]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

This is what you said. That is not what Sotomayor said. For someone who wants to dive into the pedantry of the statement you don’t seem very concerned about the clarity of your own.

She clearly is implying there are 100k children hospitalized in serious condition from Covid. The statement I quoted supports my interpretation. I’m not sure why you are trying to pretend it doesn’t. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

This discussion about alleged quotes by Supreme Court justices during oral argument does an excellent job in illustrating why the Supreme Court shouldn’t be involved here and should not be overruling what OSHA did, but apparently nobody really cares about the part that really matters. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34079]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

This discussion about alleged quotes by Supreme Court justices during oral argument does an excellent job in illustrating why the Supreme Court shouldn’t be involved here and should not be overruling what OSHA did, but apparently nobody really cares about the part that really matters. 

the bolded has been true been true my entire life, about *gestures broadly* everything

[hobbes2702 13351]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

This discussion about alleged quotes by Supreme Court justices during oral argument does an excellent job in illustrating why the Supreme Court shouldn’t be involved here and should not be overruling what OSHA did, but apparently nobody really cares about the part that really matters. 

Yup. It’s all just bullshit shit flinging

[TwiceHorn 31987]

56 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In my experience, but for Nina Totenberg and a sparse handful of others who SPECIALIZE in covering courts, media coverage of legal matters is hot garbage. They have zero understanding of the underlying legal standards and issues, and latch onto the most inconsequential facts/statements because they’re sexy. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read a story about one of my cases and thought “but…that’s not even what this case is about.”

The “numbers” cited by Sotomayor and Gorsuch (and again, if you listen accurately, neither one was off-base) aren’t “evidence” or set facts. They are indicators of, on the one hand, this being a serious viral and transmissible illness that puts everyone at some level of risk, and on the other hand, we’ve always had some level of that type of risk in the world without imposing workplace rules. Which are relevant considerations when the “grave danger” basis for OSHA regs is in play.

Yeah, and it's placing too much significance on oral arguments.  It's a heated, high-stress environment with extemporaneous remarks and arguments being made.

If either of the litigants had been concerned about the criticality or materiality of Sotomayor's remarks, they probably would have taken issue with them, but apparently did not.

It does get disturbing, though, when a Justice cites erroneous or misrepresented facts or factoids in an opinion, which happens with some alarming frequency.  It's not wholly common, but it happens and it shouldn't.

[Captainant 28387]

6 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Yup. It’s all just bullshit shit flinging

For real. I'm not a healthcare professional or a physician, but if I was too sick to leave the house or running a multi-day 102+ fever, I'd call that seriously ill. Sure, I'm not hospitalized and getting coded and all that shit - which I would also call seriously ill - but the compulsion to ACKSHUALLY a minor statement and feed the talking points of the MAGA crowd is pretty much SOP at this point

[jimmyjazz 46972]

As a counter to the idea that "seriously ill" must mean "hospitalized", was my father "seriously ill" when he was undergoing radiation treatments for glioblastoma multiforme?  He wasn't in the hospital.  When he passed away, he wasn't in the hospital.  He sure as fuck was "seriously ill".

I can be as pedantic as any of you pikers.  Bring it.

[Anastasis 23699]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

This discussion about alleged quotes by Supreme Court justices during oral argument does an excellent job in illustrating why the Supreme Court shouldn’t be involved here and should not be overruling what OSHA did, but apparently nobody really cares about the part that really matters. 

OSHA should t be involved here. 

[Bookman 4754]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I already addressed that.  Justice Sotomayor is not a physician, and should not be expected to use the language in the same manner physicians do.

It's almost as if they aren't trying to figure out what she meant.

[JimmyJames 12271]

36 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

OSHA should t be involved here. 

Elections have consequences. OSHA regulates the workplace as a power given to it by a congress, whether you agree or disagree with those regulations 
 

And if Covid isn’t an emergency then nothing is. 
 

The Supreme Court is not equipped to regulate the workplace like it’s probably about to do. Better OSHA than the court. 
 

This is just political, which the Supreme Court should do its best to stay out of, not look for ways to get involved. Just another brick in the wall of the perception of the legitimacy of the court. 

[smoky 842]

what's the point Sotomayor is trying to make?

[Gil Bang 26176]

[lemonlime 5503]

44 minutes ago, smoky said:

what's the point Sotomayor is trying to make?

The judges aren't supposed to be making "points" at oral argument.  That's the attorneys' job.

[Neonmoon 38130]

6 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I seriously hate the dumbing down of the media. 

Gorsuch: “The flu kills people every year. Traditionally OSHA does not regulate in this area. We have flu vaccines. Flu kills—I believe—hundreds of thousands of people every year.”

Soto mayor: “Those numbers show that omicron is as deadly and causes as much serious disease in the unvaccinated as delta did. … We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators.”

Since apparently everyone failed fucking English 

Gorsuch incorrectly said the Flu killed “hundreds of thousands” every year. It does not. 

Sotomayor incorrectly said we have “over 100K children…in serious condition”. We do not. 

Both comments are factually incorrect and expose the stupidity of the court, along with its partisan nature. Americans deserve better. #bothsides

 

 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

1 hour ago, smoky said:

what's the point Sotomayor is trying to make?

No lawyer but I believe she was trying to demonstrate there’s justification for an emergency policy.

[jimmyjazz 46972]

14 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Gorsuch incorrectly said the Flu killed “hundreds of thousands” every year.

No, he didn't.  Listen to the audio.  He clearly said "hundreds, thousands" not "hundreds of thousands".

[Neonmoon 38130]

I did not listen to the audio. If true, then what he said was correct. 

[smoky 842]

Since apparently everyone failed fucking English 
Gorsuch incorrectly said the Flu killed “hundreds of thousands” every year. It does not. 
Sotomayor incorrectly said we have “over 100K children…in serious condition”. We do not. 
Both comments are factually incorrect and expose the stupidity of the court, along with its partisan nature. Americans deserve better. #bothsides
 
 

According to the WaPo, there's a comma in Gorsuch's quote.

"Hundreds, thousands of people..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/08/sotomayors-false-claim-that-over-100000-children-are-serious-condition-with-covid/

[jimmyjazz 46972]

This whole debate highlights what is likely the biggest problem with political discourse in the United States.  For some reason, those who lean left are expected to be precise, accurate, and cool-headed.  Those who lean right are allowed to be hyperbolic and over-the-top emotional.  In a rare departure for me, I will state that BOTH SIDES actually feed this monster.

It's fucking infuriating.

[Don Johnson 4802]

I imagine Gorsuch is raising the question of how to quantify emergency?   How many deaths is the threshold?  As OSHA has never mandated flu shots, it must be above flu deaths but less than Covid deaths?

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

I am having beer number two in a bar at Mt Bachelor after a day of snowboarding.  The bartenders are wearing masks, some haphazardly.  Those who follow me know I am not a right wing anti-vaxxer.  But after being vaxxed and infected I feel free to live my life.  I will also get booster on February.  And wear a mask where asked to do so. 
 

If this lumps me into the cult types I will be sad.  But ah well.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

8 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

I am having beer number two in a bar at Mt Bachelor after a day of snowboarding.  The bartenders are wearing masks, some haphazardly.  Those who follow me know I am not a right wing anti-vaxxer.  But after being vaxxed and infected I feel free to live my life.  I will also get booster on February.  And wear a mask where asked to do so. 
 

If this lumps me into the cult types I will be sad.  But ah well.

If you’re anti-mandate, you’re anti-vaxxer. 

[Incredulity 11861]

Trumpkin!!!!!
 

 

[RDCanecutter 26853]

2 hours ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

I am having beer number two in a bar at Mt Bachelor after a day of snowboarding.  

I clearly need new snowboarder stereotypes.

[Francisco 2.0 32543]

 

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Francisco 2.0

[Leeroy Jenkins 2475]

   

That is some great shit. Literally, like shit for brains.

[HornOnTheBayou 9056]

Edited January 10, 2022 by HornOnTheBayou

[brakeman 28646]

No beer mandates.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by brakeman
should include tobacco.

[achooloco 1086]

7 hours ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

I am having beer number two in a bar at Mt Bachelor after a day of snowboarding.  The bartenders are wearing masks, some haphazardly.  Those who follow me know I am not a right wing anti-vaxxer.  But after being vaxxed and infected I feel free to live my life.  I will also get booster on February.  And wear a mask where asked to do so. 
 

If this lumps me into the cult types I will be sad.  But ah well.

You essentially described every normal human 21-55 years old in nyc. High vaxx rates, high mask usage, but after Omni and first wave, almost everyone has had it. And most bartenders at restaurants mask up for their shift (although Friday I was at a bar only spot with no masked staff)

(antivaxxers ain’t normal)

Although I’m curious which cult you think it means. If you look at tiger droppings, you’re definitely deep state. 

[tx 3 putt 78470]

2 hours ago, brakeman said:

No beer mandates.

 

 

 

 

I thought this was a joke haha

[HenryJames 67116]

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

14 hours ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

I am having beer number two in a bar at Mt Bachelor after a day of snowboarding.  The bartenders are wearing masks, some haphazardly.  Those who follow me know I am not a right wing anti-vaxxer.  But after being vaxxed and infected I feel free to live my life.  I will also get booster on February.  And wear a mask where asked to do so. 
 

If this lumps me into the cult types I will be sad.  But ah well.

 

14 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

If you’re anti-mandate, you’re anti-vaxxer. 

His statement had zero comment about mandates. 

Being anti-mandate does not mean you are anti-vaccine necessarily but IIRC your posting history on the subject is definitely in the anti-vaccine arena. If I’m remembering incorrectly, I apologize.