* National lockdowns for France and Germany expected for at least several weeks.
* Supermarket shortages expected very soon here once again in the U.S.
* Biden vs. Trump battle in Florida today
Important qualifier regarding the lockdowns in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc … they’re partial and not full lockdowns. They do NOT include schools and most construction/building projects. The French lockdown is stricter than Germany’s in that people will need a document – sort of like a permission slip – when they leave their homes. The French political system is also much more top-down in structure, whereby the provinces must abide by national policies. Germany’s federal structure is more similar to ours – there will be regional differences in mitigation measures and enforcement.
While deaths are mounting in Europe the death rate is lower than in the spring. In some ways this is an apples to oranges comparison, as there wasn’t nearly as much testing in the spring. Nevertheless, there has been a significant decline in mortality rate.
But, what concerns authorities perhaps more than absolute numbers of deaths are two things: 1. Healthcare system capacity – France and Italy are notoriously `stingy’ in this regard, with relatively little ICU capacity (Germany’s situation is MUCH better, as is the UK); 2. Excess all-cause mortality. Graphs showing excess mortality spiked in the spring across all of Europe (dramatic peaks). For the past 3 weeks excess mortality has begun to rise above what would be considered normal levels. In some countries, it’s increasing rather steeply (Czech Republic, Poland, Netherlands, Belgium).
I’m reposting my latest Forbes contribution. It’s on Vermont’s relative success story.
As you all know, I know Vermont very well. My mother lived there. My sister is a doctor on the front lines there. The policy has been straightforward and rational from the outset. My sister was involved in coordinating with the Department of Health, in all matters related to Covid-19 – from contact tracing to mask usage to crowd limits to physical distancing to treatment protocols.
I’m befuddled because now it looks like some conservatives are openly promoting herd immunity and are clearly anti-masks while voting in a pro-life justice. The hypocrisy is infuriating. I really have been trying to make myself believe – as a pro choicer who wants to build bridges – that pro life truly was just a bona fide zero tolerance policy towards any action or inaction that could end human life. Even in cases of rape, or incest, or danger to mother etc. That the inherent value of human life is simply non-negotiable from conception on. I don’t agree with that mindset but could respect and understand that extreme viewpoint bc – well – if you are going extreme black and white on any issue it might as well be the sacredness of human life itself beginning at conception.
But then how to reconcile this alleged pro life view with anti mask / pro herd immunity? This callous – ot’s only 2.6 percent fatal – bahhh no biggie. No masks only an extra 100k deaths – those 100k aren’t worth saving if it costs our economy or our comfort.
Does anyone understand this apparent disconnect? Because it seems like pro lifers are overlapping greatly with anti maskers. Not asking to stir the pot – honestly trying to understand this viewpoint bc I felt I had finally gotten to a tentative understanding of pro life – every single life is sacred – but now ♀️
I keep asking for folks who share differing views to please share them here. There has not been anything but respectful conversation here and I certainly believe that will continue. I am trying to understand this myself……for the very reason you mentioned right down to the children at the border, the desire to remove pre-existing conditions (some of which begin in the womb or right after birth) and the president endorsing a Covid med that May Have (there are too many lies floating around from every corner to say for certain that it did or did not) used stem cell research. However, the company apparently does use stem cell research. (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-regeneron-stem-cells/
I want to remind everyone that fivethirtyeight predicted a Clinton win four years ago. The site is still interesting to look over.
Thanks Dr. As said, I believed well ahead of the election that Trump would win in 2016. It is far more difficult this time around because the world is very different from four years ago. Also, his base is different. And his campaigning is on fear and fear alone. He has yet to campaign on one issue. That doesn’t seem to matter. This is getting quite terrifying. I’m not sure how any poll can accurately predict an outcome when one candidate is completely unpredictable.
While I am mostly pro-choice, I respect a pro-life position, at least one that is not extreme (ie, allows for abortions in case of rape, incest, threats to a mother’s health, but bans all others).
I have lost respect, however, for the viewpoints of many pro-life people who aren’t pro-life in reality. “There are more important things than living” is the refrain that I couldn’t wrap my head around back in March, when Lt. Gov Patrick (Texas) said it, and still can’t today.
Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota epitomizes the hypocrisy. She is pro-life (rather extreme, actually), but won’t do anything to infringe upon people’s “choices” on masks, physical distancing, limits on gathering sizes (eg, Sturgis), etc … Inconsistency abounds here. Government can prevent women from choosing whether to have a baby or not, even in very difficult circumstances. But, government cannot do anything about making sure mitigation measures are followed to prevent Covid-19 disease spread. Her state has suffered many Covid-19 deaths in the past two months.
I’ve always found the mask mandate controversy somewhat contrived. We certainly can’t walk into an establishment naked. In fact, we can’t walk into the vast majority of establishments without shoes or sandals, and without a shirt. These rules are governed by sanitation protocols, which the government sets. Somehow these requirements are not seen as impediments, while masks are. Weird.
Excellent comment. I feel the same re pro-life/choice.
Conservatives are banking on the Electoral College once again like in 2016. Why does the EC always favors Trump?
Just popping in to say hi to the crew chatting here. I don’t wander into this area too often except just for quick mod checks, which have not really been needed TBH. Thanks to all for keeping that part easy for me during a time I have been exceedingly preoccupied with things outside of the blog, most of which I can’t go into in detail but very much involve the health of other people (friends & family) as well as work.
I intend to keep the C-19 chat going daily so long as we are in a pandemic, and I look forward to the time when it’s not needed any longer, as I am sure all of you are as well.
Take care, stay well, stay safe. 🙂
Take good care, TK. Hope that the health of friends and family improves.
We’ll do our best to keep it civil on this part of your blog.
And yes, I look forward to the day that this part of the blog is history.
Thanks TK! We always keep things very civil over here as well. 🙂
I do appreciate this page….both for the information here that we might not see otherwise and for the respectful discussion.
Philip, your question on the electoral college is a good one. It’s not because of Trump or unique to him, though it does favor the Republicans. Popular vote in a direct presidential election would simply tally the votes no matter where they come from and whoever wins the majority or in some cases simply the most votes, wins. Our system doesn’t have a direct presidential election. As currently constituted, the electoral college – with election tallies resulting in a certain number of delegates from each state – is not completely proportionate. Also, while 48 out of 50 states have winner take all delegates, 2 do not (Nebraska and Maine – this is why Trump visited these states). Winner take all means that in a state like Pennsylvania where the margin of victory is expected to be very small whoever has the most votes – even if it’s only 10,000 more – gets all the delegates. Then there are states like California where Biden is expected to get 70% of the votes and of course win all the delegates. But, given that it’s a very large state this means that all those millions of `extra’ votes Biden gets in California don’t mean a thing when it comes to the electoral college.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Biden will win the popular vote, and by a healthy margin, say, 7%. But, that does not mean he’ll win the election.
To change this peculiar system we would need a constitutional amendment. Rural, small states (I don’t mean geographic size) would be opposed, as they would be ceding power to large, more urban states.
Thanks Joshua. I don’t understand why the Founding Fathers came up with this “EC” for presidential elections to ultimately decide. It should be decided by the number of votes like other public offices (Senators, Governors, Mayors, etc.).
It would be like a football team scoring the most points but losing the SB because their opponent got more first downs.
Great explanation. Not a surprise but heather Cox Richardson has a podcast…or maybe two…on the electoral college.
Sorry, Philip, I am remiss in thankIng you for asking.
No problem Vicki. I know you appreciate me asking. 🙂
🙂
Philip, I love your analogy:
“It would be like a football team scoring the most points but losing the SB because their opponent got more first downs.”
Thanks Joshua.
…or total yards, etc.
I missed that. I’m glad Joshua mentioned it. Sure is a good analogy
* National lockdowns for France and Germany expected for at least several weeks.
* Supermarket shortages expected very soon here once again in the U.S.
* Biden vs. Trump battle in Florida today
Important qualifier regarding the lockdowns in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc … they’re partial and not full lockdowns. They do NOT include schools and most construction/building projects. The French lockdown is stricter than Germany’s in that people will need a document – sort of like a permission slip – when they leave their homes. The French political system is also much more top-down in structure, whereby the provinces must abide by national policies. Germany’s federal structure is more similar to ours – there will be regional differences in mitigation measures and enforcement.
While deaths are mounting in Europe the death rate is lower than in the spring. In some ways this is an apples to oranges comparison, as there wasn’t nearly as much testing in the spring. Nevertheless, there has been a significant decline in mortality rate.
But, what concerns authorities perhaps more than absolute numbers of deaths are two things: 1. Healthcare system capacity – France and Italy are notoriously `stingy’ in this regard, with relatively little ICU capacity (Germany’s situation is MUCH better, as is the UK); 2. Excess all-cause mortality. Graphs showing excess mortality spiked in the spring across all of Europe (dramatic peaks). For the past 3 weeks excess mortality has begun to rise above what would be considered normal levels. In some countries, it’s increasing rather steeply (Czech Republic, Poland, Netherlands, Belgium).
I’m reposting my latest Forbes contribution. It’s on Vermont’s relative success story.
As you all know, I know Vermont very well. My mother lived there. My sister is a doctor on the front lines there. The policy has been straightforward and rational from the outset. My sister was involved in coordinating with the Department of Health, in all matters related to Covid-19 – from contact tracing to mask usage to crowd limits to physical distancing to treatment protocols.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2020/10/28/among-republican-led-rural-states-vermont-is-vastly-more-successful-in-combating-covid-19/#2075a96e183f
I’m befuddled because now it looks like some conservatives are openly promoting herd immunity and are clearly anti-masks while voting in a pro-life justice. The hypocrisy is infuriating. I really have been trying to make myself believe – as a pro choicer who wants to build bridges – that pro life truly was just a bona fide zero tolerance policy towards any action or inaction that could end human life. Even in cases of rape, or incest, or danger to mother etc. That the inherent value of human life is simply non-negotiable from conception on. I don’t agree with that mindset but could respect and understand that extreme viewpoint bc – well – if you are going extreme black and white on any issue it might as well be the sacredness of human life itself beginning at conception.
But then how to reconcile this alleged pro life view with anti mask / pro herd immunity? This callous – ot’s only 2.6 percent fatal – bahhh no biggie. No masks only an extra 100k deaths – those 100k aren’t worth saving if it costs our economy or our comfort.
Does anyone understand this apparent disconnect? Because it seems like pro lifers are overlapping greatly with anti maskers. Not asking to stir the pot – honestly trying to understand this viewpoint bc I felt I had finally gotten to a tentative understanding of pro life – every single life is sacred – but now ♀️
I keep asking for folks who share differing views to please share them here. There has not been anything but respectful conversation here and I certainly believe that will continue. I am trying to understand this myself……for the very reason you mentioned right down to the children at the border, the desire to remove pre-existing conditions (some of which begin in the womb or right after birth) and the president endorsing a Covid med that May Have (there are too many lies floating around from every corner to say for certain that it did or did not) used stem cell research. However, the company apparently does use stem cell research. (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-regeneron-stem-cells/
According to fivethirtyeight Biden wins in 89 out of 100 scenarios. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
I want to remind everyone that fivethirtyeight predicted a Clinton win four years ago. The site is still interesting to look over.
Thanks Dr. As said, I believed well ahead of the election that Trump would win in 2016. It is far more difficult this time around because the world is very different from four years ago. Also, his base is different. And his campaigning is on fear and fear alone. He has yet to campaign on one issue. That doesn’t seem to matter. This is getting quite terrifying. I’m not sure how any poll can accurately predict an outcome when one candidate is completely unpredictable.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/10/29/trump-paints-apocalyptic-portrait-of-life-in-us-under-biden/24667186/
I caught this as I left a bit ago for a food pickup. It plays into what we are seeing in general but also the approach by our leaders to covid
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/10/29/america-authoritarian-threat-government-democracy
MamaMia, I agree with your post.
While I am mostly pro-choice, I respect a pro-life position, at least one that is not extreme (ie, allows for abortions in case of rape, incest, threats to a mother’s health, but bans all others).
I have lost respect, however, for the viewpoints of many pro-life people who aren’t pro-life in reality. “There are more important things than living” is the refrain that I couldn’t wrap my head around back in March, when Lt. Gov Patrick (Texas) said it, and still can’t today.
Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota epitomizes the hypocrisy. She is pro-life (rather extreme, actually), but won’t do anything to infringe upon people’s “choices” on masks, physical distancing, limits on gathering sizes (eg, Sturgis), etc … Inconsistency abounds here. Government can prevent women from choosing whether to have a baby or not, even in very difficult circumstances. But, government cannot do anything about making sure mitigation measures are followed to prevent Covid-19 disease spread. Her state has suffered many Covid-19 deaths in the past two months.
I’ve always found the mask mandate controversy somewhat contrived. We certainly can’t walk into an establishment naked. In fact, we can’t walk into the vast majority of establishments without shoes or sandals, and without a shirt. These rules are governed by sanitation protocols, which the government sets. Somehow these requirements are not seen as impediments, while masks are. Weird.
Excellent comment. I feel the same re pro-life/choice.
Conservatives are banking on the Electoral College once again like in 2016. Why does the EC always favors Trump?
Joshua?? Would love your thoughts on this
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-0948_article?fbclid=IwAR0XojjtLnaNbFQdPkEdbJsDWrwJZWBFQkSei2AsmT56kWubhdQ5koC3qv8
Just popping in to say hi to the crew chatting here. I don’t wander into this area too often except just for quick mod checks, which have not really been needed TBH. Thanks to all for keeping that part easy for me during a time I have been exceedingly preoccupied with things outside of the blog, most of which I can’t go into in detail but very much involve the health of other people (friends & family) as well as work.
I intend to keep the C-19 chat going daily so long as we are in a pandemic, and I look forward to the time when it’s not needed any longer, as I am sure all of you are as well.
Take care, stay well, stay safe. 🙂
Take good care, TK. Hope that the health of friends and family improves.
We’ll do our best to keep it civil on this part of your blog.
And yes, I look forward to the day that this part of the blog is history.
Thanks TK! We always keep things very civil over here as well. 🙂
I do appreciate this page….both for the information here that we might not see otherwise and for the respectful discussion.
Philip, your question on the electoral college is a good one. It’s not because of Trump or unique to him, though it does favor the Republicans. Popular vote in a direct presidential election would simply tally the votes no matter where they come from and whoever wins the majority or in some cases simply the most votes, wins. Our system doesn’t have a direct presidential election. As currently constituted, the electoral college – with election tallies resulting in a certain number of delegates from each state – is not completely proportionate. Also, while 48 out of 50 states have winner take all delegates, 2 do not (Nebraska and Maine – this is why Trump visited these states). Winner take all means that in a state like Pennsylvania where the margin of victory is expected to be very small whoever has the most votes – even if it’s only 10,000 more – gets all the delegates. Then there are states like California where Biden is expected to get 70% of the votes and of course win all the delegates. But, given that it’s a very large state this means that all those millions of `extra’ votes Biden gets in California don’t mean a thing when it comes to the electoral college.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Biden will win the popular vote, and by a healthy margin, say, 7%. But, that does not mean he’ll win the election.
To change this peculiar system we would need a constitutional amendment. Rural, small states (I don’t mean geographic size) would be opposed, as they would be ceding power to large, more urban states.
Thanks Joshua. I don’t understand why the Founding Fathers came up with this “EC” for presidential elections to ultimately decide. It should be decided by the number of votes like other public offices (Senators, Governors, Mayors, etc.).
It would be like a football team scoring the most points but losing the SB because their opponent got more first downs.
Great explanation. Not a surprise but heather Cox Richardson has a podcast…or maybe two…on the electoral college.
Sorry, Philip, I am remiss in thankIng you for asking.
No problem Vicki. I know you appreciate me asking. 🙂
🙂
Philip, I love your analogy:
“It would be like a football team scoring the most points but losing the SB because their opponent got more first downs.”
Thanks Joshua.
…or total yards, etc.
I missed that. I’m glad Joshua mentioned it. Sure is a good analogy
https://www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-assumption-university-campus-lockdown-covid-19/34525070
And. From 77 communities to 121. Time for baker to stop avoiding calling this phase 2
https://whdh.com/news/121-mass-communities-now-considered-high-risk-for-coronavirus/
C-19 / 10-30 / ready