Heaven and Hell

On 4/22/2021 11:21 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:

I believe that voluntary behavior changes have made a significant
difference in the pandemic progress. These are done in self interest,
they need not be mandated with criminal penalties. Those that are
unlikely to voluntarily change their behavior due to risk are also
unlikely to change their behavior due to regulation.

First, understand that I agree, there have been mistakes and bad
decisions. Some of those can be explained by the fact that this event is
new and unique in several ways. Other bad decisions can't be excused
that way.

But about voluntary behavior changes made in self interest: Those alone
are not sufficient. Take one dude who thinks it's in his greater self
interest to omit the mask so he can continue smoking as he enters a
small shop and begins coughing loudly. That puts the counter girl at
risk, and there's nothing she can do to protect her self interest. Or at
the other end of some cultural spectrum, the people who gathered in a
small church for a long choir rehearsal did very badly.

I saw a wide, wide range of risk assessments and behavior among my
friends and extended family. I had one friend who very nearly died and a
couple who were very sick. Unfortunately, our personal sample size is
small and behavior details inadequately known to say who was wrong, who
was right and who was just lucky.

But I did see a NYT article today that claimed outdoor masking was
almost certainly not necessary. (Outdoors, distanced, masked: pick any
two.) That was my judgment from the first, and I'm glad it worked for us.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 8:21:49 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
" writes:
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 3:44:48 PM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:

The decisions we're seeing governments make in the name of public health
go so far beyond what would have been considered reasonable two years
ago, and are so far divorced from any kind of rational cost vs benefit
analysis that I am gobsmacked every time I read the news.

Are you saying the current government health mandates are
unreasonable? Limiting attendance, closing some activities, limiting
travel, and others.

Yes. Arbitrarily denying people the right to work or operate their
businesses, closing schools, subjecting populations to the equivalent of
house arrest (not in the US as far as I know, but you can now be
arrested in Ontario for being on the street without sufficient reason).

https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugee...ation-faq.html
What vaccines are required for U.S. immigration?
At this time,* vaccines for these diseases are currently required for U..S. immigration:

Mumps
Measles
Rubella
Polio
Tetanus and diphtheria
Pertussis
Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib)
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Rotavirus
Meningococcal disease
Varicella
Pneumococcal disease
Seasonal influenza

So is it OK to require the danged furners to get vaccinated to get
into the land of milk and honey? But its unreasonable to require
those already here? Above is a federal law. Probably been on the
books for decades and decades.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-man...aws/index.html
State Vaccination Requirements
State laws establish vaccination requirements for school
children. These laws often apply not only to children attending public
schools but also to those attending private schools and day care
facilities. States may also require immunization of healthcare workers
and of patients/residents of healthcare facilities.

So it is OK for most, all the states, to make school children and
healthcare workers get vaccinated but current health rules are
unreasonable?

Maybe I am just not following you too well. We currently have federal
and state health laws for diseases and many other things. And have
had these for decades and decades. And we have state laws regulating
population, attendance. Such as certain buildings cannot safely
accommodate too many people. And vehicles like buses cannot carry too
many people. But you are saying all these laws are illegal and the
population should rise up and overthrow the oppressors?

We have never had a law that required vaccination for anyone just
because of US residence. We have never had the current sort of opaque,
unaccountable administrative rulemaking over, for example, how many
people you can have in your own house for dinner. Are you really saying
that covid regulations are not a major increment in government power?
Mr. Beattie will perhaps take the time to explain to us hoi polloi why
it's all legal, but it certainly has not been customary up to very
recently.

What COVID regulations? Most of the COVID-related mandates are by executive order of one sort or another. Various state agencies have adopted temporary rules, but AFAIK, there has been very little permanent rule-making, which requires notice, comment, etc.

Unilateral executive action is authorized by emergency power statutes. I haven't really looked at the Oregon statute or how emergency powers are or can be exercised by lesser units like state agencies and municipalities, but there is no question that they are. Municipalities are a lot more nimble and can pass ordinances in a short period of time with significant consequences as any Portland multi-family owner knows.

Emergency power statutes exist in every state. Governors have been declaring emergencies, imposing curfews, restricting travel, imposing mandatory evacuations, etc., etc. since we had states. COVID is different because we can't see the disaster, like the destroyed trailer parks or flooded coastal communities. COVID is uncommon, but exercising emergency powers is common.

I am in favor of regulations with a clearly articulated rational basis,
and transparent rules that limit their scope of application. When the
call was "14 days to flatten the curve", I was in favor, it made sense
to me. But after 14 days, and 14 days, and another 14 days, we have a
pandemic raj that makes rules about every aspect of everyday life
without public oversight, and without feeling the need to explain their
actions. California, for example, has repeatedly denied FOIA requests
for the data that underlie their pandemic regulations. Michigan and
Oregon are attempting to make mask mandates permanent.

About Oregon -- not really, although the conservative media loves that narrative. OrOSHA is up against a statute that time-limits temporary rules and prohibits their extension. If anything is to remain in effect for more than 180 days (IIRC) has to be passed as a permanent rule with notice, comment, etc. So, OrOSHA is doing the rational thing -- passing permanent rules that would sunset. If people don't like them, they can object during the notice/comment period -- and they can tie them up in court. There are other problems with the rule that relate to the scope of OrOSHA's statutory authority.

All regulations must have a "rational basis" and be in accordance with the agency's organic statute. That's a fundamental requirement of substantive due process. "Rational basis" is an easy standard to satisfy.


When I look at the actual curves for hospital admissions, deaths, or
covid cases I just don't see where, for example, the legal restrictions
made in South Dakota cause their curves to bend in way that that those
of North Dakota didn't -- there just isn't much evidence that legal
restrictions have done any good, and it should be obvious that they have
had heavy costs, not just in money but also in lives.

And thus the governors of the various states have dealt with the pandemic differently. There is no federal mask mandate -- as Biden has repeated over and over. In Oregon, the restrictions apply differently to each county depending on its COVID numbers. There never has been an outdoor mask mandate, at least when social distancing is possible.

A lot of the mandates are blunt tools and should be better tailored. You hope that advisory staff is skilled enough to do that. If you don't like the ideology of your executive branch, vote them out or move -- because when COVID 2.0 comes, you know what you're going to get.

I believe that voluntary behavior changes have made a significant
difference in the pandemic progress. These are done in self interest,
they need not be mandated with criminal penalties. Those that are
unlikely to voluntarily change their behavior due to risk are also
unlikely to change their behavior due to regulation. Many of our fine
leaders are among this group.

Some times laws or regulations reinforce voluntary behavior, which is the reasoning behind many of the mandates. The cops are not busting people for face mask violations, but merchants and others who have to satisfy all their customers can demand compliance with the laws. The laws are often good cover.


-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 9:50:28 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 8:21:49 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
" writes:
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 3:44:48 PM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:

The decisions we're seeing governments make in the name of public health
go so far beyond what would have been considered reasonable two years
ago, and are so far divorced from any kind of rational cost vs benefit
analysis that I am gobsmacked every time I read the news.

Are you saying the current government health mandates are
unreasonable? Limiting attendance, closing some activities, limiting
travel, and others.

Yes. Arbitrarily denying people the right to work or operate their
businesses, closing schools, subjecting populations to the equivalent of
house arrest (not in the US as far as I know, but you can now be
arrested in Ontario for being on the street without sufficient reason).

https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugee...ation-faq.html
What vaccines are required for U.S. immigration?
At this time,* vaccines for these diseases are currently required for U.S. immigration:

Mumps
Measles
Rubella
Polio
Tetanus and diphtheria
Pertussis
Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib)
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Rotavirus
Meningococcal disease
Varicella
Pneumococcal disease
Seasonal influenza

So is it OK to require the danged furners to get vaccinated to get
into the land of milk and honey? But its unreasonable to require
those already here? Above is a federal law. Probably been on the
books for decades and decades.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-man...aws/index.html
State Vaccination Requirements
State laws establish vaccination requirements for school
children. These laws often apply not only to children attending public
schools but also to those attending private schools and day care
facilities. States may also require immunization of healthcare workers
and of patients/residents of healthcare facilities.

So it is OK for most, all the states, to make school children and
healthcare workers get vaccinated but current health rules are
unreasonable?

Maybe I am just not following you too well. We currently have federal
and state health laws for diseases and many other things. And have
had these for decades and decades. And we have state laws regulating
population, attendance. Such as certain buildings cannot safely
accommodate too many people. And vehicles like buses cannot carry too
many people. But you are saying all these laws are illegal and the
population should rise up and overthrow the oppressors?

We have never had a law that required vaccination for anyone just
because of US residence. We have never had the current sort of opaque,
unaccountable administrative rulemaking over, for example, how many
people you can have in your own house for dinner. Are you really saying
that covid regulations are not a major increment in government power?
Mr. Beattie will perhaps take the time to explain to us hoi polloi why
it's all legal, but it certainly has not been customary up to very
recently.
What COVID regulations? Most of the COVID-related mandates are by executive order of one sort or another. Various state agencies have adopted temporary rules, but AFAIK, there has been very little permanent rule-making, which requires notice, comment, etc.

Unilateral executive action is authorized by emergency power statutes. I haven't really looked at the Oregon statute or how emergency powers are or can be exercised by lesser units like state agencies and municipalities, but there is no question that they are. Municipalities are a lot more nimble and can pass ordinances in a short period of time with significant consequences as any Portland multi-family owner knows.

Emergency power statutes exist in every state. Governors have been declaring emergencies, imposing curfews, restricting travel, imposing mandatory evacuations, etc., etc. since we had states. COVID is different because we can't see the disaster, like the destroyed trailer parks or flooded coastal communities. COVID is uncommon, but exercising emergency powers is common.
I am in favor of regulations with a clearly articulated rational basis,
and transparent rules that limit their scope of application. When the
call was "14 days to flatten the curve", I was in favor, it made sense
to me. But after 14 days, and 14 days, and another 14 days, we have a
pandemic raj that makes rules about every aspect of everyday life
without public oversight, and without feeling the need to explain their
actions. California, for example, has repeatedly denied FOIA requests
for the data that underlie their pandemic regulations. Michigan and
Oregon are attempting to make mask mandates permanent.
About Oregon -- not really, although the conservative media loves that narrative. OrOSHA is up against a statute that time-limits temporary rules and prohibits their extension. If anything is to remain in effect for more than 180 days (IIRC) has to be passed as a permanent rule with notice, comment, etc. So, OrOSHA is doing the rational thing -- passing permanent rules that would sunset. If people don't like them, they can object during the notice/comment period -- and they can tie them up in court. There are other problems with the rule that relate to the scope of OrOSHA's statutory authority.

All regulations must have a "rational basis" and be in accordance with the agency's organic statute. That's a fundamental requirement of substantive due process. "Rational basis" is an easy standard to satisfy.

When I look at the actual curves for hospital admissions, deaths, or
covid cases I just don't see where, for example, the legal restrictions
made in South Dakota cause their curves to bend in way that that those
of North Dakota didn't -- there just isn't much evidence that legal
restrictions have done any good, and it should be obvious that they have
had heavy costs, not just in money but also in lives.
And thus the governors of the various states have dealt with the pandemic differently. There is no federal mask mandate -- as Biden has repeated over and over. In Oregon, the restrictions apply differently to each county depending on its COVID numbers. There never has been an outdoor mask mandate, at least when social distancing is possible.

A lot of the mandates are blunt tools and should be better tailored. You hope that advisory staff is skilled enough to do that. If you don't like the ideology of your executive branch, vote them out or move -- because when COVID 2.0 comes, you know what you're going to get.
I believe that voluntary behavior changes have made a significant
difference in the pandemic progress. These are done in self interest,
they need not be mandated with criminal penalties. Those that are
unlikely to voluntarily change their behavior due to risk are also
unlikely to change their behavior due to regulation. Many of our fine
leaders are among this group.
Some times laws or regulations reinforce voluntary behavior, which is the reasoning behind many of the mandates. The cops are not busting people for face mask violations, but merchants and others who have to satisfy all their customers can demand compliance with the laws. The laws are often good cover.

Jay, STOP THAT. No governor has EVER been able to dictate to you what you can do in your own home or who you could voluntarily visit with their permission. This is dictatorship on a level of Stalinism.

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 9:54:38 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 9:50:28 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 8:21:49 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
" writes:
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 3:44:48 PM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:

The decisions we're seeing governments make in the name of public health
go so far beyond what would have been considered reasonable two years
ago, and are so far divorced from any kind of rational cost vs benefit
analysis that I am gobsmacked every time I read the news.

Are you saying the current government health mandates are
unreasonable? Limiting attendance, closing some activities, limiting
travel, and others.

Yes. Arbitrarily denying people the right to work or operate their
businesses, closing schools, subjecting populations to the equivalent of
house arrest (not in the US as far as I know, but you can now be
arrested in Ontario for being on the street without sufficient reason).

https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugee...ation-faq.html
What vaccines are required for U.S. immigration?
At this time,* vaccines for these diseases are currently required for U.S. immigration:

Mumps
Measles
Rubella
Polio
Tetanus and diphtheria
Pertussis
Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib)
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Rotavirus
Meningococcal disease
Varicella
Pneumococcal disease
Seasonal influenza

So is it OK to require the danged furners to get vaccinated to get
into the land of milk and honey? But its unreasonable to require
those already here? Above is a federal law. Probably been on the
books for decades and decades.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-man...aws/index.html
State Vaccination Requirements
State laws establish vaccination requirements for school
children. These laws often apply not only to children attending public
schools but also to those attending private schools and day care
facilities. States may also require immunization of healthcare workers
and of patients/residents of healthcare facilities.

So it is OK for most, all the states, to make school children and
healthcare workers get vaccinated but current health rules are
unreasonable?

Maybe I am just not following you too well. We currently have federal
and state health laws for diseases and many other things. And have
had these for decades and decades. And we have state laws regulating
population, attendance. Such as certain buildings cannot safely
accommodate too many people. And vehicles like buses cannot carry too
many people. But you are saying all these laws are illegal and the
population should rise up and overthrow the oppressors?

We have never had a law that required vaccination for anyone just
because of US residence. We have never had the current sort of opaque,
unaccountable administrative rulemaking over, for example, how many
people you can have in your own house for dinner. Are you really saying
that covid regulations are not a major increment in government power?
Mr. Beattie will perhaps take the time to explain to us hoi polloi why
it's all legal, but it certainly has not been customary up to very
recently.
What COVID regulations? Most of the COVID-related mandates are by executive order of one sort or another. Various state agencies have adopted temporary rules, but AFAIK, there has been very little permanent rule-making, which requires notice, comment, etc.

Unilateral executive action is authorized by emergency power statutes. I haven't really looked at the Oregon statute or how emergency powers are or can be exercised by lesser units like state agencies and municipalities, but there is no question that they are. Municipalities are a lot more nimble and can pass ordinances in a short period of time with significant consequences as any Portland multi-family owner knows.

Emergency power statutes exist in every state. Governors have been declaring emergencies, imposing curfews, restricting travel, imposing mandatory evacuations, etc., etc. since we had states. COVID is different because we can't see the disaster, like the destroyed trailer parks or flooded coastal communities. COVID is uncommon, but exercising emergency powers is common..
I am in favor of regulations with a clearly articulated rational basis,
and transparent rules that limit their scope of application. When the
call was "14 days to flatten the curve", I was in favor, it made sense
to me. But after 14 days, and 14 days, and another 14 days, we have a
pandemic raj that makes rules about every aspect of everyday life
without public oversight, and without feeling the need to explain their
actions. California, for example, has repeatedly denied FOIA requests
for the data that underlie their pandemic regulations. Michigan and
Oregon are attempting to make mask mandates permanent.
About Oregon -- not really, although the conservative media loves that narrative. OrOSHA is up against a statute that time-limits temporary rules and prohibits their extension. If anything is to remain in effect for more than 180 days (IIRC) has to be passed as a permanent rule with notice, comment, etc. So, OrOSHA is doing the rational thing -- passing permanent rules that would sunset. If people don't like them, they can object during the notice/comment period -- and they can tie them up in court. There are other problems with the rule that relate to the scope of OrOSHA's statutory authority.

All regulations must have a "rational basis" and be in accordance with the agency's organic statute. That's a fundamental requirement of substantive due process. "Rational basis" is an easy standard to satisfy.

When I look at the actual curves for hospital admissions, deaths, or
covid cases I just don't see where, for example, the legal restrictions
made in South Dakota cause their curves to bend in way that that those
of North Dakota didn't -- there just isn't much evidence that legal
restrictions have done any good, and it should be obvious that they have
had heavy costs, not just in money but also in lives.
And thus the governors of the various states have dealt with the pandemic differently. There is no federal mask mandate -- as Biden has repeated over and over. In Oregon, the restrictions apply differently to each county depending on its COVID numbers. There never has been an outdoor mask mandate, at least when social distancing is possible.

A lot of the mandates are blunt tools and should be better tailored. You hope that advisory staff is skilled enough to do that. If you don't like the ideology of your executive branch, vote them out or move -- because when COVID 2.0 comes, you know what you're going to get.
I believe that voluntary behavior changes have made a significant
difference in the pandemic progress. These are done in self interest,
they need not be mandated with criminal penalties. Those that are
unlikely to voluntarily change their behavior due to risk are also
unlikely to change their behavior due to regulation. Many of our fine
leaders are among this group.
Some times laws or regulations reinforce voluntary behavior, which is the reasoning behind many of the mandates. The cops are not busting people for face mask violations, but merchants and others who have to satisfy all their customers can demand compliance with the laws. The laws are often good cover.
Jay, STOP THAT. No governor has EVER been able to dictate to you what you can do in your own home or who you could voluntarily visit with their permission. This is dictatorship on a level of Stalinism.

Oh, really? https://www.lawfareblog.com/long-his...s-american-law You need to read history, since I'm sure you won't read the link. You never do -- and thus your persistently wrong statements.

Various executives -- governors, boards of health, municipalities -- have statutory authority to dictate what you can do in the event of an emergency or in other, specified event like a pandemic. Go read the California code and figure it out for yourself.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:40:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/22/2021 11:21 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:

I believe that voluntary behavior changes have made a significant
difference in the pandemic progress. These are done in self interest,
they need not be mandated with criminal penalties. Those that are
unlikely to voluntarily change their behavior due to risk are also
unlikely to change their behavior due to regulation.

First, understand that I agree, there have been mistakes and bad
decisions. Some of those can be explained by the fact that this event is
new and unique in several ways. Other bad decisions can't be excused
that way.

But about voluntary behavior changes made in self interest: Those alone
are not sufficient. Take one dude who thinks it's in his greater self
interest to omit the mask so he can continue smoking as he enters a
small shop and begins coughing loudly. That puts the counter girl at
risk, and there's nothing she can do to protect her self interest. Or at
the other end of some cultural spectrum, the people who gathered in a
small church for a long choir rehearsal did very badly.

I saw a wide, wide range of risk assessments and behavior among my
friends and extended family. I had one friend who very nearly died and a
couple who were very sick. Unfortunately, our personal sample size is
small and behavior details inadequately known to say who was wrong, who
was right and who was just lucky.

But I did see a NYT article today that claimed outdoor masking was
almost certainly not necessary. (Outdoors, distanced, masked: pick any
two.) That was my judgment from the first, and I'm glad it worked for us.


I really wonder about y'all. What is so owneous about wearing a mask
that people spend hours and hours arguing about it? I wear a mask and
my wife wears a mask and everyone I see on the streets wears a mask,
as required by law here, and even the students that are protesting the
government wear masks. I have yet to hear anyone complaining about it.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:07:52 p.m. UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:40:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/22/2021 11:21 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:

I believe that voluntary behavior changes have made a significant
difference in the pandemic progress. These are done in self interest,
they need not be mandated with criminal penalties. Those that are
unlikely to voluntarily change their behavior due to risk are also
unlikely to change their behavior due to regulation.

First, understand that I agree, there have been mistakes and bad
decisions. Some of those can be explained by the fact that this event is
new and unique in several ways. Other bad decisions can't be excused
that way.

But about voluntary behavior changes made in self interest: Those alone
are not sufficient. Take one dude who thinks it's in his greater self
interest to omit the mask so he can continue smoking as he enters a
small shop and begins coughing loudly. That puts the counter girl at
risk, and there's nothing she can do to protect her self interest. Or at
the other end of some cultural spectrum, the people who gathered in a
small church for a long choir rehearsal did very badly.

I saw a wide, wide range of risk assessments and behavior among my
friends and extended family. I had one friend who very nearly died and a
couple who were very sick. Unfortunately, our personal sample size is
small and behavior details inadequately known to say who was wrong, who
was right and who was just lucky.

But I did see a NYT article today that claimed outdoor masking was
almost certainly not necessary. (Outdoors, distanced, masked: pick any
two.) That was my judgment from the first, and I'm glad it worked for us.
I really wonder about y'all. What is so owneous about wearing a mask
that people spend hours and hours arguing about it? I wear a mask and
my wife wears a mask and everyone I see on the streets wears a mask,
as required by law here, and even the students that are protesting the
government wear masks. I have yet to hear anyone complaining about it.
--
Cheers,

John B.

I've posted before that in a large store I wear an NBC gas mask. I don't care if it looks dorky. It completely protects my mouth, eyes, nose and ears. Far better to be safe than catching this virus. Others, well their mileage may and often does vary.

Cheers

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:59:59 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

I've posted before that in a large store I wear an NBC gas mask.
I don't care if it looks dorky. It completely protects my mouth,
eyes, nose and ears. Far better to be safe than catching this virus.
Others, well their mileage may and often does vary.
Cheers

With my collection of underlying medical conditions, if I catch the
virus, the odds for my survival are not good. Better masked than
dead.

3M 60923 P100 filter. Only for special occasions:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/jeffl-dust-mask.jpg
Filters are $22 per pair.

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:59:59 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

I've posted before that in a large store I wear an NBC gas mask.
I don't care if it looks dorky. It completely protects my mouth,
eyes, nose and ears. Far better to be safe than catching this virus.
Others, well their mileage may and often does vary.
Cheers
With my collection of underlying medical conditions, if I catch the
virus, the odds for my survival are not good. Better masked than
dead.

3M 60923 P100 filter. Only for special occasions:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/jeffl-dust-mask.jpg
Filters are $22 per pair.

It's a nice look for you. I like the hot pink covers.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 19:45:02 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:14:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:59:59 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

I've posted before that in a large store I wear an NBC gas mask.
I don't care if it looks dorky. It completely protects my mouth,
eyes, nose and ears. Far better to be safe than catching this virus.
Others, well their mileage may and often does vary.
Cheers
With my collection of underlying medical conditions, if I catch the
virus, the odds for my survival are not good. Better masked than
dead.

3M 60923 P100 filter. Only for special occasions:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/jeffl-dust-mask.jpg
Filters are $22 per pair.

It's a nice look for you. I like the hot pink covers.
-- Jay Beattie.

Thanks, but the pink covers clash with my usual choice of dark, drab,
and dingy colored clothing. Notice the aerodynamic design of the mask
and filter, which reduces air resistance while cycling. Notice the
angular faces, which gives it a "stealth aircraft" look, which
unfortunately is ruined by the rounded corners and garish pink color.
I suspect the final design was a compromise contrived by a committee.

Presumably 3M's choice of colors was to solve an important problem:
https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/565214O/3m-cartridge-filter-guide-and-brochure.pdf
Page 6 proclaims:
"Why are the filters and cartridges "pink"?
When a filter or cartridge has the magenta
color code it has the P100 designation. This
color provides uniformity and easy identification."
Well, maybe not an important problem.


--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 8:55:00 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 8:21:49 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
" writes:
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 3:44:48 PM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:

The decisions we're seeing governments make in the name of public health
go so far beyond what would have been considered reasonable two years
ago, and are so far divorced from any kind of rational cost vs benefit
analysis that I am gobsmacked every time I read the news.

Are you saying the current government health mandates are
unreasonable? Limiting attendance, closing some activities, limiting
travel, and others.

Yes. Arbitrarily denying people the right to work or operate their
businesses, closing schools, subjecting populations to the equivalent of
house arrest (not in the US as far as I know, but you can now be
arrested in Ontario for being on the street without sufficient reason).

https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugee...ation-faq.html
What vaccines are required for U.S. immigration?
At this time,* vaccines for these diseases are currently required for U.S. immigration:

Mumps
Measles
Rubella
Polio
Tetanus and diphtheria
Pertussis
Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib)
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Rotavirus
Meningococcal disease
Varicella
Pneumococcal disease
Seasonal influenza

So is it OK to require the danged furners to get vaccinated to get
into the land of milk and honey? But its unreasonable to require
those already here? Above is a federal law. Probably been on the
books for decades and decades.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-man...aws/index.html
State Vaccination Requirements
State laws establish vaccination requirements for school
children. These laws often apply not only to children attending public
schools but also to those attending private schools and day care
facilities. States may also require immunization of healthcare workers
and of patients/residents of healthcare facilities.

So it is OK for most, all the states, to make school children and
healthcare workers get vaccinated but current health rules are
unreasonable?

Maybe I am just not following you too well. We currently have federal
and state health laws for diseases and many other things. And have
had these for decades and decades. And we have state laws regulating
population, attendance. Such as certain buildings cannot safely
accommodate too many people. And vehicles like buses cannot carry too
many people. But you are saying all these laws are illegal and the
population should rise up and overthrow the oppressors?

We have never had a law that required vaccination for anyone just
because of US residence. We have never had the current sort of opaque,
unaccountable administrative rulemaking over, for example, how many
people you can have in your own house for dinner. Are you really saying
that covid regulations are not a major increment in government power?
Mr. Beattie will perhaps take the time to explain to us hoi polloi why
it's all legal, but it certainly has not been customary up to very
recently.

I am in favor of regulations with a clearly articulated rational basis,
and transparent rules that limit their scope of application. When the
call was "14 days to flatten the curve", I was in favor, it made sense
to me. But after 14 days, and 14 days, and another 14 days, we have a
pandemic raj that makes rules about every aspect of everyday life
without public oversight, and without feeling the need to explain their
actions. California, for example, has repeatedly denied FOIA requests
for the data that underlie their pandemic regulations. Michigan and
Oregon are attempting to make mask mandates permanent.

When I look at the actual curves for hospital admissions, deaths, or
covid cases I just don't see where, for example, the legal restrictions
made in South Dakota cause their curves to bend in way that that those
of North Dakota didn't -- there just isn't much evidence that legal
restrictions have done any good, and it should be obvious that they have
had heavy costs, not just in money but also in lives.

I believe that voluntary behavior changes have made a significant
difference in the pandemic progress. These are done in self interest,
they need not be mandated with criminal penalties. Those that are
unlikely to voluntarily change their behavior due to risk are also
unlikely to change their behavior due to regulation. Many of our fine
leaders are among this group.
Unfortunately Jay is doing nothing more than trying to make excuses for a government that is NOT being run by a President but by an invisible oligarchy.

Precisely. What's more, I think that said invisible oligarchy is in fact my own family

Wealizing this was, for me, an extwemewy hawwowing expewience