All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Tami]

Covid-19 Live Updates: White House Embraces ‘Herd Immunity’ Declaration

The White House has embraced a declaration by a group of scientists arguing that authorities should allow the coronavirus to spread among young healthy people while protecting the elderly and the vulnerable — an approach that would rely on arriving at “herd immunity” through infections rather than a vaccine.

Many experts say “herd immunity” — the point at which a disease stops spreading because nearly everyone in a population has contracted it — is still very far off. Leading experts have concluded, using different scientific methods, that about 85 to 90 percent of the American population is still susceptible to the coronavirus.

On a call convened Monday by the White House, two senior administration officials, both speaking anonymously because they were not authorized to give their names, cited an October 4 petition entitled The Great Barrington Declaration, which argues against lockdowns and calls for a reopening of businesses and schools.

“Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health,” the declaration states, adding, “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.”

Last month, at the request of The New York Times, three epidemiological teams calculated the percentage of the country that is infected. What they found runs strongly counter to the theory being promoted in influential circles that the United States has either already achieved herd immunity or is close to doing so, and that the pandemic is all but over. That conclusion would imply that businesses, schools and restaurants could safely reopen, and that masks and other distancing measures could be abandoned.

“The idea that herd immunity will happen at 10 or 20 percent is just nonsense,” said Dr. Christopher J.L. Murray, director of the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which produced the epidemic model frequently cited during White House news briefings as the epidemic hit hard in the spring.

The move comes amid a coronavirus outbreak at the White House that has now grown to more than 20 people, as evidence mounts that the administration did little to prevent or contain the virus’s spread.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Herd immunity, mein gott, I thought this nonsense was debunked a long time back, even the Limeys across the pond gave up on this nonsense.

[BeastieRunner]

Covid-19 Live Updates: White House Embraces ‘Herd Immunity’ Declaration

Kill more and get everyone sick.

Long term affects be damned.

[Reverse Happy]

Biden's not answering questions about packing the court because he doesn't want to feed Fox News talking points.

It's definitely getting packed.

I honestly don't think Biden has the balls to actually do it, but he should.

Edit: Plus you'd need 50 Dem Senators with the balls too, and I wouldn't be surprised if some chickened out.

[kidfresh512]

I honestly don't think Biden has the balls to actually do it, but he should.

Edit: Plus you'd need 50 Dem Senators with the balls too, and I wouldn't be surprised if some chickened out.

Thats the thing. Even if Biden wins and we take the Senate and keep the House. They will be on the clock from Day 1 trying to keep the Senate at midterms which is a HUGE ask. Trump has fucked over everything so much people will want immediate action and immediate results on EVERYTHING.

Healthcare reform, lingering economic fallout from Trump's Covid mismanagement. The promises these Dem Senators are running on and might narrowly win. They have to immediately show they are delivering. Court packing will be a high priority that some have on the left. But, it might not be the best thing for these Senators who barely won the majority in red states or purple states. Thats why Biden/Harris are not trying to fuel the Fox News talking points on it now and avoiding openly discussing it. They know it will be the boogeyman that GOP fearmonger vulnerable campaigns with.

[JackDaw]

Herd immunity, mein gott, I thought this nonsense was debunked a long time back, even the Limeys across the pond gave up on this nonsense.

I do not think we have.

Of course, nobody calls it that because it sounds bad.

But by accident or design it is what is happening...infection rate is increasing, deaths are increasing again...and there is no appetite for a full lockdown. (Partly because of economic havoc it would wreck, partly because full lockdown also causes mental and other physical problems...other essential medical procedures are delayed, and people die of things other than the virus. (Two close friends have suffered cancer treatment delays for example.)

Boris Johnson’s government have dealt with the crisis badly (I think). But to be fair let me make 2 points:-

1/ Few major European countries have properly contained the virus numbers to levels achieved in major Asian countries. Even in Germany..where the numbers are good in comparison to other European countries..the numbers of infections are rising again, and would be regarded as ruinous by countries such as Korea.

2/ Some of the UKs problems are not really down to Government itself. Would a perfect track and trace system have been implemented if Labour had been in charge? I do not think so because the people managing the technical aspects of the project would have been the same...the politicians do not code, or do the day to day project management. And again, I doubt if people who insist on attending big parties, refuse to wear masks etc would have acted very differently with another politician in charge. (Certainly this government has made mistakes, and Labour probably would have been better...but we would still have have been in a poor way compared to some other countries, because of nature of our overall set-up.)

[kidfresh512]

Well Early voting in Texas started yesterday. I was trying to get it over with but the lines were insane. So I will try to go later in the week. GOP is continuing to try any method possible to make voting as inconvenient as possible.

Texas Republicans challenge curbside, drive-thru voting in Harris County

I had never heard of this option but if the voting site can support this why is it bad? My cousin posted she used this to vote yesterday. She's disabled and her sister took her to vote this way. The GOP case for this makes no sense. And put into context with all their other clear efforts to suppress votes this cycle its obviously another attack.

They already tried to take away the extra week of early voting we got added for Covid related reasons. That failed so its continuing this week. Then there was the Governors order to limit ballot boxes for in person delivery of absentee ballots. Which was clearly suppression and trying to make things as difficult to vote as they can. So when you see Texas talked about as maybe being in play as a purple state every few cycles this is the reason it will be red again. They are throwing out all the stops to keep people from voting and make it as difficult as possible.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

The thing is she is not really going on record for anything. They ask how she would vote on ROe vs Wade and ACA and she said she can not comment on cases until they happen or some shit. They ask if she would recuse herself on some cases and the same thing I have to look at what other justices did before me, I cant comment on cases until they happen etc..

Hard to hold her to the fire when she wont give a direct answer on anything.

From what I've read and heard about yesterday's hearing, someone could've asked Barrett what day it was and she wouldn't have given an answer. Clearly that was the game plan from jump: stonewall EVERY question asked, put NOTHING on the record that could be used as a "Gotcha!" moment later. And I don't see anything changing today either.

[numberthirty]

Look's like somebody telegraphed CNN goings on by about a day...

[Mister Mets]

From what I've read and heard about yesterday's hearing, someone could've asked Barrett what day it was and she wouldn't have given an answer. Clearly that was the game plan from jump: stonewall EVERY question asked, put NOTHING on the record that could be used as a "Gotcha!" moment later. And I don't see anything changing today either.

This is pretty common for judicial appointees of all stripes.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/a...tion-hearings/

Question: Building on the last question, and given where we are, it seems that the formula for any nominee to the Supreme Court who hopes to be confirmed is simple. Be evasive yet engaging. Let long-winded senators steal your time. Appear sophisticated, yet avoid controversy or complexity. Deliver soundbites instead of professorial gradations. And be sure to appear groomed, well-suited and TV-friendly.

Will we ever see an end to this in our lifetimes? If so, how? If not, why shouldn’t senators be even bolder in countering such “Kabuki dances,” as you label them?

Shapiro: Indeed, successful nominees talk a lot without saying much. Ruth Bader Ginsburg refined that tactic into a “pincer movement,” refusing to comment on specific fact patterns because they might come before the court, and then refusing to discuss general principles because “a judge could deal in specifics only.”

Around the same time, Elena Kagan wrote a law review article criticizing judicial nominees for being too cagey. But when she sat in the hot seat herself, she realized why they did so: There’s no incentive to be more forthright and thus open yourself to attack, and every incentive just to demonstrate deep knowledge and an easygoing manner.

So no, I don’t see a change possible, particularly when senators themselves have an incentive to collect clips of gotcha questioning for reelection or presidential campaigns, as we saw with Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) at the Kavanaugh hearings. I mean, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) can declare that he won’t vote for anyone who doesn’t explicitly come out against Roe v. Wade, but that seems like shooting yourself in the foot barring a huge Republican majority that can afford to lose moderate votes.

As long as potential judges have no incentives to reveal their views, they'll be vague.

The fixes would be hard. You could have a bipartisan group promising to vote against any potential judge who gives evasive answers, but you would need buy-in from both sides. Alternatively, grandstanding by Senators could be turned into grounds for dismissal, but I doubt they'll agree with that one.

Well Hirono did call her out and got her to apologize for using the term "sexual preference"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYfP..._channel=MSNBC

Her statement about Roe. v Wade not being a super-precedent is useful ammunition too.

The "sexual preference" flap seems to be in bad faith.

The Advocate was using the phrase three weeks ago.

https://twitter.com/TheAdvocateMag/s...00179662647296

The alternative is "The Living Constitution" as described and outlined most famously by Thurgood Marshall on the Bicentennial of the Constitution in 1987.
(http://thurgoodmarshall.com/the-bicentennial-speech/)

It's an interesting argument that the constitution did not survive the Civil War, and that it was replaced by the 14th amendment, which has taken some time to be realized.

While the Union survived the civil war, the Constitution did not. In its place arose a new, more promising basis for justice and equality, the 14th Amendment, ensuring protection of the life, liberty, and property of all persons against deprivations without due process, and guaranteeing equal protection of the laws. And yet almost another century would pass before any significant recognition was obtained of the rights of black Americans to share equally even in such basic opportunities as education, housing, and employment, and to have their votes counted, and counted equally. In the meantime, blacks joined America’s military to fight its wars and invested untold hours working in its factories and on its farms, contributing to the development of this country’s magnificent wealth and waiting to share in its prosperity.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Herd immunity, mein gott, I thought this nonsense was debunked a long time back, even the Limeys across the pond gave up on this nonsense.

I never thought herd immunity was a sane thing without a vaccine.

[ed2962]

From what I've read and heard about yesterday's hearing, someone could've asked Barrett what day it was and she wouldn't have given an answer. Clearly that was the game plan from jump: stonewall EVERY question asked, put NOTHING on the record that could be used as a "Gotcha!" moment later. And I don't see anything changing today either.

It's not an uncommon tactic for SCOTUS nominees.

What I thought was interesting was the disingenuousness of some of the Republican senators..."What's the controversy? We don't know how you're going to vote on a given case..." Although clearly the purpose is that they're hoping a conservative judge is going to rule in their favor on key issues. It's the whole point!

[worstblogever]

The "sexual preference" flap seems to be in bad faith.

The irony of a Republican telling us what's in "bad faith" about nominating this justice on hypocrisy and made-up rules should escape no one on this forum.

Only the irony, though. No one should take the idea that it actually is a bad faith argument seriously. Because it's a slip about WHO SHE IS.

[worstblogever]

I never thought herd immunity was a sane thing without a vaccine.

It isn't. Let me break this down in layman's terms as a medical scientist...

HOW THE F*** can a herd build up immunity to something... THAT YOU ONLY BUILD UP ANTIBODIES FOR THAT FADE AFTER FOUR MONTHS?

By the time the fringes of the herd are getting sick, the center of the herd's antibodies are gone, and they can GET SICK AGAIN.

"Herd immunity" isn't viable with Covid-19. It only will result in CONSTANT DEATH because it's just out there being spread into the populace again, and again, and again.


This isn't complicated. It isn't. These people are that callous, and that absolutely f***ing stupid. Vote them out, to a man in the GOP, because if we don't, they're going to push this and be given four years where the body count will get into the millions. No hyperbole.

[Tendrin]

The irony of a Republican telling us what's in "bad faith" about nominating this justice on hypocrisy and made-up rules should escape no one on this forum.

Only the irony, though. No one should take the idea that it actually is a bad faith argument seriously. Because it's a slip about WHO SHE IS.

Two members of the Supreme Court literally just said they want to end gay marriage and now we have this, but sure, 'bad faith'.