NoiseInsideMyHead

Winter sports nixed until December 14, at the soonest.

F**k off, Burgum. You giant pussy. Respected you for the longest time, for holding ground, and sticking to your convictions. No more. Facts, not fear...my ass. How many of the "cases" are even sick? Any hope for common sense in this world is gone.

Brigitte Nielsen is in the house?

You are free to both hate and wear. Nobody can (or should) take either of those freedoms away from you. We all make choices that others might find irresponsible. Line drawing becomes a real problem very quickly.

But "choice" takes into account cost and convenience. All things being equal, I think there will still be a difference. Hell, at this point, I would pay an extra $50-100 and connect through Laramie if it meant not wearing a mask.

But if you look at the big picture, even if people resumed traveling for reasons OTHER than voluntary (by the airlines) mask mandates, once they re-entered that marketplace there were NO options about masks. So to try to link increased airline revenue with the implementation of mask protocols -- in the absence of choice -- is a bit disingenuous.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Demand for all travel and ancillary services (especially voluntary and leisure) literally fell off a cliff, and as I recall, airline mask mandates were implemented across the board roughly simultaneously. So people flying HAD to fly, and they had NO choice about masks. Therefore, I don't think anyone has enough data to determine relative impact of any single factor, or cause and effect. However, I stand on my hypothesis...that given the choice, there are consumers who will be drawn to the first airline that does not require masks.

Because all must obey, right? That's the true hallmark of free societies. Simple analytical framework for you to consider... We all agree that everyone should be free to wear a mask, if they choose. Done. Period. No contest. We will all NEVER agree that masks are effective or necessary, or that the time for masks has come and gone, or that mask mandates are constitutional on their face. And we will NEVER, EVER change each other's minds on these subjects. It causes grief, it causes angst, it causes stress, it causes physical violence... Why not err on the side of immediate, mutual agreement, peace, love, and harmony? Take the high road? The path of least resistance?

Seeing as likely none of us are airline executives, and the hypothetical was asked openly, I think we're in fair territory here. I also think the market will eventually dictate. As soon as one airline goes maskless (mask optional), and experiences a significant revenue bump, there's your answer. Of course, this model won't work locally, because one must have more than airline from which to choose. Maybe the answer is mask and no-mask sections. Harken right back to the old days of smoking!

Did you order the Code Red?

Lax enforcement, of course.

The only workable solution is to empower each individual to make decisions for themselves. As we all must share the planet, if we want to control that which we inhale, we should wear masks to cover our own respiratory orifices. Control what you can. If the one, ten, or fifty people closest to you have no such desire for control, why impose upon them that which you could simply do for yourself? Give them the dignity of being free to inhale whatever the living f**k they want to inhale. If a mask does not make one comfortable enough to fly, he or she should absolutely not fly. PLUS, the absolute best thing about this approach, is that one may continue to wear a mask in perpetuity, without need for government intervention or mandate. If we make everyone wear a mask, and then subsequently rescind the order, then all we have done for the fearful is to kick that anxiety down the road a bit. Sooner or later, they'll have to make the hard decision for themselves. Tis far better for all to simply get it over with right now.

Serious questions for all who support any measure of a community 'locking down': You can isolate yourself. You can order groceries and every other consumer good and have them delivered to your front door. You can work from home. You can achieve whatever level of safety you desire. So... Why must everyone else play along? Why do you have so little respect for your fellow citizens and their rights and wishes? Is this as simple as FOMO and if so, are you at all ashamed? Are you jealous, or afraid you might be jealous, of others who do not (for whatever reason) share your lock down mentality? Do you fear being wrong? Do you fear waking up someday, having the government admit it was all for naught, and having regret? Would knowing that everyone went along with it somehow make it better? Do you understand how a lock down can hurt others? Professionally, personally, educationally, financially? How can you live with yourself knowing that the community lock down you desire will hurt people?

Not that long ago, the most compelling tasks for health department scientists were to verify the water temperature under the crab rangoon at the Panda Buffet and refill the STD brochure racks at local high schools. These same people now wield unimaginable power, quality control (apparently) be damned. Even under the best of circumstances, there is no way to have the kind of throughput we are seeing in usually quiet laboratories without QC/QA shortcuts being taken. What controls are even in place?

Instituting criminal penalties for merely not wearing a mask is absurd. It's literally -- in a great many cases, at least -- criminalizing the failure to engage in a symbolic gesture, or worse, the failure to embrace solidarity. Think about that for a second. Can you imagine a greater insult to the American ideals of free speech and expression? To have the government compel citizens to engage in a purely futile act is (or at least, used to be) impossible for most of us to even fathom. And before you say "But masks work! It's not futile!", allow me to elaborate. State law may give local health officials certain powers, but those powers are not limitless. Even if one concedes the inherent power of the state to implement requirements to "mitigate" the spread of disease, one must still reconcile that power that against the very simple truth that someone who is not contagious, or even infected, absolutely cannot spread that disease. Does anyone honestly believe that the government has the power to punish for that conduct which the alleged 'offender' cannot possibly do? It's a sloppy indoctrination of pre-crime...like "Minority Report" but without Tom Cruise to save the day. It's the executive branch shamelessly usurping the sacred power reserved to the legislature. An F.U. to the Constitution. In terms that most here can easily understand, it's like forbidding someone without herpes from having sex, solely in the name of stopping the spread of herpes. Who here would stand for that? If mask mandates were reserved for proven positives, for a fixed duration and preferably with some objective determination having been made as to contagious status, that would be one thing. But to muddy the already choppy political and mostly untested legal waters of indefinite, global mask mandates with across-the-board criminal penalties simply cannot stand. If this does not give you pause, well...

You're asking the wrong question, and it belies a high level of arrogance and condescension. We should let EVERYONE (i.e., all ages), and especially those over 65, decide for themselves whether they want to self-isolate. And then your question would (at least, should) eventually be, how many of each camp died from COVID? To which the ultimate answer (which might have some actual scientific value) will remain unknown for some time, but at least in the interim the world can move on. Besides, we all end up dead anyway. Will the last one standing -- once you're done pointing at all of our graves and gloating at having been "right" -- please remember to turn out the lights? I've said it before, America was built on self-determination, choices, and risks. I'll be damned if I tell "them" what to do or what's good for "them."

You poured what? Liquid hand sanitizer. On their what? In their masks. That's outrageous. Are you angry, U.N.? Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha. No, I'm not angry. I'm glad to see you COVIDiots...you Comets finally fought back. I think you'd make a fine addition to Tri-Corona. And I wanna welcome you aboard. Congratulations.

We can keep going around in circles all day, if you'd like. You need to look not only at tests as a total number, but also how they are being administered. Are there targeted testing efforts? Are specific populations being tested at higher frequencies? Are certain people denied access to tests? How are repeat testers being counted, and reported? Are tests being incentivized and if so, what are the incentives doing to the testing pool? I suspect in many places, healthy and asymptomatic 18-22 year olds are not being tested much, while UND has been dangling cash giveaways prizes to students who get tested. Who all is getting tested? Who is actually sick? What specific testing methodologies are being used? How are collectors being trained? How are samples transported? What error rates have been observed? Are false positives being removed from the total "case" count? Are the testing and reporting authorities so busy running and reporting tests that they haven't the time to do internal validation studies or quality control? If you want to believe that state X is "doing better" than state Y based on little more than a comparison of raw positive test data, be my guest. Your belief is built upon emotion and misleading conclusions filtered through biased media reporting lenses that are preying on the fearful, not defensible scientific principles. If you can come up with bona fide apples to apples comparisons, free of political or quasi-political slant, I'll listen. North Dakota is doing just fine.

What's frustrating is for coastal elites to make reckless assumptions about the rest of the country that have zero basis in fact. I'm sure you think you know what's going in places like North Dakota, but I can assure you that you do not. We are doing fine. We are not dropping like flies. We know all about masks and we even have doctors and hospitals with running water. Thank you for your concern.

Well, not ALL of us. There's this one...

Due SOLELY to the difference, no. There are other variables as well. But you would have to admit that a five-fold increase in testing in a particular locality would result in an increase in detected "cases" there. The problem with comparing cities to cities, states to states, and countries to countries -- as so many people are inclined to do -- is that there are far too many disparities in data to do so meaningfully. Until one normalizes for local variances in how tests are conducted and reported, it's a fool's errand. You'll be happy to know that we are North Dakota are also doing well with COVID. You just won't see it reported in the media.

Math not your strong suit?

Virginia is, like, 43rd in terms of tests per capita. How confident are you in the numbers knowing that you're not testing anywhere near the level of someplace like ND (3rd), which I presume you would say is 'not doing well.'

There are (at least) 3 kinds of justice: 1. Retributive 2. Restorative 3. Rehabilitative If for any reason you just can't get past (1), you are likely a cretin or a neanderthal. At the very least, you don't have a sufficient grasp of the concept. Opportunities missed, sadly.

UND SUX.