ADVERTISEMENT

Allegheny County: new COVID hotspot?


Only 4 got it from a protest. Stick to the facts.

Garbage in = garbage out. If they don't ask if someone was at a protest - or some moron who was rioting/looting/protesting doesn't admit it, then the data is flawed - as it is in this case.

If all gatherings of 25 or more are prohibited now because they are a danger to spread the virus, then no one in their right mind can say the morons protesting did not spread the virus. It doesn't work that way
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cerebral Carnivore
Of course it does, have you taken even a basic pathology class? Here’s an article to help you out.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.29.174888v1
The basic pathology should also have you question if it’s sterilizing immunity - which is unknown
Having antibodies doesn’t yield immunity - as the immune response needs to be robust enough to clear the virus .

I’ve said this a dozen times - but HIV patients have antibodies to the virus . But it’s not a robust enough response to kill hiv .
 
Garbage in = garbage out. If they don't ask if someone was at a protest - or some moron who was rioting/looting/protesting doesn't admit it, then the data is flawed - as it is in this case.

If all gatherings of 25 or more are prohibited now because they are a danger to spread the virus, then no one in their right mind can say the morons protesting did not spread the virus. It doesn't work that way
What we do know is the infection rate is most correlated with credit card use- hence most open economies .
https://fortune.com/2020/06/26/is-i...rants-jp-morgan-chase-covid-19-outbreaks/amp/
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarshallGoldberg
Humorous, but not relevant in the least. Freedom Cafe can tell it's employees to observe certain practices that their employees aren't required to observe at home.

I might be taking this silly tweet too literally and/or seriously, but anyone who finds any profound concept illustrated in this twitter thread doesn't understand rights as distinguished from privileges.
 
Humorous, but not relevant in the least. Freedom Cafe can tell it's employees to observe certain practices that their employees aren't required to observe at home.

I might be taking this silly tweet too literally and/or seriously, but anyone who finds any profound concept illustrated in this twitter thread doesn't understand rights as distinguished from privileges.
The basic premise of mildly inconvenient things they do to protect the health of the public are the illustrative point
None of those tasks are rights , any more than wearing a mask is
 
Highlighting the absurdity of this "rights" argument regarding wearing masks...
Society requires the wearing of clothes when out and about in public.
Does that infringe upon your right to frolic naked?
I will fight to the death to eat in a restaurant barefoot and only in my underwear - and will tik tok my outrage if I’m refused service
 
  • Like
Reactions: FreeportPanther
The basic premise of mildly inconvenient things they do to protect the health of the public are the illustrative point
None of those tasks are rights , any more than wearing a mask is
Yes, an employee has no right to ignore any of those tasks and expect not to be fired.

And, you can ask someone to wear a mask out of courtesy and because it has at least some preventative value, but it's absolutely their right to decide to wear it or not. You can always not allow them into your store, restaurant or home, but that's the limit of your lawful enforcement capability.
 
Yes, an employee has no right to ignore any of those tasks and expect not to be fired.

And, you can ask someone to wear a mask out of courtesy and because it has at least some preventative value, but it's absolutely their right to decide to wear it or not. You can always not allow them into your store, restaurant or home, but that's the limit of your lawful enforcement capability.
Which seems to be the primary gripe
Private businesses refusing entrance to those not wearing a mask
Which they are entitled to do to protect their employees
 
Highlighting the absurdity of this "rights" argument regarding wearing masks...
Society requires the wearing of clothes when out and about in public.
Does that infringe upon your right to frolic naked?
Trust me. Anyone who saw me naked in the last decade would never describe it as frolic.

I'll try to explain this concept once again for the constitutionally challenged.

If you are walking around naked you are infringing on the rights of others. And that is just based upon societal norms that view this as harmful to those with delicate sensibilities, I guess. Whatever. I believe the legal term is obscenity. But, you are not required to wear clothes. You just have to conceal your nakedness in some manner. Walk around in a barrel if you want to.

If you are infected (or proven to be exposed), you are infringing on the rights of others by putting them at risk of harm and a mask can be required, just like you can be quarantined. If you are not infected, there is no risk of harm. and there is no lawful authority to compel any behavior.

How absurd it is to not wear a mask is anyone's opinion. I'm talking about legal principles.
 
Trust me. Anyone who saw me naked in the last decade would never describe it as frolic.

I'll try to explain this concept once again for the constitutionally challenged.

If you are walking around naked you are infringing on the rights of others. And that is just based upon societal norms that view this as harmful to those with delicate sensibilities, I guess. Whatever. I believe the legal term is obscenity. But, you are not required to wear clothes. You just have to conceal your nakedness in some manner. Walk around in a barrel if you want to.

If you are infected (or proven to be exposed), you are infringing on the rights of others by putting them at risk of harm and a mask can be required, just like you can be quarantined. If you are not infected, there is no risk of harm. and there is no lawful authority to compel any behavior.

How absurd it is to not wear a mask is anyone's opinion. I'm talking about legal principles.
Governors have the power to declare health emergencies and require extraordinary actions during a pandemic.
This includes requiring the wearing of masks. It is happening in many states and cities.
The enforcement of the requirement varies, but the state governors are within their rights to mandate it.

Hopefully there is a court case soon that will settle this foolishness.
 
Which seems to be the primary gripe
Private businesses refusing entrance to those not wearing a mask
Which they are entitled to do to protect their employees
Agree. That pisses me off. I ran into CoGo's this week and forgot to grab my mask until I grabbed my ice tea and walked up to pay for it. I explained I'm not a mask hater and the teller was cool about but said that people argue with her about having to wear a mask it the store. Those people a jag offs.
 
Governors have the power to declare health emergencies and require extraordinary actions during a pandemic.
This includes requiring the wearing of masks. It is happening in many states and cities.
The enforcement of the requirement varies, but the state governors are within their rights to mandate it.

Hopefully there is a court case soon that will settle this foolishness.
Really? Because there is no law in PA. A cop can issue a citation, but you will win if you challenge it. It has no legal force. Show me in the PA constitution where the Governor can do whatever he wants during an "emergency" which he declared. And show me where the legislature if authorized to give the State that power, through the State govenment. Never mind how ridiculous it is to argue that the Governor is authorized to declare himself to be dictator by claiming a state of emergency.
 
Really? Because there is no law in PA. A cop can issue a citation, but you will win if you challenge it. It has no legal force. Show me in the PA constitution where the Governor can do whatever he wants during an "emergency" which he declared. And show me where the legislature if authorized to give the State that power, through the State govenment. Never mind how ridiculous it is to argue that the Governor is authorized to declare himself to be dictator by claiming a state of emergency.
Really....

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=35&div=0&chpt=73
 
Agree. That pisses me off. I ran into CoGo's this week and forgot to grab my mask until I grabbed my ice tea and walked up to pay for it. I explained I'm not a mask hater and the teller was cool about but said that people argue with her about having to wear a mask it the store. Those people a jag offs.
I really have noticed much more stringent mask wearing the past few days. Then I get to Butler County and..............

But it really pisses me off. As someone said, "refusing to wear a mask does not make one Patrick Henry", just wear the mask. It is being considerate for others, god is NOT going to protect you for being stupid and obstinate, but worse, it is about protecting your neighbors from YOU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnnyGossamer
Really? Because there is no law in PA. A cop can issue a citation, but you will win if you challenge it. It has no legal force. Show me in the PA constitution where the Governor can do whatever he wants during an "emergency" which he declared. And show me where the legislature if authorized to give the State that power, through the State govenment. Never mind how ridiculous it is to argue that the Governor is authorized to declare himself to be dictator by claiming a state of emergency.
And......

https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/20...us-disaster-declaration-supreme-court-ruling/
 
Upon further consideration, the court case isn't necessary because it has already been decided!

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/mandatory-vaccination-legal-time-epidemic/2006-04
Everyone eventually finds this case. It's just one court opinion. The founders specifically warned us against medical tyranny such as vaccines. Bad cases make for bad law. And it just proves that judges don't necessarily understand rights, as set forth in the Declaration, either.

Also, the 14th amendment has been abused by liberals starting about 30 years after it was enacted. I guess they had to wait until the writers of that amendment died before they started to misconstrue it. But I digress.

"When determining the legality of a statute enacted to protect public health and safety, the Court found it immaterial that a portion of the medical community thought the vaccination worthless or even injurious. The state has the right to choose between opposing medical theories and to refer the matter to a board composed of persons residing in the affected location who are qualified to make a determination. The courts do not become involved in legislation formed under the state’s police power as long as it relates substantially to public health, morals, or safety and is not a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by fundamental law [5]"

This is the old "compelling public interest" argument. I guess we could have quarantined all homosexuals that day HIV became a know threat, right? Yes, I'm playing the slippery slope argument. Sorry buddy, but shooting me full of goo just because you think it protects you ain't working for me. What's more fundamental a right then not having your body violated?

"Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, warned in 1787 that medical freedom needed to be included in the American Constitution.

Without this protection, Rush warned that the medical establishment would naturally progress – as many of mankind’s institutions do – into an oppressive dictatorship. His words, echoing from over 200 years ago, ring strikingly true today:

“The Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for medical freedom. To restrict the art of healing to one class will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic. … Unless we put medical freedom into the constitution the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship and force people who wish doctors and treatment of their own choice to submit to only what the dictating outfit offers.”"


https://thefederalist-gary.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-founding-father-warned-about-medical.html
 
Everyone eventually finds this case. It's just one court opinion. The founders specifically warned us against medical tyranny such as vaccines. Bad cases make for bad law. And it just proves that judges don't necessarily understand rights, as set forth in the Declaration, either.

Also, the 14th amendment has been abused by liberals starting about 30 years after it was enacted. I guess they had to wait until the writers of that amendment died before they started to misconstrue it. But I digress.

"When determining the legality of a statute enacted to protect public health and safety, the Court found it immaterial that a portion of the medical community thought the vaccination worthless or even injurious. The state has the right to choose between opposing medical theories and to refer the matter to a board composed of persons residing in the affected location who are qualified to make a determination. The courts do not become involved in legislation formed under the state’s police power as long as it relates substantially to public health, morals, or safety and is not a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by fundamental law [5]"

This is the old "compelling public interest" argument. I guess we could have quarantined all homosexuals that day HIV became a know threat, right? Yes, I'm playing the slippery slope argument. Sorry buddy, but shooting me full of goo just because you think it protects you ain't working for me. What's more fundamental a right then not having your body violated?

"Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, warned in 1787 that medical freedom needed to be included in the American Constitution.

Without this protection, Rush warned that the medical establishment would naturally progress – as many of mankind’s institutions do – into an oppressive dictatorship. His words, echoing from over 200 years ago, ring strikingly true today:

“The Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for medical freedom. To restrict the art of healing to one class will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic. … Unless we put medical freedom into the constitution the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship and force people who wish doctors and treatment of their own choice to submit to only what the dictating outfit offers.”"

https://thefederalist-gary.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-founding-father-warned-about-medical.html
But we are a nation of laws, n'at........
There is a process to judge if those laws infringe upon the rights granted under the Constitution, and that process was followed.
Most agree with the decision, some don't.
And so it goes...............

Guess it is time for you to go to the pitchforks and storm the Bastille or join one of those anti-mask demonstrations that have proved to be so effective in forming public opinion?
It will give you a chance to show off your brand new AR-15!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4Mark_Marty

The state’s emergency code states “The General Assembly by concurrent resolution may terminate a state of disaster emergency at any time. Thereupon, the governor shall issue an executive order or proclamation ending the state of disaster emergency.”

Yet our PA Court said the Governor doesn't have to obey the legislature. It was the freaking legislature that passed the law that gave the Governor that power in the first place.

And when you have time, show me where the PA constitution granted the legislature, i.e. the State government, to declare a state of emergency and do anything without enacting a law.

Civil disobedience is the only option at this point. :eek:
 
The state’s emergency code states “The General Assembly by concurrent resolution may terminate a state of disaster emergency at any time. Thereupon, the governor shall issue an executive order or proclamation ending the state of disaster emergency.”

Yet our PA Court said the Governor doesn't have to obey the legislature. It was the freaking legislature that passed the law that gave the Governor that power in the first place.

And when you have time, show me where the PA constitution granted the legislature, i.e. the State government, to declare a state of emergency and do anything without enacting a law.

Civil disobedience is the only option at this point. :eek:
You mean like BLM?

The law was passed and signed according to the constitution.
Any new law has to be passed, signed, or vetoed.
If vetoed, 2/3 majority of both houses can override.
See how that works??
 
Everyone eventually finds this case. It's just one court opinion. The founders specifically warned us against medical tyranny such as vaccines. Bad cases make for bad law. And it just proves that judges don't necessarily understand rights, as set forth in the Declaration, either.

Also, the 14th amendment has been abused by liberals starting about 30 years after it was enacted. I guess they had to wait until the writers of that amendment died before they started to misconstrue it. But I digress.

"When determining the legality of a statute enacted to protect public health and safety, the Court found it immaterial that a portion of the medical community thought the vaccination worthless or even injurious. The state has the right to choose between opposing medical theories and to refer the matter to a board composed of persons residing in the affected location who are qualified to make a determination. The courts do not become involved in legislation formed under the state’s police power as long as it relates substantially to public health, morals, or safety and is not a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by fundamental law [5]"

This is the old "compelling public interest" argument. I guess we could have quarantined all homosexuals that day HIV became a know threat, right? Yes, I'm playing the slippery slope argument. Sorry buddy, but shooting me full of goo just because you think it protects you ain't working for me. What's more fundamental a right then not having your body violated?

"Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, warned in 1787 that medical freedom needed to be included in the American Constitution.

Without this protection, Rush warned that the medical establishment would naturally progress – as many of mankind’s institutions do – into an oppressive dictatorship. His words, echoing from over 200 years ago, ring strikingly true today:

“The Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for medical freedom. To restrict the art of healing to one class will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic. … Unless we put medical freedom into the constitution the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship and force people who wish doctors and treatment of their own choice to submit to only what the dictating outfit offers.”"

https://thefederalist-gary.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-founding-father-warned-about-medical.html
As more information becomes available, the constitution must be re-evaluated based on that new information, like maybe 230 years worth of new information.
 
As more information becomes available, the constitution must be re-evaluated based on that new information, like maybe 230 years worth of new information.
And despite this founder's warning, no such provision was included in the original document.
So..................
 
You mean like BLM?

The law was passed and signed according to the constitution.
Any new law has to be passed, signed, or vetoed.
If vetoed, 2/3 majority of both houses can override.
See how that works??
A law to enslave people in Freeport could be passed and signed according to the constitution.

Following the constitutional process for passing a law does not assure that the law itself is constitutional.

See how that works?
 
A law to enslave people in Freeport could be passed and signed according to the constitution.

Following the constitutional process for passing a law does not assure that the law itself is constitutional.

See how that works?
But the process allows for the courts to rule on the constitutionality of said law.
That is also part of the process.

Just because you as an individual don't like/agree with the outcome doesn't necessarily make you right.

When the majority of people think like you do, head to the streets.
Patience, grasshopper....
 
Back on topic regarding antibodies not yielding immunity -
Granted it’s a preprint -
But
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.01.20139857v1
Souf, what do they mean by A SARS-CoV-2 plaque reduction neutralization test?

What exactly is plaque reduction? I found this site which said "the ability of a specific antibody to neutralize a virus, in turn, preventing the virus from causing the formation of plaques in a cell monolayer."

Can you explain this for me in layman's terms?

https://www.labce.com/spg1050613_plaque_reduction_neutralization_tests_prnt.aspx
 
But the process allows for the courts to rule on the constitutionality of said law.
That is also part of the process.

Just because you as an individual don't like/agree with the outcome doesn't necessarily make you right.

When the majority of people think like you do, head to the streets.
Patience, grasshopper....
So tell me where these BLM rioters, killers and statue destroyers had their rights violated. You don't have a right not to be embraced and loved as an equal in society. You are only owed that by the government. Again, rights vs. privileges.

Doesn't make me wrong, either. And we both know this wouldn't be first time the majority was wrong, verstehen Sie? Alles Klar?

BLM? You don't have a right to be embraced and loved as an equal in society. You are only entitled to be treated equally by the government. Again, rights vs. privileges.

 
Last edited:
Souf, what do they mean by A SARS-CoV-2 plaque reduction neutralization test?

What exactly is plaque reduction? I found this site which said "the ability of a specific antibody to neutralize a virus, in turn, preventing the virus from causing the formation of plaques in a cell monolayer."

Can you explain this for me in layman's terms?

https://www.labce.com/spg1050613_plaque_reduction_neutralization_tests_prnt.aspx
Best I can say-
These hospitilaized patients turned out to already have antibodies - so infusing antibody plasma wasn’t going to help.

or simply- having antibodies isn’t stopping people from getting sick with covid
 
Best I can say-
These hospitilaized patients turned out to already have antibodies - so infusing antibody plasma wasn’t going to help.

or simply- having antibodies isn’t stopping people from getting sick with covid
Thanks. I guess that is the important thing here.
 

The mask is to prevent the wearer from spewing droplets uncontrolled. Studies have been conducted that say it works. Even a simple bandana is better than nothing they say. So If I wear a mask I’m protecting you, not myself. If you’re wearing a mask you’re protecting me. So keep wearing a mask (I do as well) and let’s continue to protect each other.

There are so many asymptomatic carriers (in addition to the lengthy incubation prior to symptoms) which is why it’s important to know this distinction. If I had the virus but never had symptoms I’d be ecstatic. But that would be short lived if I ever found out I was the cause of someone else’s illness - or worse. So I wear my mask around others at all times. It ain’t gonna do shiznit for me, but I’ll know I’ve done all I can to try and protect others.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gary2
What we do know is the infection rate is most correlated with credit card use- hence most open economies .
https://fortune.com/2020/06/26/is-i...rants-jp-morgan-chase-covid-19-outbreaks/amp/

"Most correlated" compared to what? JP Morgan apparently ran the analysis against JHU Covid case datasets, but one would have to assume that their data is limited to that derived from use of their financial products since it is based on the Chase data, or at best other widely available economic data that may not be directly comparable, as far as granularity or other aspects, to the data they collected from their own product. None of these articles state what other correlations JP looked at or bothered to comment on what data they didn't have access to.

While there appears to be a positive correlation, and it wouldn't be unexpected that there would be based on what is known about virulence and viral spread, the r2=0.37 correlation coefficient in graph in the prior posted tweet is not considered a strong correlation. In fact it is fairly weak.

The social media and other headlines from this "study" are misleading. The framing of the context of the results in predictably poor...really altogether absent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: superstein61a
This is it - the heart if the problem. No trust possible, but it's all of the above. More from southern vacations & bars, and not wearing masks in public. But of course some of the spike are from protests.
You two better watch it. I don’t think you’re permitted to speculate that the protests may have played a part in the increase in cases.
 
So tell me where these BLM rioters, killers and statue destroyers had their rights violated. You don't have a right not to be embraced and loved as an equal in society. You are only owed that by the government. Again, rights vs. privileges.

Doesn't make me wrong, either. And we both know this wouldn't be first time the majority was wrong, verstehen Sie? Alles Klar?

BLM? You don't have a right to be embraced and loved as an equal in society. You are only entitled to be treated equally by the government. Again, rights vs. privileges.

You mean except the dead ones whose death precipitated the violence?
You know, the ones denied their right to a trial by a jury of their peers and due process?

I can't speak for them, but I'd guess they'd settle for being treated equally by the government (not profiled and killed by police), at least for starters.

JMO, but I think it is a petty hill to plant the flag on, wearing masks, especially when we have so few weapons to fight this virus. All the rights in the world don't help anyone if they're dead!

Now I'm going out back and exercise my "right" to get in the pool, sans mask.
liberty_equality_fraternity.jpg
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT