-
2020 Stanford at Oregon P...
Forum: The CARDboard
Last Post: pcgoode
7 minutes ago
» Replies: 12
» Views: 539 -
Dodgers test positive as ...
Forum: Covid-19
Last Post: magnus
30 minutes ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 8 -
WBB: First Game!
Forum: The CARDboard
Last Post: Baez87
35 minutes ago
» Replies: 9
» Views: 781 -
COVID19 impacts Wisconsin...
Forum: Covid-19
Last Post: chrisk
49 minutes ago
» Replies: 4
» Views: 114 -
Correlation between death...
Forum: Covid-19
Last Post: Farm93
1 hour ago
» Replies: 16
» Views: 347 -
NEW, June 16 Women's Bask...
Forum: The CARDboard
Last Post: dcnav
2 hours ago
» Replies: 366
» Views: 48,148 -
MBB Recruiting: Harrison ...
Forum: The CARDboard
Last Post: SamuelMcF
2 hours ago
» Replies: 22
» Views: 1,875 -
Shaw Tuesday presser - Oc...
Forum: The CARDboard
Last Post: lex24
2 hours ago
» Replies: 8
» Views: 200 -
Megan McClure
Forum: The CARDboard
Last Post: paloalto
3 hours ago
» Replies: 12
» Views: 1,038 -
Stanford to host Colgate ...
Forum: The CARDboard
Last Post: cardcrimson
5 hours ago
» Replies: 25
» Views: 617
- Forum posts:132,661
- Forum threads:20,372
- Members:1,088
- Latest member:Dyson DC44 Spares
I expect Trump to lose, and lose big, in a couple of weeks. But that is going to reflect his odious personality. The obsession of the Democrats with identity politics and victimization tropes that got them into trouble are still with us. Gavin Newsom, one of the True Believers, is headed straight for the iceberg.
Vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer apparently will be available in mid-to late November - pretty exciting. But they will of course be available on a limited quantities. California is one of five States that the US has required to submit detailed distribution plans, due today. Here's the full 84 page draft, if it interests you. Most of this is garden variety bureaucratese, although California's usual pain-in-the-a$$ insistence on its own review might be mildly controversial.
The disaster lies in the allocation plan. The first group, in the I-A class, is health workers. That is absolutely non-controversial. For my two cents, if I were emperor of the world, the I-B class would consist of educators in elementary and secondary schools that actually interface with students. It's imperative that we reopen schools as soon as possible. The kids themselves are apparently at low risk. If we vaccinate the teachers, we're well on our way to reopening. That seems to me obvious. This insight seems to have escaped the Governor.
(Digressing for a second, I'd also have a I-C group - those persons who are hands on with the distribution chains of goods and services that have kept the nation going these last six months. Biden disgraced himself by thanking only the Black women who did so. But the category actually relates to job classification rather than race, the insight that Establishment racists consistently refuse to acknowledge. I'd develop my I-C by looking to the employment rolls of Safeway, Raley/Nob Hill, other food processors and trucking companies, etc. and develop my preference off that. Based on my observations locally, that group is heavily weighted towards Hispanic, but I don't care. It's the job they did that that matters, and not racial origin. Duh.)
Newsom's I-B group, however, has nothing to do with education or gratitude for services rendered. Rather, it has to do with 'vulnerable groups' as Newsom's administration perceives vulnerability - and that is something of a wowser. It's hard to find a /pdf link, but here's the video stream of Newsom's press conference. Go out 11 or 12 minutes, when the stream shows about 47 or 48 minutes to go. You'll find Newsom's chart and comments.
After the non-controversial 'essential workers' (that's category I-A), the Governor proposes to allocate to vulnerable groups, in order of his presentation - 65 plus (already a problem), those with disabilities (bigger problem), racial and ethnic minority groups (no comment), rural populations (almost as bad), and . . . prison and incarcerated populations.
Let us start with 'people with disabilities'. I have a 32 year old daughter who is disabled, one of the joys of my life (her sister as well), and about whom I am extremely protective. That does not prevent me from thinking clearly. There is not the slightest aspect of her life that makes her more or less vulnerable than anyone else. There is nothing in the lives of any of her friends or peers that does. If anyone tried a lifeboat ethics approach to deny this group their rightful place in line, I'd be the first contributor to the lawsuit. But ADVANCING them? No. (Some do work in vulnerable employment occupations, as noted above. But it's the employment, not the disability, that provides the preference.)
Let us then move on to the piece de resistance, the preference for 'racial and ethnic minorities'. The mind boggles. You can't do that. You do not have to be a member of the California Bar for 50 years, as I am about to me. All you need to be is an eighth grader taking civics. You don't have to explore case authority. All you have to do is read the Fourteenth Amendment. You cannot condition potential life saving medication on a racial classification. You probably don't even have to go to 1954, and Brown. Even the Nineteenth Century knew better. But that stark, unadorned racism is just what Newsom has proposed.
To the extent the burden of contagion has fallen harder on these communities because they disproportionately occupy job classifications that are at risk, you respond by looking to the job classification, not race, as I mentioned above. You are going to look at two grocery distributors, both doing essentially the same job, both taking the same risk, and you're going to discriminate on the basis of race? Are you kidding?
Next is rural communities. Where the hell does that come from? You are entitled if you live here rather than there? (Let us not forget the problem of citizens who own vacation homes.) In terms of vulnerability, aren't people who live in urban situations exposed to more crowded conditions? Aren't they MORE vulnerable? To lawyer for a second, unlike race or gender, I don't THINK geographical residence is a suspect classification. So you don't have the straight litigation shot you do with race. But it is still amazingly, stupidly arbitrary.
And lastly . . . prisons. There is a kernel of rationality here, as there does tend to be overcrowding in jails and prisons. But I think it fails rather radically to the common sense perception that the vast majority of Californians who HAVE not committed offenses that have landed them in stir probably have a greater moral claim to the benefit than those incarcerated. Plus they are tax payers. I do believe there will be outcry on this point as well.
So how do you distribute this scarce resource in practice? After the three rational allocations based on employment category, I don't see any other way than birthday lottery. And this is obvious. The fact that Newsom and his cohorts actually think this system of out and out racial and social discrimination comports with basic egalitarian principles of this society shows how far they have strayed from the notion of a color-blind society. It's an aspirational goal, to be sure, never completely realizable in practice, but the North Star that should drive us forward. The various sins and failings of Donald Trump conceals the some of the real conceptual rot that has beset the Democratic Party in the last two decades.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story...suspension
Feel kinda bad for the kid (someone slap me), but this is the part that made me go hmm... "
"...a complaint had been filed about USC students being approached with a plan to apply for EDD benefits"
https://bioengineeringcommunity.nature.c...6df7441516
Quote:The institutions of the CDC, the FDA and NIH comprise tens of thousands of men and women who care deeply about society and making the world a better place. These nameless individuals represent our ‘United Armed Forces’ against COVID-19. They fight with brains instead of weapons, displaying the same courage and dedication as our armed forces in times of war, and they deserve our eternal gratitude. We and the associates of our companies consider that we fight alongside these individuals as part of the same cause, wielding science against our common adversary.
However, we are concerned that various parties in this critical coalition have come under politically motivated attacks. Targets have included, among others, the FDA, the CDC and Fauci; in Fauci’s case this has occurred to the point where he now requires a security detail. Not only are these attacks completely unjustified, they risk intimidating and demoralizing the very people we all are relying on to help end the COVID-19 nightmare. As such, they are irresponsible and a pose danger to us all.
I mean, imagine we are fighting a war and the President is constantly undermining the generals fighting it. If Fauci no longer has the President's confidence, then the President should fire him, as is his authority and install someone who does. I would disagree with it, but it certainly his right to have people who he trusts. Instead, the President is undermining Fauci's authority, which seems designed to scapegoat Fauci and other public health experts. As others have said on this board (including a couple people who are skeptical of reflexive anti-Trump messaging), this is reason enough to oppose him.
BC
Some day, I really hope we get to go to SD for the Holiday Bowl. I think it is the only long-standing PAC-12 affiliated bowl we haven't been to.
BC
Remdisivir had been operating under an EUA; it has now received full FDA approval.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-an...t-covid-19
Which is interesting, because the WHO recently announced that remdisivir had no effect in a very large study (much larger that ACTT, which was sponsored by the NIH and showed improvement in time to recover).
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/...treatments
BC
https://www.ksby.com/sports/cal-poly-wom...1-schedule
Looks like Cal Poly SLO will be the first game!
The front page of today's Merc had an article that surprised me - somebody actually publicly questioning Dr. Cody's dictates. The article noted that Cody "promptly rejected" - within 1.5 hours - new state rules allowing some fans to attend outdoor sporting events. The article also noted that Santa Clara county led the lockdown in March but also "has been among the slowest to reopen despite moderate outbreaks that are among the lowest of the state's urban counties."
Supervisor Ellenberg said "For seven months, we have asked for extraordinary sacrifice from our local residents and businesses. I believe we owe them in exchange - at a minimum - transparency in the decision-making processes . . ."
Cody reportedly said the state rules came as "a surprise" but she defended her decision. "It's in my judgment not safe for our community, especially now when we still have so many businesses and so many activities that have not been able to resume. We're staring down what could be a really rugged winter."
Just smh at these initial "justifications." The fact that other businesses and activities have "not been able to resume" is solely dictated by . . . Dr. Cody. Apart from that, shouldn't the inquiry be the safety of the particular activity under re-opening consideration? What other businesses are or are not doing is a non-sequitur. And "could be in for a rough winter?" C'mon now.
In fairness, Dr. Cody later said that just on percentages, if you allow 13,000 fans in the stands, then a couple hundred of them would likely be infected. And large gatherings invite too great a risk of spread. Okay, then work with the stadium folks to see if steps can be taken to mitigate risk to "acceptable levels." And apparently, there has been dialogue between 'Niners and county. But it sure appears the answer is just "no." As another county bureaucrat, Jeff Smith, said "The virus spreads rapidly in large crowds and the virus is deadly. There is no way that 'talk' will change those facts." Thanks for coming; drive home safely!
In truth, I could give a rip about fans in stands at Levi's. But I do think this article is indicative of Dr. Cody's approach to dealing with the virus, which is "lock it down and come back to me when there's a widely available vaccine." They should be working their asses off every single day to work with every business, school district, parks, etc. to see what can be done to get things closer to normal. I just think she is completely opposed to any of that - and I don't attribute it to laziness (though some might). It's fear; it's imperiousness; it's a desire when all this is done to be able to brag "we had best numbers of any big county;" . . . or something. The ROW is moving forward - or trying to. But Cody isn't; or if she does, it's only "kicking and screaming."
Again, I wonder if she even looks at the hospitalization/capacity numbers. She certainly doesn't give much meaning to them (while others - or at least one other person! - believes it's the most important number for driving policy).
P.S. The article also buttresses my acknowledged belief that everyone's "outlook" on the virus is set by personal priorities. The Supervisor complaining about knee-jerk "no" from Cody & Co. is one who has Levi's in her district. Also, the Merc probably wants to support the 'Niners as much as possible (while not giving a $hit about, for example, public schools). Thus, they're more amenable to printing stuff questioning decisions when it comes to the 'Niners than when it comes to public education. [Okay, this last one is just my cynical take on the state of MSM].
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2913...ne-anymore
Has had a very tough road to this point. Touching story