[LMB] OT: Snarky Question

Elizabeth Holden alzurite at gmail.com
Mon Apr 13 16:33:00 BST 2020

William said:

>  The girl playing basketball by herself was endangering no one. T-ball
with 4 people, 2 of them
> children and all in the same family does not increase anyone’s risk.

Children can transmit the virus. That whole family might be unwittingly
carriers. People can leave the virus, or traces of it, anywhere. If they
could use the playground, why them and not others? The law enforcers can't
study every person on the planet for degrees of danger, especially since
those degrees are invisible. It's all or nothing and we are in this
together. If we are breathing, we're part of the situation. No one gets to
be exempt.

Some countries are handling it better than others, admittedly. But the ones
that are handling it best are applying the laws and restrictions equally to


Elizabeth Holden <azurite at azurite.ca>


On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 12:33 AM WILLIAM A WENRICH <wawenri at msn.com> wrote:

> My problem with almost every government’s reaction to the pandemic is that
> all of them seem to favor one size fits all and sweeping rules that are the
> same for cities with densities of 28,000 per square mile and small farming
> communities with less than 10. And this at the same time that facts were
> mostly unknown.
> I am upset, no angered, at the government of China for hiding the fact of
> human to human transmission. I think that threatening to cut off medical
> supplies will, in time, have negative effects world wide.
> If COVID-19 can be transmitted over 100 meters or through the windows of a
> car, it is totally unstoppable.
> The current estimates for the US death total is ~82,000. Turning off the
> economy for 18 months as I’ve heard suggested, will likely kill more.
> This is conjecture on my part. But all these thing are unknown. Many of
> the actions by governments seem arbitrary. Yes, action need to be taken.
> Yes, in the face of unknowns some of them will be too hard but let’s look
> at the examples one at a time.
> The girl playing basketball by herself was endangering no one. T-ball with
> 4 people, 2 of them children and all in the same family does not increase
> anyone’s risk. The church service decision was arbitrary and increased risk
> by tying up a lot of police officers making people roll down their windows
> to accept tickets. Other places that had as many cars parked were not
> bothered even though those people were getting out of their cars. Thaw
> order came from the mayor and said that people couldn’t go to church.
> Sorry, this is turning into a rant. I am somewhat upset.
> Christian, husband, father, granddaddy, son, American. Here I stand. I can
> do no other. God help me.
> William A Wenrich
> ________________________________
> From: Lois-Bujold <lois-bujold-bounces at lists.herald.co.uk> on behalf of
> Pouncer via Lois-Bujold <lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk>
> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 8:44:16 PM
> To: lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk <lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk>
> Subject: [LMB] OT: Snarky Question
> Brad DeLong:
> >I am very curious -- when I think about "the government" these days,
> >I almost always think [about] professionals at the CDC & the WHO,
> Me too!  I just don't think of them fondly. Having compared the
> CDC's management of infectious diseases afflicting
> humans with the USDA's management of infectious diseases
> afflicting livestock -- well, that's me. YMMV.
> I will suggest that it's bold of the CDC and WHO when they claim
> any virtue for their response to Haiti's cholera crisis given
> where and how that particular outbreak originated. Look it up.
> On the topic of livestock --  wet markets are not uncommon in
> cultures without refrigeration. It's less common that "exotic"
> animals are brought long distances, caged together, starved,
> parched, fed on each others' dung, sold as "bush meat", and
> eaten raw while still alive. I consider it a great pity that
> Marxists didn't develop their own form of kosher and halal
> religious 'superstitions' about limiting the kinds of animals to
> be eaten; the methods used to prepare them, any additives
> to be used or avoided. Lacking moral precepts about godliness,
> cleanliness, humane treatment of non-humans, etc, it comes
> down to brute force imposed by government experts.  I trust
> the Chinese Marxist authoritarians are, in this century at least,
> more Darwinist than Lamarckian, and appreciate how mutations,
> migrations, and genetics can endanger even their own lives.
> A government that can abort or abandon its subjects' daughters can
> surely learn to amend their diet.
> --
> Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to wawenri at msn.com
> Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
> http://lists.herald.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lois-bujold
> --
> Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to azurite at azurite.ca
> Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
> http://lists.herald.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lois-bujold

More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list