2nd that @SmilingOgre, @David5362
2 Likes
There seemed to be no such laissez faire attitude surrounding “open carry” in Cali in 1967, nohow:
In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves.”
The display so frightened politicians - including California governor Ronald Reagan - that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took Cali down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions.
“The law was part of a wave of laws that were passed in the late 1960s regulating guns, especially to target African-Americans,” says Adam Winkler, author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms”, Including the Gun Control Act of 1968, which adopted new laws prohibiting certain people from owning guns, providing for beefed up licensing and inspections of gun dealers and restricting the importation of cheap Saturday night specials (pistols) that were popular in some urban communities.
Source: “The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons”
Source: https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/black-panthers.jpg
3 Likes
(Politico, May 2, 2020):
Over three weeks ago, hydroxychloroquine was all the rage in MAGA world, despite flawed and scattered evidence about whether the drug could help cure coronavirus. Now there is another drug, remdesivir, with positive early scientific data. Much of MAGA world wants little to do with it.
At first, it may seem like a head-scratching response. President Donald Trump’s base has been quick to trumpet any potential solutions to the coronavirus pandemic - especially those Trump himself promotes - regardless of the red flags from medical experts. But with remdesivir, it’s the Trump-boosting pundits who are raising the red flags, even as the president expresses optimism. Indeed, the same segment of the right that claimed scientists and the media were deliberately downplaying hydroxychloroquine in order to hurt Trump’s standing are now the ones downplaying remdesivir. …
… The unexpected reaction appears to stem from the differences in how the two drugs came into the public spotlight. Hydroxychloroquine bubbled up through the MAGA grassroots - little-known investors promoted it online, got on Fox News and suddenly the president was talking about it from the White House. Remdesivir’s progress came through a government-funded trial that had the blessing of Dr. Anthony Fauci, the bête noire of Trump hardliners who blame the government’s top infectious disease expert for undermining the president and causing unnecessary economic damage with his social-distancing guidelines.
1 Like
(Ars Technica, May 1, 2020):
1 Like
(The Seattle Times, May 1, 2020):
“New analysis reveals the likely coronavirus infection ‘iceberg’ in King County”
New modeling and data from a community testing program are providing a clearer picture of the prevalence of novel coronavirus infections in King County, as well as additional evidence that transmission rates continue to decline thanks to social distancing.
Researchers say the number of confirmed cases in the county - about 6,300 as of Friday - represents the tip of a much larger iceberg. In reality, about 46,000 people have likely been infected since the local epidemic began, according to information released Friday by Public Health - Seattle & King County. That translates into about 2% of county residents.
But the estimate, in a new report from the Bellevue-based Institute for Disease Modeling, comes with an uncertainty range between 15,000 and 108,000. Another model, from researchers at MIT, estimates more than 105,000 people statewide have been infected, compared with about 14,600 confirmed cases.
2 Likes
Note: that the Seattle area (including King and Snohomish counties) was (nearly, the prior exceptions having been identified in Santa Clara, CA) “ground-zero”; and that the early “lock-downs”, etc. in the area are thought to have mitigated new infectious spread of SARS-CoV-2. Thus, any similar “icebergs” in other urban areas of the US might be likely to be somewhat (to considerably) proportionally “larger”.
(The Conversation, May 1, 2020):
“Why offering businesses immunity from coronavirus liability is a bad idea”
Governors around the country are attempting to restart the economy by easing restrictions put in place to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The prospect of returning to “normal” amid a pandemic has businesses lobbying Congress to grant them sweeping immunity from civil liability for failure to adequately protect workers and customers from infection.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has warned of an “avalanche” of lawsuits that will stymie economic recovery efforts if Congress does not act quickly. He said he won’t let another coronavirus bailout pass the Senate unless it also shields companies from coronavirus-related liability. …
My research on the role of civil lawsuits in reducing foodborne illness outbreaks suggests that fears of excessive litigation are unwarranted. What’s more, the modest liability exposure that does exist is important to ensuring businesses take reasonable coronavirus precautions as they reopen their doors.
Exaggerated fears:
Even for business owners who fail to take reasonable precautions, the prospect of a lawsuit is still remote. To successfully sue a business for COVID-19 transmission, a patron would have to prove that he or she contracted COVID-19 from the business and not from some other source. However, most people infected with COVID-19 currently have no reliable way of identifying the source of their infection. The gap of three to 11 days between infection and illness, the difficulty of recalling all of one’s contacts during that interval and limited testing for virus present formidable obstacles to establishing causation.
A business would not be liable to patrons who knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of infection. Patrons of crowded stores/businesses where many customers and employees are not wearing masks, for example, would not have viable legal claims even if they can prove carelessness and causation. …
… the prospect of liability for COVID-19 transmission is likely to encourage business owners to invest in cost-effective precautions, follow the advice of public health authorities, adopt industry safety standards and use common sense. Shielding business owners from this liability is one kind of immunity that will not help end the current crisis.
2 Likes
Could we defeat COVID-19 in 10 weeks, rather than letting the pandemic beleaguer us for 18 months?
Amid the coronavirus pandemic, many Americans have embraced the idea of “flattening the curve,” or slowing the spread of the virus over a number of months so that fewer people become infected and need health care at any given time.
A key assumption of this strategy is that around the same number of people will eventually be infected with COVID-19, but just over a longer time period. Many models predict this period, which would require intermittent lockdowns, could last well over 18 months.
2 Likes
5 Likes
Initially, I heard with the covid outbreak that smokers/vapers were at higher risk. New studies are coming out. Maybe I should up my nicotine/PG mix percentages.Thoughts? 
4 Likes
Someone needs to tell the president this, imagine him telling everyone to vape.
can we modify the ventilators into vaporizers?
3 Likes
Mew, the recent Nicotine related research paper (that daath posted a link to above in this this thread) is highly preliminary and overall much more “speculative” than at all “definitive”. The “smokers” thought to be a bit less prone to developing ARDS from COVID-19 have only around 7,000 chemical molecules (other than Nicotine) to also consider. No, Propylene Glycol does not appear to be at all likely to be considered a “prophylactic” against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Related links already posted (by me, and others) exist earlier on within this thread. Let me know if you want me to search and find them for you.
1 Like
Looks like he is actually “way ahead of us” on the “cutting-edge clinical high technology” score already.
1 Like
Don’t smoke or drink it. Just vape it. 
2 Likes
Oh you know I will 
3 Likes
Mew, in addition to the paper that daath posted a link to, here is something from Doctor Farsalinos:
http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/whats-new/2020/278-corona
… some preliminary but inconclusive evidence suggests lower prevalence of smoking among COVID-19 cases than expected (considering the smoking prevalence in the whole population) but somewhat higher rate of severity and progression of disease once the smoker is infected. But the evidence is weak and inconclusive, therefore we need to exercise caution. There is no evidence on any effects of e-cigarettes on coronavirus infectivity and disease progression, and we cannot exclude the possibility that the use of propylene glycol might have some beneficial effects.
.
Regarding the best PG information found (previously posted by another unknown ELR member):
The air cleansing experiments conducted in the 1940’s only involved bacteria and the influenza virus, there is no way without experimental evidence to infer if this could happen with SARSCoV-2 and in the conditions of environmental e-cigarette aerosol. Many viruses (and there is ample variation on this) cannot survive long time outside the protective envelope of a humid medium (saliva droplets) or outside their host cell in body tissues. However, it is not known if this is the case also with SARS-CoV-2.
2 Likes
Hoping not to perhaps someday feel the desire or need to convert our “vaporizers into ventilators” … 
2 Likes
Seems it’s already being considered according to Daath’s posted article.
“Besides gums and patches, nicotine can be administered though inhalation, with the use of a nebulizer or other aerosol systems, if necessary. Nicotine administration could be added on top of antiviral or other therapeutic options for COVID-19.”
2 Likes