J.C.MacSwell

Why not?

Any hit job on Warren would likely take a different form. (again not suggesting Reade's accusation is false or not) I wonder how much the Reade accusation affects the VP choice. Some of the front runners have been demonstrably inconsistent (to put it mildly) compared to their outspokenness against Kavanaugh. (Biden, though he had a similar stance, was more reserved) He could choose a running mate less open to criticism on this matter?

What makes her immune to a false accusation. (not suggesting Reade's is false or not)

Have any papers claimed compelling evidence? The worst I've heard (other than the accusation itself) is that there is some possible evidence that Reade had made some claims to some people about the alleged incident back in 1993. That could potentially prove Reade did not make something up recently and add some credibility. It can't prove that it happened.

I understood that. That, along with many, many other possibilities, is why you (when I said "you" I didn't mean you in particular, I meant all of us, everyone) don't simply believe an accuser or rush to judgement, or in fact necessarily come to one. Why would Warren be exempt from a standard that insists an accuser should be believed? It's an impossible standard to defend against if the onus of proof is on the accused.

...and that...along with everything else...is why you follow the evidence and not base it on what you would like to believe. Like Blasy Ford in her accusation of Kavanaugh, the onus of proof is on Reade...not whether to believe or disbelieve her description of what happened or not...but as to whether you act on it. So if you plan on voting for Biden, or not, there is absolutely no reason to change that...subject to hearing Reade out...and deciding whether she has proven it to you beyond reasonable doubt. If she does that's fair. If she doesn't it's not. The hypocrisy, where there is any, starts when you base it on something else, some other motivation. There was plenty of that with Kavanaugh, and I expect there will be some with Biden, but if you go down that road you are simply inviting more of this for political purposes rather than honest ones. Having said that, if you do find Reade's accusation not just credible but beyond reasonable doubt, you still have to compare him to Trump...afterward.

I'm suggesting that if enough Democrats followed the same standards for Biden as they suggested for Kavanaugh, this would hurt him politically. It would pretty much kill his chances, short of enough Republicans doing the same for Trump.

Prior to his responding to claims, many Democrats were insisting Kavanaugh should not be nominated, simply due to the allegations. The fact that many Democrats are finally taking Reade's accusations seriously doesn't change that.

Biden seems to be in a bit of political trouble with regard to sexual assault allegations. https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-52499900 There's noone to corroborate the allegation with the accuser, except some have supported her claim that she made it known to them back when she claimed it happened in 1993. This would of course be the death knell for Biden's campaign if enough Democrats used the same standards they advocated when Brett Kavanaugh was being vetted by the Senate for Supreme Court nomination. Of course it won't be, nor should it (we should hear them out). But it could hurt him.

The trick is to outlive her before you start... ...but for now be sure to pour a nice glass for her also

Randomized sets of tests can reveal some information on the spread of the virus that the targeted ones do not.

Makes sense. Obama really should have been thinking ahead. Only question is: "why didn't Trump think of this sooner?" Must be Covid anxiety...he's not on his game...or perhaps overly focused on Covid 23...(that one's on him)

Can we not get them to "play nice" without determinism? (If there's a free will...there's a way...)

We will never have complete information. We need to strive for as much as we can (and can afford), and tailor our restrictions to our circumstances, to get the balance right. The risk/reward for this is very asymmetric. We gain very little but time to plan and prepare while holding new cases near zero, but pay dearly if things get out of hand...and we don't really know at what point that can happen. So we have to err on the side of caution...then pay our money, take our chances, and hope for the best. Re-opening won't be one size fits all.

5.3 million residents down to 1 or 2 new cases per day does seem reasonable to lift some restrictions. The question would be how much. With just 135 new cases (reported) in a week, hopefully they will make the right adjustments and get back on a more cautious track. I don't think we will really be able to safely open up to much of a degree anywhere without a number of the right things in place. They may have, but just relaxed restrictions to far, opening up schools and businesses (they don't make it clear to what degree) In comparison, the province of New Brunswick, with similar land area but about a seventh the population, after over a week of no new cases reduced restrictions almost a week ago and have so far no new cases. They still haven't reopened schools and I think business restrictions stayed much the same at this point. (also not an island, but cross border traffic is mostly trucking with all borders restricted) I think the keys are caution, testing, and the ability to respond as new information emerges. One might argue Hokkaido did it right if more was known, but were just a little unfortunate and now need to gear down. Obviously 135 new cases in a week won't overwhelm their health care system. Compare also to the Province of Quebec, much larger than Hokkaido but comparable population. They are planning to reduce restrictions fairly soon but still have around 800 new cases per day...hopefully not before they have a chance to rethink this, at least for the more urban areas or hot spots.

Pence must figure he has a star on his belly...

It does seem premature for Iowa to ease up at all, never mind re-open most things. They really haven't established any control of the growth in the number of cases under the current restrictions.

The intent seems to be in devising a ventilation system that will help mitigate this, at least in part. A less than optimal ventilation system can facilitate spread, even if it doesn't introduce any virus on the supply side, simply by the airflow patterns it helps produce in the room. (though I'm fairly certain air from rooms designed for infected patients in hospitals is not returned unfiltered...which would lead me to think it is a concern) Does it need to be? I think there is still a concern with aerosols, and while the distinction is never cut and dried, they tend to stay suspended more than droplets.

They've been suspect since the earliest cruise ship epidemics. Do you have reason to believe they don't affect the spread of Covid 19?

Not familiar with the term, but similar in effect to a cyclonic filter? I'm actually working right now on some swirl separators (for liquids but work similarly to some extent)

Canada's 2 most populous provinces are taking very different approaches to reopening, Ontario signalling intent to be much more cautious than Quebec. Both have been hit fairly hard, but Quebec more so. Quebec plans to open schools back up fairly soon. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-quebec-ontario-take-different-paths-to-reopening-provinces-from/

So as you reduce the intensity and/or frequency, is there potentially a point of more good than harm before it becomes simply negligible in effect either way? Presumably the expectation is that this would be unlikely? What effect would a relative drying out of the lungs have? This doesn't necessarily have to fight the virus directly but if it reduced the conditions promoting pneumonia (viral or bacterial) that would be a potential benefit. I'm not arguing for it but just trying to understand it. I have no reason to expect it to be beneficial other than it would create different conditions (generally this is likely to be detrimental), and that it has had some limited success with lung cancer.

I've wondered if part of the problem in elderly care facilities is that the most vulnerable are more likely sitting or prone during interactions with others who are most often standing. (like the 6 foot rule should be 8 feet for these interactions whenever possible, or somehow have the more vulnerable "upwind") Having said that, shouldn't it work with gravity and draw the air downward? Taking it upward will suspend the larger droplets longer.

He "called it" first and they refused to comply. Hard to blame him for taking his ball and going home... Did you guys skip grade three?

Thanks CY. Radiation does penetrate below the surface to some extent (extent depending on wavelength), but I expect your thinking is correct.