Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 85694 times)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2300 on: August 17, 2020, 05:36:04 PM »

We know enough about the covid19 to say that the risk to healthy young people is low.
The important question the young person needs to ask themselves then is how likely they might be to spread covid19 within and without their bubble if they might have got infected after their encounter. (or other risky behavior) 
If they take risks for themselves that's one thing, however if they then take no mitigation actions to prevent spreading Covid19 to others they are in my opinion morally in the wrong. 

Its similar to travel, go ahead and travel but when you return self isolate and or get tested.
I disagree: it's the inverse HIV hypothesis - it's not just that you're sleeping with all of your partners' partners, it's that all of your friends' friends are breathing your viruses.  So no, the risk is not just to the people in your bubble, but also the reality is that you are putting all of your friends' bubble people at risk as well.

I think you missed the part where I stated 'within and without their bubble' When you add a person to your 'bubble' (for sexual contact or otherwise)

My point was that each person must be honest about the risk. Not just for themselves but others. Those within and those without their bubble.
I would expect different stagnates to mitigate risk for either case. For example I'm a player and just can't keep it in my pants.  I need to let my bubble know or keep that bubble very small. I must also engage in all the social distancing requirements when around anyone outside my bubble. If I can't do that then I should not be sleeping around.

I agree that were not talking about this issue - the issue being about personal responsibility with regards to the calculation of risk not just to ourselves but to others. 


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2301 on: August 17, 2020, 05:40:34 PM »
Or you start having herd immunity orgies that last at least 14 days.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2302 on: August 17, 2020, 05:55:47 PM »
Or you start having herd immunity orgies that last at least 14 days.

In my younger days I happened on a nude beach and learned a important lesson. The majority of people who will take there cloths off are not the people you want to see naked. I suspect the same goes for orgies. I'm out. :)
 

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2303 on: August 17, 2020, 06:21:45 PM »
We know enough about the covid19 to say that the risk to healthy young people is low.
But do we, really?  I would say our understanding is evolving.

Here's what Fauci is now saying, and it's not exactly news:

Quote
In individuals who are young and otherwise healthy, who don't require hospitalization but do get sick and symptomatic enough to be in bed for a week or two or three and then get better, they clear the virus – they have residual symptoms for weeks and sometimes months.

He goes on to say that of those people "that supposedly recovered from Covid-19" many "have a substantially high proportion of cardiovascular abnormalities, evidence of myocarditis by MRI and PET scans, evidence of emerging cardiomyopathies.”

I suppose "low" is pretty subjective, but the effects of COVID-19 on younger people (and here we're talking about people in their 20's who are seeing actual substantial illness) are continuously being downplayed, and I don't think we know enough to be comfortable doing that.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2304 on: August 18, 2020, 08:49:51 AM »
Quote
On June 5, Ramirez, 28, became the first known COVID-19 patient in the U.S. to undergo a double lung transplant. She is strong enough now to begin sharing the story of her ordeal.

Before the pandemic, Ramirez worked as a paralegal for an immigration law firm in Chicago. She enjoyed walking her dogs and running 5K races.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/08/17/902690217/back-to-life-covid-lung-transplant-survivor-tells-her-story

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2305 on: August 18, 2020, 02:55:14 PM »
Surprising exactly nobody COVID-19 cases explode at UNC

Quote
Editorial: We all saw this coming
cluster*censored* (n) : a complex and utterly disordered and mismanaged situation

We’re only a week into the semester and four COVID-19 clusters have already surfaced on and around campus.

Two COVID-19 clusters — one at Granville Towers and one at Ehringhaus Residence Hall — were reported Friday. On Saturday, UNC confirmed reports of a third cluster at the Sigma Nu fraternity house, and a fourth, at Hinton James Residence Hall, was reported Sunday.


And so, within a single week, Outbreaks Drive U.N.C. Chapel Hill Online After One Week of Classes

Quote
The university chose to abandon in-person instruction for undergraduates after at least 177 students tested positive for the coronavirus.


rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2306 on: August 18, 2020, 03:26:40 PM »
Is covid-19 still as much of a danger as it was when it first broke out?
I'm watching the numbers and even thought the active cases continue to clime the death rate is falling.

I understand that measuring the success of preventative measures is difficult. You tend not to notice until you drop them. Still I'm finding it harder not wonder...

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2307 on: August 18, 2020, 03:44:44 PM »
Is covid-19 still as much of a danger as it was when it first broke out?
I'm watching the numbers and even thought the active cases continue to clime the death rate is falling.

I understand that measuring the success of preventative measures is difficult. You tend not to notice until you drop them. Still I'm finding it harder not wonder...

It's still a danger, we're getting better at treating it and we're better at identifying mild cases. But a lot of otherwise healthy people are having lengthy hospital stays. Also it seems like there is something off in the data reporting for deaths. A lot fewer people die on Monday and Tuesday than any other day of the week. Also something to remember COVID kills slowly, often 2-6 weeks after diagnosis. And there have been reports that up to 80% of people who caught it in Germany suffered cardiac damage that may or may not be permanent.

Where I think we are doing better is keeping it out of senior facilities. So the death rate is better, but this is still a very serious disease that can have some lasting effects even it doesn't kill you.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2308 on: August 18, 2020, 05:38:08 PM »
Death rate as a percentage of identified cases is better, perhaps. But the number of actual people dying has been level in the US at about 1,000 people per day according to the moving average. That's the number we need to reduce. Unless we want to stay on a pace that would mean over 100,000 more dead by Christmas.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2309 on: August 18, 2020, 11:25:47 PM »
If Trump isn't careful Brazil is going to pass us in total number of dead. We would not be winning, so he is going to have to do something about that.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2310 on: August 19, 2020, 12:47:26 AM »
Brazil has probably already passed us. There is no way that they have had level deaths for 3 months. The government there is cooking the books in the way that Trump is trying to do by diverting data away from the CDC.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2311 on: August 24, 2020, 08:52:12 AM »
Quote
Five people are now hospitalized as a result of a COVID-19 outbreak that has led to 17 Clayton firefighters testing positive for the novel coronavirus.

Town officials said Sunday that a fourth firefighter and the spouse of a firefighter are now hospitalized. They’ve joined three fellow firefighters on the same COVID floor at Johnston Health Smithfield, according to a news release from Clayton officials.

Fourteen of the town’s 41 full-time firefighters have contracted the disease; the first person tested positive two weeks ago. Three part-time firefighters have also tested positive.

Four firefighters and one spouse hospitalized. From a job that requires some degree of physical fitness and health. Just another lesson that even if all these people ultimately survive it is a very serious illness you don't want.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2312 on: August 25, 2020, 10:43:02 AM »
More evidence as to why everyone should where a mask and why COVID is so hard to contain.

Quote
But this novel coronavirus, known as SARS-COV-2, is more of a party crasher. It appears to spread efficiently from people who don't yet know they're sick. Leung says research shows that 40% of coronavirus transmission is taking place before a patient shows symptoms. And people may actually be most contagious the day or two before they start feeling sick.

"Viral load actually increases a couple of days before symptoms show up," says Smita Gopinath, an immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health. That's why so many superspreading events during this pandemic are taking place in bars, nightclubs, restaurants and factories. The virus is spreading from one person's respiratory tract to another's — even though the person who's spreading it may feel totally fine.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/08/25/905386953/why-the-novel-coronavirus-is-so-superspready

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2313 on: August 26, 2020, 02:26:46 PM »
Quote
The US public health body, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has quietly tweaked its testing guidance to say that people who've been in close contact with someone known to have Covid-19 now "do not necessarily" need to get tested.

Before, the CDC said anyone with recent or suspected exposure to the virus should be tested, even if they had no symptoms.

Now, the guidance says that in this situation "you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or state or local public health officials recommend you take one".

It comes as cases continue to fall in the US - a trend that experts say is at least partly due to a drop in the number of tests being carried out.

source:bbc

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2314 on: August 26, 2020, 03:21:23 PM »
It looks like our CDC is missing the point of the tests.

Concentrating only on people who are more likely to die or have serious health effects doesn't do anything to help stop the spread of the virus when most of the spreaders are asymptomatic and won't suffer from it.

It looks like our CDC is going for herd immunity and not worrying so much about people spreading it around but just concentrating on getting early warning and treatment for the ones most at risk.

I take it that was the unstated point of the information so I will just state it bluntly and say our CDC is working against us now, at least against those who worry that shooting for herd immunity too soon is going to get a lot of people killed unnecessarily.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2315 on: August 26, 2020, 03:45:20 PM »
I think you mean "administration" not CDC. Reports, unsurprisingly, say they changed that guidance under pressure from the white house - the Orange God stated earlier that maybe we should test less so that our numbers go down. The fault of the CDC is acquiescing. They should stand up and force the administration to fire them one by one.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2316 on: August 26, 2020, 09:23:54 PM »
Some more info on the hair brained scheme to pull back on testing:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stunning-reversal-cdc-abruptly-position-tested/story?id=72621714

Apparently the rationale is that a negative test might give someone a false sense of security.

"Giroir insisted the change comes because it doesn't do much good to have tests done in an area where there is no evidence of spread. A test result also is only valid for the day it's taken.

"Getting a negative test that three days is not totally meaningless, but pretty close to it. It should not give you a self assurance that you will be negative. It should not give you a false sense of security, you should not engage in risky behavior," Giroir said."

This is obviously completely absurd. Although it is true that a negative test might give someone a false sense of security and even if people test negative they should still be careful because they could pick it up the next day and there might be a false negative or they could even have just gotten infected and it's not showing up yet, that still doesn't explain pulling back on testing and saying only vulnerable populations need testing.

Our CDC should be going in the other direction and increasing the testing even on people who show no symptoms and are not at high risk, including children, because they are among the people spreading the virus around the most. A negative test doesn't mean you relax but a positive one means you need to pull yourself out of circulation for a while. Not getting those positive tests in for the asymptomatic young and healthy people means we've pretty much given up all pretense at trying for containment. I'm glad some of the states are ignoring this terrible advice.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2317 on: August 26, 2020, 09:29:23 PM »
Some more info on the hair brained scheme to pull back on testing:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stunning-reversal-cdc-abruptly-position-tested/story?id=72621714

Apparently the rationale is that a negative test might give someone a false sense of security.

"Giroir insisted the change comes because it doesn't do much good to have tests done in an area where there is no evidence of spread. A test result also is only valid for the day it's taken.

"Getting a negative test that three days is not totally meaningless, but pretty close to it. It should not give you a self assurance that you will be negative. It should not give you a false sense of security, you should not engage in risky behavior.” Giroir said

The reason is someone likes kissing ass and Trump wants fewer tests.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2318 on: August 27, 2020, 10:20:11 AM »
Well, this is surprising (or not). When asked whether Fauci, specifically, signed off on the change, Giroir replied:

Quote
Yes, all the docs signed off on this before it even got to the task force level.  We worked on this all together to make sure that there was absolute consensus that reflected the best possible evidence, and the best public health for the American people. I worked on them, Dr. Fauci worked on them, Dr. (Deborah) Birx worked on them. Dr. (Stephen) Hahn worked on them.

Fauci, on whether he was in agreement with the changed guidelines:

Quote
I was under general anesthesia in the operating room and was not part of any discussion or deliberation regarding the new testing recommendations. I am concerned about the interpretation of these recommendations and worried it will give people the incorrect assumption that asymptomatic spread is not of great concern. In fact it is

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2319 on: August 27, 2020, 10:27:30 AM »
All the checks and balances fall to the wayside. To watch so many agencies cave to pressure....

Can't think of other examples of things going badly when a 'leader' thinks they are a expert at anything and interferes... and then latter have it all come back to bite them and the country they 'lead' in the butt

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2320 on: August 27, 2020, 01:37:09 PM »
Well we passed 180,000 dead today, a few days ahead of schedule, so winning.   >:(

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2321 on: September 02, 2020, 02:09:15 PM »
Quote
The Federal Emergency Management Agency said it will no longer pay for some safety measures related to COVID-19 that it had previously covered.
...
Under the new guidance, FEMA will generally not reimburse states for the costs of cloth face coverings or personal protective equipment in non-emergency settings, including schools, public housing and courthouses.
...


https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/09/01/908413181/fema-says-it-will-stop-paying-for-cloth-face-masks-for-schools

What a bunch of morons. It would be fine if there was a plan to shift this program away from FEMA and to the NHS or some other agency. But just canceling paying for the most effective preventive measure we currently have is mind-numbingly stupid.

Why does it seem like we're trying to be #1 in most coronavirus cases and deaths?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2322 on: September 02, 2020, 02:40:17 PM »
Well the Trump administration is trying to lower the numbers. By reducing tests and reclassifying deaths. They've convinced their supporters there are actually only 9,000 deaths.

Quote
It was copied from a Facebook post and claimed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had “quietly updated the Covid number to admit that only 6%” of reported deaths — or about 9,000 — “actually died from Covid.”

Eliminating anybody with obsesity, who apparently really died from being fat, and not covid.


yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2323 on: September 02, 2020, 03:43:07 PM »
Well the Trump administration is trying to lower the numbers. By reducing tests and reclassifying deaths. They've convinced their supporters there are actually only 9,000 deaths.

Quote
It was copied from a Facebook post and claimed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had “quietly updated the Covid number to admit that only 6%” of reported deaths — or about 9,000 — “actually died from Covid.”

Eliminating anybody with obsesity, who apparently really died from being fat, and not covid.

Its been a bad year for people with obesity, asthma, hypertension, diabetes, and general old age. Someone should really find out what's causing all those people to die decades earlier than they would have expected to.  ::)

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2324 on: September 02, 2020, 03:51:45 PM »

Just general info, but fascinating. Hopefully we're starting to understand this thing.

https://elemental.medium.com/a-supercomputer-analyzed-covid-19-and-an-interesting-new-theory-has-emerged-31cb8eba9d63

"Though still an emerging theory, the bradykinin hypothesis explains several other of Covid-19’s seemingly bizarre symptoms. Jacobson and his team speculate that leaky vasculature caused by bradykinin storms could be responsible for “Covid toes,” a condition involving swollen, bruised toes that some Covid-19 patients experience. Bradykinin can also mess with the thyroid gland, which could produce the thyroid symptoms recently observed in some patients."


"Interestingly, Jacobson’s team also suggests vitamin D as a potentially useful Covid-19 drug. The vitamin is involved in the RAS system and could prove helpful by reducing levels of another compound, known as REN. Again, this could stop potentially deadly bradykinin storms from forming. The researchers note that vitamin D has already been shown to help those with Covid-19. The vitamin is readily available over the counter, and around 20% of the population is deficient. If indeed the vitamin proves effective at reducing the severity of bradykinin storms, it could be an easy, relatively safe way to reduce the severity of the virus."

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2325 on: September 03, 2020, 08:39:12 AM »
And the best way to get vitamin D?  Soak up the sunlight.  And with the northern hemisphere heading into 6 months of decreasing sunlight, I can't imagine that this is good news.  On the other hand, the idiots down south who are running up the national numbers DO get a lot more sun than the rest of us, so here's hoping for a mild, sunny fall and winter.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2326 on: September 03, 2020, 10:06:36 AM »
Who didn't see this coming?

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/09/02/908874086/states-report-coronavirus-cases-linked-to-sturgis-s-d-motorcycle-rally

Quote
More than two weeks after nearly half a million bikers flocked to South Dakota, the tally of coronavirus infections traced back to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally has surpassed 260, an estimate that is growing steadily as more states report cases and at least one death.

At least 12 states have turned up cases linked to the 10-day event.
...
and that only includes people who got tested and then notified state health departments about their possible exposure at Sturgis.

"It's definitely frustrating because we certainly aren't surprised to see cases," said Ehresmann.

Public health experts say the number of cases linked to the event will probably never be clear.
...
South Dakota's Republican governor, Kristi Noem – a strong ally of President Trump — encouraged people to attend the rally, despite warnings it could seed outbreaks in her state and across the country.

Noem has resisted pandemic precautions like requiring people to wear masks while in public or limiting large gatherings. In the last few weeks, South and North Dakota have emerged as coronavirus hot spots with the highest rates of new cases per capita in the country.


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2327 on: September 03, 2020, 10:57:49 AM »
Sure Sturgis is going to kill people off. But at least the servers and bartenders got their tips. That's what really counts.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2328 on: September 05, 2020, 05:56:57 PM »
Happiest day of our lives!  Our wedding killed 3 and sickened 150. We'll remember this day forever...

Quote
(CNN) - At least 147 Covid-19 cases are now linked to an August wedding reception in Maine, a state CDC spokesman said Saturday.

Three people connected to the outbreak have died of the virus, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention spokesman Robert Long told CNN.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2329 on: September 08, 2020, 02:18:59 PM »
Who didn't see this coming?

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/09/02/908874086/states-report-coronavirus-cases-linked-to-sturgis-s-d-motorcycle-rally

Quote
More than two weeks after nearly half a million bikers flocked to South Dakota, the tally of coronavirus infections traced back to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally has surpassed 260, an estimate that is growing steadily as more states report cases and at least one death.

At least 12 states have turned up cases linked to the 10-day event.
...
and that only includes people who got tested and then notified state health departments about their possible exposure at Sturgis.

"It's definitely frustrating because we certainly aren't surprised to see cases," said Ehresmann.

Public health experts say the number of cases linked to the event will probably never be clear.
...
South Dakota's Republican governor, Kristi Noem – a strong ally of President Trump — encouraged people to attend the rally, despite warnings it could seed outbreaks in her state and across the country.

Noem has resisted pandemic precautions like requiring people to wear masks while in public or limiting large gatherings. In the last few weeks, South and North Dakota have emerged as coronavirus hot spots with the highest rates of new cases per capita in the country.

The numbers are coming in - a recently published paper (The Contagion Externality of a Superspreading Event: The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally and COVID-19) estimates that up to 20% of all new COVID-19 cases (about 250,000 new cases) in the past month can be attributed to the Sturgis event, at an estimated cost to the country of 12 billion dollars.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2330 on: September 08, 2020, 02:31:23 PM »
250,000 likely cases. That's probably 7,500 deaths. As life is not fair the deaths will likely be unknown to those attending the event so they won't have been impacted directly so all good.
The majority of the 7,500 will be old people so...  I don't see many changing their thinking or actions based on the event.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2331 on: September 08, 2020, 06:06:04 PM »
250,000 likely cases. That's probably 7,500 deaths. As life is not fair the deaths will likely be unknown to those attending the event so they won't have been impacted directly so all good.
The majority of the 7,500 will be old people so...  I don't see many changing their thinking or actions based on the event.

Maybe this will put it into perspective (no, of course it won't); for this event to be considered to have broken even financially, there would have needed to have been, on average, per person attending covid-fest-sturgis-2020, a $48,000 financial benefit to the local/state economy to offset the $12,000,000,000 cost to public health agencies across the country.  Or to put it another way, that's 170 brand new Harley Davidson Sportsters for every man, woman and child living in Sturgis South Dakota.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2332 on: September 10, 2020, 08:34:22 AM »
One of my favourite positions on/against mandating behaviour to curb the spread of the virus (like mandating mask wearing, or mandating limits to the size of groups) is that mandates are against freedom and anyway, Americans will responsibly make decisions for themselves and that will better control the spread of the virus than could any mandate.

It gets tricky when the same guy making that argument decides for himself to keep the relevant information away from the rest of the country, and even promoting counter-factual statements, thereby making responsible decision-making impossible.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2333 on: September 10, 2020, 10:36:03 AM »
There is no doubt that Trump and our government at almost every level bungled the response to the pandemic. But I wondered into the internet if a Democrat in charge would have handled things better and would have had a better outcome with Covid-19. A pretty good article popped up.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/513495-would-a-democrat-have-managed-the-pandemic-better

The author made some good points but one big one he left out is the open border and the tens of thousands of people crossing it every month. Democrats want to bust it wide open and it's already wide open as it is. People rightfully point out that the Sturgis Covid Rally was a super spreader event but there is total silence about the hundreds of thousands of illegals who have crossed the border since Covid-19 started. I honestly can't say whether or not they have had any effect on the pandemic because there is no information about it coming out from anyone at all.

This article summed it up pretty well: "But the coverage is evasive, factually challengeable, and threads the needle around questions the American public deserves to know about this new influx development..."

https://cis.org/Bensman/New-Influx-Covid19-Patients-Floods-US-Border-State-Hospitals

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2334 on: September 10, 2020, 10:44:55 AM »
The main thing I hold Trump accountable for, and he is still doing, is the downplaying of masks.  If he had pushed mask wearing to his supporters as a patriotic practice, a sacrifice to be made for the good of the country, I think the number of cases would be much lower, the number of deaths would be much lower and the economy would be in much better shape.

That one thing and I very well might give him a pass on most of his other virus responses. But this one failure is unforgivable.  It would have been so easy to do.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2335 on: September 10, 2020, 11:03:54 AM »
I think Trump's main failure was simply setting the tone: in other countries, leaders were not screaming to their residents "panic!! terror!! run for the hills!!".  But they were characterizing the pandemic as generational and requiring a whole-of-society response.  And in most countries, the populace rose to the occasion.

As one example, in Canada, the federal government worked with provincial governments (across party divides, BTW) and included NGO and health organizations in the communication strategies. And we've all seen how Canadian death rates compared to those in the USA: in Canada, deaths are now between 1/10th and 1/20th of those in the USA, per capita.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2336 on: September 10, 2020, 11:19:22 AM »
It's worth noting that Ontario's Premier (governor), Ford, is very much a populist in Trump's line. Ford listened to the experts and took the problem seriously. Ontario has come through reasonably well so far. While taking the pandemic seriously still allows for people to make mistakes, such as happened in New York, but it still raises the baseline much higher than Trump managed.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2337 on: September 14, 2020, 02:12:00 PM »
Different strategies:
  • In the UK last week, daily deaths averaged about 8 people.  This week, the UK re-implemented restrictions on the number of people allowed to congregate - 6 people.
  • in the USA last week, daily deaths averaged about 800 people.  in Nevada, the Trump campaign held a mostly maskless indoor rally with thousands of people sitting or standing right on top of each other. 
Of course, Nevada does have a regulation limiting groups to less than 50 people, but apparently, laws are not meant for Trump or his supporters.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2338 on: September 14, 2020, 02:31:04 PM »
DonaldD, I don't disagree that allowing congregations like that is ridiculous. But at that point isn't it really a question of the state governors and their legislatures making and enforcing such laws? I guess you can blame Trump regarding the bully pulpit and what you see as his lack of leadership, but on the ground it's up to local legislators and law enforcement to actually uphold it, no? So it would be more relevant IMO to ask what is up with Nevada's government. But hey, if I had my way congregations of no more than 6 people sounds about right.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2339 on: September 14, 2020, 03:03:15 PM »
My understanding is that most enforcement measures are in the vein of closing establishments that don't follow the rules, possibly with fines thrown in.

That is hardly likely to affect the Trump campaign.

The bigger issue is not enforcement, however.  That's kind of a weird thing to focus on. It's the willingness of the Trump campaign to break the law, where the regulations have been based on his own government's direction coming from the CDC.
You have the leader of the country not only encouraging people to break the law in this specific case, but also actively convincing his own followers not to follow legal recommendations made by his very own administration; and more generally, continuing to "play down" the seriousness of the pandemic even though we now have audio evidence that he was hiding that seriousness from the public in the past.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2340 on: September 14, 2020, 04:29:26 PM »
My understanding is that most enforcement measures are in the vein of closing establishments that don't follow the rules, possibly with fines thrown in.

That is hardly likely to affect the Trump campaign.

The bigger issue is not enforcement, however.  That's kind of a weird thing to focus on. It's the willingness of the Trump campaign to break the law, where the regulations have been based on his own government's direction coming from the CDC.
You have the leader of the country not only encouraging people to break the law in this specific case, but also actively convincing his own followers not to follow legal recommendations made by his very own administration; and more generally, continuing to "play down" the seriousness of the pandemic even though we now have audio evidence that he was hiding that seriousness from the public in the past.

""Nothing more could have been done" - Trump
The "law and order"  transparent President... Don't you worry your sweet little head, I am your voice, I am the decider,  only I can fix it cheerleader... Only a fool would trust such a man.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2341 on: September 15, 2020, 03:54:33 PM »
Happiest day of our lives!  Our wedding killed 3 and sickened 150. We'll remember this day forever...

Quote
(CNN) - At least 147 Covid-19 cases are now linked to an August wedding reception in Maine, a state CDC spokesman said Saturday.

Three people connected to the outbreak have died of the virus, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention spokesman Robert Long told CNN.

And the there were 7...

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2342 on: September 17, 2020, 05:20:08 AM »
Driving around town I see numerous drive up testing sites and signs there indicate that you need to pre-register online for the test and get your confirmation number. If the tests were anonymous and anyone could just drive up or even walk up and get one would that really be such a bad thing?

We see people getting arrested at the beach and for going out in public because they got a positive result on a Covid test and apparently people are watching them and reporting them. Couldn't that kind of thing be deterring a lot of people from getting tested?

I can see the concern because of course when people test positive they should try not to spread it. But discouraging the testing so asymptomatic people who have it and spread it never know their status because they are afraid of the getting put on the government's list after a test doesn't seem to be the right answer either. If people anonymously got tested my sense of it is that would be better than what we have now. The vast majority would take steps to protect their friends, family, and the public that they aren't bothering with now because they have no idea of their status.

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2343 on: September 17, 2020, 11:04:02 AM »
Cherry-
If the person is going to self-quarantine after getting a positive test, then they don't have to worry about being arrested.  I'm not sure I see your point.  The only people worried about being arrested are the ones who want to still go out after they know they are spreaders.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2020, 11:07:11 AM by oldbrian »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2344 on: September 17, 2020, 11:38:03 AM »
The point is a lot of people aren't going to get themselves tested because they aren't willing to go into the full quarantine but if they knew they had it they'd be more careful about their conduct. I mean you're right that if they aren't going to violate their quarantine then they don't have to worry about it. The corollary is that if anyone is hesitant about getting themselves and maybe their families and even some of their friends and coworkers quarantined then their best bet is just not to get tested. And they won't. So how does that help?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2345 on: September 17, 2020, 11:53:00 AM »
The point is a lot of people aren't going to get themselves tested because they aren't willing to go into the full quarantine but if they knew they had it they'd be more careful about their conduct. I mean you're right that if they aren't going to violate their quarantine then they don't have to worry about it. The corollary is that if anyone is hesitant about getting themselves and maybe their families and even some of their friends and coworkers quarantined then their best bet is just not to get tested. And they won't. So how does that help?

I suspect that their is little that would convince those that feel that way, or have that fear of changing their minds about. I suspect many that feel this way are also more likely to believe Covid19 isn't real.

If your asking if there might be a better way to do things? Probably, even then people will still find finds ways to convince themselves of what they want to do about the virus. 

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2346 on: September 17, 2020, 03:42:02 PM »
The point is a lot of people aren't going to get themselves tested because they aren't willing to go into the full quarantine but if they knew they had it they'd be more careful about their conduct. I mean you're right that if they aren't going to violate their quarantine then they don't have to worry about it. The corollary is that if anyone is hesitant about getting themselves and maybe their families and even some of their friends and coworkers quarantined then their best bet is just not to get tested. And they won't. So how does that help?

The good news is that those people are all Republicans and likely Trump voters.  I'm wondering if it will be a statistically significant component of the election results that he tells them not to vote by mail and some of them will be in the hospital on election day.  Biden's best campaign weapon is Trump, hands down.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2347 on: September 17, 2020, 06:19:47 PM »
The Washington Post has the full story, but:
Quote
The USPS had a plan to send 5 reusable facemarks to every household in early April. Even had a press release ready.

The White House blocked the plan.

 “There was concern...that households receiving masks might create concern or panic."

The Trump Administration's new motto: keeping Americans from saving Americans.

At every turn, it seems like they've chosen the path to increase deaths resulting from the virus.  It's pretty uncanny.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2348 on: September 18, 2020, 08:00:30 AM »
That really would have been nice to have those masks early on. We see so many times that the people in charge are always trying to "handle" the public because they fear a panic more than anything else. Even on 9-11 there were idiots on bullhorns at the towers saying don't panic, don't leave the building, go back to your desks. Everything will be fine. That's our government though on so many issues.

Going back to the anonymous testing one more time, ideally by now we'd have tests at home that would cost a dollar and give quick results like a pregnancy test. I don't see how that would be any different than allowing people at the drive-thru sites to receive their results anonymously too. Even if you didn't know exactly who tested positive you'd know how many people in a given area tested positive which would be very useful information that we're not getting enough of now. People would also be more likely to get tested just because of the convenience. You're driving around and you pass by a testing site so you just drive up and get tested, no registration or appointment required, and it takes less time than the drive-thru line at the In and Out Burger. And if people want to give their information that's incentivized by taxpayer funded medical services to pay for any Covid-19 treatment required. Trying to control it with an iron grip like we are now is giving the same result Leia warned Tarkin about, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more Covid-19 information will slip through your fingers."

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2349 on: September 24, 2020, 03:46:12 PM »
Just a good article that makes a lot of sense especially about the false dichotomies and the layered defense approach.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/09/pandemic-intuition-nightmare-spiral-winter/616204/

Just one example of many the article highlights.

"Showiness is often mistaken for effectiveness. The coronavirus mostly spreads through air rather than contaminated surfaces, but many businesses are nonetheless trying to scrub and bleach their way toward reopening. My colleague Derek Thompson calls this hygiene theater—dramatic moves that appear to offer safety without actually doing so. The same charge applies to temperature checks, which can’t detect the many COVID-19 patients who don’t have a fever."