Author Topic: Federal guidelines  (Read 1847 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Federal guidelines
« on: April 17, 2020, 12:20:09 PM »
Document

Much of the guidelines make sense to me except this one:

LARGE VENUES (e.g., sit-down dining, movie theaters, sporting venues, places of
worship) can operate under strict physical distancing protocols.

How is that supposed to work? Sporting events with 6ft separation would mean 8 empty seats for every one occupied. Likewise with churches, movie theaters. You could potentially say members of households could group together with no additional risk, but how could you tell? The few concession stands open for the reduced population would still result in lines, are they going to be six feet apart? Are people going to stand six feet apart to climb on to escalators? What happens when the game is over and people are exiting?

I don't see any way that can happen. I've only looked at Phase I so far.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2020, 12:26:40 PM »
Not all sporting venues are for professional sports.

Pretty sure Jimmy's Little League Baseball/Football/Basketball/Soccer team can make social distancing work reasonably well.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2020, 12:28:58 PM by TheDeamon »

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2020, 12:47:00 PM »
Outdoor venues should be significantly safer as well.  I'd be comfortable at a little league game, but less so at a basketball game held indoors.  The UV radiation will kill a lot of the virus outdoors, and winds can carry away presperiation and respiratory droplets as well as settling out of the air quicker.

I don't think indoor sporting events are a good idea though or in general the sort of indoor venue where talking, singing, or physical exertion are occuring (so no bars, church services, choir or karaoke, exercise or sports indoors, probably no indoor dining either).
« Last Edit: April 17, 2020, 12:50:23 PM by LetterRip »

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2020, 01:09:30 PM »
Outdoor venues should be significantly safer as well.  I'd be comfortable at a little league game, but less so at a basketball game held indoors.  The UV radiation will kill a lot of the virus outdoors, and winds can carry away presperiation and respiratory droplets as well as settling out of the air quicker.

I don't think indoor sporting events are a good idea though or in general the sort of indoor venue where talking, singing, or physical exertion are occuring (so no bars, church services, choir or karaoke, exercise or sports indoors, probably no indoor dining either).

I'm much more comfortable picking tennis back up or helping coach youth baseball. I would not play basketball where there is lots of close interaction indoors.

But I think all professional sports need to go the proposed baseball route, bring all the teams to a single location and play your games without travel and fans in attendance. Maybe allow for families to attend to avoid the completely empty stadium but keep the family units spread out. But flying around the country and playing in crowded venues is a high risk activity for all the individuals involved and society at large.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2020, 01:12:44 PM »
Not all sporting venues are for professional sports.

Pretty sure Jimmy's Little League Baseball/Football/Basketball/Soccer team can make social distancing work reasonably well.

Maybe. Except "sporting venues" doesn't really conjure up little league games for me. I'm not so sure that outdoors is much better, but probably some. The guidelines are also saying gyms are fine, which I think they could be to a point - weights are a problem due to station proximity and you probably can't eliminate every other machine. Treadmills spaced out, ok. Probably locker rooms closed - go shower at home. Driving ranges? No problem there that I can see.

Religious services might be dependent on the types of ceremonies - Like catholics all going up to the communion rail and receiving sacrament. Hymnals and other books are potentially an issue, might have to go back to the oral traditions. Muslim rituals involving putting your face on the floor might not be great, cloth mask or not.

There's an interesting dynamic if bars remain closed, but restaurants with liquor licenses are open. Might be hard to turn a table at buffalo wild wings.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2020, 01:46:09 PM »
Religious services usually have singing at most I've been at; and most have people repeating a prayer aloud with the religious leader.  Both of those will put a lot of saliva and thus viral particles in the air.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2020, 01:47:38 PM »
I'm much more comfortable picking tennis back up or helping coach youth baseball. I would not play basketball where there is lots of close interaction indoors.

But I think all professional sports need to go the proposed baseball route, bring all the teams to a single location and play your games without travel and fans in attendance. Maybe allow for families to attend to avoid the completely empty stadium but keep the family units spread out. But flying around the country and playing in crowded venues is a high risk activity for all the individuals involved and society at large.

The bigger issue with youth/non-professional sports is social distance between players is going to be near impossible to maintain, which puts a damper on starting up youth sports leagues.

Hard to "tag out" a runner in baseball if you can't get in six feet of them. Tackle/flag football has the same problem with a 6 foot "no contact" bubble around the player. The list goes on and on.

But assuming you deem exposure between players/teammates as "acceptable risk" you do mitigate risk of spread between those watching, at least until they get into the same car as one of the athletes involved and go home.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2020, 01:59:20 PM »
The bigger issue with youth/non-professional sports is social distance between players is going to be near impossible to maintain, which puts a damper on starting up youth sports leagues.

Hard to "tag out" a runner in baseball if you can't get in six feet of them. Tackle/flag football has the same problem with a 6 foot "no contact" bubble around the player. The list goes on and on.

But assuming you deem exposure between players/teammates as "acceptable risk" you do mitigate risk of spread between those watching, at least until they get into the same car as one of the athletes involved and go home.

Baseball is probably okay, you are generally only near other peoples respiration quite briefly, but you couldn't have people in the dugout.  You'd have to have them spread out somewhere else, with only the next player up being nearby.

Not sure how you could do practices without quite a bit more risk though.  Perhaps a dedicated partner?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2020, 02:33:26 PM »
Baseball is probably okay, you are generally only near other peoples respiration quite briefly, but you couldn't have people in the dugout.  You'd have to have them spread out somewhere else, with only the next player up being nearby.

Not sure how you could do practices without quite a bit more risk though.  Perhaps a dedicated partner?

You're going to have umpire, catchers, and all batters cycling through the plate. Catchers and Umpires are most at-risk. Umpires would generally be the most problematic, as they could infect different teams on different days.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2020, 03:36:45 PM »
The phase gates as defined seem potentially unachievable or at least unsustainable. If you demonstrate 14 days of downward trend in cases and then ease up protocols, it's pretty predictable what will happen - more cases. So, is it a one-way gate? If not, do you go immediately back in lockdown?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2020, 03:47:26 PM »
If you demonstrate 14 days of downward trend in cases and then ease up protocols, it's pretty predictable what will happen - more cases.
Actually, without more knowledge, it is not at all predictable what will happen. If at the end of the 14 days, there are zero remaining contagious people, you could in theory remove all protocols without any resulting increase in the number of infections.  Alternatively, if at the end of the 14 days, you remove protocols only on people born between January 1 and January 3, basically removing protocols on 1% of the population, then again, the reduction in contagious people as a result of the prior protocols will more than offset the increase in people available to become infected and to become carriers.

The challenge is to balance the different variables so that the reproduction rate remains linear.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2020, 05:01:09 PM »
Baseball is probably okay, you are generally only near other peoples respiration quite briefly, but you couldn't have people in the dugout.  You'd have to have them spread out somewhere else, with only the next player up being nearby.

Not sure how you could do practices without quite a bit more risk though.  Perhaps a dedicated partner?

You're going to have umpire, catchers, and all batters cycling through the plate. Catchers and Umpires are most at-risk. Umpires would generally be the most problematic, as they could infect different teams on different days.

I agree, wouldn't be rushing to start back up on day 1. But outdoor baseball, maybe with an alternative to the dugout is an activity I would consider "safe" as part of a phased reopening. Home plate umpires and catchers could potentially wear a face mask under their face mask. It may not protect them as much but would do a lot to limit any mass spread by them.

Baseball with some modest changes would be unlikely to have a mass spread event. Which after we get some control is what we have to eliminate to maintain a lid on infections as we reopen.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2020, 05:06:58 PM »
It's all about avoiding exponential growth. Or at least a slow enough growth that you can live with it, even knowing you might have to pump the brakes later. Think of it like an interest rate. You don't want the loan shark scenario, where they want 20% interest due in a week. Payday loans are also going to be painful, but not quite as dangerous. You might be able to live with the 29.99% credit card for a while but you have to pay it off before long. You can probably live with a 4% mortgage.

Payments on principal are any new strategy that reduces transmissions. Enough medical grade masks are made that every citizen can wear one in public, for instance. You can improve testing and isolation. You can improve surveillance. Maybe every public building has a security guard taking temperatures.

* time frames and percentages for illustration purposes only

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2020, 05:13:55 PM »
Baseball is probably okay, you are generally only near other peoples respiration quite briefly, but you couldn't have people in the dugout.  You'd have to have them spread out somewhere else, with only the next player up being nearby.

Not sure how you could do practices without quite a bit more risk though.  Perhaps a dedicated partner?

You're going to have umpire, catchers, and all batters cycling through the plate. Catchers and Umpires are most at-risk. Umpires would generally be the most problematic, as they could infect different teams on different days.

I agree, wouldn't be rushing to start back up on day 1. But outdoor baseball, maybe with an alternative to the dugout is an activity I would consider "safe" as part of a phased reopening. Home plate umpires and catchers could potentially wear a face mask under their face mask. It may not protect them as much but would do a lot to limit any mass spread by them.

Baseball with some modest changes would be unlikely to have a mass spread event. Which after we get some control is what we have to eliminate to maintain a lid on infections as we reopen.

Possibly. Thing is, reopening is kind of like a wheel of fortune prize round. There are lots of prizes with varying costs, and you have to pick which prizes you want. You also have to avoid a dizzying array of choices. I doubt you could communicate effectively a list of "good sports" and a list of "bad sports" and expect any kind of compliance. It will be hard enough as it is. You can go to the public park, and you can throw frisbees to each other. But don't start playing ultimate frisbee.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2020, 01:25:29 PM »
Baseball is probably okay, you are generally only near other peoples respiration quite briefly, but you couldn't have people in the dugout.  You'd have to have them spread out somewhere else, with only the next player up being nearby.

Not sure how you could do practices without quite a bit more risk though.  Perhaps a dedicated partner?

You're going to have umpire, catchers, and all batters cycling through the plate. Catchers and Umpires are most at-risk. Umpires would generally be the most problematic, as they could infect different teams on different days.

I agree, wouldn't be rushing to start back up on day 1. But outdoor baseball, maybe with an alternative to the dugout is an activity I would consider "safe" as part of a phased reopening. Home plate umpires and catchers could potentially wear a face mask under their face mask. It may not protect them as much but would do a lot to limit any mass spread by them.

Baseball with some modest changes would be unlikely to have a mass spread event. Which after we get some control is what we have to eliminate to maintain a lid on infections as we reopen.

Possibly. Thing is, reopening is kind of like a wheel of fortune prize round. There are lots of prizes with varying costs, and you have to pick which prizes you want. You also have to avoid a dizzying array of choices. I doubt you could communicate effectively a list of "good sports" and a list of "bad sports" and expect any kind of compliance. It will be hard enough as it is. You can go to the public park, and you can throw frisbees to each other. But don't start playing ultimate frisbee.

Too much emphasis on the six-foot rule. The object isn't distance, but preventing contagion from airborne saliva and fluids, neh? ...and touching contaminated objects. Gloves mean nothing, because once they touch something contagious, then they will spread it just as easily as no gloves.

The only real solution is getting the contagion level to the same or lower values as other flues that we don't worry so much about. Having palliative treatments and vaccines will save the day, but it is the fear factor which must be overcome logically and safely. Doctors will always wash-up before surgeries, and ERs will be kept clean. We'll probably see more use of O3, like in CPAP cleaners. The O3 generators are quite cheap.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2020, 02:01:47 PM »
Quote
The only real solution is getting the contagion level to the same or lower values as other flues
COVID-19 is not "the flu" (influenza) so there are no "other flues".  It is a virus, but its transmissibility and effects are different, as is our immunity to it (or lack thereof) as is our immune response.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2020, 02:30:57 PM »
Doctors and other medical workers wear gloves because any minor cuts or abrasions can allow entry of pathogens - and the nature of the work means that there is risk of minor hand wounds and high exposure to sources of pathogens.  They can also prevent minor punctures and cuts and reduce risk of pathogens even if a cut or puncture happens.  They really aren't that useful for other people.  Maybe for people handling money all day or such for similar reasons - of course if you don't have training to avoid contaminating your clothes and touching your face etc - it is probably more effective for those people to just frequently hand wash.

Quote
We'll probably see more use of O3, like in CPAP cleaners. The O3 generators are quite cheap.

Ozone, UV, etc - generally are only effective at either extremely long exposures at low safe concentration (ie outdoors) or very high exposures for moderate duration (such as medical sterilization).

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2020, 09:24:35 PM »
...Ozone, UV, etc - generally are only effective at either extremely long exposures at low safe concentration (ie outdoors) or very high exposures for moderate duration (such as medical sterilization).
Actually, copper is being used in many leading-edge hospitals, because the extra electron attacks bacteria and viruses on contact. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/copper-virus-kill-180974655/

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2020, 08:54:41 AM »
So, the federal government announces guidelines for states to reopen/loosen social restrictions, the president washing his hands of the situation, telling state governments to "call their own shots".

Then, in what would be an astounding turn of events in any other US administration, and actually in any first world country, the president foments civil unrest in states whose governors belong to the opposing party by tweeting "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!" "LIBERATE MINNESOTA!" and "LIBERATE VIRGINIA", even tying the last to 2nd amendment rights.

On the one hand, the president proposes guidelines, and publicly puts the onus on governors to follow them while absolving himself of responsibility, then he encourages uprisings against state governments that are following those guidelines... and coincidentally, he does this only for states where the governorships are held by the opposing party. What's almost as sad is that there will be any number apologists for this behaviour, which would not be out of place in any other banana republic.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2020, 09:01:19 AM »
...Ozone, UV, etc - generally are only effective at either extremely long exposures at low safe concentration (ie outdoors) or very high exposures for moderate duration (such as medical sterilization).
Actually, copper is being used in many leading-edge hospitals, because the extra electron attacks bacteria and viruses on contact. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/copper-virus-kill-180974655/

That's interesting information. The economic side is curious. Copper, as anyone who has bought a copper pan knows, is expensive - as the article points out. But the benefits are also well laid out in the linked article. I wonder how the economic equation fits in. I think I can probably guess that wmLambert would be against government mandates tied to economic aid for hospitals, and even more against health department regulation mandating copper. So how do we get hospitals to adopt this and get the large reductions reported in infection rates?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2020, 12:35:28 PM »
...I think I can probably guess that wmLambert would be against government mandates tied to economic aid for hospitals, and even more against health department regulation mandating copper. So how do we get hospitals to adopt this and get the large reductions reported in infection rates?

Why would you think that? You are a troll. Do not allege and project your own shortcomings onto other people.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2020, 01:40:07 PM »
...I think I can probably guess that wmLambert would be against government mandates tied to economic aid for hospitals, and even more against health department regulation mandating copper. So how do we get hospitals to adopt this and get the large reductions reported in infection rates?

Why would you think that? You are a troll. Do not allege and project your own shortcomings onto other people.

So then what would you advocate? My perception was that you are against government regulation and interference in most circumstances. I should have just asked the question rather than guessing.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2020, 09:12:13 PM »
...I think I can probably guess that wmLambert would be against government mandates tied to economic aid for hospitals, and even more against health department regulation mandating copper. So how do we get hospitals to adopt this and get the large reductions reported in infection rates?

Why would you think that? You are a troll. Do not allege and project your own shortcomings onto other people.

So then what would you advocate? My perception was that you are against government regulation and interference in most circumstances. I should have just asked the question rather than guessing.

The problem is the mis-statement of protection. Government doesn't need to dictatorially command behavior, when the people will do that voluntarily. The threat is that once the government assumes such powers, they don't give them up. We have tax withholding now because it was put on for a temporary time during the war. ...Never went away. No one is against protection - just not when it is done illegally for reasons which are not really for protection at all.

Most coercive government regulations are bad ideas - not for their alleged reasons, but for the political seizure of illegal powers. Trump righted the economy that Obama said was a "new normal" by simply eliminating his "legacy." Good regulations are fine by me, but they need to be purposeful and honest. (Example: calling rain puddles with mosquito breeding stagnant water undrainable on a person's own land, because the EPA says they're "wet lands.")

Species always go extinct as other species fill their niches. There are thousands of species that go extinct annually. That is the way Mother Nature works. Bleeding heart politicians who want the power, decree that snail darters must be preserved, so Mankind should suffer? Some land must be preserved to provide Spotted Owl nesting sites, then we discovered they prefer living in Kmart signs. Science says we are in a cooling cycle - and power grabbing politicians and bureaucrats say science is settled based on dishonest models that do not work, and the scientists are called deniers.

Yes, there are many things that are not honest, but saying that anyone opposing them does so for political reasons is trolling.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2020, 09:15:02 PM by wmLambert »

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2020, 09:50:13 PM »
Quote
Quote
...
Why would you think that? You are a troll. Do not allege and project your own shortcomings onto other people.

So then what would you advocate? My perception was that you are against government regulation and interference in most circumstances. I should have just asked the question rather than guessing.

The problem is the mis-statement of protection. Government doesn't need to dictatorially command behavior, when the people will do that voluntarily. The threat is that once the government assumes such powers, they don't give them up. We have tax withholding now because it was put on for a temporary time during the war. ...Never went away. No one is against protection - just not when it is done illegally for reasons which are not really for protection at all.

Most coercive government regulations are bad ideas -
...

So you accuse him of trolling by assuming you would be against such regulations. Then you confirm you would be against the government assuming such powers of regulation.

The issue here is that many hospitals (especially rural ones) are barely getting by as it is. Spending millions switching out stainless steel for copper and figuring out how to clean it is not something they have the capital for. So this isn't something most will do voluntarily. Maybe the big medical centers can foot the bill but for the small guys you either need the regulation and provide an increase in medicare/medicaid reimbursement or provide federal grants to foot the bill.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2020, 10:20:19 AM »
Just noticed this, though it was mentioned above: gyms and fitness centres in phase 1.

That's just insane.  There are just so many high touch areas in gyms, bodily fluids are everywhere, and the whole point in many cases is to raise heart rates and therefore respiration rates.  The 6 feet rule of thumb may be OK-ish for casual interactions, but not if one is staying in enclosed areas for long periods of time (like restaurants) and especially not on aerobic exercise equipment where people would be exhaling at 2 to 3 times their normal volumes, in a static location, with air circulating by fans and AC.

Without doing controlled studies on this type of air flow, allowing people into an enclosed gym, on exercise equipment, would be exceptionally irresponsible.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2020, 10:40:37 AM »
I'm on the fence with this. Mostly for some of the reasons you state. Then I look at the statistics around who's actually at serious risk and gyms would appear to be self-selecting for those who have very little (ie almost none) risk of true health issues.

Now if you're an overweight diabetic or a 75-year-old who thinks this is an ideal time to start hitting the gym - not so smart. Which, from what I've heard falls under the entire country's policy of if you're in an at-risk category, the "opening up" stages do not apply to you anyway.

All this seems valid to me unless people think that opening-up somehow continues to keep infection rates as low as they currently are. Those are not compatible. Any scenario where our economy actually survives while keeping cumulative infections low is fiction.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2020, 10:52:02 AM »
I'm on the fence with this. Mostly for some of the reasons you state. Then I look at the statistics around who's actually at serious risk and gyms would appear to be self-selecting for those who have very little (ie almost none) risk of true health issues.
...

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/04/20/the-military-continues-to-diagnose-more-than-100-new-covid-19-cases-a-day/

Quote
With 22 deaths so far, DoD’s death rate is at 0.4 percent versus the overall U.S. rate of 5 percent.

Lets assume your average gym member is on par with someone in the military. So 4 out of every 1000 members of that gym will end up dying, with probably 20 to 50 needing an extended trip to the ICU. You and I must have different definitions of almost no risk or what a serious health issue is.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2020, 11:02:05 AM »
...Lets assume your average gym member is on par with someone in the military. So 4 out of every 1000 members of that gym will end up dying, with probably 20 to 50 needing an extended trip to the ICU. You and I must have different definitions of almost no risk or what a serious health issue is.

It's all in the numbers. Since some doctors, both at home and internationally, are saying the lack of testing of healthy people who have been flagged withe antibodies show the morbidity rate far below any models. The second issue is the fact that those with the antibodies in most places are still forbidden from re-entering the economy.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2020, 11:03:53 AM »
I'm on the fence with this. Mostly for some of the reasons you state. Then I look at the statistics around who's actually at serious risk and gyms would appear to be self-selecting for those who have very little (ie almost none) risk of true health issues.

The point isn't whether the people using the gym will have major health issues, it's whether or not they'll become new sources of infection and continue to propagate the virus.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2020, 11:08:07 AM »
The issue is with avoiding an explosion of new cases - physically fit young people (if that is who one assumes uses gyms) are not somehow immune - at worst, and ignoring that they are getting sick as well, they are more likely to become asymptomatic carriers. 

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2020, 11:29:57 AM »
The issue is with avoiding an explosion of new cases - physically fit young people (if that is who one assumes uses gyms) are not somehow immune - at worst, and ignoring that they are getting sick as well, they are more likely to become asymptomatic carriers.

This - phased reopenings have to try to avoid mass infection events.

A single mega church (like South Korea), convention center travel conference (like Biogen), or mass infections on public transit (likely how NYC got so bad): all of those types of events have to be avoided because getting 100's or 1000s of infections out of one place will require another shut down to control. That is what we have to avoid.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2020, 11:34:06 AM »
It's all in the numbers. Since some doctors, both at home and internationally, are saying
How very Trumpian of you - "some people are saying" can be said about anything (see Flat Earth Society, 2020).

There are studies on just how many people are likely to be showing antibody response, but the jury is still very much out - suggesting as a fact that any significant proportion of the population has been infected and shows immunity is completely irresponsible

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #32 on: April 23, 2020, 11:39:07 AM »
And yet no one is weighing the health risks of not being able to go to the gym at all. You say there could be deaths, or spreading of disease, which I would worry about as well. But what about getting into bad shape, poor heart health, lack of muscle tonus in older people prone to injury, depression, bad eating spurred on by lack of exercise; how are all of these weighed against these other risks? I don't see anyone making that analysis when they want to shoot down opening gyms. Personally I find it appalling that everyone would automatically think it proper to throw younger and healthier people under the bus in the first place to protect those at risk. That's immediately a backward way of looking at it; for any Randians out there, I do agree with her maxim that you shouldn't build a society around sacrificing the strongest to bolster the weakest, unless it's entirely voluntary. And even for those who are at risk, what are actually the greatest risks for them if the shutdown is prolonged for many months?

Now if it was just a question of everyone staying put for 4-8 weeks I could see the logic of just shutting it all down. But when I hear talk of the social distancing and public areas remaining closed for, I dunno, half a year, I find the logic of "but teh virus!!" dubious since I rarely hear talk of what costs are incurred on that side of it (putting aside the economic costs, which I also agree with the right-wingers that this costs lives and quality of life as well).

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2020, 11:58:45 AM »
That's a good point, Fenring, although to suggest that those costs are being ignored is also incorrect.  Huge amount of discussion these days surrounds how to address social insulation, lack of exercise, lack of access to healthy foods, etc.

On a related but separate topic, opening up gyms is a very first world problem: access to gyms is for the most part limited to students and people with the ability to spend a significant amount.  Only 1 in 5 people in the USA access gyms, and my guess is that this people are also the most likely to have access to other types of exercise, including virtual workouts available to those with internet connectivity.  Maybe that won't give the same exact quality of workout, but certainly of a quality to improve health results, and likely putting them in a much better position, health wise, than the other 80% of the population.

 

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #34 on: April 23, 2020, 12:18:36 PM »
I'm on the fence with this. Mostly for some of the reasons you state. Then I look at the statistics around who's actually at serious risk and gyms would appear to be self-selecting for those who have very little (ie almost none) risk of true health issues.

The point isn't whether the people using the gym will have major health issues, it's whether or not they'll become new sources of infection and continue to propagate the virus.

But that's not the point. Unless you're saying that the goal for the next 12 months is to eliminate new sources of infection?

It seems to me that a lot of people think the short-medium term objective is to make sure the virus stops spreading. It's not. Or rather, it's a fool's errand to pursue that objective right now.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2020, 12:27:24 PM »
The issue is with avoiding an explosion of new cases - physically fit young people (if that is who one assumes uses gyms) are not somehow immune - at worst, and ignoring that they are getting sick as well, they are more likely to become asymptomatic carriers.

Sigh. The short-medium term goal isn't to prevent infection but to manage the medical system burden - unless you disagree with Fauci and the experts. Let's discuss that, not whether the majority of the population will be exposed to the virus in the next 18 months.

Let's assume some/many of them do become sick and that many are asymptomatic. Let's also then assume that those on the vulnerable spectrum are taking the recommended precautions by wearing masks, gloves, social distancing and avoiding contact for the foreseeable future. Those two scenarios are compatible.

Will there be vulnerable people who *don't* follow recommendations and die? Yes. If you think we should operate with that scenario as the default and that "even one death is one too many" is a good mantra in this situation, we probably don't have a lot to talk about.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2020, 12:31:14 PM »
This - phased reopenings have to try to avoid mass infection events.

A single mega church (like South Korea), convention center travel conference (like Biogen), or mass infections on public transit (likely how NYC got so bad): all of those types of events have to be avoided because getting 100's or 1000s of infections out of one place will require another shut down to control. That is what we have to avoid.

I struggle not seeing this kind of argument as disingenuous, even if I know it's not intended to be.

Nobody is suggesting that opening up a mega 24-hour fitness center in the heart of a cramped NY burrough is a good course of action right now. We have to avoid that - agreed.

Opening one up in rural/suburan Texas? Different discussion. 

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2020, 12:32:14 PM »
But that's not the point. Unless you're saying that the goal for the next 12 months is to eliminate new sources of infection?

It seems to me that a lot of people think the short-medium term objective is to make sure the virus stops spreading. It's not. Or rather, it's a fool's errand to pursue that objective right now.

True, but you probably don't want to start with opening places that seem likely to widely spread infection. If gyms are particularly bad for spreading infection, you want to leave them until later.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #38 on: April 23, 2020, 12:33:57 PM »
But that's not the point. Unless you're saying that the goal for the next 12 months is to eliminate new sources of infection?

It seems to me that a lot of people think the short-medium term objective is to make sure the virus stops spreading. It's not. Or rather, it's a fool's errand to pursue that objective right now.

True, but you probably don't want to start with opening places that seem likely to widely spread infection. If gyms are particularly bad for spreading infection, you want to leave them until later.

Maybe. I'm open to that for sure. I just bristle at the reflex people are showing around "but it will spread!" argument. It's a silly position on it's own.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #39 on: April 23, 2020, 12:36:12 PM »
But that's not the point. Unless you're saying that the goal for the next 12 months is to eliminate new sources of infection?

It seems to me that a lot of people think the short-medium term objective is to make sure the virus stops spreading. It's not. Or rather, it's a fool's errand to pursue that objective right now.

True, but you probably don't want to start with opening places that seem likely to widely spread infection. If gyms are particularly bad for spreading infection, you want to leave them until later.

Maybe. I'm open to that for sure. I just bristle at the reflex people are showing around "but it will spread!" argument. It's a silly position on it's own.

Really?  How do you think it spread so far?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #40 on: April 23, 2020, 12:48:25 PM »
Whoosh

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #41 on: April 23, 2020, 01:01:04 PM »
Maybe. I'm open to that for sure. I just bristle at the reflex people are showing around "but it will spread!" argument. It's a silly position on it's own.
I think your issue here is rather your assumption that an analysis of riskier vs less risky enterprises is somehow a reflex reaction that you can ignore or disparage.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #42 on: April 23, 2020, 01:33:35 PM »
It is asinine to suggest you need a gym to be physically fit.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #43 on: April 23, 2020, 01:42:22 PM »
If we could count on people taking precautions opening a gym should be possible. Ive seen some very creative measures some business have implemented

When it comes time to start to reopen perhaps we should allow the option that if a business shows it has implemented precautions it can open
With the correct precautions you could even get a haircut

That might involve inspections and regulation to hold the business accountable but I'd be good with that even if my taxes go up




Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #44 on: April 24, 2020, 11:36:00 AM »
It is asinine to suggest you need a gym to be physically fit.

Are you an athletic trainer or sports specialist? How do you know how to assess individual needs to be physically fit? Where I live you can't go for a jog outside in a safe place without being confronted by people in fairly close quarters all trying to get exercise. For anyone with a modicum of care for their knees jogging on pavement is a no-no (and in my case impossible), which leaves biking. In winter climates this would have meant until around now biking in winter conditions, which I also won't do. That leaves working out at home. For anyone with a nice house that might not seem so bad; what about a smaller apartment? What about people with physical needs that are specific and require equipment that they don't have at home?

These are not questions that you can settle by simple dismissal. And if we're talking about the elderly, I don't think it's wise to have them working out alone and unsupervised in the first place in their homes if they're used to taking classes or having trainers (depending on income level).

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #45 on: April 24, 2020, 02:35:55 PM »
Elderly people with special needs don't go to the gym, they go to physical therapy, not Golds. Yoga, Tai chi, and calisthenics are all easily performed in a tiny apartment with no equipment, burning just the same amount of calories and exercising the same muscle groups when we're talking about basic health fitness. There is no way that gyms are essential, or that anybody who doesn't have a gym membership is less healthy.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #46 on: April 24, 2020, 02:53:11 PM »
And I'll repeat - only 1 in 5 people in the USA have gym memberships, and they are for the most part the most fit and the most motivated to remain healthy.  Of course it's just a guess and there will be exceptions, but statistically, the majority of these people will find ways to remain more active than the remaining 4 out of 5 people.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #47 on: April 24, 2020, 03:33:14 PM »
And I'll repeat - only 1 in 5 people in the USA have gym memberships, and they are for the most part the most fit and the most motivated to remain healthy.  Of course it's just a guess and there will be exceptions, but statistically, the majority of these people will find ways to remain more active than the remaining 4 out of 5 people.

I guess that stat becomes less meaningful if only 1 in 5 people are in decent shape in the first place :)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #48 on: April 24, 2020, 03:42:02 PM »
Why should it? Although the assumption going to a gym implies being in decent shape, and not going to the gym implies not being in decent shape, is interesting.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Federal guidelines
« Reply #49 on: April 24, 2020, 11:39:33 PM »
Too much conflating casual gym membership with hard-core physical therapy. They are diiferent.