COVID-19 - Wuhan Coronavirus (a non-political thread, see pg. 36 #1778)

[molson]

Wasn't the WHO still telling people not to wear masks when he made that post in April?

They were certainly not in widespread use at that point in any event.

It's kind of interesting we've gone from "stay home" in April to "wear a mask" in July. Both are important, but masks is the emphasis now. I wonder how much of that is to justify participation in protests and rallies. Or for others, doing whatever else they want to do outside the house. Hell, until about 2 weeks ago I read consistently that masks don't protect you, they protect people from you. Since then I've read about a study concluding that an N95 masks reduces your risk of infection by 65%. I'd imagine cloth masks would be significantly less than that. So right now we might have a combination of people not taking any precautions, and people going out more than they would because mask usage has become ubiquitous. But both behaviors spread the virus.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Can anyone think of a worst case scenario then Trump being briefed on a pandemic and actually having to make life or death decisions.

My comment from 2/24.

hate being right

[albionmoonlight]

New Zealand lifts all Covid restrictions, declaring the nation virus-free - BBC News

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by molson

Wasn't the WHO still telling people not to wear masks when he made that post in April?

They were certainly not in widespread use at that point in any event.

It's kind of interesting we've gone from "stay home" in April to "wear a mask" in July. Both are important, but masks is the emphasis now. I wonder how much of that is to justify participation in protests and rallies. Or for others, doing whatever else they want to do outside the house. Hell, until about 2 weeks ago I read consistently that masks don't protect you, they protect people from you. Since then I've read about a study concluding that an N95 masks reduces your risk of infection by 65%. I'd imagine cloth masks would be significantly less than that. So right now we might have a combination of people not taking any precautions, and people going out more than they would because mask usage has become ubiquitous. But both behaviors spread the virus.

I think you have come to the right conclusion but I disagree with how you got there. Wearing a mask was pretty consistent advice for those that were making the shopping trips in March. It definitely wasn't mandatory but at that time you were only supposed to be going out for essential trips anyway.

I would say that the emphasis on the current wear your mask campaign is based on trying to meet the public where they are at. I think if you asked the medical experts, they would still say stay home full stop. Long before the protest and rallies began, we made the decision that we are not doing that anymore. Next, I think they would say social distancing would be the next best option. We are not doing that either. So if we as a society have decided that we can not or will not do the previous two options presented, they have provided the option three so far is the wear your mask campaign. Is it the safest option? No but we decided that we can't do the safest option. So we have been given a number of options including washing hands, sanitizing etc. that they believe we could do to be safer to varying degrees if we are not going to stay home where we in theory would be completely safe.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by molson

Wasn't the WHO still telling people not to wear masks when he made that post in April?

They were certainly not in widespread use at that point in any event.

Thanks to Amazon order history, it looks like we ordered masks on April 3rd. I don't remember what prompted that mask order specifically but there must have been recommendations coming from somewhere.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

Thanks to Amazon order history, it looks like we ordered masks on April 3rd. I don't remember what prompted that mask order specifically but there must have been recommendations coming from somewhere.

Looking through email, mine was March 19th.

What has been interesting throughout this whole pandemic is that if you were watching international news sources, you knew what was coming here a couple of weeks before it hit. I had stocked up on food in February and early March so I wasn't caught flat footed later in the month when the panic buying hit. Same with things like mask recommendations. Again, the information out of China has always had reason to be skeptical. But looking at Italy or South Korea showed what we were going to be facing before it happened here (or that, for instance, hydroxychloroquine was promising but more study was required). Again, I don't expect every person to have their pulse on international news, but, FFS, even American news sources figured this out as The Atlantic ran a story entitled "Italy’s Coronavirus Response Is a Warning From the Future" on March 8th. And, yet, we didn't listen.

Really solid mask data has been out there for a couple of months now as we've seen countries with masks usage have much better outcomes. Tomas Pueyo has been writing about it since late April and while he's a good data aggregator and visualizations specialist, he's pulling all of his numbers from other studies. So if he's making conclusions about it in April, the knowledge has been out there before that even.

And can we give the "the CDC flip flopped on masks" thing a rest already. The CDC hasn't been able to find their ass with two hands and a flashlight a number of times throughout this pandemic from screwing up the tests in February to, yes, somewhat misleading guidance on masks back in March. Only, most of us still managed to figure out what was going on. If you wanted to assume the best, they were giving that guidance to allow medical providers to get rare PPE. Or, if you wanted to be cynical, we figured out pretty early on that Trump likes to hear what he wants to hear and he doesn't like masks. Either way, I think we all know what's going on.

Our knowledge is still incomplete but we're learning more about this virus by the week. If you're hanging onto what was said in March or some bullshit "well, they couldn't decide back in March what to do so I don't trust them", that's on you a this point. It's fucking July now - stop being willfully ignorant and get with the goddamn program. I think most of us know that masks help and it's why the argument has shifted to "FREEDUM! LIbRTy!" instead of "Masks don't work".

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Our knowledge is still incomplete but we're learning more about this virus by the week. If you're hanging onto what was said in March or some bullshit "well, they couldn't decide back in March what to do so I don't trust them", that's on you a this point. It's fucking July now - stop being willfully ignorant and get with the goddamn program. I think most of us know that masks help and it's why the argument has shifted to "FREEDUM! LIbRTy!" instead of "Masks don't work".

SI

My point is that the post that everybody is using to celebrate this guy's death was from April.

A lot of people had masks then, but they were much less prominent, not broadly required, and not the primary part of the information campaign. Once we decided mass gatherings were OK with masks (if the gatherings were for a good cause, which I suppose the virus takes into account), masks became much more the focus of everything. I hear very little urging people to stay home anymore or to not travel unnecessarily. It's just interesting to me how fast we went from getting angry at 10 people at a park v. being OK with hundreds or thousands at protests and rallies every week in every American city. We stuck with that latter mentality, and used the growing emphasis on masks to bridge from there to here. We did a great job quarantining in March and early April in my city when there were almost zero cases here, but now that there's many, everything's crowded, we have various protests and rallies weekly, but a lot of people wear masks, so, that's considered good enough.

I think the mask emphasis has also created an easy trigger point of when it's OK to be happy about someone's death, and to recognize who deserves to die. When, I think there's still a tipping point where going out with a mask to X amount of mass gatherings is going to be more dangerous to yourself and others than someone else having fewer outings and no mass gatherings but not wearing a mask. But it's harder to quantify number and importance of occasions to leave the house, and how dangerous those occasions are. So no matter how reckless you are in that regard, if you wear a mask, then you're in the correct moral position to celebrate others' deaths.

Edit: Part of my frustration from all this is I have a view from my office of the protests and rallies. I've been there more than 10 years, I've never seen anything like this - rallies and protests all the time - not just BLM - Trump rallies, rallies against the mayor, defunding the police rallies, general anti-Trump rallies, and even a few that have nothing to do with any of those. And there's other big crowds that gather for recreational stuff, which I think really kicked into a different gear once people get comfortable being in big groups again. We've chosen the the most devastating pandemic in 100 years as the time to engage in constant mass gatherings. But we've kind of decided that's OK if we make masks the exclusive point of emphasis rather than staying home, avoiding mass gatherings, or engaging in social distancing.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

NDSU fans are weeping over the missed Oregon game.

So are people who wanted to see Trey Lance vs a top 25 FBS defense

[GrantDawg]

Local head football coach, 45 and healthy, died on Friday after a week of battling "bronchitis." That doesn't sound suspicious at all.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

My point is that the post that everybody is using to celebrate this guy's death was from April.

That specific post was at the end of April (we'd been wearing masks to the grocery store by mid-late March) but he made many other posts that blew this whole thing off, including one from a packed pool at the end of June that he joked wasn't packed. He died less than a week later, likely getting CV from that pool area.

I'm not happy he died, but I wish his type of American personality would die off. The world is already filled with enough ignorant, selfish people. We don't need more actively trying to kill other people because they think it's cool to defy the government or look like a wussy in a mask.

And there were other posts not CV-related that certainly don't make me feel bad for him, regardless of his outcome.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

My point is that the post that everybody is using to celebrate this guy's death was from April.

A lot of people had masks then, but they were much less prominent, not broadly required, and not the primary part of the information campaign. Once we decided mass gatherings were OK with masks (if the gatherings were for a good cause, which I suppose the virus takes into account), masks became much more the focus of everything. I hear very little urging people to stay home anymore or to not travel unnecessarily. It's just interesting to me how fast we went from getting angry at 10 people at a park v. being OK with hundreds or thousands at protests and rallies every week in every American city. We stuck with that latter mentality, and used the growing emphasis on masks to bridge from there to here. We did a great job quarantining in March and early April in my city when there were almost zero cases here, but now that there's many, everything's crowded, we have various protests and rallies weekly, but a lot of people wear masks, so, that's considered good enough.

I think the mask emphasis has also created an easy trigger point of when it's OK to be happy about someone's death, and to recognize who deserves to die. When, I think there's still a tipping point where going out with a mask to X amount of mass gatherings is going to be more dangerous to yourself and others than someone else having fewer outings and no mass gatherings but not wearing a mask. But it's harder to quantify number and importance of occasions to leave the house, and how dangerous those occasions are. So no matter how reckless you are in that regard, if you wear a mask, then you're in the correct moral position to celebrate others' deaths.

Edit: Part of my frustration from all this is I have a view from my office of the protests and rallies. I've been there more than 10 years, I've never seen anything like this - rallies and protests all the time - not just BLM - Trump rallies, rallies against the mayor, defunding the police rallies, general anti-Trump rallies, and even a few that have nothing to do with any of those. And there's other big crowds that gather for recreational stuff, which I think really kicked into a different gear once people get comfortable being in big groups again. We've chosen the the most devastating pandemic in 100 years as the time to engage in constant mass gatherings. But we've kind of decided that's OK if we make masks the exclusive point of emphasis rather than staying home, avoiding mass gatherings, or engaging in social distancing.

I don't want to see people dead since I, you know, said that in my previous post. I think most people want that, though it's a bit harder to tell these days than it should be.

I guess you lost me about the bolded point because it sounds like you're not arguing in good faith and just trying to make some other point about, I don't even know - blame BLM for escalating the pandemic or something.

I mean, do you think that most of the spread is happening from protests? Like Houston hasn't had a protest in weeks and their numbers have exploded. The exponential growth mathematically maps very close to when the state opened back up for business.

The largest protest they had here was 60K. The people I talk to who have to go back into work are saying traffic is almost back to pre-pandemic levels (I find that a bit hard to believe as I still think a decent chunk of people are at home). I've done some driving around on the weekend just to get out of the house - the mall parking lots are at least 50% full. Restaurants are, too. A gathering of 60K absolutely does not help fighting against the virus (though we've talked at length previously about how you might be less concerned about COVID if you figure you're going to die from police or societal violence) and it's why it seems absolutely absurd to have professional sports with fans right now. But it's probably also a blip when like half of a city of 6M is meeting in small-medium sized groups regularly, too.


SI

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That specific post was at the end of April (we'd been wearing masks to the grocery store by mid-late March) but he made many other posts that blew this whole thing off, including one from a packed pool at the end of June that he joked wasn't packed. He died less than a week later, likely getting CV from that pool area.

I'm not happy he died, but I wish his type of American personality would die off. The world is already filled with enough ignorant, selfish people. We don't need more actively trying to kill other people because they think it's cool to defy the government or look like a wussy in a mask.

And there were other posts not CV-related that certainly don't make me feel bad for him, regardless of his outcome.

No great loss

Just watch how this unfolds y’all 😳 pic.twitter.com/q5RisfNc11

— 🕌🇸🇦 🇮🇷 🇺🇸 (@ToddThaGod) July 10, 2020

[panerd]

Molson:

Human beings are selfish, Americans are selfish, most on this board are pretty much selfish (including myself). I said this a few weeks ago and was met with mainly silence. It's a pandemic so anything outside of being a hermit carries some risk. People have just decided that "I'm not that guy" so it makes them feel better. Like you said it started with the shaming of people gathering in groups of 10 or couples hanging on the beach. "Just stay at home you are killing grandma!" was the rallying cry.

But now everyone has their own reason to not stay at home... their kids' sports, family vacation, date night, "only one trip to a bar not bad like everyone else" so they use politicians and "bad people without masks" as the justification for why they themselves are justified doing unsafe things in a pandemic. It's human nature I do it myself.

Won't even get into the protests because its counterproductive on this board (also counterproductive on a highly conservative leaning Mizzou football board I go to for other completely opposite reasons) but let's just say conversation with more center leaning people recognizes the complete absurdity that rallies of 10K up to 100K all across the country are clearly causing the virus to spread. But you know its racist somehow to point this out.

EDIT: A completely OT observation but it's similar to the "Eat the Rich" stuff. Everyone is always outraged at billionaires and their excess. And on the surface for good reasons but the solutions always seem to cut off at what is acceptable. Like air conditioning, new cars, high speed internet, gaming systems, wife's jewelry... no these aren't the problems it's the billionaires! Oh a big chunk of the world considers the stuff I described as excess? Where should the cutoff be? Well I make x amount so the taxing and shaming certainly should be a number larger than x...

[sterlingice]

A pox on all houses and "perfect the enemy of trying to do good/better" seems more like nihilism than a credo

SI

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

A pox on all houses and "perfect the enemy of trying to do good/better" seems more like nihilism than a credo

SI

I think once it gets to the point the deaths are talked about as light comedy fodder it's entered the "religious" stage of righteousness. I'm all about complaining about the idiot that can't wear the mask in the store but when it's celebrated that somebody died that posted "bad things about masks" then people might want to start self-reflecting. Like I said I've read plenty about kids sports and vacations and "trying to go out to dinner" by people in this thread who are so concerned about others who don't wear masks. It's a pandemic I think the kids sports and vacations can wait right? Or do we just get self-righteous about things other people do?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by panerd

Molson:

Human beings are selfish, Americans are selfish, most on this board are pretty much selfish (including myself). I said this a few weeks ago and was met with mainly silence. It's a pandemic so anything outside of being a hermit carries some risk. People have just decided that "I'm not that guy" so it makes them feel better. Like you said it started with the shaming of people gathering in groups of 10 or couples hanging on the beach. "Just stay at home you are killing grandma!" was the rallying cry.

But now everyone has their own reason to not stay at home... their kids' sports, family vacation, date night, "only one trip to a bar not bad like everyone else" so they use politicians and "bad people without masks" as the justification for why they themselves are justified doing unsafe things in a pandemic. It's human nature I do it myself.

.

Don't you think there is something to be said about knowing more about the virus now?

We were hardcore lockdown people until about the middle of June. Now we have friends over to go in the pool outside, have been to a couple outdoor restaurants, been in a couple of stores, etc...

We feel better about it because we know wearing masks drastically reduces the spread, and also know the odds of getting it from surface contact is minimal. We are also in Jersey, one of a handful of states that seemingly have it under control.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by panerd

I think once it gets to the point the deaths are talked about as light comedy fodder it's entered the "religious" stage of righteousness. I'm all about complaining about the idiot that can't wear the mask in the store but when it's celebrated that somebody died that posted "bad things about masks" then people might want to start self-reflecting. Like I said I've read plenty about kids sports and vacations and "trying to go out to dinner" by people in this thread who are so concerned about others who don't wear masks. It's a pandemic I think the kids sports and vacations can wait right? Or do we just get self-righteous about things other people do?

No.

We make an effort to find the balance between being cautious while living our lives to stay sane.

Equating someone who openly flaunts not wearing a mask and claims this is a conspiracy to a family that takes all the necessary precautions while trying to have some normalcy is a false equivalency. IMO.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Don't you think there is something to be said about knowing more about the virus now?

We were hardcore lockdown people until about the middle of June. Now we have friends over to go in the pool outside, have been to a couple outdoor restaurants, been in a couple of stores, etc...

We feel better about it because we know wearing masks drastically reduces the spread, and also know the odds of getting it from surface contact is minimal. We are also in Jersey, one of a handful of states that seemingly have it under control.

As I just said in my reply to SI (obviously you haven't seen it as I just hit submit!) I'm fine with blowing off steam complaining about people who don't wear masks. Just yesterday some girl at the grocery was the only one in the store without one and I commented to my wife when I got home about it. That's fine it's human nature. But it has gotten to almost celebration of people dying that are clearly just ignorant, on twitter people seem like they are going to suffer a massive stroke worrying about what Trump said. I mean at some point people are just too self rightous for their own good right? I mean in your case (and mine not claiming I am better than anyone) the pool and restaurants are a line you have chosen to cross, I have chosen to go on hikes with my kids and a family gathering of like 15 people. Are we bad people? No but couldn't a hermit say we are part of the problem and laugh at us if we die?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Lathum

No.

We make an effort to find the balance between being cautious while living our lives to stay sane.

Equating someone who openly flaunts not wearing a mask and claims this is a conspiracy to a family that takes all the necessary precautions while trying to have some normalcy is a false equivalency. IMO.

And Molson and I feel like a gathering of 50,000 people where a lot have masks but clearly some do not and nobody is social distancing is not finding a balance. Especially weeks later. But it's a non starter here so it's all relative to one's personal politics clearly.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by panerd

I think once it gets to the point the deaths are talked about as light comedy fodder it's entered the "religious" stage of righteousness. I'm all about complaining about the idiot that can't wear the mask in the store but when it's celebrated that somebody died that posted "bad things about masks" then people might want to start self-reflecting. Like I said I've read plenty about kids sports and vacations and "trying to go out to dinner" by people in this thread who are so concerned about others who don't wear masks. It's a pandemic I think the kids sports and vacations can wait right? Or do we just get self-righteous about things other people do?

That person also posted that Colin Kaepernick was not a necessary person.

[panerd]

Just add to the chart of things scientists say will cause the virus to spread that we have then decided is acceptable risk.

Restaurants
Kid's little league
Vacations
Massive gatherings of thousands with some unmasked
Wedding of a good friend
Funeral of a loved one

Since most of us aren't 20 we have decided bar hopping is a no-no.
Trump rallies clearly a no-no.

Just trying to figure out if personal situations and politics are creating these lists or if it is science.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by panerd

Just add to the chart of things scientists say will cause the virus to spread that we have then decided is acceptable risk.

Restaurants
Kid's little league
Vacations
Massive gatherings of thousands with some unmasked
Wedding of a good friend
Funeral of a loved one

Since most of us aren't 20 we have decided bar hopping is a no-no.
Trump rallies clearly a no-no.

Just trying to figure out if personal situations and politics are creating these lists or if it is science.

It is about taking the necessary precautions. If Trump wants to hold an outdoor rally and mandate everyone MUST wear a mask I have no issue with that.

It is the openly flaunting not wearing a mask that I think most people have an issue with.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It is about taking the necessary precautions. If Trump wants to hold an outdoor rally and mandate everyone MUST wear a mask I have no issue with that.

It is the openly flaunting not wearing a mask that I think most people have an issue with.

I'm not sure we are disagreeing as much as you think. I just have two places where I differ from you.

1) I realize some of the choices I make are risky. I could consolidate my grocery trips to once every couple of weeks but instead will make a trip to Walmart and a trip to the grocery that sells fresh meat and produce. Back in April I never took these chances so why do I do it now even with a mask? We are taking a family trip to South Dakota parks and Yellowstone. Largely outdoors, with masks in crowds, but we will still be staying in Airbnb's and hotels and using gas station bathrooms etc. So again I have chosen to do some things that could transmit the virus right? I also am not a fan of people who don't wear masks. However my outrage ends there as I don't find solace in those people spreading the virus and getting sick or dying.

2) I just won't agree that the protests aren't a reason for major spikes in some of these areas. The "debunking" articles I have seen about no spread (I mean come on nobody believes this do they?) seem to pick and choose cities where the virus didn't move much while ignoring Houston, Los Angeles, etc. I just can't ignore a blatantly anti-science potential massive spreading event. And it's all politics for anyone who does.

[Lathum]

I agree 100% on the protests. No way there isn't outbreaks attributed to those.

Where we likely differ is that people were taking that risk for a worthy cause, at least one they deemed worthy, while people who don't wear mask largely do so just because it is their right to. Makes no sense to me.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

I think once it gets to the point the deaths are talked about as light comedy fodder it's entered the "religious" stage of righteousness. I'm all about complaining about the idiot that can't wear the mask in the store but when it's celebrated that somebody died that posted "bad things about masks" then people might want to start self-reflecting. Like I said I've read plenty about kids sports and vacations and "trying to go out to dinner" by people in this thread who are so concerned about others who don't wear masks. It's a pandemic I think the kids sports and vacations can wait right? Or do we just get self-righteous about things other people do?

People get self-righteous all the time. This didn't start with the pandemic and it's not going to end with it. I think the light comedy fodder probably is a coping mechanism but that's not where this started - Ksyrup's post was reflective. I'd like to think mine was, too. But, go ahead and just pick the low hanging fruit, bring in some people from Facebook or another thread or wherever to help bolster the cause, and paint everyone talking about this with a broad brush. It makes it easier to say everyone is bad to some degree to excuse other bad behavior. It creates this false dichotomy "hey, it's 0 or 100 - you either hermit yourself inside for 2 years or you can go out and party in giant crowds".

Our average R0 in this country is (well) above 1, which is why it's still spreading like crazy. Not everywhere, of course, but on average. Most other countries have found a (and I'm really starting to hate this phrase) "new normal" where their R0 is below 1 so they've managed to smother it out except for occasional hot spots. And, no, once we cut through all the BS, there's not something supremely unique about the US that makes it more prone to this disease than anywhere else: we're not among the most dense or least dense countries, we're not among the poorest countries per capita, there's not some receptor that Americans have more of that make us more susceptible to the disease, there's not some geographical feature that would cause it to spread more here - in short, there's nothing that is the reason why we couldn't be there. Except that clearly our behavior isn't knocking that average R0 down below 1 so we can get back to that "new normal" we haven't even seen here.

Different activities carry different risk, affect that R0 differently - not all are the same. And to paint them all the same is just not true. Some have greater or lesser burdens on the people performing them, too. We should be going after the ones that are easiest/cheapest to do, impose the least burden, and give the greatest gain. If we can't even reach that baseline (i.e. "wear a gd mask"), how are we going to have the harder conversations about opening up riskier parts of the economy. Because "open up economy" and "stop spread of COVID" are two messages that are often at odds with each other and require some pretty specific guidance that still will likely be imperfect.

SI

[panerd]

Not ignoring you guys, I have to go. Will reply later in the day unless the discussion has completely moved on. Some interesting points that I had some opinions on.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

2) I just won't agree that the protests aren't a reason for major spikes in some of these areas. The "debunking" articles I have seen about no spread (I mean come on nobody believes this do they?) seem to pick and choose cities where the virus didn't move much while ignoring Houston, Los Angeles, etc. I just can't ignore a blatantly anti-science potential massive spreading event. And it's all politics for anyone who does.

(sorry the formatting's a bit weird but the parser is doing strange thinks to the post and links)

I don't think most people believe that: there's going to be some spread from a large gathering of people. It's going to be lower because it's outdoors and a number of the protests had people spaced out. But lots of them did not.

However, the three major cities for the protests were NYC, DC, and, of course, Minneapolis:
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new...tates/new-york (just switch the states from NY -> DC -> MN as it was eating the links when I put 3 different ones in)

Considering the first two are on a pretty constant downward curve and the third has only gone up just recently (and had cases falling for 6 weeks after the protests), it seems unlikely they were a major contributor.

So, I guess the real question is: to what end does bringing it up get you? To shame people for that as opposed to shaming people for masks? To show some perceived great hypocrisy?

SI

[whomario]

Originally Posted by panerd

Molson:

Human beings are selfish, Americans are selfish, most on this board are pretty much selfish (including myself). I said this a few weeks ago and was met with mainly silence. It's a pandemic so anything outside of being a hermit carries some risk. People have just decided that "I'm not that guy" so it makes them feel better. Like you said it started with the shaming of people gathering in groups of 10 or couples hanging on the beach. "Just stay at home you are killing grandma!" was the rallying cry.

But now everyone has their own reason to not stay at home... their kids' sports, family vacation, date night, "only one trip to a bar not bad like everyone else" so they use politicians and "bad people without masks" as the justification for why they themselves are justified doing unsafe things in a pandemic. It's human nature I do it myself.

Won't even get into the protests because its counterproductive on this board (also counterproductive on a highly conservative leaning Mizzou football board I go to for other completely opposite reasons) but let's just say conversation with more center leaning people recognizes the complete absurdity that rallies of 10K up to 100K all across the country are clearly causing the virus to spread. But you know its racist somehow to point this out.

Yet you did ? Using complete conjecture based on your impressions. There is little evidence to this being a major driver (which isn't the same as saying "there is no spread". Not everything is 1 or 0) and there isn't even much scientific reason to suspect it to be the case. An often moving group of people outdoors with somewhat set positions/grouplings and at least some level of mask wearing is not ticking a lot of boxes, nor is the daily number of participants anywhere close to the total number of daily participants in a slew of activities/settings ticking more boxes. This is stuff that we are learning or grasping as we go.
And no, going to the beach by default is not among those big drivers, either.

And i for one have absolutely no reason to care about 'politics' of a country i do not live in. I could not care less what teams jersey a politician wears, so to speak.

One problem seems to be that you decided that pretty much everything is equally dangerous/'bad' or that frequency and/or behavior or destination/setting or reason/purpose don't matter. So anybody's justifications (for himself or others) of going out at all are clearly bullshit and it does not matter how you go about things in the big scheme of things. And a person staying at home in the basement is the only one who has the right to criticise anybody, at all.
Yet there are differences. Going on a family trip to a cabin (or whatever) is neither as dangerous NOR as detrimental to the collective effort as going with 15 people from 10 different households and mixing with others every night. Nor is going on a date night on a patio as detrimental or dangerous as going to a crowded bar/party indoors. Nor is going to a bar once a month the same as doing it 10 times a month.
Nor is going to the beach with your family or close friends and just hanging out the same as going to the beach and turning it into an impromptu alcohol enduced rager.

Just because everything outside being a hermit carries some risk, that does not mean everything else carries the same risk or everybody not living like a hermit is contributing the same to a collective risk. Or in fact, that other considerations don't matter.

The point should be to find a middle ground between where everybody can lead a life with some semblance of normalcy. Not to depend on enough people to live like hermits or having to reign in those on the extreme opposite of the spectrum by laws/measures/lockdowns. Which disproportionally hurts people with less options to contribute voluntarily in the first place and people paying a high price either way (for example those vulnerable to the virus whose access to even remotely normal and safe living is entirely dependent on those in less danger chosing to or being forced to contribute.).

And Masks are a tool to use to make that level of normalcy more atainable for everybody. And it also has to be seen against the actual effort it takes versus the effort it takes to contribute on other fronts.

The same argument gets used time and time again on various other topics like climate change or environmental issues in general (But you took a plane last year, too !). Some issues can not be tackled unless a collective effort to adjust behavior is made. The more people participate to more of a degree out of respect for other people and society as a whole, the less restrictions have to be enshrined by laws enforcing enough of a change in collective behavior.

[sterlingice]

^^ Or what he said ^^

Collective action matters and it seem like you're really harping on a rounding error to prove your political point and create a lot of false equivalencies

SI

[JPhillips]

Shouldn't we try to learn why protests in major cities didn't spark an outbreak? I assumed we'd see cases spike in NYC, but we didn't. Is that saying that outdoors is much safer than we might have thought? Is it a combination of outdoors and a lot of mask-wearing?

If we were a competent enough country to focus on masks and changes to indoor air circulation could we be in a much different situation?

[molson]

NYC has the humanity equivalent of a mass gathering every morning on the subways and buses.

Most of the states being hit hard now are truly experiencing their first wave. I knew we were vulnerable when our decently wide-spread antibody testing a few months ago was well under 1.0%, and that was of a self-selected sample of people who thought they had had it already. That dashed my hopes ( based on anecdotal examples) that it had already been through here. The whole reason a novel virus is so devastating is that it's novel to a population.

The difference in concern in peoples' lifestyles between when we had almost no cases to when we have a lot more is striking and weird. Does masks make everything OK? I do hope it's that simple, because our community mask wearage in Boise is actually pretty good, subject to some rowdy dissenters (not as good outside the city, but they have the advantage of rural life). But we have full-on embraced summer with gatherings, outdoor recreation, backyard BBQs, downtown political activity of all kinds, etc.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Shouldn't we try to learn why protests in major cities didn't spark an outbreak? I assumed we'd see cases spike in NYC, but we didn't. Is that saying that outdoors is much safer than we might have thought? Is it a combination of outdoors and a lot of mask-wearing?

If we were a competent enough country to focus on masks and changes to indoor air circulation could we be in a much different situation?

This actually isn't all that new, it simply is tough to give nuanced advise knowing that a lot of people will do their own equations ("well, if this is fine, why isn't this also ? I certainly think there is little difference !").

The one problem and that goes for other issues, too: It is really, really, really hard to proove a negative here.

Because we know, that a lot of cases get missed. Even in Germany or Austria where contact tracing is really good and levels are so low you can go the extra mile (on documenting as well) somewhere between 30-40 % of index cases (people with symptoms essentially, though some are also caught via screenings/routine testing) could not be pinpointed with certainty as to where they caught it. (a lot of those are still caught early enough to identify a much bigger percentage of people they came into contact with, so it is still a 'win').

But of course you have plenty of situations where you'd logically assume spread happens but you also know they are tough to pinpoint. Those missing 40% likely do not occur at home or among close contacts/relatives (say private events) or at work among colleagues, because those almost always get tested nowadays and everybody knows who else was in the same space, generally speaking. And it is likely not bars or restaurants or church either, because those are next in line in terms of "know it is a risk" and "know who was there"

(in germany and austria people have to leave contact details in bars or restaurants, making tracking those easier than they will be in the states)

But then you move into another area: Common sense dictating a decent chance of submission, by virtue of being similar to known risky situations, but circumstances also being prohibitive to proving it and it being detrimental for the overall effort to spend a ton of time only to come up empty most of the time (contact tracers and public health agencies have a finite amount of ressources). Examples might include, among others, public transport or indoor shopping (anything indoors without much documentation of attendance) that usually are less easily tracked/pinpointed.

Now, in neither case it is expected that you have big outbreaks in those sorts of situations. But it happens so much and ticks a decent enough boxes that it is logical to assume a lot of single transmissions happen there. Which are not a problem until enough of those people turn around and attend situations where it is more likely to infect multiple people at once.

That is the reason for wearing masks in these settings*, to prevent those initial transmissions which then turn into lots of transmissions in more dangerous settings. If we want the latter to stay open (and wearing masks in many of them is not practical, including many workspaces, especially for hours on end) preventing those initial transmissions is a good way to do that. Which, unfortunately, makes a hell of a lot more of an impact when levels are low. From where things are now in some states, it will take a good while for it to have an effect.

And which is also why having big gatherings (of any sort) are indeed more inherently risky in areas with lots of infected than in areas without. Because the best way to prevent spread is not have someone there to spread it. Which is why that is the real key to opening schools above any measure you can think up for trying to keep the virus out of them. (same for nursing homes or hospitals)

*or why you test, trace and isolate. Which in the US is a complete shambles.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by molson

NYC has the humanity equivalent of a mass gathering every morning on the subways and buses.

Most of the states being hit hard now are truly experiencing their first wave. I knew we were vulnerable when our decently wide-spread antibody testing a few months ago was well under 1.0%, and that was of a self-selected sample of people who thought they had had it already. That dashed my hopes ( based on anecdotal examples) that it had already been through here. The whole reason a novel virus is so devastating is that it's novel to a population.

The difference in concern in peoples' lifestyles between when we had almost no cases to when we have a lot more is striking and weird. Does masks make everything OK? I do hope it's that simple, because our community mask wearage in Boise is actually pretty good, subject to some rowdy dissenters (not as good outside the city, but they have the advantage of rural life). But we have full-on embraced summer with gatherings, outdoor recreation, backyard BBQs, downtown political activity of all kinds, etc.

And yes, this might well be a factor for NYC especially. Because not only has a decent amount of people had it, there also is some indication that there might be (!) some limited (!) background immunity from other coronviruses. And those that caught it first generally are to some degrees those most likely to catch/spread it at any given time. So those that first catch it generally also are the best buffers. (indeed there is a big debate re: vaccination if those aren't the ones that should be heavily enticed to vaccinate versus vaccinating purely based on vulnerability to getting severely sick. With the flu for example it would likely be much more effective if truly the majority of HC workers, and a larger portion of active younger people get vaccinated. Kids aged 3/4-18 also, but i can understand the reservations to doing that in terms of creating a PR nightmare)

Herd Immunity being 60-70 % does not mean that 20-30% doesn't already lead to it slowing. The problem being that this 20-30 % of course is not uniform. There will be natural groupings of people, from families to workplaces to retirement homes with plenty of buffers in there and there will be others so far virtually untouched. Which are now less likely to be 'hit', but still as vulnerable to rapid spread if they are. Which is why testing and tracing and isolating or mask wearing is installed in the first place, so that instead of it racing through such a group for a week or 2 before you notice it you cut it off earlier with less people catching it.

Which is also why areas not being hit now should be able to better deal with it, if the precautions are in place.

Because if every place in the US (or the world) gets to 30%, this will not be pretty even if that somehow turns out to be the number where things already slow. Because the protection of vulnerable people exclusively is much harder than protecting them while also putting out the fires before they reach them.

[molson]

Everybody has their own personal journey about how they respond to this and what steps they take to protect themselves. I've gone from well-below average level of concern relative to others in my social circle in the spring to near the top now. I wear a mask but feel like the only one still trying to avoid group social activities with more than 2 or 3 people.

I'm thinking there is a lot to the viral load theory of infection. I'm personally OK making quick runs to stores or using public bathrooms and gas stations on road trips, or even happy hour beers with 1 neighbor and my girlfriend from the other side of their fence, but I'd be uncomfortable at friends' parties or group camping trips or anywhere you're hanging around people in relative close quarters for a long time.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm personally OK making quick runs to stores or using public bathrooms and gas stations on road trips, or even happy hour beers with 1 neighbor and my girlfriend from the other side of their fence, but I'd be uncomfortable at friends' parties or group camping trips or anywhere you're hanging around people in relative close quarters for a long time.

This is me, with the exception of a couple of meetings I have to attend. I'll run into Home Depot, but I won't shop. I know what I need so I get it and leave. I still do grocery pickup. I don't socialize F2F.

That said, I'm going to be expected to go back to F2F teaching and I'm working on the assumption that I'll get the virus before the end of the year. I'm already planning how to avoid others so I don't become a spreader.

[Lathum]

Patriot League cancels all fall sports

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I agree 100% on the protests. No way there isn't outbreaks attributed to those.

Where we likely differ is that people were taking that risk for a worthy cause, at least one they deemed worthy, while people who don't wear mask largely do so just because it is their right to. Makes no sense to me.

I'd suggest that SOME of the people refusing to wear masks are doing it for the cause of protection of freedom. A cause they deem worthy.


I personally think its ridiculous on both sides, but I think thats the counter side of your argument.

[BishopMVP]

Russell Westbrook tests positive. We're all in agreement that while it's not great and he should quarantine for the two weeks to prevent spread, he's not actually in any danger of dying, being admitted to an ICU, or having serious long term cardiovascular/respiratory damage, just like the now hundreds of pro & college athletes who have tested positive and recovered already, right?

Because it sure seems like people or the media love to find the rare young person without comorbidities who does die or need an ICU, or tout the possibility of long term damage, but when a specific athlete gets it we all admit that no, they really aren't in much danger, and those outcomes are true outliers for healthy people under 40.

But again, let me know if I'm wrong and anyone's honest reaction to hearing he tested positive was "oh my god, I hope he survives and can play again someday" and not "I wonder if the 10 days he'll miss will affect the Rockets, and if this will be a PR hit for the NBA's bubble initiative"

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I'd suggest that SOME of the people refusing to wear masks are doing it for the cause of protection of freedom. A cause they deem worthy.


I personally think its ridiculous on both sides, but I think thats the counter side of your argument.

Are there rally people out there who think masks today, they take our guns tomorrow?

hmm, probably are.

Of course, these are also the same people yelling about Kaepernick, saying we should throw reporters in jail, and generally ignoring the parts of the constitution that inconvenience them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I'd suggest that SOME of the people refusing to wear masks are doing it for the cause of protection of freedom. A cause they deem worthy.

Driving drunk for the protection of freedom.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Russell Westbrook tests positive. We're all in agreement that while it's not great and he should quarantine for the two weeks to prevent spread, he's not actually in any danger of dying, being admitted to an ICU, or having serious long term cardiovascular/respiratory damage, just like the now hundreds of pro & college athletes who have tested positive and recovered already, right?

Because it sure seems like people or the media love to find the rare young person without comorbidities who does die or need an ICU, or tout the possibility of long term damage, but when a specific athlete gets it we all admit that no, they really aren't in much danger, and those outcomes are true outliers for healthy people under 40.

But again, let me know if I'm wrong and anyone's honest reaction to hearing he tested positive was "oh my god, I hope he survives and can play again someday" and not "I wonder if the 10 days he'll miss will affect the Rockets, and if this will be a PR hit for the NBA's bubble initiative"

It's a new virus that we don't know much about. You are assuming there is no long term damage. No lung scarring or brain damage. I should mention that Rudy Gobert still has not fully regained his sense of smell months later.

I'm guessing it's fine but you're in a sport where conditioning is paramount. If there is a chance of permanent lung damage, that can alter their career forever.

It will take years to know what this virus truly does to people.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I'd suggest that SOME of the people refusing to wear masks are doing it for the cause of protection of freedom. A cause they deem worthy.


I personally think its ridiculous on both sides, but I think thats the counter side of your argument.

This still doesn't make sense. Protecting freedom is a worthy cause but it matters what you apply it to. Driving through a stop sign also argues for protection of freedom, but it's a pretty shitty choice. The cause isn't the problem here

[Brian Swartz]

The issue really though is who gets to decide if something is a worthy cause? Whether or not we agree with them on that is beside the point, because the whole point is that people either have the right to decide that for themselves ... or they don't.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The issue really though is who gets to decide if something is a worthy cause? Whether or not we agree with them on that is beside the point, because the whole point is that people either have the right to decide that for themselves ... or they don't.

But it is more nuanced than that when public health is concerned.

I know my exasperation isn't with the freedom part. I hate guns but fully support 2A and the right to carry. It is that putting a mask on is such a simple thing. It just shows how we really don't care about each other as a society. People expend more energy defending their right to not wear one than they would if they just wore it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Russell Westbrook tests positive. We're all in agreement that while it's not great and he should quarantine for the two weeks to prevent spread, he's not actually in any danger of dying, being admitted to an ICU, or having serious long term cardiovascular/respiratory damage, just like the now hundreds of pro & college athletes who have tested positive and recovered already, right?

Because it sure seems like people or the media love to find the rare young person without comorbidities who does die or need an ICU, or tout the possibility of long term damage, but when a specific athlete gets it we all admit that no, they really aren't in much danger, and those outcomes are true outliers for healthy people under 40.

But again, let me know if I'm wrong and anyone's honest reaction to hearing he tested positive was "oh my god, I hope he survives and can play again someday" and not "I wonder if the 10 days he'll miss will affect the Rockets, and if this will be a PR hit for the NBA's bubble initiative"

I'm guessing that in the back of some minds, it's also "he's made $205M in his life and is on track to make another $130M. So he has a bit more incentive to take a risk and/or he's going to be able to adjust his lifestyle a bit more easily to a long term illness/permanent damage than the teacher down the street making $50K a year"

SI

[Brian Swartz]

Responding in the Trump thread to keep this one apolitical (at least for my part in it).

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You are assuming there is no long term damage. No lung scarring or brain damage. I should mention that Rudy Gobert still has not fully regained his sense of smell months later.

I'm guessing it's fine but you're in a sport where conditioning is paramount. If there is a chance of permanent lung damage, that can alter their career forever.

It will take years to know what this virus truly does to people.

Correct, I am assuming that while there is not no risk, the risk of serious long term damage to people who are asymptomatic and/or don't need to be hospitalized is extremely low, because that's what the limited studies have shown so far. And I am assuming that these professional sports organizations that have millions invested in players (or borderline professional ones in Alabama/Clemson/LSU/Ohio State football) have found no evidence of serious risk to players lung capacity in the dozens that have tested positive and recovered, or they'd be a lot less cavalier about continuing workouts and we would have heard about it because it fits the narrative a lot of people seem to want to be true. But instead it's tied into anecdotal reports or a 25 person MERS study (from a disease that had a 37% morbidity rate, and thus probably some worse effects for survivors as well...)

[ISiddiqui]

WOW! NYC just reported that in the last 24 hours they have had ZERO COVID deaths, which hasn't happened in months.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The issue really though is who gets to decide if something is a worthy cause? Whether or not we agree with them on that is beside the point, because the whole point is that people either have the right to decide that for themselves ... or they don't.

Your right not to wear a mask in public is superseded by my right not to get infected. Alone or in your own home, do what you wish, but this isn't a case of freedom or tyranny, it's about competing rights and how to balance that. Wearing a mask is such a small inconvenience and dying is obviously irreversible, so mask mandates are legal.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

WOW! NYC just reported that in the last 24 hours they have had ZERO COVID deaths, which hasn't happened in months.

This is the opportunity they've been waiting for to perma-ban people from New Jersey from entering.