Coronavirus/COVID-19, Thread 2

[SuperDeluxe]

This movie is not even over, but a sequel may already be in the works:

Read on Twitter

To be taken with a grain of salt as anything that comes from clickable media (though the BBC doesn't strike me as the type of news source that would spread crap).

[floyd]

Visual reminder of how safe it is for young people.

It would be lovely if it were that simple. Aside from the exceedingly obvious fact that the more widespread it is among young people the more widespread it will become among older people it's also not just a matter of you either dying or having "a common cold" or less.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-effects/scientists-just-beginning-to-understand-the-many-health-problems-caused-by-covid-19-idUSKBN23X1BZ

The youngest and healthiest do on average get off lucky with minimal problems but there is a full spectrum of age, health, and complications between them and the unfortunates that have died in and out of nursing homes.

Of course there's a spectrum of outcomes. It's why I posted about starting to take care of yourself now. Something the CDC and main stream media refuses to discuss for whatever reason. There have been 905 hospitalizations in MA of people under 40 out of 37,166 reported cases. And we know actual cases are much, much greater than reported cases. So even if someone under 40 were to contract the virus you are looking at a very small chance of having to go to the hospital because of it.

Take it seriously. Where a mask where needed. Social distance. Be a little overcautious so we don't end up having to lock down the country again. That's all anyone is asking, not to be afraid of it, not to wrap yourself in plastic and bury yourself in your yard with some granola bars.

I'm not advocating not to wear a mask. Never have. I never said not to social distance. I never said not to take it seriously. My point is that many young people are terrified of this when they shouldn't be. I know many millennials who are afraid to leave the house or interact with people who don't live in their apartment. Why? Constable posted a tweet showing how low the infection rate was among protesters (a predominately young group of people). This should be good news. Thousands of people were closely gathered together outside while wearing masks and the virus barely spread. Given that why do beaches, where there is significantly more social distance than a protest, need to be closed?

I guess our disagreement is on the bolded. From my perspective there is very much a message of fear being spread. There almost always is. It's the go to for just about every media outlet.

So just back of the envelope, assuming about one in ten cases have been identified that’s about 2 in 1000 getting hospitalized from our healthiest population. Significantly worse than flu if I’m reading CDC correctly. Combine that with how much more easily this spreads than older viruses where there’s some immunity in the population and you can easily see why people are concerned with over-running our hospitals if spread is uncontrolled.

But yes, old people will die the most. A recent IFR study estimates 5.6% of those over 65 die. Which is enormous. https://osf.io/wdbpe/

I guess we’re all saying the same thing if you think everyone should be following the advice of health experts but your emphasis on the media sensationalism is weird considering how serious this is. They do that about everything. For once they are actually wall to wall covering something that is a generational disaster and one where the actions of individuals can make all the difference.

If people give a **** about health care workers and boomers and other vulnerable people they need to do whatever they can.

[Disinformation]

Can someone explain the argument against wearing masks? Because I don't understand why people fight the idea. It's what, a minor inconvenience at worst?

[Parliament10]

This movie is not even over, but a sequel may already be in the works:

Read on Twitter

To be taken with a grain of salt as anything that comes from clickable media (though the BBC doesn't strike me as the type of news source that would spread crap).

Wow. That would be a tough blow.
Hopefully we can head this one off, at the pass.

[Bad-Thoma]

Visual reminder of how safe it is for young people.

It would be lovely if it were that simple. Aside from the exceedingly obvious fact that the more widespread it is among young people the more widespread it will become among older people it's also not just a matter of you either dying or having "a common cold" or less.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-effects/scientists-just-beginning-to-understand-the-many-health-problems-caused-by-covid-19-idUSKBN23X1BZ

The youngest and healthiest do on average get off lucky with minimal problems but there is a full spectrum of age, health, and complications between them and the unfortunates that have died in and out of nursing homes.

Of course there's a spectrum of outcomes. It's why I posted about starting to take care of yourself now. Something the CDC and main stream media refuses to discuss for whatever reason. There have been 905 hospitalizations in MA of people under 40 out of 37,166 reported cases. And we know actual cases are much, much greater than reported cases. So even if someone under 40 were to contract the virus you are looking at a very small chance of having to go to the hospital because of it.

Take it seriously. Where a mask where needed. Social distance. Be a little overcautious so we don't end up having to lock down the country again. That's all anyone is asking, not to be afraid of it, not to wrap yourself in plastic and bury yourself in your yard with some granola bars.

I'm not advocating not to wear a mask. Never have. I never said not to social distance. I never said not to take it seriously. My point is that many young people are terrified of this when they shouldn't be. I know many millennials who are afraid to leave the house or interact with people who don't live in their apartment. Why? Constable posted a tweet showing how low the infection rate was among protesters (a predominately young group of people). This should be good news. Thousands of people were closely gathered together outside while wearing masks and the virus barely spread. Given that why do beaches, where there is significantly more social distance than a protest, need to be closed?

I guess our disagreement is on the bolded. From my perspective there is very much a message of fear being spread. There almost always is. It's the go to for just about every media outlet.

I didn't mean the part on the mask (etc) directly towards you, sorry if it came across that way. There is some fear being spread and there's also a very opposite message of dismissal that is/was being spread which is more dangerous in the long run. I'm glad you take it seriously.

To address the beaches thing specifically, I don't think they would need to be closed if the people there were wearing masks, distancing ,etc. I imagine that in general they aren't social distancing and that's why they are a target for closing. People do tend to crowd them in the summer, and it's in general a younger than average crowd.

[SuperDeluxe]

A view from Canada:

Read on Twitter

[claycarver]

There is some fear being spread and there's also a very opposite message of dismissal that is/was being spread which is more dangerous in the long run.

This right here. This is absolutely the heart of the disagreement. Some people see this very differently than you. I personally think there is at least as much harm caused to people through over selling fear as there is in underselling the danger of of the virus. For instance:

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2020-06-29/pediatric-group-calls-for-children-to-return-to-schools-despite-coronavirus

That's one of many issues social distancing is touching on. People are vulnerable in many different ways. Social distancing is a solution to one crisis that exacerbates others.

My wife is going back to work this week with kids, even though she'll make less than she was making while unemployed. So she'll be making less money to take on more personal risk, but she knows these kids need to get back to some normalcy and their parents need to be able to work. It's a worthwhile risk to take.

[jmr07019]

Spoiler:

It would be lovely if it were that simple. Aside from the exceedingly obvious fact that the more widespread it is among young people the more widespread it will become among older people it's also not just a matter of you either dying or having "a common cold" or less.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-effects/scientists-just-beginning-to-understand-the-many-health-problems-caused-by-covid-19-idUSKBN23X1BZ

The youngest and healthiest do on average get off lucky with minimal problems but there is a full spectrum of age, health, and complications between them and the unfortunates that have died in and out of nursing homes.

Of course there's a spectrum of outcomes. It's why I posted about starting to take care of yourself now. Something the CDC and main stream media refuses to discuss for whatever reason. There have been 905 hospitalizations in MA of people under 40 out of 37,166 reported cases. And we know actual cases are much, much greater than reported cases. So even if someone under 40 were to contract the virus you are looking at a very small chance of having to go to the hospital because of it.

Take it seriously. Where a mask where needed. Social distance. Be a little overcautious so we don't end up having to lock down the country again. That's all anyone is asking, not to be afraid of it, not to wrap yourself in plastic and bury yourself in your yard with some granola bars.

I'm not advocating not to wear a mask. Never have. I never said not to social distance. I never said not to take it seriously. My point is that many young people are terrified of this when they shouldn't be. I know many millennials who are afraid to leave the house or interact with people who don't live in their apartment. Why? Constable posted a tweet showing how low the infection rate was among protesters (a predominately young group of people). This should be good news. Thousands of people were closely gathered together outside while wearing masks and the virus barely spread. Given that why do beaches, where there is significantly more social distance than a protest, need to be closed?

I guess our disagreement is on the bolded. From my perspective there is very much a message of fear being spread. There almost always is. It's the go to for just about every media outlet.

So just back of the envelope, assuming about one in ten cases have been identified that’s about 2 in 1000 getting hospitalized from our healthiest population. Significantly worse than flu if I’m reading CDC correctly. Combine that with how much more easily this spreads than older viruses where there’s some immunity in the population and you can easily see why people are concerned with over-running our hospitals if spread is uncontrolled.

But yes, old people will die the most. A recent IFR study estimates 5.6% of those over 65 die. Which is enormous. https://osf.io/wdbpe/

I guess we’re all saying the same thing if you think everyone should be following the advice of health experts but your emphasis on the media sensationalism is weird considering how serious this is. They do that about everything. For once they are actually wall to wall covering something that is a generational disaster and one where the actions of individuals can make all the difference.

If people give a **** about health care workers and boomers and other vulnerable people they need to do whatever they can.

While I agree that we should be wearing masks and have some social distancing I disagree with many of the narratives being pushed by the media and many of the policies being set by the government. For instance the Chicago pride festival was allowed to take place. This was deemed safe



but people sitting in a restaurant is too dangerous!? We were told for months not to gather in large groups but like the flip of a switch it was suddenly ok as long as you were out for BLM. Still sitting at a beach is too dangerous It's blatant BS. If it's safe enough to have thousands gathered in the streets then open everything up. If it's too dangerous to open things up why are these super spreader events allowed to take place? Is it just a coincidence that we see a massive spike in cases 2 weeks after these super spreader events started?

As to the media they've always sucked and continue to suck but that doesn't mean we should be ok with it. They are soooo desperate to praise Cuomo even though his crazy policies of sending recovering covid patients back to nursing homes killed thousands. He was late on locking down. His state has more deaths than any other state. He has been a complete and total failure. But he's on the blue team and he talked tough about the orange guy on the red team so we must prop him up. In comparison Florida which has a slightly larger population than NY has 21,000 LESS deaths. Yet Florida gets blasted in the media and NY is praised.

I don't believe the government has the American people's best interest at heart. The DNC wants to keep things locked down longer than necessary to hurt the economy, hide Biden and hurt Trump's chances of re-election. I'm no die hard Republican. I hate a lot of things about the GOP. But you can't have thousands of people gathered closely together in the streets and then turn around and say it's too dangerous for 50 people to be together.

[bobbutts]

Spoiler:

Of course there's a spectrum of outcomes. It's why I posted about starting to take care of yourself now. Something the CDC and main stream media refuses to discuss for whatever reason. There have been 905 hospitalizations in MA of people under 40 out of 37,166 reported cases. And we know actual cases are much, much greater than reported cases. So even if someone under 40 were to contract the virus you are looking at a very small chance of having to go to the hospital because of it.



I'm not advocating not to wear a mask. Never have. I never said not to social distance. I never said not to take it seriously. My point is that many young people are terrified of this when they shouldn't be. I know many millennials who are afraid to leave the house or interact with people who don't live in their apartment. Why? Constable posted a tweet showing how low the infection rate was among protesters (a predominately young group of people). This should be good news. Thousands of people were closely gathered together outside while wearing masks and the virus barely spread. Given that why do beaches, where there is significantly more social distance than a protest, need to be closed?

I guess our disagreement is on the bolded. From my perspective there is very much a message of fear being spread. There almost always is. It's the go to for just about every media outlet.

So just back of the envelope, assuming about one in ten cases have been identified that’s about 2 in 1000 getting hospitalized from our healthiest population. Significantly worse than flu if I’m reading CDC correctly. Combine that with how much more easily this spreads than older viruses where there’s some immunity in the population and you can easily see why people are concerned with over-running our hospitals if spread is uncontrolled.

But yes, old people will die the most. A recent IFR study estimates 5.6% of those over 65 die. Which is enormous. https://osf.io/wdbpe/

I guess we’re all saying the same thing if you think everyone should be following the advice of health experts but your emphasis on the media sensationalism is weird considering how serious this is. They do that about everything. For once they are actually wall to wall covering something that is a generational disaster and one where the actions of individuals can make all the difference.

If people give a **** about health care workers and boomers and other vulnerable people they need to do whatever they can.

While I agree that we should be wearing masks and have some social distancing I disagree with many of the narratives being pushed by the media and many of the policies being set by the government. For instance the Chicago pride festival was allowed to take place. This was deemed safe



but people sitting in a restaurant is too dangerous!? We were told for months not to gather in large groups but like the flip of a switch it was suddenly ok as long as you were out for BLM. Still sitting at a beach is too dangerous It's blatant BS. If it's safe enough to have thousands gathered in the streets then open everything up. If it's too dangerous to open things up why are these super spreader events allowed to take place? Is it just a coincidence that we see a massive spike in cases 2 weeks after these super spreader events started?

As to the media they've always sucked and continue to suck but that doesn't mean we should be ok with it. They are soooo desperate to praise Cuomo even though his crazy policies of sending recovering covid patients back to nursing homes killed thousands. He was late on locking down. His state has more deaths than any other state. He has been a complete and total failure. But he's on the blue team and he talked tough about the orange guy on the red team so we must prop him up. In comparison Florida which has a slightly larger population than NY has 21,000 LESS deaths. Yet Florida gets blasted in the media and NY is praised.

I don't believe the government has the American people's best interest at heart. The DNC wants to keep things locked down longer than necessary to hurt the economy, hide Biden and hurt Trump's chances of re-election. I'm no die hard Republican. I hate a lot of things about the GOP. But you can't have thousands of people gathered closely together in the streets and then turn around and say it's too dangerous for 50 people to be together.

If you're looking for hypocrisy in American politics you'll find plenty of it. Let's take a step back and review what's happened without considering the politics.

Watching NY and MA and WA and a few others early we saw early mistakes that cost lives but eventually they took actions that got the outbreak mostly under control. Watching Texas, Arizona, and Florida recently we saw what happens when we ignore guidance and attempt to re-open too hastily. The most important thing is learning the lessons and improving going forward.

[jmr07019]

If you're looking for hypocrisy in American politics you'll find plenty of it. Let's take a step back and review what's happened without considering the politics.

Watching NY and MA and WA and a few others early we saw early mistakes that cost lives but eventually they took actions that got the outbreak mostly under control. Watching Texas, Arizona, and Florida recently we saw what happens when we ignore guidance and attempt to re-open too hastily. The most important thing is learning the lessons and improving going forward.

NY - 24,835 deaths - 20 million people
MA - 8,095 deaths - 7 million people
FL - 3,447 deaths - 22 million people
TX - 2,403 deaths - 29 million people
AZ - 1,588 deaths - 7 million people
WA - 1,276 deaths - 8 million people

Well just looking at the death numbers I reach a different conclusion than you about which states are performing better. At the end of the day saving lives is what it's all about. Florida and Texas are clearly doing a waaaaaaay better job than NY. AZ is doing a waaaaay better job than MA.

Cases started surging in in Florida in mid June. The state reopened May 1st. The protests began at the end of May. 2 weeks after the super spreader protests began cases surged. I look at this data and say the protests, not the reopening, caused the surge in cases. However if you look at the deaths per day in each state the graphs have remained flat. This also shouldn't be surprising as it's really not that dangerous for young people (the protesting demographic) as I have stated repeatedly.

[Bad-Thoma]

That's one of many issues social distancing is touching on. People are vulnerable in many different ways. Social distancing is a solution to one crisis that exacerbates others.

Again, we're not far apart oh how we feel here. Social distancing absolutely exacerbates both psychological issues and economic issues. The problem with easing social distancing in favor of the others isn't just in the potential surge of cases though, there is going to be a long term economic, health and psychological cost if corona continues unchecked before there is either a widely distributed vaccine or an effective treatment. Deaths are going to rise again, hospitalizations as well, and even if they aren't happening at the same percentage as early on when so many nursing homes, etc got hit a virus like this can spread exponentially. It's something that has many historic precedents. What is happening to some economically right now is a tragedy, I can't argue that. The government needs to step in the manner they would if it was an airline, bank, or oil company that was floundering. They need to target the next stimulus money better to make this happen, helping the people that are the most vulnerable. There needs to be a cohesive national message on mask wearing and safe, sane guidelines so we can avoid a full shutdown again. Believe me when I say the thing I want most in all of this is my 15 year old to be able to go back to school in the fall, this extended isolation isn't doing her any favors. We let her visit at friend, etc. as we are in an area that has not been hard hit (barely hit at all really) but she needs structure and social growth, like any kid and my wife and I are both working our asses off to sock away money in case things do get bad again so we are gone from 8-5 most days. I want to see things go back to normal as bad as anyone, I just believe we have to be patient and smart so that can happen sooner than later and part of that is the personal sacrifice of commiting to social distancing, a proven effective method for slowing transmission. It's working here in VT, we had a pretty high per capita case count early on but our state government reacted quickly and thoroughly and things are easing here in an measured effective manner. It's not perfect, some are suffering economically but a pandemic isn't a win-lose situation, it's a lose-lose situation where the best that can be done is minimize the damage.

[threrf23]

Watching NY and MA and WA and a few others early we saw early mistakes that cost lives but eventually they took actions that got the outbreak mostly under control. Watching Texas, Arizona, and Florida recently we saw what happens when we ignore guidance and attempt to re-open too hastily. The most important thing is learning the lessons and improving going forward.

NYC is probably close to herd immunity IMO. Either early antibody testing was inaccurate, or 35% of the population is naturally immune in some capacity and/or the herd immunity threshold is lower than presumed. Or something, but the trends speak for themselves.

WA took quick action early, MA did okay. San Fran called for a state of emergency in February and encouraged its citizens to take the situation seriously even before they had any confirmed cases, they shut their train/subway service down by the end of March. They are the textbook example IMO.

At least part of what we are seeing now is that without permanent lockdowns and/or to a other permanent measures in place, every dense enough area is bound to be stung in time. Texas/AZ/Florida yeah, but parts of Cali are spiking too, and Cali has been rather progressive. In these parts of Cali, early actions, a prolonged lockdown, and adherence to guidelines did little but to delay the inevitable.

Anyways, I'm in AZ, and really the problem is not that we reopened too soon, in hindsight I might argue that a stricter, shorter, and more productive lockdown would have been more effective. The problem is just about everything reopened (bars and clubs were considered restaurants), CDC/social distancing guidelines were never enforced, testing/lab capacity was not really as advertised (waiting 7+ days for results undermines isolation strategies), and businesses and citizens haven't taken much in their own hands (understatement, and we also had **** from Cali visit because they were sick of being on lockdown). The protests began at the worst possible time as cases and hospitalizations were already peaking (most wore/wear masks, not clear if they were responsible for much spread at all but they were at least more fuel to the fire and helped make a joke of social distancing), and then there was that Trump rally the other day...

[bobbutts]

If you're looking for hypocrisy in American politics you'll find plenty of it. Let's take a step back and review what's happened without considering the politics.

Watching NY and MA and WA and a few others early we saw early mistakes that cost lives but eventually they took actions that got the outbreak mostly under control. Watching Texas, Arizona, and Florida recently we saw what happens when we ignore guidance and attempt to re-open too hastily. The most important thing is learning the lessons and improving going forward.

NY - 24,835 deaths - 20 million people
MA - 8,095 deaths - 7 million people
FL - 3,447 deaths - 22 million people
TX - 2,403 deaths - 29 million people
AZ - 1,588 deaths - 7 million people
WA - 1,276 deaths - 8 million people

Well just looking at the death numbers I reach a different conclusion than you about which states are performing better. At the end of the day saving lives is what it's all about. Florida and Texas are clearly doing a waaaaaaay better job than NY. AZ is doing a waaaaay better job than MA.

Cases started surging in in Florida in mid June. The state reopened May 1st. The protests began at the end of May. 2 weeks after the super spreader protests began cases surged. I look at this data and say the protests, not the reopening, caused the surge in cases. However if you look at the deaths per day in each state the graphs have remained flat. This also shouldn't be surprising as it's really not that dangerous for young people (the protesting demographic) as I have stated repeatedly.

I don't think you're making accurate conclusions. The states with the worst numbers above already peaked and have been declining for some time while states like AZ, FL, TX are still increasing. I don't understand how you could fail to see that as a problem currently!

I have seen much evidence that indoor gatherings are the main driver of viral spread and states like MN and NY that had major protests don't seem to be having an associated spike in cases at least yet. I feel that you labeling them as super-spreader events is political and inaccurate and such statements make it difficult to respond respectfully. I feel like I'm talking with an activist rather than someone who cares about honest discourse.

[SuperDeluxe]

NYC is probably close to herd immunity IMO.

I'm not even sure herd immunity can be attained. Consider that the antibodies are gone in 6-8 weeks.

[ConstableGeneva]

Spoiler:

Of course there's a spectrum of outcomes. It's why I posted about starting to take care of yourself now. Something the CDC and main stream media refuses to discuss for whatever reason. There have been 905 hospitalizations in MA of people under 40 out of 37,166 reported cases. And we know actual cases are much, much greater than reported cases. So even if someone under 40 were to contract the virus you are looking at a very small chance of having to go to the hospital because of it.



I'm not advocating not to wear a mask. Never have. I never said not to social distance. I never said not to take it seriously. My point is that many young people are terrified of this when they shouldn't be. I know many millennials who are afraid to leave the house or interact with people who don't live in their apartment. Why? Constable posted a tweet showing how low the infection rate was among protesters (a predominately young group of people). This should be good news. Thousands of people were closely gathered together outside while wearing masks and the virus barely spread. Given that why do beaches, where there is significantly more social distance than a protest, need to be closed?

I guess our disagreement is on the bolded. From my perspective there is very much a message of fear being spread. There almost always is. It's the go to for just about every media outlet.

So just back of the envelope, assuming about one in ten cases have been identified that’s about 2 in 1000 getting hospitalized from our healthiest population. Significantly worse than flu if I’m reading CDC correctly. Combine that with how much more easily this spreads than older viruses where there’s some immunity in the population and you can easily see why people are concerned with over-running our hospitals if spread is uncontrolled.

But yes, old people will die the most. A recent IFR study estimates 5.6% of those over 65 die. Which is enormous. https://osf.io/wdbpe/

I guess we’re all saying the same thing if you think everyone should be following the advice of health experts but your emphasis on the media sensationalism is weird considering how serious this is. They do that about everything. For once they are actually wall to wall covering something that is a generational disaster and one where the actions of individuals can make all the difference.

If people give a **** about health care workers and boomers and other vulnerable people they need to do whatever they can.

While I agree that we should be wearing masks and have some social distancing I disagree with many of the narratives being pushed by the media and many of the policies being set by the government. For instance the Chicago pride festival was allowed to take place. This was deemed safe



but people sitting in a restaurant is too dangerous!? We were told for months not to gather in large groups but like the flip of a switch it was suddenly ok as long as you were out for BLM. Still sitting at a beach is too dangerous It's blatant BS. If it's safe enough to have thousands gathered in the streets then open everything up. If it's too dangerous to open things up why are these super spreader events allowed to take place? Is it just a coincidence that we see a massive spike in cases 2 weeks after these super spreader events started?

As to the media they've always sucked and continue to suck but that doesn't mean we should be ok with it. They are soooo desperate to praise Cuomo even though his crazy policies of sending recovering covid patients back to nursing homes killed thousands. He was late on locking down. His state has more deaths than any other state. He has been a complete and total failure. But he's on the blue team and he talked tough about the orange guy on the red team so we must prop him up. In comparison Florida which has a slightly larger population than NY has 21,000 LESS deaths. Yet Florida gets blasted in the media and NY is praised.

I don't believe the government has the American people's best interest at heart. The DNC wants to keep things locked down longer than necessary to hurt the economy, hide Biden and hurt Trump's chances of re-election. I'm no die hard Republican. I hate a lot of things about the GOP. But you can't have thousands of people gathered closely together in the streets and then turn around and say it's too dangerous for 50 people to be together.

Just wanted to point out that via a quick google search, the photo above is from a Pride Parade from a previous year. Got clued in by the people not wearing masks. People should wear masks in public, whether protesting a just cause or merely buying essentials from the grocery store.

[bobbutts]

Watching NY and MA and WA and a few others early we saw early mistakes that cost lives but eventually they took actions that got the outbreak mostly under control. Watching Texas, Arizona, and Florida recently we saw what happens when we ignore guidance and attempt to re-open too hastily. The most important thing is learning the lessons and improving going forward.

NYC is probably close to herd immunity IMO. Either early antibody testing was inaccurate, or 35% of the population is naturally immune in some capacity and/or the herd immunity threshold is lower than presumed. Or something, but the trends speak for themselves.

WA took quick action early, MA did okay. San Fran called for a state of emergency in February and encouraged its citizens to take the situation seriously even before they had any confirmed cases, they shut their train/subway service down by the end of March. They are the textbook example IMO.

At least part of what we are seeing now is that without permanent lockdowns and/or to a other permanent measures in place, every dense enough area is bound to be stung in time. Texas/AZ/Florida yeah, but parts of Cali are spiking too, and Cali has been rather progressive. In these parts of Cali, early actions, a prolonged lockdown, and adherence to guidelines did little but to delay the inevitable.

Anyways, I'm in AZ, and really the problem is not that we reopened too soon, in hindsight I might argue that a stricter, shorter, and more productive lockdown would have been more effective. The problem is just about everything reopened (bars and clubs were considered restaurants), CDC/social distancing guidelines were never enforced, testing/lab capacity was not really as advertised (waiting 7+ days for results undermines isolation strategies), and businesses and citizens haven't taken much in their own hands (understatement, and we also had **** from Cali visit because they were sick of being on lockdown). The protests began at the worst possible time as cases and hospitalizations were already peaking (most wore/wear masks, not clear if they were responsible for much spread at all but they were at least more fuel to the fire and helped make a joke of social distancing), and then there was that Trump rally the other day...

I think it's perhaps the understatement of the century. The amount of suffering and deaths could have been reduced greatly. The economic and psychological fallout from this long term semi-lockdown is much worse than a shorter more strict one would have been. I don't think hindsight was necessary here either, plenty of people knew what was up early on in this but the leaders that needed to take action failed to hear them.

[threrf23]

I'm not even sure herd immunity can be attained. Consider that the antibodies are gone in 6-8 weeks.

But this is assuming we have identified the right antibodies to look for, no?

[jmr07019]

Just wanted to point out that via a quick google search, the photo above is from a Pride Parade from a previous year. Got clued in by the people not wearing masks. People should wear masks in public, whether protesting a just cause or merely buying essentials from the grocery store.

You're right my bad. I typed "Chicago Pride 2020" into google and it gave me that. Seeing no masks should have been a red flag. Here's another picture. My overall points remains the same

[GoGreen]

Players testing positive for Covid left and right... yikes

[jmr07019]

If you're looking for hypocrisy in American politics you'll find plenty of it. Let's take a step back and review what's happened without considering the politics.

Watching NY and MA and WA and a few others early we saw early mistakes that cost lives but eventually they took actions that got the outbreak mostly under control. Watching Texas, Arizona, and Florida recently we saw what happens when we ignore guidance and attempt to re-open too hastily. The most important thing is learning the lessons and improving going forward.

NY - 24,835 deaths - 20 million people
MA - 8,095 deaths - 7 million people
FL - 3,447 deaths - 22 million people
TX - 2,403 deaths - 29 million people
AZ - 1,588 deaths - 7 million people
WA - 1,276 deaths - 8 million people

Well just looking at the death numbers I reach a different conclusion than you about which states are performing better. At the end of the day saving lives is what it's all about. Florida and Texas are clearly doing a waaaaaaay better job than NY. AZ is doing a waaaaay better job than MA.

Cases started surging in in Florida in mid June. The state reopened May 1st. The protests began at the end of May. 2 weeks after the super spreader protests began cases surged. I look at this data and say the protests, not the reopening, caused the surge in cases. However if you look at the deaths per day in each state the graphs have remained flat. This also shouldn't be surprising as it's really not that dangerous for young people (the protesting demographic) as I have stated repeatedly.

I don't think you're making accurate conclusions. The states with the worst numbers above already peaked and have been declining for some time while states like AZ, FL, TX are still increasing. I don't understand how you could fail to see that as a problem currently!

I have seen much evidence that indoor gatherings are the main driver of viral spread and states like MN and NY that had major protests don't seem to be having an associated spike in cases at least yet. I feel that you labeling them as super-spreader events is political and inaccurate and such statements make it difficult to respond respectfully. I feel like I'm talking with an activist rather than someone who cares about honest discourse.

Super spreader events to me is a gathering of 1,000 or more people especially when they are shoulder to shoulder. If it makes you feel better I would call Trump's rallies super spreader events as well. I didn't make up the term. If you want to call it a large gathering or a different term that's fine. OT but for the record I fully believe that the black community has gotten a raw deal from America and we need changes. I also fully support LGBTQ rights.

Back to the virus I think the timing is crucial here. Florida began re opening at the beginning of May. The incubation period is 2 weeks. We should have seen this spike mid May, early June at the latest. Instead we are seeing it at the end of June. The simplest explanation is the protests where many people were gathered closely together caused the spike in cases. The timing lines up.



Why do you think California has had a spike in cases? To my knowledge they have kept a strict(er) lockdown although I admit I am not super informed on their policies.