seriously? Slumber party????

[ktgrok]

42 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Of course no one could know what the transmission will be--that is what probability is about.  That doesn't mean I don't come up with an estimate.  There is a difference in knowing what an outcome will be and knowing something about the probability of an outcome.  I still do not understand how you can conclude that people are estimating badly.  (Since, as you said, people don't know their own status so I would assume that people are blatantly spread it is not a reasonable assumption.)  What is the evidence that people are estimating badly?  What do you think would be a reasonable assumption for someone to make regarding probability that they are COVID positive and will infect another person at a social event?

Because it is spreading. So either they are estimating that they are goign to spread it, and are, or they are estimating they are not going to spread it, and are. Either they are estimating badly, or they are knowingly acting in a risky manner. Because we went from a few hundred cases a day for the state to a high of 15 Thousand cases in a day, and now averaging just under 10 thousand. So yeah, somehow it is being spread - and fast - even if people think they are being safe and not likely to spread it. 

[ktgrok]

The more people have parties in my state, the longer my high risk mother is isolated, and the more at risk she is of dying from say, a doctor's appointment. That's the truth of the matter. When we have hospitals well over 100 percent capacity, it doesn't seem like too much to ask to say people shouldn't have parties right now. 

that people here are defending parties, in a hot spot, is bizarre to me. 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

Because it is spreading. So either they are estimating that they are goign to spread it, and are, or they are estimating they are not going to spread it, and are. Either they are estimating badly, or they are knowingly acting in a risky manner. Because we went from a few hundred cases a day for the state to a high of 15 Thousand cases in a day, and now averaging just under 10 thousand. So yeah, somehow it is being spread - and fast - even if people think they are being safe and not likely to spread it. 

But not likely to spread it is not the same as not spread it.  People do not estimate that they are going to spread it or they aren't going to spread it.  I don't estimate that it is going to rain or it isn't going to rain--I estimate that there is a percentage chance it is going to rain.  If I think that there is a 1% chance that it will rain and I plan a picnic, I think it is UNLIKELY that it will rain; 1 in 100 times I will be wrong.  If I estimate the risk that I am infected and will spread COVID is 1%, I think it is UNLIKELY that I will.   

[ktgrok]

29 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But not likely to spread it is not the same as not spread it.  People do not estimate that they are going to spread it or they aren't going to spread it.  I don't estimate that it is going to rain or it isn't going to rain--I estimate that there is a percentage chance it is going to rain.  If I think that there is a 1% chance that it will rain and I plan a picnic, I think it is UNLIKELY that it will rain; 1 in 100 times I will be wrong.  If I estimate the risk that I am infected and will spread COVID is 1%, I think it is UNLIKELY that I will.   

ok, fine...so people are either estimating it is unlikely they will spread it, but still spreading it, or they are estimating that they are likely to spread it and going out anyway. Because it is spreading. We've gone from less than 500 cases a day to an average of 10, 000 cases a day. We have ICU nurses at the point of breakdown. We have hospitals over capacity. So again, people having indoor parties without masks for hours on end is a BAD IDEA given that scenario. 

[rebcoola]

Our health district and governor are basically begging people to stop having backyard BBQ type events.  They are saying that is the main source of spread.  Here we are not currently allowed gatherings of any size.  Restaurants are open for outdoors seating but it's supposed to be one household per table. Etc.  I understand it sucks to stay home. I'm sure the heck sick of it but it's the right thing to do.  

[sassenach]

11 hours ago, freesia said:

Here’s an idea—my ds and his friend slept outside in separate tents, roasted hotdogs and marshmallows and sat socially distanced in camp chairs, using masks at time. Our numbers are down rn and I felt it was a good way to let him have fun before the inevitable seclusion  comes in fall and winter. 

We did that, too. Minus the food. Backyard tents, one for each kid. They watched a movie projected on a sheet. When dd had to go to the bathroom, she put a mask on. They had a great time and it fed her extravert needs.

[pitterpatter]

DH and I were recently asked to fly to Vegas with a group for an adult birthday party. DH is immunosuppressed and they all know it. 🙄

[pitterpatter]

We will also be passing on three child family birthday parties this month. Today was a first birthday party. We're already being scorned, but none of them will respect masking or social distancing even with DH being immunosuppressed.

[Bootsie]

57 minutes ago, kand said:

To me the issue is that while the chance that any one particular person is going to be the one to spread it is low, the probability is additive, so when you’ve got hundreds, or even thousands of people all making that same assessment that their risk of spreading it is very low, all those small probabilities add up to be a very large chance of spread, and indeed it is spreading.  Of course, each person thinks that they are the exception and they are unlikely to spread, but someone is going to be that person. And about 20% of the time, that person spreading it is actually going to spread it to a large number of people.  So how do we manage that?  Who gets to decide that they are the one who’s unlikely to spread it when we know that the consequence of everyone deciding that their individual risk of spreading is low means that the overall risk is extremely high?

Yeah, I totally get people making careful, calculated judgments in trying to provide some safe socializing  for their kids. I like the idea above about the kids having an outdoor camp out. There are various options for people to do it relatively safely right now. Having a slumber party in a hotspot is just not one of those. That shouldn’t be an all or nothing thing – – the fact that your kid really needs some time with friends doesn’t need to mean it’s in a group indoor sleepover environment.

It is the person who is infected and unknowingly spreads it who is is the exception.  Yes, someone is going to be the exception, and spread it unless the percent chance of spreading is zero.  That does not mean, as some have suggested, that a given person is likely to spread it.  

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, rebcoola said:

Our health district and governor are basically begging people to stop having backyard BBQ type events.  They are saying that is the main source of spread.  Here we are not currently allowed gatherings of any size.  Restaurants are open for outdoors seating but it's supposed to be one household per table. Etc.  I understand it sucks to stay home. I'm sure the heck sick of it but it's the right thing to do.  

I am curious as to whether they have any idea of why this would be a main source of spread.  Is it really much more easily spread outdoors than we think?  Are people outdoors but very close to each other for extended periods of time?  Is it the sharing of food?  Is it people going into the house to get food?  Go to the bathroom?

[ktgrok]

9 hours ago, kand said:

To me the issue is that while the chance that any one particular person is going to be the one to spread it is low, the probability is additive, so when you’ve got hundreds, or even thousands of people all making that same assessment that their risk of spreading it is very low, all those small probabilities add up to be a very large chance of spread, and indeed it is spreading.  Of course, each person thinks that they are the exception and they are unlikely to spread, but someone is going to be that person. And about 20% of the time, that person spreading it is actually going to spread it to a large number of people.  So how do we manage that?  Who gets to decide that they are the one who’s unlikely to spread it when we know that the consequence of everyone deciding that their individual risk of spreading is low means that the overall risk is extremely high?

Yeah, I totally get people making careful, calculated judgments in trying to provide some safe socializing  for their kids. I like the idea above about the kids having an outdoor camp out. There are various options for people to do it relatively safely right now. Having a slumber party in a hotspot is just not one of those. That shouldn’t be an all or nothing thing – – the fact that your kid really needs some time with friends doesn’t need to mean it’s in a group indoor sleepover environment.

YES! 

And yes, there are higher and lower risk ways of socializing. A slumber party with multiple people indoors for many hours is one of the higher risk activities. Kids old enough to social distance can ride bikes, hang out outside, etc. And if everyone is doing high risk activities, that means those kids that need social outlets are going to be struggling longer, as this continues to get worse. 

9 hours ago, pitterpatter said:

DH and I were recently asked to fly to Vegas with a group for an adult birthday party. DH is immunosuppressed and they all know it. 🙄

Ugh. Someone in a lawn care group just suggested all the Florida members meet up together in Tampa, for drinks, hanging out, etc. So she wants people to drive from all ovr the state (hot spot!) to congregate, without masks since we'd be drinking. NO mention of the pandemic or safety was made. It's like it's not even a factor. And a bunch of people agreed! Finally someone pointed out that with more than a dozen people wanting to do this, they were not going to find a restaurant or anything willing to seat them all together. Someone then suggested meeting at a house. Sigh. 

8 hours ago, Bootsie said:

It is the person who is infected and unknowingly spreads it who is is the exception.  Yes, someone is going to be the exception, and spread it unless the percent chance of spreading is zero.  That does not mean, as some have suggested, that a given person is likely to spread it.  

Right, but they don't know if they are that person. And since we don't know, we need everyone to assume they are that person who is likely to spread it. 

It's Russian Roulette, but with other people's lives. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

3 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Right, but they don't know if they are that person. And since we don't know, we need everyone to assume they are that person who is likely to spread it. 

It's Russian Roulette, but with other people's lives. 

Exactly.

The steps of risk assessment:

1.  Identify the hazards.  In this case possible hospitalization, long term health complications, death.  For me or for others.

2.  Decide who might be harmed and how.  I might be harmed.  My loved ones might be harmed.  My neighbors might be harmed.  My community might be harmed.  The how is by contracting COVID19.

3.  Evaluate risks and decide precautions.  Risks are from an airborne (mostly as far as we know) virus.  Precautions are social distancing and masking.  (People have come up with creative ways to mitigate other risks like mental health issues while still providing for these precautions so I really don't buy the argument that one cancels out the other.)

4.  Record your findings and implement them.  Well, we don't really need to record our findings on a personal level but government and other agencies are doing that.  We do need to implement them.

5.  Review your risk assessment and update as necessary.  The science surrounding a novel virus changes (or rather the science doesn't change but the information we know changes as we go along because we know more).  Don't get stuck with what we thought we knew back in March.  Keep up to date. 

[Bootsie]

3 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

 

Right, but they don't know if they are that person. And since we don't know, we need everyone to assume they are that person who is likely to spread it. 

It's Russian Roulette, but with other people's lives. 

I do not think this is a reasonable assumption.  Just because I do not know something, I do not assume something that is UNLIKELY is the case.  It is unlikely I will have a stroke while I am driving today and cause a deadly wreck, but I don't know who that person will be, and I don't assume that I am.  It is unlikely that I have measles, but I might be the person who does and spread it, but I don't assume that I am the person who will.  No one says I am playing Russian Roulette with other people's lives when I engage in many activities that I know there is some positive (but unlikely) chance of occurring.

Personally, I am being extremely careful, and I would encourage others to be.  But, just as I need to base my understanding of the virus on the science and knowledge we have, I need to base my risk calculations on knowledge and science of probability.  This is a serious virus and we are still learning a lot about it.  It needs to be approached with clear thinking.  When we start with assumptions we know to be false, we are not likely to reach good conclusions.  I also think we are much better able to talk to those who we would like to influence if we show well-reasoned arguments that include reasonable assumptions.  

[ktgrok]

10 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I do not think this is a reasonable assumption.  Just because I do not know something, I do not assume something that is UNLIKELY is the case.  It is unlikely I will have a stroke while I am driving today and cause a deadly wreck, but I don't know who that person will be, and I don't assume that I am.  It is unlikely that I have measles, but I might be the person who does and spread it, but I don't assume that I am the person who will.  No one says I am playing Russian Roulette with other people's lives when I engage in many activities that I know there is some positive (but unlikely) chance of occurring.

Personally, I am being extremely careful, and I would encourage others to be.  But, just as I need to base my understanding of the virus on the science and knowledge we have, I need to base my risk calculations on knowledge and science of probability.  This is a serious virus and we are still learning a lot about it.  It needs to be approached with clear thinking.  When we start with assumptions we know to be false, we are not likely to reach good conclusions.  I also think we are much better able to talk to those who we would like to influence if we show well-reasoned arguments that include reasonable assumptions.  

Well, about 10,000 people a day in my state are coming to the wrong conclusion regarding the risk of their activities, or they did understand the risk and did it anyway. How do you suggest we address that? by slumber parties?

As for car crashes, there are about 650 car crashes per day in my state. Because of that, we take precautions like staying in our lane, not texting while driving, etc. If you were texting while driving I'd say yes, that is like playing russian roulette.

There are 10,000 cases of Covid (that we know about) per day. If car crashes were more than 10 times more likely than they are now, we'd need to take even more precautions. 

Having a party indoors in Florida right now is like texting while driving. Not like getting in the car and following all the safety precautions. 

Edited August 2, 2020 by Ktgrok

[Bootsie]

13 hours ago, kand said:

To me the issue is that while the chance that any one particular person is going to be the one to spread it is low, the probability is additive, so when you’ve got hundreds, or even thousands of people all making that same assessment that their risk of spreading it is very low, all those small probabilities add up to be a very large chance of spread, and indeed it is spreading.  Of course, each person thinks that they are the exception and they are unlikely to spread, but someone is going to be that person. And about 20% of the time, that person spreading it is actually going to spread it to a large number of people.  So how do we manage that?  Who gets to decide that they are the one who’s unlikely to spread it when we know that the consequence of everyone deciding that their individual risk of spreading is low means that the overall risk is extremely high?

Yeah, I totally get people making careful, calculated judgments in trying to provide some safe socializing  for their kids. I like the idea above about the kids having an outdoor camp out. There are various options for people to do it relatively safely right now. Having a slumber party in a hotspot is just not one of those. That shouldn’t be an all or nothing thing – – the fact that your kid really needs some time with friends doesn’t need to mean it’s in a group indoor sleepover environment.

Yes, there is a systemic risk in this situation.  Early on, much of the talk was about flattening the curve so that the hospital system is not overwhelmed.  That public health concern is real and serious.  I would like to see more discussion from public health officials about this type of risk and discussion of how to handle it.  When people are told that they should assume they are likely to infect someone (when that is not what science tells us) and they feel that they are being lied to and they are less likely to be cooperative.  

I am curious about the 20% number.  Is that the percentage of people thought to be superspreaders?  Where is that number coming from?  

[ktgrok]

Another way to compare to your example of driving, and how just getting in the car is not viewed as playing Russian Roulette. 

What if you got in the car in white out conditions in a snow storm, or when it was raining so hard you couldn't see past the windshield, roads were slick, people are hydroplaning, etc? That WOULD be like playing Russian Roulette, even though driving in normal times is not. Because the risk is so much higher. 

Having a slumber party in some places in the world is likely not dangerous. This is the information on my state, as of today. Having an indoor party,for hours, in these conditions, is NOT okay. If it was one family in the whole state? Sure. But if everyone only judges their individual risk, that risk adds up. Same as getting on the highway when conditions are not safe. 

 

[happi duck]

It isn't lying to say "assume you have it, behave as if you have it".  Afaik, no one is saying "assume you have it because you probably do".

Everyone needs to do the hard things especially in hot spots and stop thinking they'll never be the one spreading it.

While things get figured out people need to massively err on the side of caution.  

It's wrong to gamble with the lives of others.

[Garga]

15 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Another way to compare to your example of driving, and how just getting in the car is not viewed as playing Russian Roulette. 

What if you got in the car in white out conditions in a snow storm, or when it was raining so hard you couldn't see past the windshield, roads were slick, people are hydroplaning, etc? That WOULD be like playing Russian Roulette, even though driving in normal times is not. Because the risk is so much higher. 

Having a slumber party in some places in the world is likely not dangerous. This is the information on my state, as of today. Having an indoor party,for hours, in these conditions, is NOT okay. If it was one family in the whole state? Sure. But if everyone only judges their individual risk, that risk adds up. Same as getting on the highway when conditions are not safe. 

 

What site is that from? Does it include other states? I’d like to look up mine.  Thank you.

[Bootsie]

10 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Well, about 10,000 people a day in my state are coming to the wrong conclusion regarding the risk of their activities, or they did understand the risk and did it anyway. How do you suggest we address that? by slumber parties?

As for car crashes, there are about 650 car crashes per day in my state. Because of that, we take precautions like staying in our lane, not texting while driving, etc. If you were texting while driving I'd say yes, that is like playing russian roulette.

There are 10,000 cases of Covid (that we know about) per day. If car crashes were more than 10 times more likely than they are now, we'd need to take even more precautions. 

Having a party indoors in Florida right now is like texting while driving. Not like getting in the car and following all the safety precautions. 

I am not sure how you are saying that they came to the wrong conclusion regarding the risk.  Did over 21 million people in Florida come to the correct conclusion about the risk?  Coming to a conclusion about risk does not mean avoiding an outcome or perfectly predicting the outcome for a particular event.  Risk has to do with probability and uncertainty.  If I have a fair die, I can perfectly calculate the risk of rolling a six; it is 1/6.  If I say it is unlikely to land on 6 and it is more likely to not land on six, and then I roll the die and it lands on six it doesn't mean that I came to the wrong conclusion regarding six.  Yes, what I said was unlikely to occur was the event that occurred, but the risk calculation was not wrong.  

I have never suggested, or supported, slumber parties.  My discussion has focused on what risk means.  As long as there is a greater than zero percent chance of something occurring, there is a risk that it will happen.  I think it is safe to assume that the chance of spreading COVID is greater than zero.  The question then becomes, what is that percent chance and is that a percent chance I am willing to take?  The first part of that question is scientific, and we don't have full knowledge, of what the answer is--we have to work with what information we have for those statistics.  The second part of the question is a value judgment and I think a reasonable person can come to a different conclusion regarding that.  

The statistics I see show over 1000 crashes in Florida each day.  Given that a crash usually involves at least 2 cars and there are often other passengers in a car, that would suggest that over 2000 people a day are involved in car crashes in Florida.  So, the incidence of a person being involved in a car crash in Florida is probably well over the 650 per day number in your example.  Yet I don't say I should assume that I am going to be a person in an accident today.  Would you conclude that the 2000 people in accident drew the wrong conclusion about their risk?  

[Bootsie]

26 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Another way to compare to your example of driving, and how just getting in the car is not viewed as playing Russian Roulette. 

What if you got in the car in white out conditions in a snow storm, or when it was raining so hard you couldn't see past the windshield, roads were slick, people are hydroplaning, etc? That WOULD be like playing Russian Roulette, even though driving in normal times is not. Because the risk is so much higher. 

Having a slumber party in some places in the world is likely not dangerous. This is the information on my state, as of today. Having an indoor party,for hours, in these conditions, is NOT okay. If it was one family in the whole state? Sure. But if everyone only judges their individual risk, that risk adds up. Same as getting on the highway when conditions are not safe. 

You must have some measure of risk which, to you, is the point where you consider it Russian Roulllete.  Is that 1%, 10%, 50%?  

If more slumber parties are held this weekend, the risk of infection does not change.  The NUMBER of cases changes.  If I roll a die one time the chance of it landing on six is 1/6.  If I roll the die 1000 times, the risk of a six on each throw is still 1/6; the risk has not increased.  I will get a lot more 6's if I roll the die 1000 times, but it isn't because the risk has changed or added up. 

From the statistics in the graphic, the chances that a random person in Florida was diagnosed with COVID today is 0.04%.  If I was around 2500 people in Florida yesterday, I probably was around ONE of these people.  

I would agree that it is unwise to have an indoor slumber party in that environment, but not because the risk is high or because I am assuming that I would likely be a carrier, it is because of the overall number of cases flooding the hospitals now.  

[ktgrok]

Ok, is it better if I say they came to the wrong conclusion about their outcome, rather than their risk?

They chanced it, and it worked out badly?

HOwever you want to say it, people in the conditions I am in, should not be having parties indoors, which are the riskiest of activities. That is value judgement, and one I'm happy to make. We all make value judgements every day. If you drive drunk, if you set a fire during a burn ban due to drought, etc. 

I'm sorry my phrasing wasn't totally accurate, but that's really beside the point. No, people should not decide that their personal risk is low, and do the activities we are asked not to do, because if enough people do them, we have more spread, and will end up with refrigerator trucks for morgues. A party is not worth that. 

 

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

 

I would agree that it is unwise to have an indoor slumber party in that environment, but not because the risk is high or because I am assuming that I would likely be a carrier, it is because of the overall number of cases flooding the hospitals now.  

I am certain that I made that exact point in several of my posts in this thread. That in other places, it may be fine. But given our circumstances it is NOT FINE to have a party. I don't honestly give a flying fig how that gets worded or explained, the fact is, people need to STOP HAVING PARTIES. That was my point. That the rest of us have to deal with the fall out from those parties. And we are, frankly, sick of it. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

There is still a risk of contracting COVID19 if I am masked and socially distanced.  But that risk goes up a lot if I don't.  Being chronically ill and in pain, a lot of life is painful and difficult for me.  I still try to do "best practices".  Masking, socially distancing and limiting group size is best practices during a pandemic - even in places that are not a hotspot. (Because it is spreading in areas that were not hotspots before and in places where people thought would never become hotspots).   If you look at the Are You Social Distancing thread you will not that I am not a hermit.  I am still living life and running errands and getting medical care.  There is a continuum of social interaction while still maintaining the standard of masking, social distancing and limiting group size. 

 

[ktgrok]

This is why I'm angry - yes - ANGRY- at people having parties in a hot spot. 

"I’ve been shocked sometimes when I walk in and see the patients. Most of the ones I’ve intubated are young — 30s, 40s, 50s. These are people who walked into the ER because they were coughing a day or two ago, or sometimes hours ago. By the time I come into the room, they are in severe respiratory distress. Their oxygen level might be 70 or 80 percent instead of 100, which is alarming. They are taking 40 breaths a minute when they should be taking 12 or 14. They have no oxygen reserves. They are pale and exhausted. It puts them in a mental fog, and sometimes they don’t hear me when I introduce myself. Some are panicky and gasping. Others are mumbling or incoherent. Last week, one patient was crying and asking to use my phone so they could call family and say goodbye, but their oxygen levels were dropping, and we didn’t have time, and I couldn’t risk bringing my phone in and contaminating it with virus, and the whole thing was impossible. I kept apologizing. I just —. I don’t know. I have to find a way to hold it together in order to do this job. I tear up sometimes, and if I do, it can fog up my face shield."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/05/youre-basically-right-next-nuclear-reactor/?arc404=true

[Jean in Newcastle]

I said this once on a thread awhile ago but an invisible viral threat makes risk assessment difficult. If infected people glowed orange then it would be easy to avoid groups with any people who glowed orange. But we don’t know if a group has zero infected people ( in which case obviously no one could contract it) or if there is one or many. There has been an assumption that rural areas etc don’t have anyone infected to pass it on but that is no longer a valid assumption as the virus has now spread to those areas. And since spread is exponential and delayed (in seeing effects) you don’t know that it’s been silently spreading until it’s too late.  

[Bootsie]

26 minutes ago, kand said:

 

Right. I think everyone understands this. But if the consequence of rolling a six is that someone loses a finger, then it’s not going to be very wise for 100 different people to all take a turn at rolling the die, just because each of them know that their personally chance of rolling a six is only 1/6. There would be 16.67 fingers lost that way. 

I don't think you can decide if this would be wise or not without knowing what happens when a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 is rolled.  If there are positive outcomes associated with the other 5 possibilities, then one must decide whether it is worth a 1/6 chance of losing a finger; different people who are reasonably considering and accurately calculating the risk may come to different conclusions.  

[rebcoola]

18 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I am curious as to whether they have any idea of why this would be a main source of spread.  Is it really much more easily spread outdoors than we think?  Are people outdoors but very close to each other for extended periods of time?  Is it the sharing of food?  Is it people going into the house to get food?  Go to the bathroom?

I don't think they have said just that contact tracing is showing it back to the event.  I would assume people are not distancing and masking and probably sharing food.  Just from my own observations. 

[Bootsie]

6 minutes ago, rebcoola said:

I don't think they have said just that contact tracing is showing it back to the event.  I would assume people are not distancing and masking and probably sharing food.  Just from my own observations. 

It would be helpful to know if there is some behavior that makes it more risky than outdoor dining at a restaurant.  There was a small backyard BBQ in my area that resulted in 14 cases.  Some local reporting was so bad that news articles literally said that of the six people attending, 14 got sick.  There were only 6 people at the BBQ--a couple, his two parents, and her two parents.  All six became ill and other family members were ill.  They don't know who had it first,  The BBQ could not have caused all 14 cases. Perhaps one of the extended family members (who was around one of the attendees) was sick before the BBQ, and had infected one of the couples attending, who then spread it to the other attendees.  But, it isn't like you would have had zero people sick without the BBQ and you have 14 sick with the BBQ.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

It would be helpful to know if there is some behavior that makes it more risky than outdoor dining at a restaurant.  There was a small backyard BBQ in my area that resulted in 14 cases.  Some local reporting was so bad that news articles literally said that of the six people attending, 14 got sick.  There were only 6 people at the BBQ--a couple, his two parents, and her two parents.  All six became ill and other family members were ill.  They don't know who had it first,  The BBQ could not have caused all 14 cases. Perhaps one of the extended family members (who was around one of the attendees) was sick before the BBQ, and had infected one of the couples attending, who then spread it to the other attendees.  But, it isn't like you would have had zero people sick without the BBQ and you have 14 sick with the BBQ.  

But you can have 14 sick BECAUSE of the BBQ.  ie.  an infected person from the bbq took it home or spread it to other contacts.  If the BBQ hadn't happened, then the initial infected person might have spread it elsewhere or if he/she had self quarantined, then that particular infection chain could have stopped with them. 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, kand said:

Yes, the 20% rate is referring to the most recent number I saw on super spreaders.

I am seeing a few conflicting numbers:  but I am finding several places that suggest that 20% of the cases result in 80% of the infections; 10% result in the other 20% of infections; and that 70% of infected people do not spread the infection to another person.  

[Junie]

We could have been so much farther through this pandemic if people would have done what needed to be done.

100 percent of us are still dealing with this because whatever percent decided that staying home wasn't fun.

They're right.  It isn't fun.  But it's necessary.  And the longer it takes for some people to realize this, the longer this is going to last.

No one is living a normal life right now.  Some are trying, but it isn't normal.  And it won't be until people take this more seriously.

I am so frustrated that whatever percent have decided that living life at partially normal is good enough, even though it prevents us from getting back to the real normal.

[Bootsie]

5 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

But you can have 14 sick BECAUSE of the BBQ.  ie.  an infected person from the bbq took it home or spread it to other contacts.  If the BBQ hadn't happened, then the initial infected person might have spread it elsewhere or if he/she had self quarantined, then that particular infection chain could have stopped with them. 

You can, but that is not what is being reported.  If one of the people was sick and their spouse got it, they probably would have gotten it anyway without the BBQ occurring.  If they are going to see the other family members whether or not the BBQ occurred, then they would be infecting others and those people are not getting sick BECAUSE of the BBQ.   At most 13 people could have gotten sick because of the BBQ, but one person had to be sick to start with; at least one of the six people (who was having other contact with the 13 people) had to initially be sick.  

[wendyroo]

37 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I don't think you can decide if this would be wise or not without knowing what happens when a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 is rolled.  If there are positive outcomes associated with the other 5 possibilities, then one must decide whether it is worth a 1/6 chance of losing a finger; different people who are reasonably considering and accurately calculating the risk may come to different conclusions.  

But I think it gets much more complicated when you deciding to roll the dice means someone else has the one sixth chance of losing the finger.

So, a family decides that it is reasonable to have a backyard BBQ for 10 people.  Statistically none of the attendants should have COVID, but one of them does.  That sick person passes the virus on to 5 other BBQers.  So far, everyone effected had chosen to roll the dice.  But then one of the newly sick kids goes to summer camp, infects his counselor, who then takes the virus home where it kills her father.  One of the newly sick people takes the virus to the grocery store where it infects the cashier who has to spend two months in the hospital.  One of the newly sick people ends up at the hospital where he infects and kills the doctor caring for him.

Do the BBQers have the right to decide it is reasonable for other people to lose fingers?  Personally, I think that tips the moral scale somewhat.  I will always be less ethically comfortable taking risks when I am not the only person who may be negatively impacted...I think that is a foundation of a just society.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I don't think you can decide if this would be wise or not without knowing what happens when a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 is rolled.  If there are positive outcomes associated with the other 5 possibilities, then one must decide whether it is worth a 1/6 chance of losing a finger; different people who are reasonably considering and accurately calculating the risk may come to different conclusions.  

Yeah, but I'm pretty tired of partiers deciding if their party is worth  other people losing a finger. Those other people don't get the benefit, just the risk. 

58 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

It would be helpful to know if there is some behavior that makes it more risky than outdoor dining at a restaurant.  

Well, we had spread connected to outdoor dining at restaurants here too. Patios were packed. 

[EmseB]

13 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Well, we had spread connected to outdoor dining at restaurants here too. Patios were packed. 

An aside, but do you have documentation or info on outdoor spread? I'm still trying to track some this down.

I was looking at that infamous Ozarks pool bar thing a while back and could only find two (?) cases connected and have seen few other real life examples.

Edited August 3, 2020 by EmseB

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, EmseB said:

An aside, but do you have documentation or info on outdoor spread? I'm still trying to track some this down.

I was looking at that infamous Ozarks pool bar thing a while back and could only find two (?) cases connected and have seen few other real life examples.

There were articles a while back, but basically it was self reporting, contact tracing, etc. But not like, just people at tables 6 feet apart outside - it was places with packed patios, no distancing, lots of drinking, etc. 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, wendyroo said:

But I think it gets much more complicated when you deciding to roll the dice means someone else has the one sixth chance of losing the finger.

So, a family decides that it is reasonable to have a backyard BBQ for 10 people.  Statistically none of the attendants should have COVID, but one of them does.  That sick person passes the virus on to 5 other BBQers.  So far, everyone effected had chosen to roll the dice.  But then one of the newly sick kids goes to summer camp, infects his counselor, who then takes the virus home where it kills her father.  One of the newly sick people takes the virus to the grocery store where it infects the cashier who has to spend two months in the hospital.  One of the newly sick people ends up at the hospital where he infects and kills the doctor caring for him.

Do the BBQers have the right to decide it is reasonable for other people to lose fingers?  Personally, I think that tips the moral scale somewhat.  I will always be less ethically comfortable taking risks when I am not the only person who may be negatively impacted...I think that is a foundation of a just society.

I would agree that morally the fact that we might negatively impact someone else from our decision should come into play.  The question is, how much of role should that play in any given situation, and I think well-meaning, responsible, just people will come to different conclusions.  Personally, I would not decide to have a backyard BBQ for 10 people, but I can understand why others may choose to do so.  If they estimate that 1% of the population is infected and not know it, there is a 90% chance that no one at the party has the virus (or a 10% chance that someone does).  If the statistics are correct that 70% of the people infected do not infect another person, if we were unlucky and that 1 in 100 person was there, it is still more likely that no one else would be infected.  If there is a 10% chance that Event A occurs and then only a 30% chance that Event B occurs, risk of the "what ifs" happening are low.  (It would even be lower than that because there is 30% chance that some people that the infected person comes into contact with become infected--not a 30% chance that each person the infected person comes into contact with is infected).  For some, that may be too high of a risk to live with, but I think few of us will be willing to wait until the chance is 0% that we are infected and unknowingly pass on the virus .  I think different people will come up with a different % chance that they are ethically comfortable with and I am not comfortable saying that my % is correct and someone else's is too high or too low--especially when I do not know all of the factors that are going into their decision.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Bootsie

[wendyroo]

3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I would agree that morally the fact that we might negatively impact someone else from our decision should come into play.  The question is, how much of role should that play in any given situation, and I think well-meaning, responsible, just people will come to different conclusions.  Personally, I would not decide to have a backyard BBQ for 

I agree with the bolded completely. But I also think there are many, many people who are not acting in well-meaning, responsible, just ways right now. There are people breaking and circumventing public health laws. People lying about their health and exposures. People arguing and getting violent when asked to following masking rules in businesses. 
 

Of course there are reasonable people weighing the risks and rewards and making slightly different decisions. But I also think there are many very selfish people who are willfully ignoring the costs of their actions and blithely doing whatever they damn well please with no regard for the innocent victims they are hurting. 

[ktgrok]

10 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I would agree that morally the fact that we might negatively impact someone else from our decision should come into play.  The question is, how much of role should that play in any given situation, and I think well-meaning, responsible, just people will come to different conclusions.  Personally, I would not decide to have a backyard BBQ for 10 people, but I can understand why others may choose to do so.  If they estimate that 1% of the population is infected and not know it, there is a 90% chance that no one at the party has the virus (or a 10% chance that someone does).  If the statistics are correct that 70% of the people infected do not infect another person, if we were unlucky and that 1 in 100 person was there, it is still more likely that no one else would be infected.  If there is a 10% chance that Event A occurs and then only a 30% chance that Event B occurs, risk of the "what ifs" happening are low.  (It would even be lower than that because there is 30% chance that some people that the infected person comes into contact with become infected--not a 30% chance that each person the infected person comes into contact with is infected).  For some, that may be too high of a risk to live with, but I think few of us will be willing to wait until the chance is 0% that we are infected and unknowingly pass on the virus .  I think different people will come up with a different % chance that they are ethically comfortable with and I am not comfortable saying that my % is correct and someone else's is too high or too low--especially when I do not know all of the factors that are going into their decision.

So, again, Bootsie...if this is a reasonable assessment to make, how do you square the extreme unlikelihood of people spreading it with the fact that there is so much spread?

If they were the oNLY people having a barbecue, sure, the risks are not that high. But that's not how it works. LOTS and lots of people are having parties, and doing unsafe things, and that adds up until we have full ICUs and doctors with PTSD from the constant stress. 

So, given that, no, it is NOT REASONABLE to have a PARTY in a hot spot during a pandemic! I don't care if they are ethically comfortable with it - the parties are making this worse. No one said "risk of zero" but seriously, are you saying that it is ethically justifiable to have parties, given the situation we are in? And if so, should people just not bother at all to curtail activities? No matter how bad it is? I mean, what restrictions ARE reasonable in a hot spot, if slumber parties are okay?

 

[Paige]

4 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

 Only when those cases spread too rapidly and too quickly can you talk much of the public into increasing safety measures again.

And then it's too late. Why do so many people have to wait for it to get to disaster levels before recognizing the danger? This isn't driving without a seat belt or motorcycle helmet but drunk driving. 

[HeartString]

I wish more people would use this tool from Georgia Tech, do they aren’t just guessing at the risk.  
 

https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu

If I’m reading it right it shows you the chances of having 1 person with Covid at your event.  Setting it to *10 people* and picking random Florida counties... 

Columbia County 92% chance

Palm Beach 47%

Polk County 42% 

judging by the colors on the map most counties in Florida are above a 40% chance, with one or two being around 25% and a few being in the 90% range, when I set to 10 people. When it’s set to 100 people the whole thing looks like the 90% range.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

To be fair, places that did get numbers down, including Japan, France, Australia, etc, are seeing spikes as they reopen too. It’s a pandemic, that’s how these things go when there isn’t a vaccine. It’s hard to say that people who returned to normal (especially because of low numbers in their local area) are causing problems, when increased contact and social behavior was going to cause numbers to go up inherently. This was known and understood, it’s not a surprise?

Areas suppressing business and social behavior when there isn’t a compelling need dictated by the medical resources are causing damage, just not health damage. The balance of public trust means you cannot really call for rolling back or shutting life down until the local situation dictates it is needed. And then when things reopen again, numbers will rise again. Hopefully slowly and steadily.

But returning to baseline behavior and activities is a reasonable thing, and the goal. You’re going to get the buy in of almost nobody if you shut things down every time they’ve opened back up because cases increase. That’s the way it works. Only when those cases spread too rapidly and too quickly can you talk much of the public into increasing safety measures again.

Japan never shut down most businesses but people were masking, social distancing (to some extent but not as much due to crowded conditions) and limiting group size. What is driving spread there now (snd it’s going up) is behavior of young people at bars where they are not masked and inhibitors etc are affected by alcohol. This “success story “. can get ugly really fast because now it’s starting to hit the elderly in a country with the oldest population. (Initial spread there was mostly in the younger generation). 

[Jean in Newcastle]

50 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

Oh I agree, they need to adjust and tamp down as numbers increase. But that’s my point - they were touted for months, and like any other country returning to baseline the numbers will increase with those exposures and adjustments have to be made to keep it manageable with the health resources available, if possible. There are countries like Haiti where it just has to fly through because of the poverty and lack of available help, which is a different kettle of fish. Even estimating death rates there is very, very difficult.

I’m a realist, I didn’t expect any country to continue having low or no cases if there is no vaccine. I’m more surprised by those who are surprised - we really are in the middle of the game, not the end. Life goes on and as things get worse behavior should change, as it gets better behavior changes the other way. It’s like a seesaw, which is reasonable and expected.

I know I said it earlier in the thread, but I still don’t think things like slumber parties are sensible in an area with fairly significant community spread. There are lots of social activities that can be done safely, but close quarters sleeping activities like camp and such seem, uh, imprudent at the moment.

Fortunately the government in Haiti isn't so calloused with regards to the health and safety of their people.  They have instituted curfews, closures and other measures to curb the virus. 

Our economy can do just fine if we have masked socially distanced bbqs.  Others have given examples of sleepovers in socially distanced tents which again allow for some special times but in a responsible way.  Our society can go on without massive drunken parties and if it can't, then there is something wrong there.  And those are the types of activities which are the subject of this particular thread. 

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, Cnew02 said:

I wish more people would use this tool from Georgia Tech, do they aren’t just guessing at the risk.  
 

https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu

If I’m reading it right it shows you the chances of having 1 person with Covid at your event.  Setting it to *10 people* and picking random Florida counties... 

Columbia County 92% chance

Palm Beach 47%

Polk County 42% 

judging by the colors on the map most counties in Florida are above a 40% chance, with one or two being around 25% and a few being in the 90% range, when I set to 10 people. When it’s set to 100 people the whole thing looks like the 90% range.  
 

yup. I'm in Orange County. In a group of 10 people risk is estimated at 46%. That's pretty much a 50/50 chance of somone (or all of them) losing a finger, per the analogy. 

(I will say that I looked up Columbia county, and they have a horrible prison outbreak there, so the numbers in the regular population are probably much lower - and much higher in the prison itself. Orange hasn't had any outbreaks limited to a particular population like prisons, migrant camps, etc..it's spread across the population so that 46% would be across the board)

1 hour ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

Life goes on and as things get worse behavior should change, as it gets better behavior changes the other way. It’s like a seesaw, which is reasonable and expected.

I know I said it earlier in the thread, but I still don’t think things like slumber parties are sensible in an area with fairly significant community spread. There are lots of social activities that can be done safely, but close quarters sleeping activities like camp and such seem, uh, imprudent at the moment.

Yeah, my complaint is the people acting like idiots while on the wrong end of the see-saw. 

[Bootsie]

4 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

So, again, Bootsie...if this is a reasonable assessment to make, how do you square the extreme unlikelihood of people spreading it with the fact that there is so much spread?

If they were the oNLY people having a barbecue, sure, the risks are not that high. But that's not how it works. LOTS and lots of people are having parties, and doing unsafe things, and that adds up until we have full ICUs and doctors with PTSD from the constant stress. 

So, given that, no, it is NOT REASONABLE to have a PARTY in a hot spot during a pandemic! I don't care if they are ethically comfortable with it - the parties are making this worse. No one said "risk of zero" but seriously, are you saying that it is ethically justifiable to have parties, given the situation we are in? And if so, should people just not bother at all to curtail activities? No matter how bad it is? I mean, what restrictions ARE reasonable in a hot spot, if slumber parties are okay?

 

Statistically it is unlikely that someone is CVOID positive and is unlikely to unknowingly spread it to a large number of people.  It is not at odds to say that it is extremely unlikely that something is going to happen, but there is a large number of occurrences when you look at a large population.  Are you measuring "so much spread" by the number of cases in your area?  If so, that is because there are a LARGE number of people you are multiplying a unlikely event by.  What do you think the likelihood that an individual person is positive in your state?  What do you think that the probability that they will infect one other person?  Two other people?  I cannot tell if we greatly disagree regarding those probabilities.  If we disagree about the probabilities, we can look at some of the COVID data and see what is a reasonable assumption; if we disagree about the probabilities as a starting point, we will come up with a different conclusion.

I am not saying that someone is ethically justifiable to have parties.  I would need a lot more information to make a decision of whether I thought the situation was ethical.  Is the slumber party outdoors?  Is the slumber party three children in one family having their two cousins from another household which they have been spending a lot of time with anyway?  The title "slumber party"  doesn't make something more risky.   

[ktgrok]

26 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Statistically it is unlikely that someone is CVOID positive and is unlikely to unknowingly spread it to a large number of people.  It is not at odds to say that it is extremely unlikely that something is going to happen, but there is a large number of occurrences when you look at a large population.  Are you measuring "so much spread" by the number of cases in your area?  If so, that is because there are a LARGE number of people you are multiplying a unlikely event by.  What do you think the likelihood that an individual person is positive in your state?  What do you think that the probability that they will infect one other person?  Two other people?  I cannot tell if we greatly disagree regarding those probabilities.  If we disagree about the probabilities, we can look at some of the COVID data and see what is a reasonable assumption; if we disagree about the probabilities as a starting point, we will come up with a different conclusion.

I am not saying that someone is ethically justifiable to have parties.  I would need a lot more information to make a decision of whether I thought the situation was ethical.  Is the slumber party outdoors?  Is the slumber party three children in one family having their two cousins from another household which they have been spending a lot of time with anyway?  The title "slumber party"  doesn't make something more risky.   

Honestly? I don't mean this as an attack, or whatever, but I do not have the mental energy to debate and discuss semantics when so much has to go to keeping my family safe. People are dying. My husband may lose his job. My sister has asthma and is about to be in a building with 3-4 thousand people on a daily basis, many of whom will be positive.  My mother is incredibly high risk and has needed doctors' appointments.  My oldest who has an undeterminable risk is going out into the community every day for work (his father died from cardiomyopathy caused by a viral infection, and his father's sister also went into end stage cardiomyopathy but got a transplant in time - we don't know for sure if a virus was also the trigger, or what genetic link there is that my son may have - his cardiologist just doesn't know - but a virus known to cause cardiomyopathy is pretty scary for him right now). 

So people deciding that their personal risk benefit of having parties is worth risking my loved one's lives is not leaving me the mental space to debate the exact semantics of it all. 

We have hospitals past capacity. We have doctors and nurses in the ICU wards begging people to be more responsible. And people are acting as if nothing is going on. I'm sorry if I haven't managed to phrase it properly, or used the proper mathematical terminology. 

But you know what? I don't need any of that to say that the behavior I'm seeing in my area is irresponsible, selfish, and dangerous. 

[Bootsie]

43 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

yup. I'm in Orange County. In a group of 10 people risk is estimated at 46%. That's pretty much a 50/50 chance of somone (or all of them) losing a finger, per the analogy. 

(I will say that I looked up Columbia county, and they have a horrible prison outbreak there, so the numbers in the regular population are probably much lower - and much higher in the prison itself. Orange hasn't had any outbreaks limited to a particular population like prisons, migrant camps, etc..it's spread across the population so that 46% would be across the board)

Yeah, my complaint is the people acting like idiots while on the wrong end of the see-saw. 

No, it is not. anywhere near a 50/50 chance that all of them will lose a finger.  That is not a correct interpretation of these statistics.

If randomly, 6% of the population is positive, there is a 94% chance that someone is not positive.  So there is .94^10 that everyone at the party is negative,  or a 54% chance that everyone is negative and a 46% chance that someone is positive.  That is the probability that someone is positive--most people who are positive do not spread the infection to 10 people--so there is not anywhere near a 46% chance that all of them will become infected (much less lose a finger).  I am not saying that these number aren't serious, but the conclusion that there is a 50/50 chance that all of them will lose a finger is not a reasonable conclusion.

[ktgrok]

8 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

No, it is not. anywhere near a 50/50 chance that all of them will lose a finger.  That is not a correct interpretation of these statistics.

If randomly, 6% of the population is positive, there is a 94% chance that someone is not positive.  So there is .94^10 that everyone at the party is negative,  or a 54% chance that everyone is negative and a 46% chance that someone is positive.  That is the probability that someone is positive--most people who are positive do not spread the infection to 10 people--so there is not anywhere near a 46% chance that all of them will become infected (much less lose a finger).  I am not saying that these number aren't serious, but the conclusion that there is a 50/50 chance that all of them will lose a finger is not a reasonable conclusion.

Back to semantics? The part in parenthesis was meant to show a possibility - not saying it was the same probability as the rest of the sentence. I realize that the potential for all vs one to be infected is different. Of course, that doesn't take into account how many are then infected by however many get it at the party, etc etc. 

Can you please, just agree that people shouldn't be having social gatherings indoors - as a general rule - in a place where the virus is at such high levels? 

And if not, just say that. 

But I'm not seeing the purpose of your argument. At all. What is your goal, in arguing the exact math and details? whatver the theory is, I'm seeing the on the ground effects. I KNOW people who are currently sick with this thing. I know a COVID nurse who is at her breaking point dealing with this, at the local hospital. Does the exact mechanism of the math matter, when the effects are so obvious and real?

You are coming across as caring more about the theoretical aspects than the actual people involved. I'm sure that is not truly the case. But that's what it feels like. 

And just now, I saw on Facebook a selfie of two moms from my old church group who ran into eachother in public, and got freaking face to face, no masks, to snap a photo. 

Closed the app. I just can't deal with people doing what we are NOT supposed to do, according to health department guidelines, and then having to argue about the damned algorithms of why it is wrong. 

Edited August 3, 2020 by Ktgrok

[Tenaj]

Received an email last night about my dh's extended family reunion, scheduled for the second week in August.  We haven't gone in years abut they were actually planning to have this reunion, full of elderly people, and actually said in the email, that they were planning to have it as usual, at one of the elderly relative's houses!  What!  This is the disconnect I have.  When I haven't seen my grandgirls for a month, this group thinks it's ok to have a family reunion with people coming from multiple states!  One of the elderly members of the email group sent a response that included the words "pandemic" and "unwise" so I was glad I didn't have to do it.  I think it will be cancelled but what were the organizers thinking???!!!

 

 

[Bootsie]

16 hours ago, wendyroo said:

I agree with the bolded completely. But I also think there are many, many people who are not acting in well-meaning, responsible, just ways right now. There are people breaking and circumventing public health laws. People lying about their health and exposures. People arguing and getting violent when asked to following masking rules in businesses. 
 

Of course there are reasonable people weighing the risks and rewards and making slightly different decisions. But I also think there are many very selfish people who are willfully ignoring the costs of their actions and blithely doing whatever they damn well please with no regard for the innocent victims they are hurting. 

I am sure that there are people breaking and circumventing lock restrictions, and I would in no way defend that.  Personally, however, I am not seeing that occurring in my area.  I live in the middle of a college neighborhood and I am not seeing parties and large gatherings.  When I go to the store, I am seeing almost 100% compliance with face covering regulations.  Maybe I just don't get out that much.  I also do not have younger children that I have to make decisions regarding their participating in activities and socializing, so I am removed from those conversations.  Personally, I am seeing more people who are blaming, criticizing, and judging others for their decisions than I am seeing selfish, risky behavior--I know that does not meant he selfish, risky behavior is not occurring, it just isn't my personal experience.