More than 100 Covid cases (so far) in 8 States traced to Sturgis Rally...who knew?

[Happy2BaMom]

Article here.

I'm so sick of belligerently ignorant people. I'm tired of watching earnest young people, small business owners, and the poor/struggling pay the price for this virus while MANY others, in MANY places (not just Sturgis) woop it up with an FU attitude.

Rant over.  

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Happy2BaMom

[RootAnn]

Snort.

Who knew indeed. SMH.

[Lady Florida.]

How could this have happened? Oh, wait. 

Agreeing completely with your rant. 

[Miss Tick]

"Sanitizing sidewalks" ? What??

 

[sassenach]

6 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

460,000+ went to Sturgis for up to 10 days.

Almost two weeks later, 100-ish infections are reported.

That's far LOWER than the background US rate. I think the context matters a bit with the numbers. 
 

Now would I have held the rally? Nope. But I think they controlled pretty well given the sheer volume of people.

Right, but to be clear, this is the beginning of the reporting period. We have no idea what the final number will be (or the spread beyond the attendees). 

[catz]

Well to be fair we will never know the real numbers or what kind of spread  a large event that requires travel will stretch beyond this.  It's clear it was spreading there.  I know at least 1 particular bar was identified.  Masks were not required.  Plenty of places still aren't doing a good job with testing or tracing.  However, I don't worry about the outdoor spread much anymore.  Especially with people milling about or motorcycling and not being in a particular person's bubble for extended periods of time.   

[historically accurate]

38 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

There is that, but the initial event really controlled it pretty well *shrug*. That doesn’t mean people wouldn’t spread it to people, but that’s the case anywhere. The actual event doesn’t appear to have involved major transmission like, say, the college parties and such. Especially given the age and demographics at the rally I’d say they did well with it, though probably still shouldn’t have done it this year. But bashing them like it’s some major spread event isn’t really honest either, with the data we have.

I try to be fair with this.

The other side of that is the people who attended Sturgis aren't all together after the party; they are spread throughout the USA. So, if they're up to attending Sturgis, they probably also go to parties at home, attend whatever around their home area. The article states that they can't tie some people actually to Sturgis because they have other exposure opportunities. The college students don't disperse, so it's assumed they got it at the college. So they report the 500 as a "college outbreak". Also, they may not be being tested at the same rate that colleges are testing. People who attended Sturgis would have to decide, and be able to get, a Covid test. Some colleges are requiring testing if you've been in contact with a positive case, and some are doing it at random.

You are right, it is not as bad as feared, but 100 people who may have spread it to 1 or 2 each will grow quickly if they are unable to control the spread from these people.

 

"Two people who have tested COVID-19 positive reported being at Sturgis. However, they reported other possible exposures as well. So we can't say that Sturgis was or was not the cause of these cases."

 

[Catwoman]

54 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

460,000+ went to Sturgis for up to 10 days.

Almost two weeks later, 100-ish infections are reported.

That's far LOWER than the background US rate. I think the context matters a bit with the numbers. 
 

Now would I have held the rally? Nope. But I think they controlled pretty well given the sheer volume of people.

 

I think the problem is that we will never know how many cases actually resulted from Sturgis.

There could be thousands of cases for all we know, not just because testing isn’t great, but also because many people won’t get sick enough to be tested — but those Sturgis attendees may have still passed the virus on to others who could become very ill. And since those people have no personal connection to Sturgis, they won’t be counted among those statistics when they seek medical care.

Additionally, let's face it, most of the people at Sturgis did not appear to be taking any safety precautions to try to avoid the virus, so the likelihood of them actually reporting it if they caught it may be pretty slim —  we have all seen the news reports about people who say the virus isn’t a real thing, and that they won’t get tested even if they get sick, and who, even if they do get tested, refuse to provide personal information to contact tracers (like the fact that they were at Sturgis,) so how could we possibly ever hope to get even remotely accurate data about the spread of the virus resulting from that event?

I just don’t see a lot of incentive for the people who were at Sturgis to report it if they contracted Covid while they were there — and there is also a political aspect to this as well, with many of the attendees quite possibly believing that if they report having gotten sick, it might be harmful to their particular favored candidate who is trying to minimize the pandemic. Obviously, if someone ends up in the hospital, it might impact their “it’s a hoax” or “it’s just a little flu” mentality, but for those who don’t become terribly ill, I don’t believe many of them will either get tested or report their exposure. Not only will innocent people will suffer as a result of that mentality, but many may become ill and never know their exposure was a result of coming into contact with some inconsiderate, careless idiot who was partying at Sturgis without taking the appropriate safety precautions.

[Catwoman]

36 minutes ago, beckyjo said:

The other side of that is the people who attended Sturgis aren't all together after the party; they are spread throughout the USA. So, if they're up to attending Sturgis, they probably also go to parties at home, attend whatever around their home area. The article states that they can't tie some people actually to Sturgis because they have other exposure opportunities. The college students don't disperse, so it's assumed they got it at the college. So they report the 500 as a "college outbreak". Also, they may not be being tested at the same rate that colleges are testing. People who attended Sturgis would have to decide, and be able to get, a Covid test. Some colleges are requiring testing if you've been in contact with a positive case, and some are doing it at random.

You are right, it is not as bad as feared, but 100 people who may have spread it to 1 or 2 each will grow quickly if they are unable to control the spread from these people.

 

I agree completely — but we don’t really know whether or not it was as bad as was feared, because there is simply no way to gather that information.

If all of the attendees lived within a 25 mile radius of the event, then it would be easy to trace new cases back to it, but because these attendees came from all over the country, they could very well be spreading the virus in their own locations without anyone connecting it to Sturgis. If those attendees are behaving as recklessly at home as they were at Sturgis and they contracted the virus while they were there, it’s pretty likely that they are contributing to new cases in their own areas, but most people they exposed would never even think to connect it with Sturgis — and there wouldn’t be a huge, noticeable uptick in reported cases because the new cases would be spread out over such a wide geographic area. A few cases here and a few cases there wouldn’t raise any red flags locally, but if we were able to add them all up, it could add up to thousands of people nationally. But we will never know for sure.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Catwoman
I am the Typo Queen!

[Catwoman]

I keep thinking about this, and I realized that I have been focusing on Sturgis attendees spreading the virus when they got back home, but I wasn’t even thinking of all of the people who they could have exposed while those attendees were on the road, traveling back to their home states — people in restaurants and bars, people at rest stops, people in convenience stores, people in hotels and motels... the list goes on and on. And there are most certainly at least some attendees who stopped to visit friends and family on their way home. When someone’s Aunt Louise in Pennsylvania ends up in the hospital with Covid, it will almost surely never be attributed to Sturgis, because there would be no way to prove that’s where her exposure originated, even if it did.

[Jean in Newcastle]

38 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I keep thinking about this, and I realized that I have been focusing on Sturgis attendees spreading the virus when they got back home, but I wasn’t even thinking of all of the people who they could have exposed while those attendees were on the road, traveling back to their home states — people in restaurants and bars, people at rest stops, people in convenience stores, people in hotels and motels... the list goes on and on. And there are most certainly at least some attendees who stopped to visit friends and family on their way home. When someone’s Aunt Louise in Pennsylvania ends up in the hospital with Covid, it will almost surely never be attributed to Sturgis, because there would be no way to prove that’s where her exposure originated, even if it did.

Exactly.  And people can't figure out why it's still spreading in this country. . .   But of course the minimizers have to say that it can't at all be because people are ignoring basic fundamentals about viral spread. 

[Happy2BaMom]

2 hours ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

There is that, but the initial event really controlled it pretty well *shrug*. That doesn’t mean people wouldn’t spread it to people, but that’s the case anywhere. The actual event doesn’t appear to have involved major transmission like, say, the college parties and such. Especially given the age and demographics at the rally I’d say they did well with it, though probably still shouldn’t have done it this year. But bashing them like it’s some major spread event isn’t really honest either, with the data we have.

I try to be fair with this.

 

There is nothing fair about a pandemic.

We'll never know how many cases come out of this, because those 100 cases (that's what's been directly traced SO FAR, I'm sure there are many others that have not shown up yet &/or will not be traced, given the fact that the US lacks any ability, capacity or will to do contact tracing) - IN EIGHT STATES (which means further infection will be spread in multiple states, none of which will be traced back to Sturgis).  

SD cases have also increased by >2,200, an increase of nearly 25%, since the rally was held.

The fatalistic attitude of "it's the case anywhere" completely ignores the willful disregard with holding that rally in the first place. There's a difference between exposure that happens because you're carrying out necessary daily activities (like grocery shopping) and partying with large crowds.

I get it, some people think this is fine.

To me, people who engage in these kind of activities are why the US is unable to pull itself out of the tailspin we're in, and why we won't for the forseeable future.

[Catwoman]

34 minutes ago, Fifiruth said:

I’ve never heard anyone have that sort of head spinning worry over the thousands upon thousands of “protestors” who have been out in so many communities day after day for months now, yelling, no less (you know, the “singing” thing that’s so dangerous.)

 

 

Clearly this is a political thing for you. This thread has absolutely nothing to do the the protests. It has to do with PUBLIC HEALTH.

The protestors who were not social distancing and not wearing masks, and who were taking no precautions when they were indoors in enclosed spaces, were just as wrong as the people who were doing the same thing at Sturgis — and I have never heard a single person on this forum say otherwise.

 

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Catwoman
Stupid autocorrect

[Happy2BaMom]

7 minutes ago, Fifiruth said:

I’ve never heard anyone have that sort of head spinning worry over the thousands upon thousands of “protestors” who have been out in so many communities day after day for months now, yelling, no less (you know, the “singing” thing that’s so dangerous.)

 

 

Who's "anyone"?

I've certainly written on this board, several times in threads, about the irresponsibility of protestors. As have others here.

And there have been mainstream news articles about the risk of protests and Covid. Here's one from The Atlantic.

My dad has Fox News on all the time. They never shut up about it, and my social media feed from conservative family members has endless memes about it.

So who exactly are you referring to?

 

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Happy2BaMom

[Pawz4me]

I think most protesters are probably local people. So likely the vast majority of them weren't staying in hotels, eating in restaurants, etc.? I mean maybe not in some of the hot protests areas that attracted outside radical rabble rousers, but I'm pretty sure all the protests local to me were indeed local people who came and went directly to/from their own homes. I don't see how that really compares to Sturgis.

And I do wonder if we might eventually have a good idea of how many cases it caused. Earlier this week there was a good breakdown of the Biogen conference superspreader event that said it may have caused as many as 20,000 cases. Now it's probably different in that there would have been lists of attendees, travel info, etc., whereas my feeling is that Sturgis is a very wide open thing. But still . . I wouldn't assume that researchers won't eventually have a good idea of how many cases it might have caused.

[Catwoman]

4 minutes ago, Fifiruth said:

No, I'm just a free-thinker who looks at facts, and also notes the high level of illogical inconsistency and hypocrisy in this pandemic (on this board, and also in society/media/government.)

There is an illness caused by SARS-Cov-2, but the rate of infection is very low, the rate of hospitalization of those low number of people infected is low, and the death rate of the low number of people hospitalized is low.   

I see people on here dismissing testing data and statistics for the Sturgis  gathering and then spinning non-supported evidence and speculation of it being a dire situation. I see the media continue to hype the situation. I pointed out a couple of inconsistencies in all of the talk about it, that's all. Yes, this is all politicized, unfortunately, but you are all part of it just as much as anyone.

FYI, I have worn a mask in public since the second week of March. I still wipe down my groceries, and I don't eat-in at restaurants (only outside), etc. 

 

 

 

I find it sickening that you consider close to 182,000 dead Americans to be such a low number.

Perhaps you should tell their families how over-hyped Covid is. 😡

 

[Corraleno]

56 minutes ago, Fifiruth said:

I’ve never heard anyone have that sort of head spinning worry over the thousands upon thousands of “protestors” who have been out in so many communities day after day for months now, yelling, no less (you know, the “singing” thing that’s so dangerous.)

In addition to the fact that most BLM protestors (not sure why you felt the need to put that word in sarcastic "quotes") are local and are not staying in hotels, eating in restaurants, and spending their evenings getting drunk in bars, there is a VAST difference in motivation between the two groups. Covid kills people and damages lives, but so does racial injustice, and the ultimate goal of the protestors is to save lives. If you don't see a difference between people fighting to stop the murder of unarmed Black people and a bunch of bikers looking to party, I don't know how to explain that to you.

[EmseB]

I feel like this is an example of where this board is having two different conversations. That infection rate for that amount of people is amazingly low, and the economic impact of canceling Sturgis would have had far reaching implications for thousands of people who rely on that income for an entire year...think Black Friday sales. And yet, the latter isn't even considered and anything above zero cases is a catastrophe and any discussion is considered dismissing the lives lost. It's not in any way productive discourse. It can't be.

Edited August 27, 2020 by EmseB

[Catwoman]

4 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I feel like this is where this board is having two different conversations. That infection rate for that amount of people is amazingly low, and the economic impact of canceling Sturgis would have had far reaching implications for thousands of people who rely on that income for an entire year...think Black Friday sales. And yet, the latter isn't even considered and anything above zero cases is a catastrophe and any discussion is considered dismissing the lives lost. It's not in any way productive discourse. It can't be.

 

Except that there are almost 6 MILLION cases of Covid in the United States and almost 182,000 people (and counting!) have DIED.

The fact that you sarcastically said that “anything above zero cases is a catastrophe,” certainly seems like you are dismissing the millions of people who have been sickened and the massive number of lives that were lost... and this isn’t over.

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Catwoman

[bibiche]

21 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

In addition to the fact that most BLM protestors (not sure why you felt the need to put that word in sarcastic "quotes") are local and are not staying in hotels, eating in restaurants, and spending their evenings getting drunk in bars, there is a VAST difference in motivation between the two groups. Covid kills people and damages lives, but so does racial injustice, and the ultimate goal of the protestors is to save lives. If you don't see a difference between people fighting to stop the murder of unarmed Black people and a bunch of bikers looking to party, I don't know how to explain that to you.

Are you sure you don’t mean racial “injustice” ? 🙄 I’m pretty sure that’s where we are here. There’s no getting through to some people, unfortunately. 😔 

[bibiche]

10 minutes ago, EmseB said:

...the economic impact of canceling Sturgis would have had far reaching implications for thousands of people who rely on that income for an entire year...think Black Friday sales. And yet, the latter isn't even considered and anything above zero cases is a catastrophe and any discussion is considered dismissing the lives lost. It's not in any way productive discourse. It can't be.

60% of the town voted to not hold the rally. The only reason the town allowed it was that they knew people would come anyway and they wanted to try to be prepared.

[Terabith]

4 hours ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

460,000+ went to Sturgis for up to 10 days.

Almost two weeks later, 100-ish infections are reported.

That's far LOWER than the background US rate. I think the context matters a bit with the numbers. 
 

Now would I have held the rally? Nope. But I think they controlled pretty well given the sheer volume of people.

This is the beginning of the reporting period, and contact tracing what cases came from there is going to be almost impossible, other than the cases that are directly IN Sturgis (employees of tattoo shops and bars and such).  

[Corraleno]

10 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I feel like this is an example of where this board is having two different conversations. That infection rate for that amount of people is amazingly low, and the economic impact of canceling Sturgis would have had far reaching implications for thousands of people who rely on that income for an entire year...think Black Friday sales. And yet, the latter isn't even considered and anything above zero cases is a catastrophe and any discussion is considered dismissing the lives lost. It's not in any way productive discourse. It can't be.

If you're trying to reframe this as "the rally was good for the local community," the fact is that 60% of the community totally opposed holding the rally. The city allowed it anyway because it seemed like the bikers were going to come whether it was "allowed" or not. But the majority of the community were NOT happy about it. 

[EmseB]

30 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

Except that there are almost 6 MILLION cases of Covid in the United States and almost 182,000 people (and counting!) have DIED.

The fact that you sarcastically said that “anything above zero cases is a catastrophe,” certainly seems like you are dismissing the millions of people who have been sickened and the massive number of lives that were lost... and this isn’t over.

 

Well and that's why it can't be productive. If any discussion of a low attack rate (which should be good news) is a dismissal of very real pain and suffering incurred thus far (which is what I think you're saying above), then there is no reasonable discussion to be had about outdoor events, risks thereof, reasonable precautions, etc. There's no answer to an appeal to emotion and big numbers out of context of any other factors or tradeoffs. 

If one case is too many, if we are averting all deaths of this virus at any cost, that is magical thinking. It was magical thinking by probably February, if not sooner. Eradication is years away at this point. If we can agree on that, then the differences we have are about acceptable risk. And if the attack rate seen at Sturgis is unacceptable, then really almost nothing can be open at all, even outdoors and no one can travel for leisure because of the possibility of bringing something back. 

ETA: Not sure where you got that I was being sarcastic? I do feel like people think this genuinely.

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by EmseB

[EmseB]

20 minutes ago, bibiche said:

60% of the town voted to not hold the rally. The only reason the town allowed it was that they knew people would come anyway and they wanted to try to be prepared.

That seems like a wise choice on the part of the administration. I'm not sure why, because of a majority of a town votes against something, that that makes them automatically in the right or is proof that not holding the rally wouldn't have devastated local business?

[Catwoman]

12 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Well and that's why it can't be productive. If any discussion of a low attack rate (which should be good news) is a dismissal of very real pain and suffering incurred thus far (which is what I think you're saying above), then there is no reasonable discussion to be had about outdoor events, risks thereof, reasonable precautions, etc. There's no answer to an appeal to emotion and big numbers out of context of any other factors or tradeoffs. 

If one case is too many, if we are averting all deaths of this virus at any cost, that is magical thinking. It was magical thinking by probably February, if not sooner. Eradication is years away at this point. If we can agree on that, then the differences we have are about acceptable risk. And if the attack rate seen at Sturgis is unacceptable, then really almost nothing can be open at all, even outdoors and no one can travel for leisure because of the possibility of bringing something back. 

 

But we don’t know what the transmission rate was at Sturgis. We do not know if it was low, We will never know. And Sturgis was not strictly an outdoor event.

There is a massive difference between “one case is too many” and the acceptance of the ridiculous level of totally irresponsible behavior that went on at Sturgis.

There is no point at which the unmasked, non-distanced, shouting and singing idiots inside those crowded bars at Sturgis could be considered to have been taking “reasonable precautions,” and I can’t imagine that anyone would believe that kind of event with that level of highly risky behavior would be considered to be an “acceptable risk.”

Serious question — How many illnesses and deaths do you consider to be “acceptable” in exchange for events like Sturgis to be allowed to occur?

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Catwoman

[Catwoman]

11 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Well, obviously about 400k people thought it was an "acceptable risk."

I honestly don't know if they should have held the rally or not.  As I mentioned before, there were about 10 times as many people at this thing than there were at the opening of the University of Alabama.  And yet, Bama has 5 times the total number of cases.  And I am generally not hearing a lot of clamoring for Bama to shut down.  Some....but not a lot.  And this event is over.....it's already "shut down."   Even if we imagine that the final number of cases ends up being 10 times the current number traced back to this rally, I can't help but think there's a bit of a disconnect between proclaiming that this event should not have occured, vs college opening up and young adults moving on campus.  

 

I agree with you about the disconnect. It makes no sense to me, either!  

I’m right there with you about college kids moving back on campus. I don’t understand the, “What could possibly go wrong?” mentality!

I think the numbers in Alabama were higher because it was easier to keep track of the cases, while with Sturgis, it was basically a bazillion people from everywhere who stayed for a while, possibly were exposed to the virus, and then went on their merry way. I don’t think there is any accurate way to determine the impact of Sturgis on the transmission of the virus. It’s just too many random people from too many random places interacting with countless other people all over the country.

PS. Here is what I think of the 400,000 people who thought Sturgis was an “acceptable risk.” I believe that they are part of the problem, and I think they are absolute idiots. It offends me that they have zero consideration for the health and lives of others, and that drinking and partying are more important than trying to help prevent the spread of this awful virus.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Catwoman

[EmseB]

25 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

 

But we don’t know what the transmission rate was at Sturgis. We do not know if it was low, We will never know. And Sturgis was not strictly an outdoor event.

There is a massive difference between “one case is too many” and the acceptance of the ridiculous level of totally irresponsible behavior that went on at Sturgis.

There is no point at which the unmasked, non-distanced, shouting and singing idiots inside those crowded bars at Sturgis could be considered to have been taking “reasonable precautions,” and I can’t imagine that anyone would believe that kind of event with that level of highly risky behavior would be considered to be an “acceptable risk.”

Serious question — How many illnesses and deaths do you consider to be “acceptable” in exchange for events like Sturgis to be allowed to occur?

 

That's not a serious question, that's a gotcha. It would be like me asking you how many people losing their businesses or livelihood is acceptable for you to cancel such an event. I will say that I don't live my life as if any cost to save just one life is worth any measure, but neither does anyone else.

Ideally, Cat, if I could wave a magic wand and no one could would get sick or die of contagious illness ever again, I would do it and so would you.

But the problem with the question is of course the classic trolley problem, except no one on your side of the argument wants to admit that when they push the lever to avoid people getting hit by the virus that there is anyone else on the other track and certainly it couldn't possibly be more people than they avoided on the virus track. It has become an argument of avoiding the virus at all costs, which ironically has come down to asking people like me what cost from the virus is an acceptable toll. As if, minus a vaccine with incredible efficacy, if we all just stay home, (an *incredibly privileged luxury* btw) there will be no death.

It's not an acceptable risk to you to have Sturgis open because if it closes it has literally zero affect on you continuing to live in comfort. Not everyone is that privileged, most the people who make a living off of Sturgis.

Oh also, nice! with the name calling. As if the protestors that everyone finds acceptable aren’t the exact same college kids partying together and living it up once they have all gathered and shouted in the streets. I would bet dollars to donuts that the spread between the two groups (idiots and protestors) is probably pretty close to the same.

 

[Lb20inblue]

All I can do reading this is go "huh"....The tracked numbers from Stugis are low but because we only know of the numbers that have been traced back to Sturgis.  It seems strange that following public health safety protocols is now political.  This pandemic is bad; Add the pandemic to natural disasters and it's been an assault on our country.  I think it's concerning that we, as a nation, can't agree that fact.  It's past time for recrimination and time for reconciliation.  People are contracting Covid this country and its up to all of us decide whether we are helping the nation decrease the number or not.

Edited August 28, 2020 by Lb20inblue

[Corraleno]

As of August 7th, the first day of the rally, Meade Country had had 87 cases in the prior 5 months. Today their total is 247 — cases have tripled in three weeks, and are still increasing. Their per capita case rate is currently 872 per 100K, up from 307 per 100K before the rally. 

We'll never know how many cases resulted from the rally, because there's no way to trace them. If someone at the rally infected a teenage clerk at a 7-11 outside of town, and that kid took it home to his family, and his dad took it to work, and dad's co-worker gave it to her mom in assisted living, etc., none of those cases would be traceable to the rally. 

[Catwoman]

33 minutes ago, EmseB said:

That's not a serious question, that's a gotcha. It would be like me asking you how many people losing their businesses or livelihood is acceptable for you to cancel such an event. I will say that I don't live my life as if any cost to save just one life is worth any measure, but neither does anyone else.

Ideally, Cat, if I could wave a magic wand and no one could would get sick or die of contagious illness ever again, I would do it and so would you.

But the problem with the question is of course the classic trolley problem, except no one on your side of the argument wants to admit that when they push the lever to avoid people getting hit by the virus that there is anyone else on the other track and certainly it couldn't possibly be more people than they avoided on the virus track. It has become an argument of avoiding the virus at all costs, which ironically has come down to asking people like me what cost from the virus is an acceptable toll. As if, minus a vaccine with incredible efficacy, if we all just stay home, (an *incredibly privileged luxury* btw) there will be no death.

It's not an acceptable risk to you to have Sturgis open because if it closes it has literally zero affect on you continuing to live in comfort. Not everyone is that privileged, most the people who make a living off of Sturgis.

Oh also, nice! with the name calling. As if the protestors that everyone finds acceptable aren’t the exact same college kids partying together and living it up once they have all gathered and shouted in the streets. I would bet dollars to donuts that the spread between the two groups (idiots and protestors) is probably pretty close to the same.

 

 

It wasn’t meant to be a Gotcha question. I saw a recent poll that said that 57% of Republicans find the current Covid death toll “acceptable,” and I find that horrifying. How much worse will it have to get before they consider it to be “unacceptable?”

I was against the Sturgis thing. I think it was a stupid idea not to have canceled it. But if they had gone ahead with it and I’d seen the videos and most of the people were wearing masks and they were doing their best to social distance, and they weren’t packed like sardines in bars, I probably would have felt differently about those people and that event in general. I’m not against people having fun, and I don’t like the idea of business owners losing their livelihoods. But the people at Sturgis weren’t being careful — and neither were the bar owners. They weren’t even making an attempt. And that’s not acceptable. It just isn’t. 

The virus is a real thing and real people are dying, whether or not the Sturgis crowd believes it’s all an overblown hoax.

And yes, I stand by my statement that the people at Sturgis were idiots for being so reckless and inconsiderate of their own health and the health of others — and I will say the same thing about the partying college kids and the protestors if they were being just as careless. Maybe you don’t like the name-calling, but at least I am applying it consistently across the board, and I can’t think of any nicer description for those people.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Catwoman

[Corraleno]

41 minutes ago, EmseB said:

As if the protestors that everyone finds acceptable aren’t the exact same college kids partying together and living it up once they have all gathered and shouted in the streets. I would bet dollars to donuts that the spread between the two groups (idiots and protestors) is probably pretty close to the same.

But there have been many many articles, from many different experts, in multiple states, confiming that protests have not led to spikes in  cases.  Protests are almost exclusively outdoors, most protestors wear masks, and most have been reasonable about social distancing. They are not packing into bars and attending crowded parties with no masks and no social distancing, like the bikers in Sturgis and the college kids that have caused outbreaks on campuses. If you think the frat boys at Bama and Carolina who were having big drinking parties are "the exact same kids" who are marching in BLM protests, well I don't even know what to say to that, because I have to assume you are just being sarcastic.  One group is gathering together because they care about the lives of others, and the other is gathering because they don't.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Corraleno

[Corraleno]

d/p

Edited August 27, 2020 by Corraleno
weird double post

[Catwoman]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

But there have been many many articles, from many different experts, in multiple states, confiming that protests have not led to spikes in  cases.  Protests are almost exclusively outdoors, most protestors wear masks, and most have been reasonable about social distancing. They are not packing into bars and attending crowded parties with no masks and no social distancing, like the bikers in Sturgis and the college kids that have caused outbreaks on campuses. If you think the frat boys at Bama and Carolina are "the exact same kids" who are marching in BLM protests, well I don't even know what to say to that, because I have to assume you are just being sarcastic.

 

That is very true.

And I don’t think any of us have ever said that the protesters should get a pass if they are behaving recklessly. Most of us have specifically said that we believed that they should be distancing and wearing masks. 

I don’t know why people want to keep applying different rules to different groups. I am so sick and tired of the “us vs. them” mentality. We are all in this together, and it’s not a hoax and it’s not overblown, and over 181,000 dead people is not an acceptable number, so we all need to take personal responsibility for helping to slow the spread of this virus.

[Catwoman]

13 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

At what point do we stop making those connections though?  The very same thing could be said of the kid driving to college.  Stops at the gas station half way there, infects the clerk, who then infects another customer, who takes it home to his elderly parenting living with him, etc etc 

 

Yes, and that’s why that college kid should be wearing a mask and using hand sanitizer. He or she should be taking proper precautions to avoid potentially exposing others to the virus.

[Catwoman]

22 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

But, aren't colleges opening also random people from random places around the country and around the world, interacting with countless others?  

 

Yes, definitely. But it’s a lot easier to track the cases when you have the names and addresses of the college students, and when they are being tested and diagnosed while they are still on campus.

And again, the college students don’t get a free pass to show complete disregard for human life, any more than the Sturgis people should get a free pass for doing the same thing. We all need to do the right thing.

[Corraleno]

48 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

But, aren't colleges opening also random people from random places around the country and around the world, interacting with countless others?  

Well, personally I think that's stupid, too. If it had been totally up to me, DS would have told his coach that he was staying home and would redshirt this year, but that wasn't my decision to make. But he is being super cautious, is masking the minute he walks out of his apartment door, even if he's just going to get the mail, and he's getting groceries delivered. And his uni is being super strict about masking and distancing and they are dropping the hammer on anyone hosting parties — they literally have teams driving around in the evenings and on weekends looking for parties and then cross-referencing the addresses with the student database. If you live at an address where they saw a party, you are automatically suspended for 2 weeks. And if you claim you weren't there, you have to prove it before they will lift the suspension. So far they are doing much better than places like UNC, Notre Dame, and Alabama, but we'll see if it lasts.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Corraleno

[Corraleno]

8 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I know that there are people who think that colleges opening up is a bad idea, but for me, I just don't see the same level of outrage, just generally speaking, that I have seen for so many other things.  

Well there's a whole thread on this board with people talking about how stupid it is. But there are also significant benefits to in-person education that you don't get from an all-online experience, so to me the risk/reward calculation related to opening colleges is very different from asking whether the "reward" of a bunch of bikers getting to party for 10 days it worth the risk of spreading disease all over the country. And most universities are trying to mitigate the risk as much as possible, with mask mandates, distance requirements, quarantine facilities, etc. — exactly the opposite of the Sturgis rally, which encouraged all of the behaviors colleges are trying to prevent.

[SanDiegoMom]

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

I know that there are people who think that colleges opening up is a bad idea, but for me, I just don't see the same level of outrage, just generally speaking, that I have seen for so many other things.  

Maybe because colleges are trying to mitigate risks, trying to social distance, test, require masks, limit in door activity... all the things that were NOT done with the Sturgis Rally? 

I am sending my daughter back, even though there's very little open now, because she is smart and extremely careful.  She will always be wearing her mask everywhere, her roommates are similarly minded, and she will be able to spend the majority of her time outdoors since we are lucky enough to have good weather year round.  I will be just as incensed as I am sure she will be when I inevitably hear about the partying that is bound to happen.... but you know what? There are adults partying around here and not social distancing as well.  So it's not a thing that's unique to college kids.  Some play by the rules and others ruin it for everyone else.  

When places like Disney opened up I'm sure everyone thought of it similarly -- oh no, what a terrible idea.  I don't know how it is playing out, but when they require masks, shut down indoor dining, limit the numbers of guests... they are at least trying to reduce the chance of spread. If the Rally had instituted masking and distancing then it wouldn't create such frustration, and if all college kids were as careful as SOME of them are, then maybe they would have a chance to stay open longer than a week or two. But it's not for lack of trying to do the right thing on the college's part. 

 

[MercyA]

I am just astounded that there are still people who think Covid's numbers and risk level are low. It is now the third-leading cause of death in the United States, "ahead of accidents, injuries, lung disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and many, many other causes." https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200818/covid-the-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us

How many people have to die before people start caring? Most people in my area only mask and distance when they are forced by law to do so, and sometimes not even then. 

I feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone, seriously.

I have to wonder if people would care more if 180,000 toddlers were dead. Elderly people's and at-risk people's lives are worth just as much. And if you (general you) don't think so, don't call yourself pro-life. 

Edited August 27, 2020 by MercyA

[Catwoman]

20 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I am just astounded that there are still people who think Covid's numbers and risk level are low. It is now the third-leading cause of death in the United States, "ahead of accidents, injuries, lung disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and many, many other causes." https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200818/covid-the-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us

How many people have to die before people start caring? Most people in my area only mask and distance when they are forced by law to do so, and sometimes not even then. 

I feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone, seriously.

I have to wonder if people would care more if 180,000 toddlers were dead. Elderly people's and at-risk people's lives are worth just as much. And if you (general you) don't think so, don't call yourself pro-life. 

 

 Thank you. You said this so beautifully.

[MercyA]

24 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I really dislike statements like this.  Because people who think numbers are low relative to the situation actually do care.  They just care differently and at different levels.

Consider it an expression of frustration with the vast majority of people in my community, who, judging by their actions, do not seem to care in the least. 

[katilac]

5 hours ago, Fifiruth said:

I’ve never heard anyone have that sort of head spinning worry over the thousands upon thousands of “protestors” who have been out in so many communities day after day for months now, yelling, no less (you know, the “singing” thing that’s so dangerous.)

Interesting. I heard it on day one of the protests, and I've heard it every day since. 

4 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Covid kills people and damages lives, but so does racial injustice, and the ultimate goal of the protestors is to save lives. If you don't see a difference between people fighting to stop the murder of unarmed Black people and a bunch of bikers looking to party, I don't know how to explain that to you.

I agree that it's important to distinguish the difference between a protest and a party. 

3 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

 As I mentioned before, there were about 10 times as many people at this thing than there were at the opening of the University of Alabama.  And yet, Bama has 5 times the total number of cases.  

Alabama is testing every single returning student and has ongoing testing protocols The students did not come together and then immediately disperse to numerous states. They are not only all in the same general location, but they are almost all going to use the same testing facility, and get medical care at the same facility even if they don't suspect covid. I'm not saying they necessarily should have opened or that they will succeed in staying open, but it's not at all a comparable situation as far as knowing how many people were infected. I don't think we know, or ever will know, how many people were infected at the rally and as a result of the rally. We don't have a way to get this information. 

13 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

 Do people expect the actual death numbers to be as high for the second year of this?  Or the third year?  What about five years out?

That's not a "gotcha" question, that's genuine, I am wanting to know what people think the long term future of the virus is.

We're about 8 months out from the discovery of the virus and about 5 months out from the beginnings of true spread in the United States. I personally don't think we have enough information yet to even speculate on two or three years down the road, if no vaccine is perfected. I do have solid hopes that we will have a vaccine within the year, which of course will completely change everything. It could also fade away on its own for unknown reasons, as some viruses have done in the past. Both of those possibilities make me wish we would just do what we can now, because it's not forever. I mean, at least wear the masks people, c'mon. 

[katilac]

4 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

The reason I am asking is because I think the impacts are dependant not just on transmission but also treatments, vaccines and other issues.  

This thing hit us upside the head.  No one had any immunity, we had no clue how to treat and for a large part of the year, we were basically flying blind.  

Next year, we won't be flying blind.  And in 3 to 5 years, we will have even more info.  So.........knowing that we will know more and that science will advance....what do people think will happen in terms of deaths and permanent injuries in future years compared to this year?

If you think that treatments are going to greatly improve over the next year, how do you think we should approach it now? Do you think we should err on the side of caution, because it's for a limited time? Or do you think we should open up for the same reason? Or, of course, any variation thereof. 

[EmseB]

What defines "caring" in terms of people dying of specific causes? Is it caring to be enraged at everyone who disagrees and calling them idiots with your definition of caring? If a 98yo dies of literal loneliness because we all care about people dying of the virus, then we care enough? If a walmart worker gets my groceries instead of me do I care enough? If everyone goes out of business except Amazon and big boxes, do we care enough? 

It's not just the disagreement. It's the idea that anyone who disagrees must carelessly want people to die that is disgusting. I don't assume that people who disagree with me don't care about small businesses or the economy, I think that they think of it differently than I do and perhaps have a different risk assessment or are more privileged to be able to avoid economic activity person-to-person. But there are posters here who seemed otherwise kind and understanding who now have a very thinly veiled (or not veiled at all) rage towards anyone who disagrees as if that person might want to murder their fellow man.

[Corraleno]

24 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I am just astounded that there are still people who think Covid's numbers and risk level are low. It is now the third-leading cause of death in the United States, "ahead of accidents, injuries, lung disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and many, many other causes." https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200818/covid-the-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us

How many people have to die before people start caring? Most people in my area only mask and distance when they are forced by law to do so, and sometimes not even then. 

I feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone, seriously.

I have to wonder if people would care more if 180,000 toddlers were dead. Elderly people's and at-risk people's lives are worth just as much. And if you (general you) don't think so, don't call yourself pro-life. 

Around 3,000 people died on 9/11, and we launched a multi-year, trillion-dollar war that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in a country that had nothing to do with the attacks, and two decades later we're still taking off our shoes and getting body-scanned before we can get on a plane.

More than 180,000 Americans have died of Covid in the last 6 months, and millions of Americans shrug and say "Meh, 180,000 isn't that bad" and complain that wearing a 6" piece of cloth is too much trouble. 

Twilight zone, indeed. 😥

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

Around 3,000 people died on 9/11, and we launched a multi-year, trillion-dollar war that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in a country that had nothing to do with the attacks, and two decades later we're still taking off our shoes and getting body-scanned before we can get on a plane.

More than 180,000 Americans have died of Covid in the last 6 months, and millions of Americans shrug and say "Meh, 180,000 isn't that bad" and complain that wearing a 6" piece of cloth is too much trouble. 

Twilight zone, indeed. 😥

Seriously.  All that is being asked of people is for them to mask, to socially distance and to limit group sizes. 

[Catwoman]

3 hours ago, EmseB said:

It's not an acceptable risk to you to have Sturgis open because if it closes it has literally zero affect on you continuing to live in comfort. Not everyone is that privileged, most the people who make a living off of Sturgis.

 

I’m sorry to quote you again, but this part of your post got me thinking about something.

You say that all of those people who work in Sturgis needed the event to occur so they could earn a living. But don’t all of those people also deserve a safe working environment? 

Why is it acceptable to force all of those people to be in close contact with unmasked, non-distanced, shouting, singing crowds of people, just so the owners of the businesses could make money? Those business owners chose profit over employee safety.

In what universe is that level of potential virus exposure helping the working people of Sturgis — or their families?

And seriously, knock it off with the “comfort” and “privilege” comments. We work with small business owners every single day, and we probably understand more about how the virus is affecting them than most people do. Just because we are able to stay safe at home doesn’t mean we aren’t doing everything we can to help our clients’ businesses stay afloat. 

[Corraleno]

2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

The truth is, a very large number of Americans don't care about body scans and taking off shoes at the airport....or even a war in the middle east......................because none of that affects their lives.  And even when it does.....it is extremely minimal

In other words, millions of Americans really don't care about things that affect other people, as long as they themselves aren't inconvenienced. Even when other people are dying.

Which is exactly my point.

Edited August 28, 2020 by Corraleno

[Innisfree]

8 minutes ago, EmseB said:

If everyone goes out of business except Amazon and big boxes, do we care enough? 

This probably varies enormously, but one thing I'd like to point out is that this ship has already sailed in my area, years ago.

I have a choice of, let's see, 5 large national and international grocery chains, plus Wal-Mart, to shop in. No local grocers.

Lowe's, Home Depot, and another national chain for hardware. No local hardware store.

Two national chain bookstores, no local bookstore.

I *am* shopping at an outside, semi-local farm stand for fresh produce.

But, for most of my purchases, I have no local option.

So, buying things from Amazon, or getting them shipped from one of the other national chains, has no effect on local small businesses, because largely, outside of restaurants and specialty places which are more focused on luxuries than needs, those local small businesses have been gone for years.

Obviously, this varies. But for some, this just isn't an issue.

Eventually I'll have to get some work done on the house, and that *is* necessarily local. But I'll need to know they're taking this seriously before I let them in.