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

[Spy Car]

2 hours ago, Catwoman said:

 

Not for anything, but I’m pretty sure that most of the people who have disagreed with you are American. 

Some of us Americans are simply very disappointed in, and shocked at, the behavior of many other Americans with regard to this virus. 

 

Shocked is an understatement.

Bill

[kiwik]

On 8/28/2020 at 6:45 AM, 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.

Yes.  It is the travelling, meeting and then returning that is the main concern.  If people are coming from 8 states to protest in huge numbers that is equally problematic.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

There are 7k people who die every day in the US on average.  How much time do you think it would take?  How much emotion could human beings stand every day.  

Im not talking about everyone who died from any cause. I’m talking about COVID deaths. IMO, it would be a good thing if the general populations could see, in human terms, the photos of people who are dying every day in the US from COVID. It would be more difficult for some segment of the population to shrug their shoulders about a big, huge number. It’s difficult to be flippant when you see photos of actual humans, grandmothers, church leaders, precious people who may have lived for years and year, decades even, into the future. 

If people can’t stand the emotion of knowing real human beings are dying from COVID, they can just turn on some dumb-ass “news” channel that tells them masks make no difference and their precious freedoms are more important than saving lives. 

Anyway, I did not say it was possible (although several posters have given me links that indicate it is), just that IMO, it would be better for all Americans if we see the human faces that go with those numbers. Nobody’s heart hurts over a number. 

[Corraleno]

33 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

But I am talking about everyone who has died from any cause and the reason I am is because those are the deaths we all accept every day.  We find it acceptable that 45k people die in car accidents in a year, and don't do things like limit the number of cars on the road, require that people only use their cars at particular times of day, etc.  We find it acceptable that 60k people die in a year, and we don't require mask mandates, limit group sizes etc, at that number of dead, from a communicable disease.  So, is that the number of dead from this new communicable disease that gets us back to normal? 

And I know that people are not just concerned about deaths, but also permanent harm, but one reason I mention flu and car accidents is that both of those things also cause permanent harm to millions of people every year.  

We actually have done quite a lot to try to reduce deaths from car accidents. Annual US deaths in the late 60s/early 70s ranged from 50-54K, and we lowered speed limits, made cars safer, made DUI laws stricter, etc. NTSA data shows annual deaths in the range of 32-37K over the last decade. The car I bought last year has all kinds of new safety features that my previous car did not have, including automatic braking, and car makers continue to innovate in that area. 

Annual flu deaths generally run around 30K per year; in the last decade they have ranged from 9K in the 2011-12 season to 45K in the 2017-18 season — and that was considered to be an unusually bad year since the vaccine was not a good match. Although we don't generally mask in the US (which I hope will change in the future), we do have vaccines and treatments for the flu, we understand how it works and what the long-term effects might be, and the death rate is vastly lower than CV19.

I think if Covid deaths were down in the same range as traffic & flu deaths (30K or so) — and presumably we would have a vaccine and good treatments at that point, since that seems like the only possible way we can get deaths down to that range —  then I think life would mostly go back to normal. 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Corraleno

[Jean in Newcastle]

16 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Thank you for answering that question.  Over what time period are those numbers?  Over a month?  Also, if that's the goal, what changes would that bring about?

Generally it's looking like what you are saying is that the goal is to roughly cut the numbers in half.  I am not sure that, nationally, that would bring us to a number low enough to make people comfortable with life getting "back to normal" ie no more masks, no limits on groups, etc.  I think at this point we are likely looking at around 250k by the end of this year.  Half of that would be 125k, and I don't think people would be comfortable with things going back to normal if we got deaths down to 125k next year.  Also, I think to reach whatever number we deem acceptable (probably maybe around 60k to 75k?  I dunno.)  I also think that in order to get back to normal, the mitigation is going to have to come from things like vaccine, (even if it's efficacy is only as good as the flu shot...which isn't great.)  better medical treatments, increasing herd immunity etc.

 

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/08/the-path-out-united-states-coronavirus-mess-choose-to-take-it-cvd/

This answers your question.  The path to getting back to normal requires masks, group limits and social distancing until we get something like a vaccine.  It's the simple truth.  And really it's not that complicated.  But as long as people in many places are not doing that for whatever reason, political or otherwise, it's going to be drawn out longer.  Another simple truth. 

The economy in some sectors are going to be affected until then.  It sucks but there it is.  Some of these industries are coming up with innovative ways to still function in modified ways.  The economy in some other sectors is actually doing well even in the midst of this so discussions of "we got to open up for the economy" isn't really that black and white.

Here's my free two cent rah-rah speech:  Americans need to stop whining.  We are being tested and challenged.  Rise to the challenge.  Stop thinking that we are special snowflakes that somehow shouldn't get the same disease that has gone around the world.  If there is a challenge to your job or industry then pivot.  I am not in any way discounting the extreme financial hardships that some are facing.  I am also supporting local foodbanks. local essentials drives etc.  And I realize that certain people don't have the skills, opportunities etc. to "simply pivot" so we need more than that.  I am in favor of extra help for people in those situations.  But some people are not trying to pivot at all - they are just screaming that "it's not fair" and are refusing to modify their behavior.  And many times it's the people who can't pivot who are paying the ultimate price for that. 

Just ignoring the virus, getting "back to normal" and letting death and health crises from this virus sweep through the country is not the answer.  You take those same projected deaths and can increase the projections (I don't know by how much) if you do that.  And if you do that then families will suffer.  Industries will suffer because not all of these deaths are "old people" who don't work.  The health care system will suffer.  Those who survive and their families will suffer even further financial hardship because COVID ain't cheap. 

[Happy2BaMom]

24 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

But I am talking about everyone who has died from any cause and the reason I am is because those are the deaths we all accept every day.  We find it acceptable that 45k people die in car accidents in a year, and don't do things like limit the number of cars on the road, require that people only use their cars at particular times of day, etc.  We find it acceptable that 60k people die in a year, and we don't require mask mandates, limit group sizes etc, at that number of dead, from a communicable disease.  So, is that the number of dead from this new communicable disease that gets us back to normal? 

And I know that people are not just concerned about deaths, but also permanent harm, but one reason I mention flu and car accidents is that both of those things also cause permanent harm to millions of people every year.  

 

I don't know that people find those deaths "acceptable", and we do have speed limits, seat belt laws, drivers license requirements, regulations dictating safety features in cars, etc. - automobiles & driving them are actually pretty highly-regulated. If we wanted to get deaths to 0, hypothetically, we could regulate more, but I don't know that limits like what you mention would do the trick.

Respectfully, it seems to me you are conflating deaths that occur from everyday life/activities - deaths that can be reduced by following regulations in place (going the speed limit, wearing the seat belt, not driving under the influence, etc) or by getting a flu shot - with a *pandemic caused by a novel virus*. These are not the same thing. We're headed toward 200,000 Covid deaths in this country - a number that we're supposed to hit next month. That's in, what, 8 months of pandemic? And there have been hundreds of thousands more hospitalized and many more than that sickened. Unchecked, and with no protective measures in place, hospitalizations and deaths could be in the millions by now. So the very nature of a vastly contagious new, infectious disease requires special (some would say drastic) measures to limit the damage, or to spread the damage out over more time to give people & systems time to cope.

(Note: I don't have much of an opinion re: the photos of the dead, so I'm not weighing in on that topic.)

[Corraleno]

33 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Thank you for answering that question.  Over what time period are those numbers?  Over a month?  Also, if that's the goal, what changes would that bring about?

Generally it's looking like what you are saying is that the goal is to roughly cut the numbers in half.  I am not sure that, nationally, that would bring us to a number low enough to make people comfortable with life getting "back to normal" ie no more masks, no limits on groups, etc.  I think at this point we are likely looking at around 250k by the end of this year.  Half of that would be 125k, and I don't think people would be comfortable with things going back to normal if we got deaths down to 125k next year.  Also, I think to reach whatever number we deem acceptable (probably maybe around 60k to 75k?  I dunno.)  I also think that in order to get back to normal, the mitigation is going to have to come from things like vaccine, (even if it's efficacy is only as good as the flu shot...which isn't great.)  better medical treatments, increasing herd immunity etc.

I assume Jean means per year, not month — I can't imagine any state that would consider 2600 deaths per month to be acceptable! 

The flu shot is actually pretty effective if (1) it's a good match for the strains that circulate that year and (2) people actually get it — in an average year, less than half the population gets the vaccine. The one good thing about CV-19 is that it seems relatively stable and there isn't such a wide variation as there are with flu strains, so guessing which strains will be circulating will not be much of an issue. And hopefully the majority of the population will be wiling to get it.

[Jean in Newcastle]

10 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I assume Jean means per year, not month — I can't imagine any state that would consider 2600 deaths per month to be acceptable! 

The flu shot is actually pretty effective if (1) it's a good match for the strains that circulate that year and (2) people actually get it — in an average year, less than half the population gets the vaccine. The one good thing about CV-19 is that it seems relatively stable and there isn't such a wide variation as there are with flu strains, so guessing which strains will be circulating will not be much of an issue. And hopefully the majority of the population will be wiling to get it.

The projections go months out to a stated date.  So I meant that the projected death rate in my state was from now until the end of December.  Every now and then they look at the data and revise the projection based on that.  For awhile the projections had to be revised upwards until mitigation efforts really started to kick in.  Then they've been able to be revised downwards. 

ETA:  right now the deaths from COVID19 in my state is around 1900 (obviously subject to change).  So an estimated death toll of 2600 by the end of December is 700 more deaths.  We are averaging around 10 deaths a day in my state.  But my state is cautious.  For the most part, people have been cooperative (though not totally).  The areas with the biggest spikes right now are the places where they weren't as cooperative.  Go figure. 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Jean in Newcastle

[Frances]

5 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

If we wanted to reduce flu deaths even more, one mandate we could put in place is to require everyone to get a flu shot.  But we don't.  

In the US, you’ve got to be kidding. When you have people like the couple in my state who wouldn’t get their child immunized for tetanus even after he almost died and spent many weeks deathly ill in the hospital, you could never, ever require a vaccine for something like the flu. The profound ignorance and rejection of science in this country is way too severe, not to mention the lack of caring about the vulnerable that this pandemic has so clearly demonstrated. And setting all of that aside, what would be the stick? Get immunized or else what?

[historically accurate]

On 8/28/2020 at 7:22 AM, beckyjo said:

Washington Post has a website dedicated to memorials: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/coronavirus-dead-victims-stories/?arc404=true

My brother highlights two people on his FB feed every day. I'll have to ask him where he is drawing his memorials from. I think it is from this site as I recognize some of them, but I'll check with him if there is another site. 

Quoting myself to update:

My brother is also using this site from NBC. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/obituaries/coronavirus-deaths-60-stories-victims-around-country-n1194396

[Corraleno]

46 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I didn't say we don't mitigate risks of car accidents at all.  Of course we do.  We have laws regarding speed limits, safety devices in cars, etc.  We *COULD* however do more.  We can make cars safer than they already are (my DH designs airbags) and we could do other things, like adding more public transportation etc, to reduce the overall number of cars on the road.  BUT.......we don't do those things.  We accept 45k deaths because we don't want to spend more money on safer cars, and because we don't want to further restrict our freedoms.

 

29 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

If we wanted to reduce flu deaths even more, one mandate we could put in place is to require everyone to get a flu shot.  But we don't.  

 

There are a lot of "we"s in those posts, as if the American public is in general agreement on these things, which isn't accurate. Lots of manufacturers are doing more to make cars safer, and lots of people do look at safety ratings when they buy cars (that was one of my top criteria). Most people do drive safely and carefully, and there are plenty of cities (including mine) that do care about public transportation and try to promote that as much as possible. So there is certainly a percentage of the population that does care about those things and doesn't find those death rates acceptable. More than a quarter of all auto fatalities are alcohol related, and a third involve speeding, so we have laws against those, but there will always be a certain percentage of selfish jerks in every population, and they will do things that harm other people which are only punishable, not preventable. I mean, we can take a drunk driver's license away, but if he drives anyway and kills someone, there's not a lot the public can do to prevent that.

Personally I would have no problem with mandated flu shots, and there is probably a decent percentage of people that would be OK with that — probably the ones that already get an annual flu shot, plus a few percentage points more that are nervous enough about Covid that they will start getting flu shots as well. My son's college is mandating flu shots this year for anyone who is on campus. And if the US were to mandate vaccination for CV19, for example in order to attend school or various other functions, in the way that MMR, DTP, etc., are currently required, I would totally support that and would hope that most Americans would.

Edited August 29, 2020 by Corraleno

[Jean in Newcastle]

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

 

 

There are a lot of "we"s in those posts, as if the American public is in general agreement on these things, which isn't accurate. Lots of manufacturers are doing more to make cars safer, and lots of people do look at safety ratings when they buy cars (that was one of my top criteria). Most people do drive safely and carefully, and there are plenty of cities (including mine) that do care about public transportation and try to promote that as much as possible. So there is certainly a percentage of the population that does care about those things and doesn't find those death rates acceptable. More than a quarter of all auto fatalities are alcohol related, and a third involve speeding, so we have laws against those, but there will always be a certain percentage of selfish jerks in every population, and they will do things that harm other people which are only punishable, not preventable. I mean, we can take a drunk driver's license away, but if he drives anyway and kills someone, there's not a lot the public can to to prevent that.

Personally I would have no problem with mandated flu shots, and there is probably a decent percentage of people that would be OK with that — probably the ones that already get an annual flu shot, plus a few percentage points more that are nervous enough about Covid that they will start getting flu shots as well. And if the US were to mandate vaccination for CV19, for example in order to attend school or various other functions, in the way that MMR, DTP, etc., are currently required, I would totally support that and would hope that most Americans would.

I agree.

Our state (perhaps others too?) have "Target Zero Teams" that do DUI patrols in areas with high rates of DUIs.  It's named that because their target is zero deaths from DUI - so you can have targets to lower deaths on other things than from COVID.

[J-rap]

In our state alone, the number of Sturgis-linked Covid cases is now up to 46, but I'm sure it won't stop with that.  (That number is already a few days old.)  Some of those people apparently attended gatherings after returning home, like weddings and parties.

[frogger]

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

 

But I am talking about everyone who has died from any cause and the reason I am is because those are the deaths we all accept every day.  We find it acceptable that 45k people die in car accidents in a year, and don't do things like limit the number of cars on the road, require that people only use their cars at particular times of day, etc.  We find it acceptable that 60k people die in a year, and we don't require mask mandates, limit group sizes etc, at that number of dead, from a communicable disease.  So, is that the number of dead from this new communicable disease that gets us back to normal? 

 

 

 

I actually DON'T find the number of deaths due to negligent use of deadly weapons (vehicles) acceptable. I do wish you had to watch a tramautic video to get a licence before running over children. That is another example of Americans need to stare at their phone or whatever silly right they have trumping other people's right to live. There are actually a ton of correlations. If we don't accept the risk of people running over our children while they cross a residential street to the playground or even get hit on sidewalks then we should lock our children up at home.  That a large number of people think it better to lock children at home and just keep them on the computer all day then make areas safer for them to play outside is infuriating. It is also infuriating that some refuse to help make others safer by following simple things (ventilation, distancing, masking, sanitation) but say "if you're scared stay home."  as though people can actually live that way. 

 

I'm tired of the sheer number of sociopaths in our culture.

 

I am not calling people who recognize the costs of closed businesses, etc sociopaths but those who are busy shouting, "if you are scared of the virus you stay home."  and don't want to be inconvenienced.

[JanetC]

On 8/28/2020 at 7:49 AM, Matryoshka said:

I haven't been watching lately, so I don't know if they are still doing this, but CBS This Morning was having a weekly segment (on Fridays) where they did exactly this, with pictures and bio, of 10 or more people each week - obviously they had to get family permission.  It really humanizes the deaths to do this.  You're right that this should be done more.

 

Another is the @facesofcovid Twitter account.

[JanetC]

18 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

I don't disagree with what you are saying here.  And yes...steps to mitigate are important.

So...what's our goal with mitigation?  What are we hoping to bring numbers down to?  Is it 40k?  Is it 60k? 

]

 

What if... there isn't a time when "things go back the way they were"? What if it's like the seatbelts and airbags in our cars, or the scanners at the airports, and warning people to use condoms to prevent AIDS -- what if we have to have a "new normal?"

New Zealand crushed the virus, but they kept on testing and found another outbreak, for example.

Maybe we will always wear masks in certain high-risk situations.

Maybe we can replace uncomfortable mitigations with less uncomfortable ones.

But, maybe, once a virus gets this deep into a population, it is too late to eradicate it.

[Corraleno]

3 minutes ago, JanetC said:

 

What if... there isn't a time when "things go back the way they were"? What if it's like the seatbelts and airbags in our cars, or the scanners at the airports, and warning people to use condoms to prevent AIDS -- what if we have to have a "new normal?"

New Zealand crushed the virus, but they kept on testing and found another outbreak, for example.

Maybe we will always wear masks in certain high-risk situations.

Maybe we can replace uncomfortable mitigations with less uncomfortable ones.

But, maybe, once a virus gets this deep into a population, it is too late to eradicate it.

I think this depends very heavily on how effective a vaccine is. If a vaccine plus better treatment options can get both the death rate AND the rate and severity of post-viral complications down to "flu-like levels," then life will probably go back to normal for all but the most vulnerable. If it turns out that we cannot get an effective vaccine and/or the rate and severity of post-viral complications is really high with CV19, then a certain percentage of the population will probably continue to mask, avoid high-risk situations, etc.

[EmseB]

I think that outside of this forum what emotions, fears, anxieties, and grief people experience can be private and personal and maybe not something they discuss except with people very close to them.

At a public health level and risk assessment level, emotions cannot be used to inform policy. And if, on a board about education, we cannot have an academic discussion of stats, risks, math, numbers, etc., without being accused of being heartless, then I'm not sure where that would be welcome. Also I'm rather surprised to hear people argue that emotion should be used as a basis for informing decisions rather than data and facts. My emotions and anxiety about this issue in particular are not good indications of what I should actually do or not do. Having this self awareness is a huge overcoming for me with anxiety in particular.

And again, what I discuss on here is a tiny, tiny slice of me in life as a person.

[Spy Car]

53 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I think that outside of this forum what emotions, fears, anxieties, and grief people experience can be private and personal and maybe not something they discuss except with people very close to them.

At a public health level and risk assessment level, emotions cannot be used to inform policy. And if, on a board about education, we cannot have an academic discussion of stats, risks, math, numbers, etc., without being accused of being heartless, then I'm not sure where that would be welcome. Also I'm rather surprised to hear people argue that emotion should be used as a basis for informing decisions rather than data and facts. My emotions and anxiety about this issue in particular are not good indications of what I should actually do or not do. Having this self awareness is a huge overcoming for me with anxiety in particular.

And again, what I discuss on here is a tiny, tiny slice of me in life as a person.

The facts are that far too many people are dying needlessly and selfish actions by highly irresponsible people are fueling the death counts.

Bill

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, EmseB said:

I think that outside of this forum what emotions, fears, anxieties, and grief people experience can be private and personal and maybe not something they discuss except with people very close to them.

At a public health level and risk assessment level, emotions cannot be used to inform policy. And if, on a board about education, we cannot have an academic discussion of stats, risks, math, numbers, etc., without being accused of being heartless, then I'm not sure where that would be welcome. Also I'm rather surprised to hear people argue that emotion should be used as a basis for informing decisions rather than data and facts. My emotions and anxiety about this issue in particular are not good indications of what I should actually do or not do. Having this self awareness is a huge overcoming for me with anxiety in particular.

And again, what I discuss on here is a tiny, tiny slice of me in life as a person.

Facts - actual statistics - as well as informed projections are being used to make policy in my state.  I applaud that. 

I am not particularly anxious about getting COVID19 at this point BECAUSE my state has policy that protects me, stores have policies that protect me and I protect myself.  The state did not protect the people in Sturgis.  Many of the store owners wanted to have policies to protect them but were overruled.  And the people themselves did not protect themselves or others.  I feel sorry for the people in Sturgis who were exposed against their will.  I feel sorry for the people in all points of the compass who were exposed by people coming and going from Sturgis.  I don't particularly feel sorry for the people who exposed themselves carelessly but they did not do this in a vacuum.  And it's not as simple as saying that those who didn't want to be exposed to these irresponsible people could have boarded up shop or stayed home.  There is a middle ground of mitigated protection that allows people to do business and to run errands. 

[frogger]

59 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I think that outside of this forum what emotions, fears, anxieties, and grief people experience can be private and personal and maybe not something they discuss except with people very close to them.

At a public health level and risk assessment level, emotions cannot be used to inform policy. And if, on a board about education, we cannot have an academic discussion of stats, risks, math, numbers, etc., without being accused of being heartless, then I'm not sure where that would be welcome. Also I'm rather surprised to hear people argue that emotion should be used as a basis for informing decisions rather than data and facts. My emotions and anxiety about this issue in particular are not good indications of what I should actually do or not do. Having this self awareness is a huge overcoming for me with anxiety in particular.

And again, what I discuss on here is a tiny, tiny slice of me in life as a person.

 

Sadly, human brains don't actually use facts the way you say they do. There are people who might actually make decisions based on facts but I seldom meet them. More decisions seem to be made based on,

"I've always done things this way."

"So and so told me a story and...".

"Those jerks just..."

 

I have been told over and over that, "I don't deal with facts like you." Yes, those literal words. "I can't argue with you because my mind doesn't work that way."  

I've also run into so many who think it's all a giant hoax and spread rumors about 5G and Bill Gates.

My issue with this is the best solutions aren't shut downs or top down control. These types of decisions should be based on facts. The most effective solutions that have the least impact on the economy are at the individual level and specific to a persons circumstances. Just as the most effective way to decrease pedistrian deaths is to have drivers actually be aware and care. There is no top down thing that will replace that but it appears that resonable actions by an uneducated and confused (thanks media) population is hopeless. So leaders try more drastic actions that are both more costly and less effective.   I think that is why the temptation to use emotion exists. You have to actually get the populations attention to get them to think. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

I don't believe that we will have limits on the sizes of weddings forever.  I don't believe that states will have mask mandates forever and I think that the number of people that outright refuse, generally across the nation, indicates that it's not likely to work to require masks forever.  Just today, some random lady I never met, who was properly wearing her mask, launched into a tirade about how much she *hates* the masks, just because she saw me re-tying mine at the grocery store.  I didn't even understand everything she said but she very clearly *hated* wearing it, even though she was doing it.  I also don't believe that there will be things like mandated quarantine for people travelling from XYZ state to ABC state forever.  

There are some things that will change....my hope is that schools will continue to offer more hybrid style options, especially for kids who have a hard time getting to school.  We will likely have a whole slew of new medications.  But yeah, I think most of the public health mandates, as well as some of the idiotic business policies, will start to disappear.  And McDs will quit requiring me to take a drink carrier when I neither want nor need one. That's the sort of "get back to normal" that I mean.  I am fine with no fans in the stands for the baseball and football games....or even fine if we lose a season or two.  But eventually, I think it's going to come back and having fans in the stands will come back too.

I really just want to know what sort of numbers....what level we want to be mitigating down to....for those sorts of things to happen.  

Our state has published numbers of X cases per 1000 people (or 100k, I can't remember) necessary to open up public schools to in person methods in each county.  We also have published guidelines on what the numbers have to be for each phase of reopening and what that reopening entails.  It's not nationwide.  It's by state. 

[Liz CA]

5 minutes ago, frogger said:

I have been told over and over that, "I don't deal with facts like you." Yes, those literal words. "I can't argue with you because my mind doesn't work that way."  

I've also run into so many who think it's all a giant hoax and spread rumors about 5G and Bill Gates.

My issue with this is the best solutions aren't shut downs or top down control. These types of decisions should be based on facts. The most effective solutions that have the least impact on the economy are at the individual level and specific to a persons circumstances. Just as the most effective way to decrease pedistrian deaths is to have drivers actually be aware and care. There is no top down thing that will replace that but it appears that resonable actions by an uneducated and confused (thanks media) population is hopeless. So leaders try more drastic actions that are both more costly and less effective.   I think that is why the temptation to use emotion exists. You have to actually get the populations attention to get them to think. 

 

Sure people will tell you any number of ways they use for their decision making process.

But when we deal with public policy, potentially serious illness we need to have analytical people in place who can evaluate data without being political or emotional.

I agree with your assessment of "top down" control. It has been shown to cause resentment and is ineffective for large segments.

[Matryoshka]

4 minutes ago, Danae said:

I don’t think number of cases (or deaths) is the right metric. It works for traffic accidents, because those aren’t contagious, so we can say “more than x fatalities/year at this intersection means we should install a traffic circle/reduce the speed limit.” With a highly contagious disease it has to be rate of spread. If the number of daily cases is increasing mitigation measures should be added even if the actual number of cases is small. But with smaller absolute numbers those mitigation measures can be more precisely targeted.

This.  And also have adequate general testing and tracing capabilities in place so that if a) the rate does go up we actually know about it and b) we can find and target the source of the outbreak so it doesn't get out of control.  Those are the two pieces that it seems like a lot of the people who want to 'get back to normal' want to skip over.  If we just don't test, we don't know there are cases, so we can ignore it (not saying people on this thread are saying that, but a lot of people in positions of policy decisions at both federal and state level are).  If that's the attitude, raw numbers which are likely not accurate or specific are not even a useful metric.  They're just a notch above random guessing.

I heard at a U in Arizona they're testing wastewater and they were quickly able to find an outbreak at a specific dorm, then test and isolate the people infected (many asymptomatic) before it spread further.  That's the kind of thing that will help us get back to a 'new normal'.  Not burying our heads in the sand or thinking we can will it out of existence.

[Corraleno]

2 hours ago, EmseB said:

I think that outside of this forum what emotions, fears, anxieties, and grief people experience can be private and personal and maybe not something they discuss except with people very close to them.

At a public health level and risk assessment level, emotions cannot be used to inform policy. And if, on a board about education, we cannot have an academic discussion of stats, risks, math, numbers, etc., without being accused of being heartless, then I'm not sure where that would be welcome. Also I'm rather surprised to hear people argue that emotion should be used as a basis for informing decisions rather than data and facts. My emotions and anxiety about this issue in particular are not good indications of what I should actually do or not do. Having this self awareness is a huge overcoming for me with anxiety in particular.

And again, what I discuss on here is a tiny, tiny slice of me in life as a person.

This isn't an either/or thing. No one is arguing that we should ignore data and facts. If anything, the people who are making decisions entirely based on fear and emotion instead of actual data are the ones who refuse to mask or distance or take any reasonable precaution because they've been conned into believing that the data and statistics are fake and that the mitigation measures are the first steps towards a Deep State Globalist pinko-commie-socialist muslim take-over of the country.

And the flip side of that is that too many people seem to be incapable of relating abstract statistics to actual human suffering and therefore conclude that a million deaths would be a reasonable price to pay to keep all businesses open and the stock market up — as if that level of deaths would not, in itself, cause massive economic disruptions regardless of how "open" businesses were allowed to be. That shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how human beings live and feel and act.

The thing is that we do have plenty of experts in virology, epidemiology, and public health who can look at all the data and weigh all the factors and make well-thought-out and non-politically-motivated decisions and recommendations — but too many of those people have been sidelined, or even driven out of office by deaths threats, by those whose motivations are 100% political.

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Corraleno

[Corraleno]

11 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I am curious how that works if, for example, every single vaccine we have in trials ends up flopping?  What if we can't get a vaccine that can pass FDA approval for like 3 yrs.  Do you think the NFL, the NBA and so on....could really manage multiple seasons without fans in the stands?

 

I think a vaccine is going to be part of the factors, but I don't know that it can really be the *only* factor.  

I think if we still have no vaccine (or highly effective treatments) 3 years from now, lack of fans at football and basketball games will be the least of our problems. 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Facts - actual statistics - as well as informed projections are being used to make policy in my state.  I applaud that. 

I am not particularly anxious about getting COVID19 at this point BECAUSE my state has policy that protects me, stores have policies that protect me and I protect myself.  The state did not protect the people in Sturgis.  Many of the store owners wanted to have policies to protect them but were overruled.  And the people themselves did not protect themselves or others.  I feel sorry for the people in Sturgis who were exposed against their will.  I feel sorry for the people in all points of the compass who were exposed by people coming and going from Sturgis.  I don't particularly feel sorry for the people who exposed themselves carelessly but they did not do this in a vacuum.  And it's not as simple as saying that those who didn't want to be exposed to these irresponsible people could have boarded up shop or stayed home.  There is a middle ground of mitigated protection that allows people to do business and to run errands. 

460,000 people attended the Sturgis rally and then traveled to, or through, 61% of the counties in the entire US, according to cell phone data. That's a huge amount of potential exposure for a huge number of people all over the US, just so a bunch of self-centered jerks wouldn't have to miss a party. 

Hundreds of thousands of college athletes missed, or are missing, most or all of their spring and/or fall seasons. Thousands of Olympic athletes and support staff all over the world missed competing in Tokyo this summer. Millions of high school & college students in the US lost once-in-a-lifetime graduation ceremonies, senior proms, and other events. Thousands of people have canceled or delayed significant events like weddings and funerals to help prevent spread. But a bunch of bikers felt entitled to spread the virus all over the country rather than miss ONE rally. Ass@#$%.

[frogger]

57 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

Sure people will tell you any number of ways they use for their decision making process.

But when we deal with public policy, potentially serious illness we need to have analytical people in place who can evaluate data without being political or emotional.

I agree with your assessment of "top down" control. It has been shown to cause resentment and is ineffective for large segments.

 

Oh definitly, which is what I stated in the post you quoted.

 

The problem is in order to even have rules you have to have buy in or rules are just words on a paper. Many people will actually do helpful things without being mandated to if they didn't think it was all a hoax or just a cold. This is where you sadly, have to use emotion. Of course, you must be honest too. How to get a population to think it's worth being cooperative and not scare the more sensitive percentage into complete isolation and mental health breakdowns is a challenge but honesty is key, I believe.

[Liz CA]

11 minutes ago, frogger said:

 

Oh definitly, which is what I stated in the post you quoted.

 

The problem is in order to even have rules you have to have buy in or rules are just words on a paper. Many people will actually do helpful things without being mandated to if they didn't think it was all a hoax or just a cold. This is where you sadly, have to use emotion. Of course, you must be honest too. How to get a population to think it's worth being cooperative and not scare the more sensitive percentage into complete isolation and mental health breakdowns is a challenge but honesty is key, I believe.

 

Very good point. This reminds me of the concept of the "Wise Mind." Emotional and rational are on opposite sides and the little overlap in the middle is the "Wise Mind." If there is no buy-in, we have little or no cooperation. I am wondering if we will ever achieve that since the issue is so polarized now. I don't even have to look up articles, I can see it here on the board.

Edited August 29, 2020 by Liz CA

[JanetC]

1 hour ago, Danae said:

I don’t think number of cases (or deaths) is the right metric. It works for traffic accidents, because those aren’t contagious, so we can say “more than x fatalities/year at this intersection means we should install a traffic circle/reduce the speed limit.” With a highly contagious disease it has to be rate of spread. If the number of daily cases is increasing mitigation measures should be added even if the actual number of cases is small. But with smaller absolute numbers those mitigation measures can be more precisely targeted.

 

It has to be combination of prevalence (estimated level of infection) as well as rate of spread -- mitigation needs to be higher when the odds of encountering someone positive are higher. But even with low prevalence, certain mitigations to ensure that "super spreader" events don't happen may still be necessary.

[Spy Car]

16 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

But, as it spreads, that naturally has at least some form of self limiting mechanism though doesn’t it?   I mean immunity isn’t obviously absolute but increasing levels affect not only spread but number of deaths right?  

 

Eta: also though, when I talk about mitigation, I am not just talking about “mechanical” public health measures.  I am talking about better drugs, vaccines, etc as mitigation measures.   The flu shot and xofluza are mitigation measures that help keep our flu deaths below 60k to 70k per year. 

Self-limiting, as in there are no more people left in this country who haven't contracted Covid?

We've got about 6 million cases so far and the deaths are over 180,000.

If we get to 330,000 million cases what do you think the death toll will look like then?

Hopefully not 10 million, right? 

Bill

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Spy Car

[J-rap]

2 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Facts - actual statistics - as well as informed projections are being used to make policy in my state.  I applaud that. 

I am not particularly anxious about getting COVID19 at this point BECAUSE my state has policy that protects me, stores have policies that protect me and I protect myself.  The state did not protect the people in Sturgis.  Many of the store owners wanted to have policies to protect them but were overruled.  And the people themselves did not protect themselves or others.  I feel sorry for the people in Sturgis who were exposed against their will.  I feel sorry for the people in all points of the compass who were exposed by people coming and going from Sturgis.  I don't particularly feel sorry for the people who exposed themselves carelessly but they did not do this in a vacuum.  And it's not as simple as saying that those who didn't want to be exposed to these irresponsible people could have boarded up shop or stayed home.  There is a middle ground of mitigated protection that allows people to do business and to run errands. 

Yes, exactly.  If they went, knowing their own personal risks, but stayed away from businesses and drove straight home and quarantined for 14 days, that's one thing.  But they didn't/are not all doing that.  Some people, who eventually tested positive with Covid, came home and then continued right on to other gatherings and lived life as usual.  This is so frustrating, because the majority of people in our state (as in other states) have worked so very, very hard these past several months to keep down the spread.  People have sacrificed so much already for the greater good by being careful. 

[Spy Car]

9 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Self limiting in that the more people who have antibodies, the fewer people there are available to be infected and then transmit.  

Given that it's taken this long (9 ish months) to get to 6 million ish cases. how long do you think it would take to infect the entire population?  (at a steady rate, that would be 42ish years, btw if I have done my math correctly...which it is entirely possible I am wrong, because I am not the math expert that others here are.  )  HOWEVER....given that it seems that *most* people who have caught it once, probably cannot get reinfected again (some can, much like can happen with any viral infection)  I would think that, the more people we have that get infect, the longer it would take to work it's way through.  And, because of other behavioral and scientific mechanisms, the truth is, I don't think we would ever achieve a 100% infection rate.  

But given how long it would take to achieve such a thing....I would expect that science would be able to advance enough in such a time that medications and a vaccine would be helpful in both slowing the transmission rate AND reducing death rates, at the same time.

I mean, isn't that what we all hope?

Pandemics can expand exponentially. That is their nature. Remember when we had "15" cases?

Bill

 

[Corraleno]

 

16 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Self limiting in that the more people who have antibodies, the fewer people there are available to be infected.  

Given that it's taken this long (9 ish months) to get to 6 million ish cases. how long do you think it would take to infect the entire population?  (at a steady rate, that would be 42ish years, btw)  HOWEVER....given that it seems that *most* people who have caught it once, probably cannot get reinfected again (some can, much like can happen with any viral infection)  I would think that, the more people we have that get infect, the longer it would take to work it's way through.  And, because of other behavioral and scientific mechanisms, the truth is, I don't think we would ever achieve a 100% infection rate.  

But given how long it would take to achieve such a thing....I would expect that science would be able to advance enough in such a time that medications and a vaccine would be helpful in both slowing the transmission rate AND reducing death rates, at the same time.

I mean, isn't that what we all hope?

That math makes no sense. For one thing, we've obviously had FAR more cases than were confirmed by testing. And, more importantly, the cases we have had so far have been IN SPITE OF severe mitigation measures, full lockdowns, major economic damage, etc. Obviously that is not even sustainable for 2-3 years, let alone 42 years. If we decide to just let it rip and try to get to herd immunity, that would happen fairly quickly but with massive loss of life. Most estimates seems to suggest we would need at least 60% of the population, or about 200 million people, to be infected. With an IFR of 0.5% that's a million dead Americans — plus who knows how many millions more with long-term health damage.

There is not a lot of research at this point that would suggest we can't develop an effective vaccine, and that is really the only way to achieve herd immunity without a huge number of deaths. If there is something about this virus that makes it impossible to create a vaccine that provides any protections, then that suggests that having had the actual disease may not be very protective either — and that's a really scary prospect. Luckily, so far that does not seem to be the case. I am fully confident that we will have multiple vaccines that, at the very least, will mitigate the worst effects of the disease in at least a significant percentage of the population. If we can't do that, then to me that implies that there are some serious issues with this disease we don't even know about yet — in which case, yeah, the number of fans at football games will be the least of our worries.

Edited August 29, 2020 by Corraleno

[Moonhawk]

18 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

But, as it spreads, that naturally has at least some form of self limiting mechanism though doesn’t it?   I mean immunity isn’t obviously absolute but increasing levels affect not only spread but number of deaths right?  

 

Eta: also though, when I talk about mitigation, I am not just talking about “mechanical” public health measures.  I am talking about better drugs, vaccines, etc as mitigation measures.   The flu shot and xofluza are mitigation measures that help keep our flu deaths below 60k to 70k per year. 

I've heard the assumption of herd immunity as being a basis for opening up businesses and going on with life and it's the only way to this herd immunity "the faster the better." This is going out of the scope of what you were asking, HappySmileyLady, I'm just quoting you since I started to do a Google search triggered by curiosity because of your post. 

1. We don't know how long immunity lasts. 

2. We don't know how quickly the virus is going to mutate and how much of the immunity gained is rendered moot. (We do know that other viruses similar to CV-19 mutate at rapid rates, however.)

3. We don't know if the mutations are going to be less or more lethal than the current strains we are dealing with.

4. We don't know if the immunity gained will help mitigate future cases within one person. (I did see this article comparing a reinfection in HongKong to a Nevada case.)

5. We don't know if secondary infections are less likely to be able to spread the virus again. However, I found this quote from an article about Sweden: "Experience suggests that severely infected COVID-19 patients acquire antibodies immediately and during early recovery, but antibodies are much less common in only mildly ill or asymptomatic patients. This means they are likely not immune, and can't prevent the spread of the virus, the study noted. This is central to the concept of herd immunity." Here's the full article.

6. The likeliness of herd immunity in a time frame to make the deaths acceptable for the economy, the time frame is probably too long. I haven't really kept up with the Sweden experiment of herd immunity. I just did a Google search to see how it's going and it seems that the optimistic number of 30% immunity of their population is being touted by the ones in charge of the plan and is being refuted as being not-there-yet by critics. Regardless of it's even true, that is far away from the 70% they need. And they are only a country of 10 million. So expanding that to the US, it would take a long time for us to achieve herd immunity. Meanwhile, Sweden's death toll is 9th in the world per capita, 57.09 per 100,000 people. Here's the article I was reading.

And also, I know that this should increase exponentially, but Sweden has had about 8 months to reach that 30%, so even with the exponential growth, reaching herd immunity for a population of 330 million will take a while. And again, please reference points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. 

7. And even vaccine may not be the silver bullet we are looking for. Also in this article, I was a bit startled to see poll results stating "A recent survey by Yahoo News and YouGov found that the public embrace of a potential vaccine has hit a new low. Only 42% of Americans said they planned to get vaccinated if and when a vaccine becomes available, which is down from 55% in late May, and 46% in early July." I am really shocked at this and I'm hoping that it is a flawed poll or not a true segment of the population and rather a reflection on the people who use those sources (I don't know the slanting landscape of news, other than a few cable channels.)

Basically there is a lot of "we don't know." You can use the fact that we don't know for certain, I suppose, as an argument to re-open and hope for the best. I'm of the mind that the cold hard data both from our own experience and Sweden and UK and other areas from the beginning of the pandemic would dissuade me from wanting to try this approach. However, I would be interested in seeing numbers for Sweden's economy, which is why I originally clicked on a MarketWatch article on Sweden because I hoped it would include something on that, but I didn't find it (and need to make dinner now). 

[Ausmumof3]

3 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

This.  And also have adequate general testing and tracing capabilities in place so that if a) the rate does go up we actually know about it and b) we can find and target the source of the outbreak so it doesn't get out of control.  Those are the two pieces that it seems like a lot of the people who want to 'get back to normal' want to skip over.  If we just don't test, we don't know there are cases, so we can ignore it (not saying people on this thread are saying that, but a lot of people in positions of policy decisions at both federal and state level are).  If that's the attitude, raw numbers which are likely not accurate or specific are not even a useful metric.  They're just a notch above random guessing.

I heard at a U in Arizona they're testing wastewater and they were quickly able to find an outbreak at a specific dorm, then test and isolate the people infected (many asymptomatic) before it spread further.  That's the kind of thing that will help us get back to a 'new normal'.  Not burying our heads in the sand or thinking we can will it out of existence.

Yes I saw that!  That’s definitely a step on the right direction toward safer higher education etc

[JanetC]

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

I am not and have never suggested "let it rip."  What I am talking about is timelines and deaths and goals in terms of getting us back to a place where we don't care how many people attend a wedding and people don't have to wear a mask to buy milk and so on. 

 

The goal SHOULD be to reduce the deaths to zero, knowing we won't ever get there. The time when we don't have to restrict weddings is the time when having a wedding doesn't change the risk of getting covid significantly more than other daily activities. That might mean either (a) prevalence is very low (so, like how New Zealand did it) or (b) a different mitigation strategy that is more effective or less restrictive is available (for example, the wealthy have parties now, but they pay to have guests take the fast covid test at entry. for the rest of is, that less restrictive mitigation might be a vaccine).

As a society, we could also choose to allow some risky things by shutting down other risky things in order to balance the overall risk. So close the bars and Disney World to make it safer to reopen schools and offices could be a choice.

[Bootsie]

4 hours ago, Corraleno said:

This isn't an either/or thing. No one is arguing that we should ignore data and facts. If anything, the people who are making decisions entirely based on fear and emotion instead of actual data are the ones who refuse to mask or distance or take any reasonable precaution because they've been conned into believing that the data and statistics are fake and that the mitigation measures are the first steps towards a Deep State Globalist pinko-commie-socialist muslim take-over of the country.

And the flip side of that is that too many people seem to be incapable of relating abstract statistics to actual human suffering and therefore conclude that a million deaths would be a reasonable price to pay to keep all businesses open and the stock market up — as if that level of deaths would not, in itself, cause massive economic disruptions regardless of how "open" businesses were allowed to be. That shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how human beings live and feel and act.

The thing is that we do have plenty of experts in virology, epidemiology, and public health who can look at all the data and weigh all the factors and make well-thought-out and non-politically-motivated decisions and recommendations — but too many of those people have been sidelined, or even driven out of office by deaths threats, by those whose motivations are 100% political.

 

The experts in virology, epidemiology, and public health can look at the data and weigh factors about a virus.  They are not experts on psychology, economics, mental health, education, and many other areas of people's lives that are impacted by decisions.  Their perspective is very narrow.  Just as a meteorologist can look at the data and give information about the probability of a hurricane's path and strength, they should not be the decisions makers in where and how to evacuate, I do not think the virologist, epidemiologists, and public health should be the sole decision makers.  

[Spy Car]

2 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Right, more cases than confirmed by testing......which generally means a large majority of very minor illness.  

I am not and have never suggested "let it rip."  What I am talking about is timelines and deaths and goals in terms of getting us back to a place where we don't care how many people attend a wedding and people don't have to wear a mask to buy milk and so on.  

I have stated before, I think that such a "return to normal" will be a process, rather than a flipping of the switch.  

I think that if we presume a .5% IFR, sure, that's a large number...but that is also dependent on time.  How many people are infected each year and then, how many of those actually die (or end up with long term damage....which is possible for most of the causes of death in this country.........people who survive heart attacks, flu, car accidents etc etc....millions are left with long term injury.)

 

I am actually pretty cool with a vaccine that mitigates but doesn't have high levels of efficacy.  What I am really talking about is what level of mitigation is acceptable.  

Do you realize that your "herd immunity model" would likely result in 1,160,00 million deaths in this country with everything else remaining equal?

So almost a million more to go.

Bill

 

 

[JanetC]

59 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

The experts in virology, epidemiology, and public health can look at the data and weigh factors about a virus.  They are not experts on psychology, economics, mental health, education, and many other areas of people's lives that are impacted by decisions.  Their perspective is very narrow.  Just as a meteorologist can look at the data and give information about the probability of a hurricane's path and strength, they should not be the decisions makers in where and how to evacuate, I do not think the virologist, epidemiologists, and public health should be the sole decision makers.  

 

Actually, public health professionals *do* study psychology, mental health, education, economics and the various aspects of society are effected in order to improve everyone's health. The problem is that our federal and many state governments have defunded and downsized them, and don't listen to those who are left.

Virologists can look at the data and identify the strains and where they came from and how they evolve and so on.

Epidemiologists can look at the data and determine how contagious etc it is.

Public health is about how we can take what virologists and epidemiologists know about an illness (and what they are now calling the "infodemic" of misinformation about covid) and work on implementing policies to improve outcomes for the public as a whole. They are the multi-disciplinary experts in all this.

[Bootsie]

6 minutes ago, JanetC said:

 

Actually, public health professionals *do* study psychology, mental health, education, economics and the various aspects of society are effected in order to improve everyone's health. The problem is that our federal and many state governments have defunded and downsized them, and don't listen to those who are left.

Virologists can look at the data and identify the strains and where they came from and how they evolve and so on.

Epidemiologists can look at the data and determine how contagious etc it is.

Public health is about how we can take what virologists and epidemiologists know about an illness (and what they are now calling the "infodemic" of misinformation about covid) and work on implementing policies to improve outcomes for the public as a whole. They are the multi-disciplinary experts in all this.

I know a number of people who have degrees in public health and who work in public health that have NOT studied the things that you mention.  Some might, but they are definitely not experts in the area.  

[Joker]

N/M

Edited August 30, 2020 by Joker

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

The experts in virology, epidemiology, and public health can look at the data and weigh factors about a virus.  They are not experts on psychology, economics, mental health, education, and many other areas of people's lives that are impacted by decisions.  Their perspective is very narrow.  Just as a meteorologist can look at the data and give information about the probability of a hurricane's path and strength, they should not be the decisions makers in where and how to evacuate, I do not think the virologist, epidemiologists, and public health should be the sole decision makers.  

At least in my state, the Governor’s Office put together a task force with all different types of experts to make decisions about the response to the pandemic. I just assumed most states did something similar, but maybe not.

[ktgrok]

7 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

I don't think business owners have ever not been allowed to have their own policies that are more strict than state mandates?  And if a small business owner was *really* that concerned about all the people there....they certainly weren't prohibited from closing for that week.   

But it isn't just businesses there that are effected. People came and went from all over the country, and any who were infected at the rally can spread it to their family and friends, and they can spread it, etc. Like with the Biogen conference. People thousands of miles away from the Rally, weeks from now, could be infected and it traced back to that rally. 

6 hours ago, Corraleno said:

460,000 people attended the Sturgis rally and then traveled to, or through, 61% of the counties in the entire US, according to cell phone data. That's a huge amount of potential exposure for a huge number of people all over the US, just so a bunch of self-centered jerks wouldn't have to miss a party. 

 

And we know that a gathering of less than 200 people in Boston led, eventually, to TENS OF THOUSANDS of infections. 

To go to a big group event, knowing such a thing is possible, is....I don't even know what it is. Selfish? Clueless? 

5 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Because I am doubting my math, please, any better math people than me, correct me...

 

6 million cases / 9 months equals like 660,000 per month.

330 million / 660,000 equals 500 months

500 months /12 per year equals around 42 yrs.....

It's Saturday evening......is that math right?

But that's not how it spreads...at all. It's not a flat number per month...

46 minutes ago, Joker said:

I really hate this idea that we should show all the faces of those lost to Covid but we seemingly don’t care at all about those lost to other things. I’ve been a huge proponent and supporter of driving law’s, especially those of teenagers. I lost my dad and brother to an idiot teenage driver. No one cared about them or thought we needed to be more careful. I think I’m quickly becoming sick of the hypocrisy. Many are worried about themselves or those close to them in this moment but they didn’t care at all when they didn’t see themselves in the statistics. I think we’re all actually super selfish. We try to act like being careful now is for others but I think it’s still about ourselves. 

I'm so sorry about your dad and brother. That's terrible. But, we do have places that have put in place stricter teenage driving laws, because of incidents like what happened to your family. As a society, we do try to mitigate those things, or at least some places do, and everywhere should. And on this board, people often talk about teenage drivers and distractions, safety issues, rules to try to make things safer, etc. 

As we should, because tragedies like what happened to your family shouldn't happen. 

Edited August 30, 2020 by Ktgrok

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, Joker said:

I really hate this idea that we should show all the faces of those lost to Covid but we seemingly don’t care at all about those lost to other things. I’ve been a huge proponent and supporter of driving law’s, especially those of teenagers. I lost my dad and brother to an idiot teenage driver. No one cared about them or thought we needed to be more careful. I think I’m quickly becoming sick of the hypocrisy. Many are worried about themselves or those close to them in this moment but they didn’t care at all when they didn’t see themselves in the statistics. I think we’re all actually super selfish. We try to act like being careful now is for others but I think it’s still about ourselves. 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not really worried about catching Covid-19, except for the fact that I might transmit it to others. My concern is for people who are likely to die from it, and doing my part to reduce the spread in my community.

I'm so sorry about your dad and brother, truly. 😞 

I think we can care about more than one thing at a time. Just because people are vocal about something in the midst of a crisis doesn't mean they don't care about other things, YWIM?

Edited August 30, 2020 by MercyA

[Catwoman]

1 hour ago, Joker said:

I really hate this idea that we should show all the faces of those lost to Covid but we seemingly don’t care at all about those lost to other things. I’ve been a huge proponent and supporter of driving law’s, especially those of teenagers. I lost my dad and brother to an idiot teenage driver. No one cared about them or thought we needed to be more careful. I think I’m quickly becoming sick of the hypocrisy. Many are worried about themselves or those close to them in this moment but they didn’t care at all when they didn’t see themselves in the statistics. I think we’re all actually super selfish. We try to act like being careful now is for others but I think it’s still about ourselves. 

 

I’m very sorry about what happened to your dad and your brother, Joker. But I’m sure that anyone who heard about what happened to them DID care and that they felt awful for your family and angry at the teenage driver who killed them. How could people hear a story like yours and not be upset about it? It’s just terrible. 😢

Showing the faces of Covid in no way minimizes those lost to other causes. It’s just the Covid is at the forefront right now, and we are trying to find ways to get people to take proper safety precautions — and one of those ways is to try to show the naysayers that Covid is a real thing and real people are dying from it. 

You seem very angry and like you are going through a very rough time right now, and I know you mentioned that you are very worried about something horrible that happened to your son, but please don’t lump all of us in to your “super selfish” category. A lot of us truly do care about the lives that are lost to causes other than Covid, but since this thread is about Covid, that has been our focus. If you want to start a thread about safe driving laws, or about your son, I truly believe you will get a lot more support that you seem to think you will. 

I’m so sorry things are so awful for you right now, and I hope things will improve soon. 

Edited August 30, 2020 by Catwoman
Typo!

[kiwik]

11 hours ago, JanetC said:

 

What if... there isn't a time when "things go back the way they were"? What if it's like the seatbelts and airbags in our cars, or the scanners at the airports, and warning people to use condoms to prevent AIDS -- what if we have to have a "new normal?"

New Zealand crushed the virus, but they kept on testing and found another outbreak, for example.

Maybe we will always wear masks in certain high-risk situations.

Maybe we can replace uncomfortable mitigations with less uncomfortable ones.

But, maybe, once a virus gets this deep into a population, it is too late to eradicate it.

We were expecting a second outbreak though which is why we were still testing.  No border is completely safe and people and systems will always make mistakes or push at boundaries.  There may be an immunisation for it or there may not.  If you could come up with better treatment options though it would help a lot.  Also we need to know more about the non lethal damage.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, JanetC said:

 

Another is the @facesofcovid Twitter account.

I would visit this but I don’t have a Twitter account. 

[JanetC]

5 hours ago, Quill said:

I would visit this but I don’t have a Twitter account. 

 

No account needed - just type twitter.com slash FacesOfCOVID into your browser

(Not sure why I'm not allowed to embed the link, but there it is)

[Bootsie]

15 hours ago, Frances said:

At least in my state, the Governor’s Office put together a task force with all different types of experts to make decisions about the response to the pandemic. I just assumed most states did something similar, but maybe not.

Hopefully many task forces have included a variety of experts.  In my experience, I have not seen that.  I have also seen people suggest that epidemiologists, virologists, and public health employees are the experts who do not have political or other motivations but those from other disciplines are motivated by politics and or financial gain and should not be making decisions.