THIS is why we can’t have nice things!

[PinkTulip]

Just a vent here that I need to get off my chest. Schools here started just over a month ago, in-person with masks required, 4 days a week with Fridays online. The school district said any school that hits 15 cases will automatically go all online for 14 days. 
 

Of course, on Wednesday, DS’s high school hit 15 cases, so now all classes, activities, etc. have been canceled for 2 weeks, which I totally support. Lots of letters have gone out from both the principal and the district superintendent to limit social interactions to help stop the spread. 
 

So here’s the vent part: This week has been Homecoming at the school. The school announced at the beginning of the year that there would be no school dances due to Covid, a wise decision imo. But last night, several parents decided to host their own homecoming dance for their kids and friends - not just a few- my sister’s neighbor had *50 couples* on their tennis court. No masks, no social distancing, no regard for the pleas of so many to not do this. This was not the only event like this - I know of at least 3 others. At this rate, these kids will never be back to school for the rest of the year. So frustrating! 
 

P.S.  Also mentioning that the positivity rate here is hovering around 14% right now. 

[Amethyst]

Wow. So very frustrating. 🥺

[Garga]

It’s so frustrating. I’m having a very difficult time internally right now with a certain circle of friends I have. They are the sort who would totally have sent their kids to a dance like that.  I’m very frustrated with that group of friends and have been feeling very judgmental toward them, which is ruining the friendships for me. I don’t like being judgmental, and I don’t know how to stop.

I don’t understand how people cannot understand that groups of people mashed together is how diseases spread. I mean...they understand it, but just don’t see it as a big deal. I don’t understand how they cannot link “teens getting together” with “covid will spread” and “school will have to be online for weeks and weeks if it does.”  Do they not see that they’re just causing problems for themselves further down the line?

I guess they have assessed their risk and think it’s low enough to go ahead and get together and risk a bunch of people getting sick. I’m such a rule follower and am so risk averse that I just can’t throw caution to the wind like that or even understand people who do.  

Edited September 27, 2020 by Garga

[Frances]

And then it spreads to the elderly and more vulnerable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/health/coronavirus-young-adults.html

Since colleges opened in her city, my mom’s senior living complex is having its second wave of infections and it’s much larger than the first, which occurred after bars reopened to packed crowds due to the state Supreme Court ruling.

The level of selfishness demonstrated by some during this pandemic still continues to surprise me, although I’m not really sure why anymore.

[Frances]

19 minutes ago, Garga said:

It’s so frustrating. I’m having a very difficult time internally right now with a certain circle of friends I have. They are the sort who would totally have sent their kids to a dance like that.  I’m very frustrated with that group of friends and have been feeling very judgmental toward them, which is ruining the friendships for me. I don’t like being judgmental, and I don’t know how to stop.

I don’t understand how people cannot understand that groups of people mashed together is how diseases spread. I mean...they understand it, but just don’t see it as a big deal. I don’t understand how they cannot link “teens getting together” with “covid will spread” and “school will have to be online for weeks and weeks if it does.”  Do they not see that they’re just causing problems for themselves further down the line?

I guess they have assessed their risk and think it’s low enough to go ahead and get together and risk a bunch of people getting sick. I’m such a rule follower and am so risk averse that I just can’t throw caution to the wind like that or even understand people who do.  

And what about the problems they are potentially causing for older or more vulnerable people?

[Garga]

Just now, Frances said:

And what about the problems they are potentially causing for older or more vulnerable people?

Exactly!!  It drives me bonkers. I don’t understand that people can’t see this. It is seriously affecting my friendships as I’m aghast and filled with judgement that they don’t see it the way I do. 

 

[Garga]

1 minute ago, Medicmom2.0 said:

 

The real kicker? At least five doctors were in attendance.  One of them was the officiant.

 

 

One of my friends works in the medical field as a nurse practitioner. She is serious about wearing her mask/ppe while at work, but she isn’t as serious out of work.  She’ll go eat at restaurants, she has flown on a plane for a wedding, she will sit indoors with friends at a graduation party. 

She said that there was some sort of event for a bunch of medical people and some of the doctors said, “Well, what if we go to the event and don’t wear our masks?” because they didn’t want to wear them.

Part of me thinks, “Huh. Maybe I am over-reacting if these medical people don’t think they need to wear masks,” and another part of me thinks they’re nuts.  

So, I just don’t know anymore. Will the 50 couples on the tennis court all be fine? Will it be the beginning of a huge breakout in the community?  Who knows. 

For me, I just can’t take the risk,  but for others, they’re ok with it.

[Frances]

Just now, Garga said:

One of my friends works in the medical field as a nurse practitioner. She is serious about wearing her mask/ppe while at work, but she isn’t as serious out of work.  She’ll go eat at restaurants, she has flown on a plane for a wedding, she will sit indoors with friends at a graduation party. 

She said that there was some sort of event for a bunch of medical people and some of the doctors said, “Well, what if we go to the event and don’t wear our masks?” because they didn’t want to wear them.

Part of me thinks, “Huh. Maybe I am over-reacting if these medical people don’t think they need to wear masks,” and another part of me thinks they’re nuts.  

So, I just don’t know anymore. Will the 50 couples on the tennis court all be fine? Will it be the beginning of a huge breakout in the community?  Who knows. 

For me, I just can’t take the risk,  but for others, they’re ok with it.

The medical professionals I know, including my husband, are extremely careful about mask wearing and social distancing outside of work.

[MEmama]

The now infamous wedding here in Maine that was over capacity (65 people) has now directly led to 8 deaths. Not one is a person who was there. Additionally, the pastor who officiated is a proud anti masker who continues to defy orders to hold church service. The county where he spouts his nonsense has the highest outbreak in the state, triple the number of cases anywhere else in the state, and now it’s spreading to the next county over. The schools have been redesignated as yellow, meaning hybrid only and no sports, no band, no nothing for the students. They made a terrific video shaming their community for not caring about them and their futures.

I have zeros f...s for anyone who is being lax and not taking this seriously. Wake the hell up, grow the f...up and put on a goddamn mask.

That is all. 

[rebcoola]

We know people who had a cornhole tournament/party with 50ish people.  It could in theory be done safely but it wasn't no masks, in out of the house, hugging etc.  On top of that it was when our air quality was in the hazardous range over 400.  A family brought their newborn and passed him around.  I just don't get it.

Than today their was ad for faux masks for your kids.  If your worried about your kidding wearing a mask all day when school goes back. You can buy masks made from two layers of cheese cloth and dyed to look more substantial.

[TechWife]

55 minutes ago, Garga said:

One of my friends works in the medical field as a nurse practitioner. She is serious about wearing her mask/ppe while at work, but she isn’t as serious out of work.  She’ll go eat at restaurants, she has flown on a plane for a wedding, she will sit indoors with friends at a graduation party. 

She said that there was some sort of event for a bunch of medical people and some of the doctors said, “Well, what if we go to the event and don’t wear our masks?” because they didn’t want to wear them.

Part of me thinks, “Huh. Maybe I am over-reacting if these medical people don’t think they need to wear masks,” and another part of me thinks they’re nuts.  

So, I just don’t know anymore. Will the 50 couples on the tennis court all be fine? Will it be the beginning of a huge breakout in the community?  Who knows. 

For me, I just can’t take the risk,  but for others, they’re ok with it.

I volunteer at a hospital. Last week I went in for the first time since March but was at an on campus conference center for a department meeting, not the hospital proper. Everyone I talked to that worked there said that they feel safer at work than they do out in the community because people aren't taking this seriously enough. None of the staff are being allowed to attend off campus professional events, including conferences and meetings, so I am surprised that the doctors are going to an event. My dh, who works in tech, isn't allowed any professional travel or conferences because they don't want to either have their employees sick or be responsible for spread. Biogen conference, anyone? Contact tracing has linked that event to tens of thousands of cases.

[PeterPan]

When our state's positivity rate went up, it was after the "peaceful protests" and was very obviously connected. I was googling for what stats are hovering in that 14+% positivity rate, and it looks like some are states having high rates of protests. So it may be that your local positivity rate is disconnected from the larger state and that people don't assess their risk as being connected to it. We saw that in our area. The state numbers were going up because of certain locales, not because of us. 

I'm not saying what they're doing is wise, just that there could be context. Even some of the states that are doing fine, with very controlled positivity rates, aren't mandating masking for churches, which would be somewhat comparable to a 150 person prom or gathering I suppose.

Edited September 27, 2020 by PeterPan

[ktgrok]

54 minutes ago, MEmama said:

 

I have zeros f...s for anyone who is being lax and not taking this seriously. Wake the hell up, grow the f...up and put on a goddamn mask.

That is all. 

Yup. 

1 hour ago, Medicmom2.0 said:

But 150 people in a crowded building seems way too much risk. But no one got sick, so maybe I am the odd one.

That's the thing though...just because no one got sick doesn't mean it was a safe thing to do. It's like playing Russian roulette. If you pull the trigger and don't get shot, that doesn't mean that it is a safe practice. Or that the next party/pull of the trigger will turn out the same way. 

I see people all the freaking time say, "well, we did XYZ and we are healthy" as if that means anything other than they were lucky. Hell, there are plenty of people that smoke a pack a day all their lives and never get lung cancer. They can honestly say, "I smoke, and I'm fine". But that doesn't mean that everyone else will be fine if they do it too, or that it is safe. 

But ...that logic seems beyond the general populace these days. 

I need a shirt that says, "anecdote does not equal evidence". 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

And then it spreads to the elderly and more vulnerable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/health/coronavirus-young-adults.html

Since colleges opened in her city, my mom’s senior living complex is having its second wave of infections and it’s much larger than the first, which occurred after bars reopened to packed crowds due to the state Supreme Court ruling.

The level of selfishness demonstrated by some during this pandemic still continues to surprise me, although I’m not really sure why anymore.

Has anyone been able to access the tables and information from the CDC report that this NY Times article is based upon?  From what I get the argument is that positivity rates increased in young adults several weeks before increasing in older populations.  But, I cannot find anything about how significant these increases were, if they are statistically significant, and if there is any causation.  When I go to the CDC report I find that information is in "supplemental" tables not included in the report.  When I try to access the supplemental tables I just get empty tables.  

[Bootsie]

12 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Yup. 

That's the thing though...just because no one got sick doesn't mean it was a safe thing to do. It's like playing Russian roulette. If you pull the trigger and don't get shot, that doesn't mean that it is a safe practice. Or that the next party/pull of the trigger will turn out the same way. 

I see people all the freaking time say, "well, we did XYZ and we are healthy" as if that means anything other than they were lucky. Hell, there are plenty of people that smoke a pack a day all their lives and never get lung cancer. They can honestly say, "I smoke, and I'm fine". But that doesn't mean that everyone else will be fine if they do it too, or that it is safe. 

But ...that logic seems beyond the general populace these days. 

I need a shirt that says, "anecdote does not equal evidence". 

But this works both ways.  Just because someone gets sick doesn't mean that they behavior wasn't generally safe.  It doesn't mean that everyone else (or even a significant number of people will not be sick if they do something).  It may not mean anything other than that they were unlucky.  

Statements like "after bars opened up there was an outbreak in our local senior living area" or "after colleges opened, more people over 50 got COVID in that town" are anecdotes and don't equal evidence.  

With a new virus, coupled with totally unreliable reporting of cases, so much is anecdotal and not evidence-based when it comes to COVID.  

[Frances]

8 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But this works both ways.  Just because someone gets sick doesn't mean that they behavior wasn't generally safe.  It doesn't mean that everyone else (or even a significant number of people will not be sick if they do something).  It may not mean anything other than that they were unlucky.  

Statements like "after bars opened up there was an outbreak in our local senior living area" or "after colleges opened, more people over 50 got COVID in that town" are anecdotes and don't equal evidence.  

With a new virus, coupled with totally unreliable reporting of cases, so much is anecdotal and not evidence-based when it comes to COVID.  

In the case of my mom’s city, they did trace several outbreaks back to bars. Also, the cases at her senior living complex all started with staff, who are out and about in the community far more than the residents (only residents in senior apartments like hers are even allowed to leave, except for dr apts; although once again they are all restricted). Also, since schools and colleges re-opened there, cases have increased most dramatically in those age young age groups. It doesn’t seem far fetched that later that will spread and lead to an increase among the more vulnerable. I mean if they aren’t going anywhere, someone else has to be bringing it to them. And if there is more spread in the community (last week her county was a top 20 hotspot nationwide), it doesn’t seem likely it will magically stay concentrated just among the young and healthy. I agree it’s not hard and fast evidence, but it also doesn’t seem like some wild guess.

[Not_a_Number]

57 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

When our state's positivity rate went up, it was after the "peaceful protests" and was very obviously connected. I was googling for what stats are hovering in that 14+% positivity rate, and it looks like some are states having high rates of protests. So it may be that your local positivity rate is disconnected from the larger state and that people don't assess their risk as being connected to it. We saw that in our area. The state numbers were going up because of certain locales, not because of us. 

I'm not saying what they're doing is wise, just that there could be context. Even some of the states that are doing fine, with very controlled positivity rates, aren't mandating masking for churches, which would be somewhat comparable to a 150 person prom or gathering I suppose.

Maybe. There was nothing else that opened up? Because NYC didn't even have a blip. And there were TONS of protests and the testing and plentiful. We saw them, and people weren't masking perfectly or anything. 

The lack of a protest blip in NY made me feel like outdoor transmission is really rare, frankly. So I wouldn't assume that it's the protests unless there was absolutely nothing else it could be. 

[Bootsie]

3 minutes ago, Frances said:

In the case of my mom’s city, they did trace several outbreaks back to bars. Also, the cases at her senior living complex all started with staff, who are out and about in the community far more than the residents (only residents in senior apartments like hers are even allowed to leave, except for dr apts; although once again they are all restricted). Also, since schools and colleges re-opened there, cases have increased most dramatically in those age young age groups. It doesn’t seem far fetched that later that will spread and lead to an increase among the more vulnerable. I mean if they aren’t going anywhere, someone else has to be bringing it to them. And if there is more spread in the community (last week her county was a top 20 hotspot nationwide), it doesn’t seem likely it will magically stay concentrated just among the young and healthy. I agree it’s not hard and fast evidence, but it also doesn’t seem like some wild guess.

I have trouble with some of the "tracing" back to particular events.  The one person who went to the bar, or the wedding, or the grocery store, or wherever, when infected, got the infection from somewhere else.  So, if Abby got COVID at work and then goes to a wedding and someone at the wedding then goes to the grocery store, and then someone... does the spread get traced back to the spread that happened because of the wedding or the spread that happened because of Abby's work?  Perhaps if Abby had not gone to the wedding, she would have worked an extra shift at work and even more people would have gotten sick.  So, the tracing may show a chain of exposures, but it does not tell us anything about how many cases there are relative to what would have happened if that particular exposure had not occurred.  

As far as colleges in an area--if you have a dramatic increase in the number of people in an age group coming into a city and frequent testing, a dramatic increase in that age group would be expected to be seen in that group--those numbers are being closely counted and watched--then a senior living area sees an outbreak (which those outbreaks appear to be spotty).  So, if you have 100 college students each spreading to 1 elderly then you have 100 elderly in that town ill.  If the same 100 college students had stayed in their hometown, become ill, and spread to 1 elderly person, you would still have the same total spread, it just isn't as noticeable because you aren't seeing a common factor to count those 100 people.  

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I have trouble with some of the "tracing" back to particular events.  The one person who went to the bar, or the wedding, or the grocery store, or wherever, when infected, got the infection from somewhere else.  So, if Abby got COVID at work and then goes to a wedding and someone at the wedding then goes to the grocery store, and then someone... does the spread get traced back to the spread that happened because of the wedding or the spread that happened because of Abby's work?  Perhaps if Abby had not gone to the wedding, she would have worked an extra shift at work and even more people would have gotten sick.  So, the tracing may show a chain of exposures, but it does not tell us anything about how many cases there are relative to what would have happened if that particular exposure had not occurred.  

As far as colleges in an area--if you have a dramatic increase in the number of people in an age group coming into a city and frequent testing, a dramatic increase in that age group would be expected to be seen in that group--those numbers are being closely counted and watched--then a senior living area sees an outbreak (which those outbreaks appear to be spotty).  So, if you have 100 college students each spreading to 1 elderly then you have 100 elderly in that town ill.  If the same 100 college students had stayed in their hometown, become ill, and spread to 1 elderly person, you would still have the same total spread, it just isn't as noticeable because you aren't seeing a common factor to count those 100 people.  

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. 

And if you're tracking positivity and not total case numbers, you can tell the difference between just "more testing" and "a worse outbreak."  

[Bootsie]

Just now, Not_a_number said:

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. 

And if you're tracking positivity and not total case numbers, you can tell the difference between just "more testing" and "a worse outbreak."  

Are you counting positivity for the entire country or for a localized area?  If 100 college students were ill and would have spread one case in 100 different communities it wouldn't be that noticeable in any of those communities.  If all 100 go to the same town and spread it to 100 people in the same town now the positivity rate in that town would be higher--but for all of society it is no higher than it would have been.  

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Bootsie said:

Are you counting positivity for the entire country or for a localized area?  If 100 college students were ill and would have spread one case in 100 different communities it wouldn't be that noticeable in any of those communities.  If all 100 go to the same town and spread it to 100 people in the same town now the positivity rate in that town would be higher--but for all of society it is no higher than it would have been.  

I see no particular reason that the sick college students would be more likely to travel than the well college students. This kind of random motion shouldn't affect positivity. 

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

I see no particular reason that the sick college students would be more likely to travel than the well college students. This kind of random motion shouldn't affect positivity. 

My comment was not based upon any assumptions that sick college students would be more likely to travel than well college students.  I am not sure why you think I would be assuming that.  

[ktgrok]

Here, when they were tracking it to bars and college students, it was things like, a group of 15 people all went to a bar together, unmaksed (obviously - can't wear a mask and drink), not distancing. They all tested positive. It was the only time all of them were together. Etc. 

Also, we for a while had testing sites on campus, and could compare positivity at the campus to positivity in the rest of the community, etc. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Bootsie said:

My comment was not based upon any assumptions that sick college students would be more likely to travel than well college students.  I am not sure why you think I would be assuming that.  

Why would college students moving around change the positivity rate? If they infect as many people where they move to as where they left, why would that increase the community positivity? 

Like, 100 college students move and each infect one person. But there were also 10000 students that moved that weren't sick and infected no one. The effect should be totally negligible UNLESS something about the environment is causing more spread. 

[Bootsie]

1 minute ago, Not_a_number said:

Why would college students moving around change the positivity rate? If they infect as many people where they move to as where they left, why would that increase the community positivity? 

Like, 100 college students move and each infect one person. But there were also 10000 students that moved that weren't sick and infected no one. The effect should be totally negligible UNLESS something about the environment is causing more spread. 

The incidence among young people has been increasing across the country.  If the positivity rate in an area is lower than the national average and then you have 10,000 students enter the picture with a higher than average positivity rate for that community, and are more heavily tested than average in that community, you are going to see an increase in positivity in THAT community.  But, there is not necessarily any more spread than there would have been in society.  I was not saying that there were 100 student who were infected out of 10,000 in any particular situation I was using that as a number for incidence--it could be 2 or 5000--the reasoning is the same. 

[Frances]

12 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I have trouble with some of the "tracing" back to particular events.  The one person who went to the bar, or the wedding, or the grocery store, or wherever, when infected, got the infection from somewhere else.  So, if Abby got COVID at work and then goes to a wedding and someone at the wedding then goes to the grocery store, and then someone... does the spread get traced back to the spread that happened because of the wedding or the spread that happened because of Abby's work?  Perhaps if Abby had not gone to the wedding, she would have worked an extra shift at work and even more people would have gotten sick.  So, the tracing may show a chain of exposures, but it does not tell us anything about how many cases there are relative to what would have happened if that particular exposure had not occurred.  

As far as colleges in an area--if you have a dramatic increase in the number of people in an age group coming into a city and frequent testing, a dramatic increase in that age group would be expected to be seen in that group--those numbers are being closely counted and watched--then a senior living area sees an outbreak (which those outbreaks appear to be spotty).  So, if you have 100 college students each spreading to 1 elderly then you have 100 elderly in that town ill.  If the same 100 college students had stayed in their hometown, become ill, and spread to 1 elderly person, you would still have the same total spread, it just isn't as noticeable because you aren't seeing a common factor to count those 100 people.  

But would have spread been as likely to that one elderly in the other town? And maybe that town has no senior living environment to increase the spread to others. Increasing community spread would seem to increase the risk for everyone. And while the college population in the city is being closely monitored (unlike here), the school age child spread is not so much.
 

Of course it’s not possible to say what would have happened in an alternative universe, but it doesn’t seem far fetched to say that large indoor gatherings with little to not masking or social distancing and lots of personal contact (e.g. weddings some have described here) are more likely to spread the virus relative to masked, socially distanced encounters such as at a store, all other factors being equal. Or do you think we really know nothing about how the virus spreads and how to control the spread and it’s all just completely random?

 

[Bootsie]

6 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Here, when they were tracking it to bars and college students, it was things like, a group of 15 people all went to a bar together, unmaksed (obviously - can't wear a mask and drink), not distancing. They all tested positive. It was the only time all of them were together. Etc. 

Also, we for a while had testing sites on campus, and could compare positivity at the campus to positivity in the rest of the community, etc. 

Is there evidence that this happened?  Or is it anecdotal?  Is there evidence that it happened enough that it is statistically significant and not just luck or random?  

I would think it would be unusual for 15 people to go to a bar together and not have any other contact with any of those some 15 people or the people that those 15 people have come in contact with.  Most of the stories I have seen like this track down that some of those people work together, or they all also know a 16 and 17th person that they had all been around and had been sick.  

[Bootsie]

3 minutes ago, Frances said:

But would have spread been as likely to that one elderly in the other town? And maybe that town has no senior living environment to increase the spread to others. Increasing community spread would seem to increase the risk for everyone. And while the college population in the city is being closely monitored (unlike here), the school age child spread is not so much.
 

Of course it’s not possible to say what would have happened in an alternative universe, but it doesn’t seem far fetched to say that large indoor gatherings with little to not masking or social distancing and lots of personal contact (e.g. weddings some have described here) are more likely to spread the virus relative to masked, socially distanced encounters such as at a store, all other factors being equal. Or do you think we really know nothing about how the virus spreads and how to control the spread and it’s all just completely random?

 

It may be that spread would have been unlikely to an elderly person in another town.  Or, it could have been that spread would have been MUCH more likely because college student would have seen grandma, who would have visited her sister, who would have exposed her neighbor...  Having the college community gathered and monitored, may actually reduce community spread, although the numbers look high in the area where it is being closely watched and monitored.  

I think there is a difference in saying that large indoor gatherings and personal contact are more likely to cause spread than socially distanced, outdoor events with few people and that Event X caused Y number of people to be infected.

 

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Is there evidence that this happened?  Or is it anecdotal?  Is there evidence that it happened enough that it is statistically significant and not just luck or random?  

I would think it would be unusual for 15 people to go to a bar together and not have any other contact with any of those some 15 people or the people that those 15 people have come in contact with.  Most of the stories I have seen like this track down that some of those people work together, or they all also know a 16 and 17th person that they had all been around and had been sick.  

It happened - was traced to a specific bar. I don't know the details, but I believe it was right when things opened up here the first time, i don't quite remember, but at the time they did do contact tracing and determine that that gathering was the event where the spread happened. We later shut down bars again...although now they are open to full capacity again.....

[Frances]

5 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

The incidence among young people has been increasing across the country.  If the positivity rate in an area is lower than the national average and then you have 10,000 students enter the picture with a higher than average positivity rate for that community, and are more heavily tested than average in that community, you are going to see an increase in positivity in THAT community.  But, there is not necessarily any more spread than there would have been in society.  I was not saying that there were 100 student who were infected out of 10,000 in any particular situation I was using that as a number for incidence--it could be 2 or 5000--the reasoning is the same. 

But many of the college students are acquiring after getting back to campus, not bringing it with them. They have already traced clusters back to parties in the major college towns in my state. Most classes are still online, but students have moved back. So many of these students might not have spread it in their hometown because they didn’t have it there (of course it’s not to say they might not get it eventually if they stayed put). 

[Bootsie]

Just now, Ktgrok said:

It happened - was traced to a specific bar. I don't know the details, but I believe it was right when things opened up here the first time, i don't quite remember, but at the time they did do contact tracing and determine that that gathering was the event where the spread happened. We later shut down bars again...although now they are open to full capacity again.....

I would place this in the category of anecdotal.  One time does not evidence make.  Just as the many times many people have been to bars in recent months in countries around the world and no one has gotten ill does not provide evidence that COVID cannot spread in a bar.  

 

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I would place this in the category of anecdotal.  One time does not evidence make.  Just as the many times many people have been to bars in recent months in countries around the world and no one has gotten ill does not provide evidence that COVID cannot spread in a bar.  

 

Well, yeah, I'm not claiming that the one case is evidence bars are unsafe. It was just m explaining one way they track this stuff. 

I can say that our positivity skyrocketed (rate, not case numbers) after we initially opened bars and indoor dining. We also opened retail space fully. All at once. So any of those could have spread it. But we shut down bars after we hit around 20% positivity, finally, and that plus mask mandates in some counties seems to have triggered the decrease we have now seen. 

I mean, sure, maybe thats a huge coincidenc and it was actually ponies wearing tiaras. But it seems pretty logical to say that groups of drunk people who have reduced inhibitions, tend to be yelling over loud music close to each other's faces, not wearing masks, might be a good way to spread an airborne disease. 

[Not_a_Number]

23 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

The incidence among young people has been increasing across the country.  If the positivity rate in an area is lower than the national average and then you have 10,000 students enter the picture with a higher than average positivity rate for that community, and are more heavily tested than average in that community, you are going to see an increase in positivity in THAT community.  But, there is not necessarily any more spread than there would have been in society.  I was not saying that there were 100 student who were infected out of 10,000 in any particular situation I was using that as a number for incidence--it could be 2 or 5000--the reasoning is the same. 

Sure, that's true. That requires people mostly moving from high incidence to low incidence areas, though, and it would cause small changes. Is that true? 

[Not_a_Number]

12 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I would place this in the category of anecdotal.  One time does not evidence make.  Just as the many times many people have been to bars in recent months in countries around the world and no one has gotten ill does not provide evidence that COVID cannot spread in a bar.  

Well, what's your personal sense of how COVID is spread? All of the information I've read suggests that it's in small enclosed places. That's where the outbreaks have been traced to in places that have the situations under control (unlike us, who really don't know much because there are so many outbreaks.) 

[Bootsie]

12 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

Sure, that's true. That requires people mostly moving from high incidence to low incidence areas, though, and it would cause small changes. Is that true? 

Not necessarily, If younger people have a higher positivity rate than older people and then are proportionately larger part of the population in their college town than before they moved there at the beginning of the semester you are changing the makeup of the population not just moving from high incidence to low incidence areas.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Bootsie said:

Not necessarily, If younger people have a higher positivity rate than older people and then are proportionately larger part of the population in their college town than before they moved there at the beginning of the semester you are changing the makeup of the population not just moving from high incidence to low incidence areas.

Sure. Yes, that would happen. But I really see no reason why we should assume that putting young people in environments where they are likely to be indoors together will make no difference... 

[TCB]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

In the case of my mom’s city, they did trace several outbreaks back to bars. Also, the cases at her senior living complex all started with staff, who are out and about in the community far more than the residents (only residents in senior apartments like hers are even allowed to leave, except for dr apts; although once again they are all restricted). Also, since schools and colleges re-opened there, cases have increased most dramatically in those age young age groups. It doesn’t seem far fetched that later that will spread and lead to an increase among the more vulnerable. I mean if they aren’t going anywhere, someone else has to be bringing it to them. And if there is more spread in the community (last week her county was a top 20 hotspot nationwide), it doesn’t seem likely it will magically stay concentrated just among the young and healthy. I agree it’s not hard and fast evidence, but it also doesn’t seem like some wild guess.

In our area the second round started with a big increase in younger adults and then several weeks later we started getting the 60+ age group in the ICU. I know that several of them, (I don’t know all their stories), got sick after a child or grandchild they were in close contact with had it so it seems fairly likely they caught it from them.

[ktgrok]

12 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Not necessarily, If younger people have a higher positivity rate than older people and then are proportionately larger part of the population in their college town than before they moved there at the beginning of the semester you are changing the makeup of the population not just moving from high incidence to low incidence areas.

But do younger people have a higher positivity rate, when not congregating on campus? During the summer, was that a thing? 

[daijobu]

3 hours ago, Garga said:

It’s so frustrating. I’m having a very difficult time internally right now with a certain circle of friends I have. They are the sort who would totally have sent their kids to a dance like that.  I’m very frustrated with that group of friends and have been feeling very judgmental toward them, which is ruining the friendships for me. I don’t like being judgmental, and I don’t know how to stop.

I don’t understand how people cannot understand that groups of people mashed together is how diseases spread. I mean...they understand it, but just don’t see it as a big deal. I don’t understand how they cannot link “teens getting together” with “covid will spread” and “school will have to be online for weeks and weeks if it does.”  Do they not see that they’re just causing problems for themselves further down the line?

I guess they have assessed their risk and think it’s low enough to go ahead and get together and risk a bunch of people getting sick. I’m such a rule follower and am so risk averse that I just can’t throw caution to the wind like that or even understand people who do.  

Okay, so first of all I totally agree these weddings and dances are irresponsible and deadly and all that.  But help me understand the emotional reaction people are having to the risky behavior of others.  

Presumably the downstream effects (illness, disability, death) are being felt by elderly and at risk family members.  Shrug.  I'm a generally risk averse person, so I'm accustomed to observing other humans doing crazy stuff like sky diving or installing swimming pools in their backyard or keeping guns in the house.  When a family member drowns or shoots themselves, it's the family who suffers and they get to live with that.  That punishment seems appropriate.  

And I suppose it affects me in the sense that if hospitals are overwhelmed with covid patients, then that puts me at risk if I need to be admitted for any reason.  Valid, but our local hospitals so far are not overwhelmed.  But our hospitals generally don't have excess capacity for anything as they aren't established to serve the public good but to serve their bottom line.  That's a larger problem than the covid issue.   

I guess my question is, WHY is everyone else so upset at the stupid behavior of others?  Live and let die.  

 

[Bootsie]

12 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

Sure. Yes, that would happen. But I really see no reason why we should assume that putting young people in environments where they are likely to be indoors together will make no difference... 

It depends on what their behavior or exposure would have been if they weren't on a college campus.  It isn't like a lot of them go from living under a rock, isolated from the rest of the world to being in a risky college environment.  Many of the college students I know had a lot more chances for exposure, and interactions with a larger demographic during the summer than when they came back to college.  Take for instance one young woman I know.  During the summer she lived it home--mom took care of grandmother, dad worked outside of the home with lots of contact with people, brother was home from college and working a summer job, young woman was working a summer job and sharing a room with high school aged sister who had some outside-of-the house contact.  Young woman is now at college in a single apartment.  Another student I knew was staying at aunt' house with aunt, uncle (who was working) and two young cousins who were playing sports--she is now in a single room in the dorm.  I could go one with lots of examples of my students reporting LESS exposure at campus than when they were at home.  But, now, if they each get sick it is seen as an "outbreak".  If they had each been at home and gotten sick the cases would not be tied together to see an outbreak--but it may have been more total cases.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Bootsie said:

It depends on what their behavior or exposure would have been if they weren't on a college campus.  It isn't like a lot of them go from living under a rock, isolated from the rest of the world to being in a risky college environment.  Many of the college students I know had a lot more chances for exposure, and interactions with a larger demographic during the summer than when they came back to college.  Take for instance one young woman I know.  During the summer she lived it home--mom took care of grandmother, dad worked outside of the home with lots of contact with people, brother was home from college and working a summer job, young woman was working a summer job and sharing a room with high school aged sister who had some outside-of-the house contact.  Young woman is now at college in a single apartment.  Another student I knew was staying at aunt' house with aunt, uncle (who was working) and two young cousins who were playing sports--she is now in a single room in the dorm.  I could go one with lots of examples of my students reporting LESS exposure at campus than when they were at home.  But, now, if they each get sick it is seen as an "outbreak".  If they had each been at home and gotten sick the cases would not be tied together to see an outbreak--but it may have been more total cases.

And why do you think staying in a single room in a dorm is less exposure? The issue isn't where you live, it's what you do the rest of the time. 

[Bootsie]

1 minute ago, Not_a_number said:

And why do you think staying in a single room in a dorm is less exposure? The issue isn't where you live, it's what you do the rest of the time. 

From what I have seen the majority of cases are tied to home exposure.  The cases were 10 people at a party, fifteen people at a bar get publicity, it ignores the fact that 2 cases in this home, three in this home, over and over again is where most infection occurs.  So, I do think a lot has to do with where you live.  But, I also see no reason to believe that the average 20-year old's behavior is significantly different September 1 than it was August 1--or whatever day college starts.  In fact at the school where I teach (which has appeared on one of the highest rate of infection lists), bars in the area are not even open.  Many of the students who came back to campus were going to bars when they were home over the summer. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

From what I have seen the majority of cases are tied to home exposure.  The cases were 10 people at a party, fifteen people at a bar get publicity, it ignores the fact that 2 cases in this home, three in this home, over and over again is where most infection occurs.  So, I do think a lot has to do with where you live.  But, I also see no reason to believe that the average 20-year old's behavior is significantly different September 1 than it was August 1--or whatever day college starts.  In fact at the school where I teach (which has appeared on one of the highest rate of infection lists), bars in the area are not even open.  Many of the students who came back to campus were going to bars when they were home over the summer. 

Students don't party at bars. They party at frats. 

[Bootsie]

19 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

But do younger people have a higher positivity rate, when not congregating on campus? During the summer, was that a thing? 

I haven't been able to find good statistics about whether this is the case or not.  I know there has been a lot of information about that group being the fastest growing number of cases in the past several months (at least in my state), but I do not know if positivity, especially controlling for testing--and whether the testing is because of symptoms or random--is different.  This is one of the reasons I think most policy and people's views are based on anecdotal information, not evidence--no matter which side their view comes down on.  

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

The cases were 10 people at a party, fifteen people at a bar get publicity, it ignores the fact that 2 cases in this home, three in this home, over and over again is where most infection occurs. 

The thing is, I think we all know there's spread at home. It's an environment where you spend lots of indoor time with each other. There isn't anything you can DO about that. 

[Garga]

49 minutes ago, daijobu said:

Okay, so first of all I totally agree these weddings and dances are irresponsible and deadly and all that.  But help me understand the emotional reaction people are having to the risky behavior of others.  

Presumably the downstream effects (illness, disability, death) are being felt by elderly and at risk family members.  Shrug.  I'm a generally risk averse person, so I'm accustomed to observing other humans doing crazy stuff like sky diving or installing swimming pools in their backyard or keeping guns in the house.  When a family member drowns or shoots themselves, it's the family who suffers and they get to live with that.  That punishment seems appropriate.  

And I suppose it affects me in the sense that if hospitals are overwhelmed with covid patients, then that puts me at risk if I need to be admitted for any reason.  Valid, but our local hospitals so far are not overwhelmed.  But our hospitals generally don't have excess capacity for anything as they aren't established to serve the public good but to serve their bottom line.  That's a larger problem than the covid issue.   

I guess my question is, WHY is everyone else so upset at the stupid behavior of others?  Live and let die.  

 

My husband is medium-high risk. My friends know this. We got together on Friday night, outside.  

However, earlier in the week the hostess said that if the weather was bad, we would meet inside her house. I asked about masks in the group chat where the plans were being made.  The hostess and another guest said they didn’t want to wear them.  And the other 3 didn’t answer either way. 

It was hurtful. These are my friends. They won’t mask to protect my husband.

I am feeling very judgy right now because I think they’re unwise for not taking it seriously and trying to protect others. And I take it personally that they don’t care if my husband gets sick and dies. Literally. Gets sick and DIES. And they don’t “feel” like wearing masks.  (Ooo. Didn’t realize how furious I am until I wrote that last sentence. Yikes. I’m pretty angry.)

And they probably think this is all a hoax and that I’m “living in fear” and trying to impose my will on them.

I’ve known these women for 17 years. As SAHMs, we used to meet every other week for hours for 10 years. For the past 7 years, we get together every 2 months or so now that a lot of them work.

These aren’t people I barely know. I know these women inside and out and they know me. 

And if they don’t care about me, then they really don’t care about anyone else, and their behavior can lead to infecting others. That’s why I am personally upset that my friends won’t take this seriously and mask whenever they are around others.

 

Live and let die in this case means they live, and my dh dies.

 

ETA: Once winter hits, I’m sure they’ll have get-togethers. And I’ll just skip them. They can sit around the table and breathe all over each other and infect each other to their hearts’ content.  I’m really not sure if my friendship with them will survive though, now that I know they don’t care enough about my company to consider masking so that I can have a chance to join them.

(Wow. The more I type, the more I realize how angry I am. I’ve been in a crabby mood since Friday night and now I understand why. It can take me a few days to understand my emotions.  Looks like I’m really mad at my friends right now and hurt by them.)

Edited September 28, 2020 by Garga

[Kassia]

25 minutes ago, Garga said:

 Looks like I’m really mad at my friends right now and hurt by them.)

 

I'm really sorry about the situation and your hurt feelings.  Sending hugs.  

[Farrar]

To me, the problem with these sorts of things is twofold.

1) They're unnecessary risks on behalf of pleasure and nothing more. Work, classes, etc. are all necessary risks, especially at this point. Parties, bars, etc. not so much. So that's the part that gets people. Surely we can learn to live without parties for a year. Or can learn to have smaller, masked, outdoor gatherings more often.

2) The idea that the people taking the risk are the ones who suffer is false. Above, someone posted about how a relative's elder care home is now seeing a surge in cases again. The more community spread, the more dangerous it is to go to the store or go to work even with precautions. So the people who suffer are not always the people who party. If that were the case, everything about this pandemic would be so much simpler. I actually get really frustrated by the memes around this. The whole reason we don't want there to be big gatherings is to protect the people in the community... not the people in the gathering.

[Momto6inIN]

1 hour ago, Not_a_number said:

Students don't party at bars. They party at frats. 

I'm not following the statistical argument at all 😊 but I wanted to say that this is not my experience at all. I partied plenty at the bars and so did l.o.t.s. of people along with me. Very rarely did I go to a frat.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Momto6inIN said:

I'm not following the statistical argument at all 😊 but I wanted to say that this is not my experience at all. I partied plenty at the bars and so did l.o.t.s. of people along with me. Very rarely did I go to a frat.

Interesting. I didn't party at all, and my sister's friends seem to party at frats. But I can believe it varies :-). 

Either way, I'd be surprised if closing bars prevented students from partying. Especially given that more kids are living off-campus, as far as I can tell.