THIS is why we can’t have nice things!

[Bootsie]

10 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

I do realize our data is limited and incomplete. I don't think I have much less statistical training than you or am less likely to question my priors, so I don't think that's where this discussion is coming from. I think where the discussion is coming from is what exactly we DO with our limited data. And I'm not seeing you make concrete suggestions for what we can do, after we've done demolishing all of our evidence as anecdotal. 

 

I did not see the bolded as where the discussion was coming from.  No, I have made concrete suggestions for what we can do--I didn't set out to do that in this discussion.  

I am also not sure what evidence has been demolished as anecdotal.  If there is some evidence that has been demolished in that way, could you please point it out to me?

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Bootsie said:

I did not see the bolded as where the discussion was coming from.  No, I have made concrete suggestions for what we can do--I didn't set out to do that in this discussion.  

I am also not sure what evidence has been demolished as anecdotal.  If there is some evidence that has been demolished in that way, could you please point it out to me?

Huh? You're suggesting that evidence of spread at weddings and large gatherings is anecdotal, no? 

[daijobu]

3 hours ago, Not_a_number said:

We’ve been trying to live like this, and we mostly do, but it’s close to impossible. I need to go to the dentist, because last time I went far too long without seeing one and there were negative repercussions.

Yes, I was kind of joking about my dentist, but now you've got me worrying.  My dentist mailed me hand-written letter (did I mention I love my dentist?), telling me he could not guarantee my safety during a prophylactic visit, so instead he recommends "aggressive" brushing and flossing.  I'm also concerned he's going to retire because how can he afford rent if he's not seeing patients?      

[Not_a_Number]

@Bootsie: I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying that going with data about spread occurring in specific, easily-traceable situation might be misleading, correct? What next step does that suggest? 

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, daijobu said:

Yes, I was kind of joking about my dentist, but now you've got me worrying.  My dentist mailed me hand-written letter (did I mention I love my dentist?), telling me he could not guarantee my safety during a prophylactic visit, so instead he recommends "aggressive" brushing and flossing.  I'm also concerned he's going to retire because how can he afford rent if he's not seeing patients?      

Yeah, I've had to think about all this 😕 . I have to finish my dental implant, which will take more visits than I'm comfortable with, so I'm putting it off, but I do plan to get a routine cleaning, because it's been a year. 

I have literally no idea if this is the right decision. None. It's taken some agonizing to think about it, and we're in a low incidence area. But again, most people we know that have had COVID haven't escaped lightly so it feels pressing. 

Have you seen the "Personal Experiences" thread? (There used to be a longer one run by my old name which sadly disappeared.) I find that as worrisome as anything, because it's not really retrospective: it's just people reporting on people they know. I feel like retrospective things are a problem, because then your mind fixates on people with the bad outcomes. But even with the "Personal Experiences," I'm finding an unpleasant fraction of people with truly negative experiences. And it's not only the people who thought they were badly off in the first place, either. 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Not_a_number

[almondbutterandjelly]

Anecdotally, a mask mandate has driven our local numbers down from about 300 cases per day in mid-July to about 20 cases per day lately.  Masks work.

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

Yes, the posts on here are like a TOTALLY different world for me. You guys keep criticizing everyone, but if I wasn''t on here. I would be one of those people the rest of you despise. As it is, I don't know that people look down on me, but I think they pity me for taking it seriously. They wish I wasn't so fear based...which, if you look at our numbers, they have facts on their side at this moment. 

Despise?

Are you going to large indoor gatherings unmasked? Having big indoor parties? Refusing to wear a mask in stores?

Those are the people who we are saying are being too risky. 

[Not_a_Number]

13 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

Yes, the posts on here are like a TOTALLY different world for me. You guys keep criticizing everyone, but if I wasn''t on here. I would be one of those people the rest of you despise. As it is, I don't know that people look down on me, but I think they pity me for taking it seriously. They wish I wasn't so fear based...which, if you look at our numbers, they have facts on their side at this moment. 

The thing with looking at numbers is that they can lag behind the problems (although less so where I am, where's the plentiful testing and positivity gets reported every day.) That being said, I think all of us DO make judgments based on the numbers. I am doing a LOT more things outside the house right now than I was in March and April. 

Of course, the BEST judgment I ever made was to stay home a while before things were shut down in NYC. And let me tell you, while the positivity was high, the actual number of tests was so small that it was hard to make conclusions at that point. 

[Bootsie]

27 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

Huh? You're suggesting that evidence of spread at weddings and large gatherings is anecdotal, no? 

No, that is not what I am suggesting.  I think there is evidence of spread at weddings and large gatherings.  I also think there is evidence of weddings and large gatherings occurring where spread did not occur.   That is evidence of X happening at Y.  Each is an observation.  It isn't evidence that a particular behavior results in a particular level or risk or safety.  It also does not provide evidence that we have X number of cases more than we would have had if that event had not taken place.  

[Bootsie]

30 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

@Bootsie: I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying that going with data about spread occurring in specific, easily-traceable situation might be misleading, correct? What next step does that suggest? 

I do not know what you mean by "going with data". 

I think that data about an easily-traceable situation is just that--data.  We have to be careful about conclusions we draw from that data. 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, daijobu said:

No, this is a fair assessment and pretty close to the mark.  If people really cared about public health, they would not have voted down Hillary Clinton's healthcare initiative in the 1990s.  I mean, who doesn't want public health care?  But apparently lots of people don't.  That plus a lot of other policies favored by conservatives has left me thinking that the best I can do is look out for myself and my family.   

I often wonder why I continue to let me heart bleed for other Americans when they don't bother looking out for their own best interests.  The corporatization of health care is one of so many problems leading to this crisis.  We just aren't set up to help the public good in this country.  

I can care about public health without agreeing with a particular initiative.  I may care deeply about pubic health and think that a particular policy will not help, or that a particular policy might even do more harm.  

[Not_a_Number]

12 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

Yes, trying to decide what to do this weekend. My best friend's son is getting married. It will be no bigger than church services with social distancing and such... so is there any difference in going to the ceremony versus goin to church? Now the reception is a different animal, though churches around here have resumed inside Wednesday night dinners.  I mean, if restaurants can have 75 percent of seating, why not??  

The problem with that kind of reasoning is that the rate of transmission can inch into large numbers fairly quickly, after chugging along around 1 for a while. You don't want to have a few weeks of the rate being 2-3 without noticing, because then it's a fire that's very hard to put out. 

[Not_a_Number]

12 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I do not know what you mean by "going with data". 

I think that data about an easily-traceable situation is just that--data.  We have to be careful about conclusions we draw from that data. 

I agree. We need to be careful about conclusions. But you're not saying anything specific at the moment, only that we need to be careful with our data. 

So, we have these easily traced outbreaks at weddings, but possibly those aren't really the drivers of the outbreaks because there are other places things spread. Which means what? What do we do next? 

[Bootsie]

38 minutes ago, perkybunch said:

Anecdotally, a mask mandate has driven our local numbers down from about 300 cases per day in mid-July to about 20 cases per day lately.  Masks work.

In my area, cases went up after a mask mandate.  How do you explain contradictory data and facts?  

[Not_a_Number]

Fun fact: the original saying is "the plural of anecdote IS data." That's because it's kind of true. If you don't have retrospectively selected evidence, anecdotes are evidence like anything else. Are they the highest grade of evidence? Obviously not. But they aren't nothing, either. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

In my area, cases went up after a mask mandate.  How do you explain contradictory data and facts?  

Did anything other than the mask mandate happen at that time? Was that all that happened? 

[Bootsie]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

Did anything other than the mask mandate happen at that time? Was that all that happened? 

But, are those same questions being asked when someone claims cases went down when masks were mandated and that proves masks work?  

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, are those same questions being asked when someone claims cases went down when masks were mandated and that proves masks work?  

By whom? People certainly try to disentangle this stuff when they write papers about it. There are obviously so many confounding factors that it's hard to pick it apart. And yes, everyone gets guided by their priors to a larger extent than they'd like to admit. 

That's how it goes in complicated datasets, right? You have a LOT of input and you try to make your best out of a mess. 

I think NY was attempting to reopen things slowly so they could see what caused spikes. So far, nothing has caused a spike, so we will see what we'll actually be able to conclude if we DO have a spike. 

[Bootsie]

12 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

I agree. We need to be careful about conclusions. But you're not saying anything specific at the moment, only that we need to be careful with our data. 

So, we have these easily traced outbreaks at weddings, but possibly those aren't really the drivers of the outbreaks because there are other places things spread. Which means what? What do we do next? 

I did not set out to say anything specific about what a policy should be.  I am the first to admit I do not have any great answers at this point.  I think we need to push for as accurate data as possible that is as transparent as possible for as many people to look at an brainstorm as possible.  I think we need to ENCOURAGE questioning.  I think we need to be careful to avoid "answers" that are not really evidence-based because it is easy and makes us feel like we are doing something and perhaps miss some important information.  

[Bootsie]

11 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

By whom? People certainly try to disentangle this stuff when they write papers about it. There are obviously so many confounding factors that it's hard to pick it apart. And yes, everyone gets guided by their priors to a larger extent than they'd like to admit. 

That's how it goes in complicated datasets, right? You have a LOT of input and you try to make your best out of a mess. 

I think NY was attempting to reopen things slowly so they could see what caused spikes. So far, nothing has caused a spike, so we will see what we'll actually be able to conclude if we DO have a spike. 

I agree that there is a lot to disentangle.  I do find it problematic when someone says "after masks were mandated cases in my area dropped.  masks work" as if that anecdote is proof, but as soon as someone says "after masks were mandated in my area cases rose" immediately there are questions of --well what else occurred.  My point is that that question should be asked in both situations--not just the one that is not in line with one's beliefs.  

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Bootsie said:

I agree that there is a lot to disentangle.  I do find it problematic when someone says "after masks were mandated cases in my area dropped.  masks work" as if that anecdote is proof, but as soon as someone says "after masks were mandated in my area cases rose" immediately there are questions of --well what else occurred.  My point is that that question should be asked in both situations--not just the one that is not in line with one's beliefs.  

I don't think one anecdote is proof that masks work, no. That's not where I get my opinion that masks probably help. 

[Not_a_Number]

8 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I did not set out to say anything specific about what a policy should be.  I am the first to admit I do not have any great answers at this point.  I think we need to push for as accurate data as possible that is as transparent as possible for as many people to look at an brainstorm as possible.  I think we need to ENCOURAGE questioning.  I think we need to be careful to avoid "answers" that are not really evidence-based because it is easy and makes us feel like we are doing something and perhaps miss some important information.  

Yeah, but it's been something like 7 months, and apparently, we still don't know enough to make any decisions? 

I encourage questioning. However, you can dig yourself into a hole where you aren't really able to make any decisions at at all because you keep looking for better and better evidence. It's one thing if new evidence comes up that negates our previous, fuzzy evidence... it's another if we're just spending time being skeptical of our admittedly fuzzy evidence that is still the best we currently have. 

At the end of the day, being constantly skeptical will just mean that we aren't able to make decisions. We saw this in NY and a few other places early on -- they weren't SURE there was an issue, so they didn't shut down. There needed to be quick thinking to save lives, and the quick thinking was by necessity not going to be totally evidence-based, because the evidence either way was shaky -- both the evidence for action and the evidence for lack of action. And we saw how that went. 

What I ultimately advocate is continuing to gather evidence while doing the best we can with what we do know. We do know that large, indoor gatherings have been sources of spread. We have relatively good evidence there's less outdoor spread. We know that there have been super-spreader events that have caused outbreaks that then seeded a lot of other outbreaks. 

What do we do with that evidence? Obviously, that's debatable. But I don't want us to back ourselves into a corner where no actions are supported by robust evidence, and therefore we do nothing at all. Choosing to do nothing is also a decision. 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Not_a_number

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Happymomof1 said:

Yes, I know which leaves me in a weird delimma -- Do I really want for many of my friends and neighbors to get sick to prove me right???  Absolutely not. But if they don't get sick, then are my premises wrong? 

If your friends run a stop sign, and don't have an accident, does that mean the premise of "running a stop sign is dangerous" is wrong? No. 

The premise isn't that all gatherings or risky behavior will lead to illness anymore than running a stop sign will always lead to a traffic accident or smoking will always lead to lung cancer. It is that it greatly increases the risk. Some will absolutely do the risky thing and be fine. That doesn't make it not risky. 

1 hour ago, Happymomof1 said:

Yes, trying to decide what to do this weekend. My best friend's son is getting married. It will be no bigger than church services with social distancing and such... so is there any difference in going to the ceremony versus goin to church? Now the reception is a different animal, though churches around here have resumed inside Wednesday night dinners.  I mean, if restaurants can have 75 percent of seating, why not??  

Well, first, I don't think restaurants open are a great idea anyway, lol. So to me, neither of those is a safe choice. But that said...at a restaurant the idea is that you have a table with less than 10 people at it, and stay 6 feet away from any other group of people. So the most you interact with are those people at your table. The server should be wearing a mask, and the people in the restaurant are supposed to wear one when not actually eating/drinking - so if going to the restroom, while waiting for service, etc. 

At a wedding reception all the people are interacting together. And much more likely to be hugging, standing close, kissing, shaking hands, etc etc  all of which increase the risk of disease transmission. 

The wedding itself, if families are seated apart from other families, people wear masks, etc, I have no real issue with. I don't know that I'd go to one, but I'm also not going to church in person at this point. But I agree it is much less risky than some other activities. Unless peopl are all hugging/handshaking/kissing/squishing together for selfies, etc. 

50 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

In my area, cases went up after a mask mandate.  How do you explain contradictory data and facts?  

Cases, or positivity rate? Case numbers are meaningless for the most part, because if testing also went up, that would explain it. You have to look at the rate of positive tests to see if it helped. And of course include other factors. 

Our positivity dropped a LOT after mask mandates...but it took weeks. All those people already contagious were still spreading it to their families and friends, even if not at stores. 

And of course, the mandates only help in public spaces, not private parties/homes/etc. 

[Bootsie]

15 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

Yeah, but it's been something like 7 months, and apparently, we still don't know enough to make any decisions? 

I encourage questioning. However, you can dig yourself into a hole where you aren't really able to make any decisions at at all because you keep looking for better and better evidence. It's one thing if new evidence comes up that negates our previous, fuzzy evidence... it's another if we're just spending time being skeptical of our admittedly fuzzy evidence that is still the best we currently have. 

At the end of the day, being constantly skeptical will just mean that we aren't able to make decisions. We saw this in NY and a few other places early on -- they weren't SURE there was an issue, so they didn't shut down. There needed to be quick thinking to save lives, and the quick thinking was by necessity not going to be totally evidence-based, because the evidence either way was shaky -- both the evidence for action and the evidence for lack of action. And we saw how that went. 

What I ultimately advocate is continuing to gather evidence while doing the best we can with what we do know. We do know that large, indoor gatherings have been sources of spread. We have relatively good evidence there's less outdoor spread. We know that there have been super-spreader events that have caused outbreaks that then seeded a lot of other outbreaks. 

What do we do with that evidence? Obviously, that's debatable. But I don't want us to back ourselves into a corner where no actions are supported by robust evidence, and therefore we do nothing at all. Choosing to do nothing is also a decision. 

I am not advocating for not making decisions.  I am advocating for not being stuck in those decisions.  I am also advocating for us to be aware that these decisions are being made without complete information.  I do not think, for example, we really know much about colleges opening and spread in those cases.  I am also advocating for tolerance, grace, and understanding when someone else's views are different, rather than claiming that an observation, an experience, an anecdote is evidence that someone else is refusing to see (especiallywhen that person may have another observation, experience, or anecdote which is just as true).  

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

 

Cases, or positivity rate? Case numbers are meaningless for the most part, because if testing also went up, that would explain it. You have to look at the rate of positive tests to see if it helped. And of course include other factors. 

Our positivity dropped a LOT after mask mandates...but it took weeks. All those people already contagious were still spreading it to their families and friends, even if not at stores. 

And of course, the mandates only help in public spaces, not private parties/homes/etc. 

Yes, positivity rates rose even more dramatically than cases.  

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I am not advocating for not making decisions.  I am advocating for not being stuck in those decisions.  I am also advocating for us to be aware that these decisions are being made without complete information.  I do not think, for example, we really know much about colleges opening and spread in those cases.  I am also advocating for tolerance, grace, and understanding when someone else's views are different, rather than claiming that an observation, an experience, an anecdote is evidence that someone else is refusing to see (especially when that person may have another observation, experience, or anecdote which is just as true).  

I think it's completely straightforward that the more indoor meetings you have, the more you contribute to spread. That's completely separate from public policy, and while I don't exactly judge people doing it, every time people increase indoor meetings, I get worried. And no, I don't think that's as evidence-based as not doing it. 

I agree about not being stuck in decisions. I'm watching what happens with colleges with interest. We know plenty of people who are deans of various departments and we are certainly getting information about how things are going. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, Bootsie said:

Yes, positivity rates rose even more dramatically than cases.  

Interesting! At what pace? Like, the day or 5 after, in which case would be indicative of what was happening a week before or so, or a few weeks later, or steadily, or? I really did take at least 3 weeks to see our rise slow down. And then a while longer to go down. 

Did other things change during that time? I mean, I doubt wearing masks and controlling the spread of droplets made it more contagious, so what do you think caused the increase? Did people actually follow the mandate? Other things open up? People shift to private gatherings to avoid the mandate? Very curious. 

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Interesting! At what pace? Like, the day or 5 after, in which case would be indicative of what was happening a week before or so, or a few weeks later, or steadily, or? I really did take at least 3 weeks to see our rise slow down. And then a while longer to go down. 

Did other things change during that time? I mean, I doubt wearing masks and controlling the spread of droplets made it more contagious, so what do you think caused the increase? Did people actually follow the mandate? Other things open up? People shift to private gatherings to avoid the mandate? Very curious. 

I've heard the argument that if people mask up but then relax and spend more time with other people, it might be a net negative. It's also probably not much good if people aren't wearing the masks carefully. 

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Interesting! At what pace? Like, the day or 5 after, in which case would be indicative of what was happening a week before or so, or a few weeks later, or steadily, or? I really did take at least 3 weeks to see our rise slow down. And then a while longer to go down. 

Did other things change during that time? I mean, I doubt wearing masks and controlling the spread of droplets made it more contagious, so what do you think caused the increase? Did people actually follow the mandate? Other things open up? People shift to private gatherings to avoid the mandate? Very curious. 

Masks were mandated around the beginning of July--positivity rates increased throughout July; they are only now getting back to the levels they were at the beginning of June--still higher than late May or early June.  In late May/early June only people who were thought to have been exposed and were exhibiting symptoms were tested--so you would have expected a higher positivity rate then.  

I have seen almost 100% compliance when I have been to the store.   Bars are not open here.  My church is still not open.  I don't know how many private gatherings are occurring.  We had some hot weather, so AC may be a contributing factor.  

 

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Masks were mandated around the beginning of July--positivity rates increased throughout July; they are only now getting back to the levels they were at the beginning of June--still higher than late May or early June.  In late May/early June only people who were thought to have been exposed and were exhibiting symptoms were tested--so you would have expected a higher positivity rate then.  

I have seen almost 100% compliance when I have been to the store.   Bars are not open here.  My church is still not open.  I don't know how many private gatherings are occurring.  We had some hot weather, so AC may be a contributing factor.  

You're in Texas, right? I imagine AC really is a problem. 

I'd also be curious how many indoor gatherings people are having. It has to spread somewhere! If people are now spending more time in personal residences because they don't feel like masking in places where it's mandated, that would make things worse for sure. 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Not_a_number

[rebcoola]

Interesting we were on the brink of major disaster.  Hospitals at 95+ capacity. Positivity rate in 20's.  Than the governor and local government made a deal.  Masks for a few more things open outdoor dining and more construction.  Our rates went down right around the 2 week mark.   2 months post mask mandate and we are down quite a bit.  The biggest spreader now are private gatherings according to the health department.  

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Happymomof1 said:

But if the majority of the people were running a stop sign, then it would make sense there would be a lot more accidents, right? So honestly, if in another month, I do not see a big uptick in cases, I'll be honest, I won't know what to think.  Because with the behavior that I see, we should start to have huge numbers. If we don't, what does that mean?

It means the world is a random place. Really. It so happened that there weren't COVID spreaders in the big events. Or there were, but they only spread it to loners who went home and didn't spread it around. 

All you're ever doing is playing the odds. You can always have a big win in Vegas. You just shouldn't bet on that as your salary from now on. 

[ktgrok]

8 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

But if the majority of the people were running a stop sign, then it would make sense there would be a lot more accidents, right? So honestly, if in another month, I do not see a big uptick in cases, I'll be honest, I won't know what to think.  Because with the behavior that I see, we should start to have huge numbers. If we don't, what does that mean?

Well, it could mean you live in an area without much traffic, to continue the analogy. So none of the times you ran the stop sign was there a car coming the other way. But if there ever is, it will be a tragedy. 

Same with this. If no one at the event has covid, then it won't spread. But as soon as someone who is contagious attends one, there you go. 

4 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

No, but I was seriously judged for considering taking my daughter from college if she got Covid. I was told I was a selfish jerk.    But no, I am not doing any of those things you mentioned, but people seem to be much more judgemental about much more here on the board. Or at least if feels like it. 

I never called you that, myself, but I did say that taking a known positive person into a public space, or yourself after known exposure into public, would be wrong and felt that a potty in the car might be very impractical if she ended up being one of the many who get GI symptoms like vomiting and diarrhea from Covid. (I was one of the people saying to take the RV and camp nearby)

[Not_a_Number]

7 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

No, but I was seriously judged for considering taking my daughter from college if she got Covid. I was told I was a selfish jerk.    But no, I am not doing any of those things you mentioned, but people seem to be much more judgemental about much more here on the board. Or at least if feels like it. 

It's a big board 😉 . Not everyone is judgmental. One always remembers the most outrageous opinion... I know I do, because they affect me emotionally. 

[Amy in NH]

21 hours 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.

We attended one actual peaceful protest in the late spring - not sure why you put that in quotes - and *everyone* there was wearing masks and trying to maintain distance.  We had no increase in cases in our local area after that event.

That was after local doctors went on a ski trip to a hotspot in Austria last winter after COVID was discovered, and brought it back to the community after they were forced to leave their trip early due to the closing of European borders.

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I am not advocating for not making decisions.  I am advocating for not being stuck in those decisions.  I am also advocating for us to be aware that these decisions are being made without complete information.  I do not think, for example, we really know much about colleges opening and spread in those cases.  I am also advocating for tolerance, grace, and understanding when someone else's views are different, rather than claiming that an observation, an experience, an anecdote is evidence that someone else is refusing to see (especiallywhen that person may have another observation, experience, or anecdote which is just as true).  

Do you also think tolerance, grace, and understanding should be given to individuals who are defying government mandates and public health guidelines?

[Catwoman]

5 hours ago, Happymomof1 said:

Here is my problem Catwoman. In my town, in my community people are just living their lives. We went to Sunday School for the first time  since the pandemic started yesterday. My husband and I were the only ones wearing a mask in the room. Socially distanced, yes. Probably 12 of us in the room.  Church is normal.  Our elementary ages schools do not require the children to wear masks in the public school.  So, in my small town, in my community, exactly where am I supposed to find the people who live like you feel is the only morally responsible way to live?  THAT is what I am struggling with. I had that thread last week and people kept saying find people in the community to do x,y,z.  But no one I see is nearly as cautious as everyone else here is. My husband and I wear masks when we are out. We don't eat indoors. We have been gone 5 out of the last 6 weeks camping/taking daughter to college/visiting with my mom in a condo.  I have felt safe traveling in the RV or in my mom's condo.  We hiked a ton which is easy to do social distancing. Now that I am back home for awhile, I will just be at home again. I guess I wonder where you think I should find friends now? Changing churches won't help.  They are all like mine.  As I said, our schools ( which I guess are doing fine???) are open normally almost.

Sorry, I just see all of you on what feels like a high horse, setting an impossible standard for me.  Well, not true. We won't be going back to Sunday school and will just participate in the Zoom.  I won't get together with anyone. (Haven't anyway.) Just makes it pretty lonely.

Also, I cannot find the positivity numbers.  But my town of over 14,000 has had 246 cases, which means that .017 have gotten the virus here. The big town next to us has about .022 percent of the 80,000 who have gotten the virus.

 

No one is on a high horse, setting an impossible standard for you.

I have specifically said in several threads, that I don’t think the average person needs to take the same precautions my family is taking. 

If you and your family are low risk, you certainly can (and probably should!) do more things than I can do — but there is a difference between “doing some things” and being reckless. If you’re wearing your mask, and washing/sanitizing your hands, and staying out of large groups, and not dining indoors when you go to restaurants, that still allows you to do a LOT of different things outside your house. If you want to get together with friends, you can meet outdoors, wear masks, and follow social distancing recommendations. 

It seems like you are feeling awfully sorry for yourself when you actually have many options open to you in terms of socialization with others. And seriously, even if you can’t make new friends for a while due to the Covid situation, well... join the club and try to remember that it’s temporary. Most of us aren’t exactly social butterflies right now.

Judging by your posts, it sounds like you are being very careful and that you are being very considerate of others, and I think you’re doing great. I know it’s not easy, especially when the people around you are acting like there is no pandemic, but I hope you will continue to do the right thing.

But if you eventually decide that you want to be like the people around you, who throw caution to the wind and don’t wear masks or take precautions, that is entirely your decision, not mine, and not anyone else’s on this forum to make for you. However, if you decide that your own need for more freedom and up-close socialization is more important to you than helping protect those around you who are more vulnerable to Covid, you bet I’m going to judge you for that. You can call it being high and mighty or whatever, and you don’t have to care that I’m judging you, but I will definitely be judging you. But again, the decision is yours to make. 

I’m sorry if I sound kind of unsympathetic. I really do understand how hard this is, and I truly do applaud all of your efforts. You are doing a lot! But it’s hard for all of us who are trying to stay safe and help keep others safe, as well, and I feel like we need to stick with it until a solid, reliable treatment becomes available. (I am less confident in the vaccine being the end of this crisis — I won’t feel safe until there is a proven, effective treatment for Covid.)

Anyway, I hope I don’t sound too mean. It’s so hard to get my feelings across without coming across like a jerk. It’s hard to find the right words.

[Not_a_Number]

22 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

Like I said, it makes me not know how to pray. I don't want people to be reckless with people's lives. On the other hand, I don't want to pray for my friends and neighbors to get sick. I should probably just stay off this board. I always feel like I am wrong and feel worse after being on it.

So pray for them not to get sick. And pray that they see the wisdom in taking care of our vulnerable. You don't have to be cruel to do the right thing yourself and see the value in it. 

[Corraleno]

21 hours 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. 

Aren't you in Ohio? I looked at the positivity stats and I don't see any spike. The statewide positivity rate (7 day average) peaked in April at 23%, fell to around 6.5% at the end of May, and mostly fluctuated between 4.5 & 6.5% until a few weeks ago, when universities started testing thousands of students; statewide positivity is currently at 2.9%. What spike are you seeing that is "obviously connected" to protests, and what is the evidence for the connection?

I live in a state that has seen a sizable increase in cases in the last month, and we have certainly had a lot of protests. But if you look at the actual data, the biggest increases are in rural counties far from the protests, and case rates in the big urban county where most of the protests occur have actually fallen in the last two months — positivity in the major urban county is 3.3%, versus 24% in the rural county with a per capita infection rate that is literally 10 times higher than in the big city with all the protests. 

 

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Aren't you in Ohio? I looked at the positivity stats and I don't see any spike. The statewide positivity rate (7 day average) peaked in April at 23%, fell to around 6.5% at the end of May, and mostly fluctuated between 4.5 & 6.5% until a few weeks ago, when universities started testing thousands of students; statewide positivity is currently at 2.9%. What spike are you seeing that is "obviously connected" to protests, and what is the evidence for the connection?

I live in a state that has seen a sizable increase in cases in the last month, and we have certainly had a lot of protests. But if you look at the actual data, the biggest increases are in rural counties far from the protests, and case rates in the big urban county where most of the protests occur have actually fallen in the last two months — positivity in the major urban county is 3.3%, versus 24% in the rural county with a per capita infection rate that is literally 10 times higher than in the big city with all the protests. 

To me, the NY data is close to conclusive that outdoor spread is limited. There were SO MANY protests. And while people were careful, they were chanting and they certainly didn't keep their masks on carefully. 

(For the record, I had no prior assumptions about this. I was really worried protests would spike our cases.) 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Not_a_number

[Catwoman]

46 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

No, but I was seriously judged for considering taking my daughter from college if she got Covid. I was told I was a selfish jerk.    But no, I am not doing any of those things you mentioned, but people seem to be much more judgemental about much more here on the board. Or at least if feels like it. 

Well, I definitely wasn’t one of those people! I was one of the people who said that if my child was away at college and contracted Covid, I would find a way to bring him home safely. 🙂 

Are you sure you’re not just paying too much attention to the negative comments? 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Happymomof1 said:

But see, here they are not. Here is is completely lawful to have a wedding if you social distance.  Churches can do anything they want just about. Restaurants are up  to 75 percent.  So no one around here is defying a law. Do I think they are being wise, no. But how can you judge them if they are not violating any laws?

You should have the courage of your convictions. And I sympathize. It's hard to do so. 

[Catwoman]

33 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

That has actually been the plan all along.  That said, as a mamma bear, you don't get between me and my baby.  I will not let her die alone.  But anyway, back to this thread. 

I take precautions.  Just frustrating that my community was only doing half-hearted, and now not even that. Since we have been gone for 3 weeks, it truly looks like the world pre-Covid around here. I feel like an alien. I went to church yesterday, but won't be out of the house again until the wedding on Saturday. As I mentioned, will probably just go to the service and not to the reception which is at a different church. But this is my best friend. She won't judge me, but she will be sad I am not there. I don't have a clue how many people will be at either. The parents of the bride and groom are pastors at different churches. Could be a lot. 

Like I said, it makes me not know how to pray. I don't want people to be reckless with people's lives. On the other hand, I don't want to pray for my friends and neighbors to get sick. I should probably just stay off this board. I always feel like I am wrong and feel worse after being on it.

I don’t think anyone should wish this virus on anyone else, no matter how recklessly those people have been behaving. Wouldn’t it be better to pray that people will do the right thing to protect themselves and others, and to pray for a cure for the virus? 

I don’t think you should stay off this board! You seem very nice, and I’m sure that the people who disagree with you on certain issues, will still be nice to you about other topics. We can get pretty heated here, but when the chips are down and someone is going through a rough time, we do our best to be there for each other. We don’t have to agree with each other to still be friends. 🙂 

[Catwoman]

5 minutes ago, Happymomof1 said:

But see, here they are not. Here is is completely lawful to have a wedding if you social distance.  Churches can do anything they want just about. Restaurants are up  to 75 percent.  So no one around here is defying a law. Do I think they are being wise, no. But how can you judge them if they are not violating any laws?

We judge people all the time for doing things that are legal, but that we disagree with on a moral or spiritual level. I’m not sure what “not violating any laws” has to do with it, particularly when it comes to Covid. 

Is the problem a matter of not judging the people who will attend the wedding, or is the problem with worrying that they will judge you if you choose not to attend?

[TCB]

6 hours ago, PeterPan said:

So I'll just toss this out, but there are other things in life where this happens too. When I was very chemically sensitive, it was harmful to me to have people come into my space with fragrance, ANY fragrance. Like the scented laundry detergent you use and never notice. Your deoderant. Very seldom did I have someone wanting to curtail their behavior to be around me. It was my problem, even if it would have been very thoughtful for others to help. In the moment, I wanted others to be more thoughtful, but it's just not how it rolls. Your mother will do extreme changes for you, but not most others. At least that's my experience. 

I think this is the value of the mandates in that they can, if people comply, eliminate those debates. Joint social agreements on it. But if your location doesn't have mandates or your pool of friends is not interested in enforcing them in their own homes, then really it falls to you not to attend if necessary to protect your health. I have relatives who have not showed up for *outdoor* events out of caution. People have to make their own risk assessments. 

 

 

If you were my friend, and you told me that you couldn’t tolerate certain things, I would try my hardest to meet in circumstances you could tolerate - not wear scents or outside or whatever. What is happening now, is that many people, who could take action to be more careful or cautious, are just point blank choosing not to or refusing to because it’s inconvenient to them. To me that says something about their character. It could also have to do with their intelligence and inability to process information I guess.

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, TCB said:

To me that says something about their character. It could also have to do with their intelligence and inability to process information I guess.

And human tribalism, yes. 

I don't even know if I judge people who do things I think are injudicious. Mostly, I assume they are hearing mixed signals and are tired, so they interpret the signals in a way most convenient to them. Death and disease don't seem very real until they happen to you. That's why vaccines were always going to be a hard sell once the diseases were eradicated. 

So, I don't know if I judge them. I just know that I don't have any patience for conversations with them, because it's tiring enough to quarantine, and then the emotional labor of explaining why we're STILL being careful... it's all too hard. 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Not_a_number

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Happymomof1 said:

Both. Nothing I do is enjoyable with people anymore because I am constantly wondering about how safe it is. I am the only one wearing a mask now in almost all situation. ( Well, other than my husband. 🙂 )

That sounds very difficult and emotionally almost untenable. 

Do you think you could just take a break from doing things with people while you sort out what you're personally comfortable with, given the parameters you have to work with? 

[Wheres Toto]

4 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Ok, I think what you are missing regarding the emphasis on weddings, parties, etc is twofold:

1. Yes, Abby might have caught it at her doctor's office, or grocery shopping. And we SHOULD trace and find that out! But people need to eat, and get groceries, and go to the doctor, so knowing it can spread there is important, but we can't change that behavior. We can't stop using doctors or buying food. We CAN stop having large gatherings indoors. 

2. the focus on indoor parties/weddings/bars/etc is because if there is a person there who is a super spreader, they have more chance to infect a large number of people. At a gathering of 5 people for one hour, the most they can directly infect is 5. At a gathering of 150 people, they can infect many many more. Hence limits on gathering size. 

No one is saying that none of those people couldn't catch it some other way, but the fact is they DID catch it there, and it is those types of events that seem to cause greater spread (indoors, unmasked, large numbers of people) more quickly. 

I think one of the issues with weddings is also that people often travel far to attend a wedding.  Coming from far away, mingling while eating, dancing and talking, then traveling again far and wide.   A LOT of spread can come from even a small wedding. 

[TCB]

3 hours ago, Bootsie said:

In my area, cases went up after a mask mandate.  How do you explain contradictory data and facts?  

How soon after and what happened in the next few weeks after that? 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Happymomof1 said:

Well, I was just away for the last 3 weeks camping with my husband.  I love my husband. I truly do, but I'm ready to be with other people.

This is where being an introvert helps, lol. 

Can you find one or two friends who will either understand where you're coming from or humor you? Then you can have outdoor gatherings with them.