THIS is why we can’t have nice things!

[frogger]

28 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

However, you said they shut down bars at the same time as indoor dining. Maybe bars were a large contributor and indoor dining wasn't. You aren't obviously doing better contact tracing, either. I was just pointing out that your local anecdote isn't worth any more weight than my local anecdote. 

You obviously did not read the links I sent.

The tracing did go back to the bars. I don't know why you would just assume the tracers were lying other than you prefer different evidence.

At some point you are just being obtuse.  It's very apparent though. Lol I like discussions but not arguments so I'll let you waste your own time. 😁

[Not_a_Number]

21 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

When I enter into a conversation with the mindset that my conclusions are based on data (well the plural of anecdote) which is evidence and therefore logical and correct and the other person's conclusion is definitely faulty because it is based upon anecdote--not much constructive happens. 

I enter conversations assuming people may have evidence I don’t have. But if they don’t happen to have either new evidence or interesting reasoning, I don’t tend to change my mind.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, frogger said:

You obviously did not read the links I sent.

The tracing did go back to the bars. I don't know why you would just assume the tracers were lying other than you prefer different evidence.

At some point you are just being obtuse.  It's very apparent though. Lol I like discussions but not arguments so I'll let you waste your own time. 😁

Yeah, I may be done here. I feel like I’d need to have solid proof to have a productive discussion, and I don’t have and can’t have proof.

[Bootsie]

3 minutes ago, frogger said:

You obviously did not read the links I sent.

The tracing did go back to the bars. I don't know why you would just assume the tracers were lying other than you prefer different evidence.

At some point you are just being obtuse.  It's very apparent though. Lol I like discussions but not arguments so I'll let you waste your own time. 😁

I did try to read the links that you sent.  I a not finding the R0 you discussed on the Alaska site (and not seeing anything on the site about it being tied to bar closures--maybe that is info you know but not obvious to someone looking at the site).

The second article is behind a paywall and I haven't had a chance to go through my library yet.  The third article just provides the percentage of clusters tied to certain locations--Yes clusters as defined as five or more non-household member are going to be tied to places where five or more non-household members occur (which bars were not one of the more likely places). 

[frogger]

5 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I did try to read the links that you sent.  I a not finding the R0 you discussed on the Alaska site (and not seeing anything on the site about it being tied to bar closures--maybe that is info you know but not obvious to someone looking at the site).

The second article is behind a paywall and I haven't had a chance to go through my library yet.  The third article just provides the percentage of clusters tied to certain locations--Yes clusters as defined as five or more non-household member are going to be tied to places where five or more non-household members occur (which bars were not one of the more likely places). 

The R0 value is at the bottom. You have to scroll to the bottom and hit Rt value. I'm off to class but maybe later I can screen shot it for you. Gov't websites are annoyingly slow. I will also post the mandate but I don't want to be late to class. 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Not_a_number said:

So, looking at New Zealand, which knows basically every single transfer, the large spread events were

- A wedding 

- A school

- A few nursing homes

and 

- A work place 

Note that these all fit the "long-term indoor interactions" model. Since people do NOT spend much time at weddings, they do not fit the "wherever people spend the most time" theory. 

Now, I am saying these are "large spread events," which means that I'm not counting the household transmissions separately from them. In a regime where there's such wide spread that people are transferring it within their households and then STILL going out and passing it on because no one has bothered to contact trace them and gotten them to stay home, it's very hard to know how to control anything at all. 

But the bolded is confusing two different things.  One theory is that people tend to get COVID where they tend to spend the most time.  The other thing is that a wedding was reported as an outbreak place where a number of cases could be tied to a specific event.  Cluster cases are going to come from events like a wedding where people cluster.  Most cases are going to occur where people are most of the time.  Cluster events like a wedding may cause a cluster of cases with a high cluster count but be a very, very small percent of cases.  Work is a place where people are likely to cluster with those who are not in their household and spend a relatively high amount of time there.  So we get a high number of cases from being at work and a high number of clusters occurring at workplaces.

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But the bolded is confusing two different things.  One theory is that people tend to get COVID where they tend to spend the most time.  The other thing is that a wedding was reported as an outbreak place where a number of cases could be tied to a specific event.  Cluster cases are going to come from events like a wedding where people cluster.  Most cases are going to occur where people are most of the time.  Cluster events like a wedding may cause a cluster of cases with a high cluster count but be a very, very small percent of cases.  Work is a place where people are likely to cluster with those who are not in their household and spend a relatively high amount of time there.  So we get a high number of cases from being at work and a high number of clusters occurring at workplaces.

People will get COVID:

a) where there is someone with COVID who tends to spread it

b) where they spend enough time to get COVID.

c) mostly indoors.

That can clearly be a variety of places. And then what?

 

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Not_a_number

[Bootsie]

17 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

People will get COVID:

a) where there is someone with COVID who tends to spread it

b) where they spend enough time to get COVID.

c) mostly indoors.

That can clearly be a variety of places. And then what?

 

 

The what in regards to what?  Conclusions we draw?  Policies we put into place?

If that is what we know, then we should not draw conclusions about other things.  From a policy perspective if it is unlikely that someone has COVID and they are spending time outdoors perhaps we should have little regulation.  We have, for example, in my area a number of places with outdoor areas but they can't open because they are a "bar"--which simply means they get more than 50% of their revenue from drinks.  So, we have a hiking, cycling trail where people would be out getting sunshine and exercise and stop at a location with outdoor picnic benches for a beer--but we don't allow that because it would be classified as a "bar".  So instead, of having hundreds of people go to the bar over the weekend, and perhaps a cluster of five to ten developing, you have groups of five or ten go to private homes and apartments for the beer (allowed in my area) and get 20 outbreaks of 3 each--many more cases in the community now but none tied to a bar.  That is the type of thing you want to avoid.

[Not_a_Number]

16 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

The what in regards to what?  Conclusions we draw?  Policies we put into place?

If that is what we know, then we should not draw conclusions about other things.  From a policy perspective if it is unlikely that someone has COVID and they are spending time outdoors perhaps we should have little regulation.  We have, for example, in my area a number of places with outdoor areas but they can't open because they are a "bar"--which simply means they get more than 50% of their revenue from drinks.  So, we have a hiking, cycling trail where people would be out getting sunshine and exercise and stop at a location with outdoor picnic benches for a beer--but we don't allow that because it would be classified as a "bar".  So instead, of having hundreds of people go to the bar over the weekend, and perhaps a cluster of five to ten developing, you have groups of five or ten go to private homes and apartments for the beer (allowed in my area) and get 20 outbreaks of 3 each--many more cases in the community now but none tied to a bar.  That is the type of thing you want to avoid.

I think that all outdoor places that aren't very crowded or long-term should be open. That includes outdoor bars. 

However, I'm not sure how much that helps with people congregating indoors in private homes. The way you stop people form congregating indoors in private homes is consistent public health messaging, and we aren't going to have that. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Not_a_number

[Bootsie]

23 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

I think that all outdoor places that aren't very crowded or long-term should be open. That includes outdoor bars. 

However, I'm not sure how much that helps with people congregating indoors in private homes. The way you stop people form congregating indoors in private homes is consistent public health messaging, and we aren't going to have that. 

I think it would help to have as many outdoor places opened as possible so that people have some decent options.  

What do you think the reason we will not have consistent  public health messaging is?

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Bootsie said:

I think it would help to have as many outdoor places opened as possible so that people have some decent options.  

What do you think the reason we will not have consistent  public health messaging is?

I don't know. That seems to be the decision we've made. I think further statements on that topic are too political to get into, but at this point, it's simply an observation -- we don't have consistent public health messaging and therefore I doubt we will. 

[GoodGrief]

2 hours ago, frogger said:

Well, locally closing indoor seating at restaurants and bars lead to a dramatic decrease in August. This was because our contact tracers were finding them to be problem areas.  You can find Rt here for my locality. https://coronavirus-response-alaska-dhss.hub.arcgis.com/

Here are some studies from elsewhere but I didn't have time to read the whole things now. I am still homschooling a bunch of kids.
 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/09/more-evidence-points-bars-adding-covid-19-spread

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/9/20-2272_article

 

Tuscaloosa shut down bars to help UA get things under control and it appeared to help a lot.

There was a dramatic decrease in case from July to August here? I don't think that is true at all.  And no big outbreaks in the areas of the state without the same closures.

[ktgrok]

46 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

The what in regards to what?  Conclusions we draw?  Policies we put into place?

If that is what we know, then we should not draw conclusions about other things.  From a policy perspective if it is unlikely that someone has COVID and they are spending time outdoors perhaps we should have little regulation.  We have, for example, in my area a number of places with outdoor areas but they can't open because they are a "bar"--which simply means they get more than 50% of their revenue from drinks. 

The problem is that it is easier to have a hard line than to micromanage what is and isn't allowed. So it will be a bit wrong,but mostly right and easier to enforce. Otherwise you get people saying, well, we have an outdoor space..but you go inside to get the drinks, or "we have open windows so it is ALMOST like outside" and it just gets hard to enforce for places. 

Here outdoor stuff is all open. We have had outdoor dining almost the whole time. We have zero restrictoins now on indoor dining, bars, etc. Playgrounds were only closed a very brief time, and masks are not and have never been required on them. etc etc. So if your local area is doing things a particular way, keep in mind that is just your area. Everywhere is different. 

As for not having bars or big events or large gatherings, the idea is one person can spread to a dozen or more people there, versus that same person going to someone's house and seeing fewer people. But an outdoor large gathering WITH distancing would yeah, be safer likely than an indoor one wihtout distancing, etc. Lots of variables. 

 

[ktgrok]

Regarding mixed messages. heck yeah. 

My state department of health has at the top of their website "avoid crowds and gatherings of more than 10 people". And yet we have lifted ALL restrictions on bars, restaurants, stores, etc in the state. How on earth do those two things match up?

[Terabith]

2 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

In non-indoor stories, CA is finally allowing outside playgrounds to reopen. However, you aren't allowed to eat or drink anything because in order to do so, you'd have to remove your required mask. Great, kids can now play outside by themselves, but they can't have water. 

Okay, I do think that's ridiculous that a) playgrounds were still off limits, and b) that kids can't have water.  I'd think a campaign of "please move six feet away from others to drink on the playground" would be sufficient.  

 

[Bootsie]

30 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

The problem is that it is easier to have a hard line than to micromanage what is and isn't allowed. So it will be a bit wrong,but mostly right and easier to enforce. Otherwise you get people saying, well, we have an outdoor space..but you go inside to get the drinks, or "we have open windows so it is ALMOST like outside" and it just gets hard to enforce for places. 

Here outdoor stuff is all open. We have had outdoor dining almost the whole time. We have zero restrictoins now on indoor dining, bars, etc. Playgrounds were only closed a very brief time, and masks are not and have never been required on them. etc etc. So if your local area is doing things a particular way, keep in mind that is just your area. Everywhere is different. 

As for not having bars or big events or large gatherings, the idea is one person can spread to a dozen or more people there, versus that same person going to someone's house and seeing fewer people. But an outdoor large gathering WITH distancing would yeah, be safer likely than an indoor one wihtout distancing, etc. Lots of variables. 

 

I am not convinced that many of the regulations are simply getting it a bit wrong, but mostly right.  When you tell someone that they can't do X they choose Y instead.  The unintended consequences can be worse than what would have happened if you had allowed X. 

And by setting standards that are really not related to COVID spread you encourage people to meet those standards and not really address the issue.  Here you cannot get more than 50% of your revenue from drinks--so if you can bring in strippers and get revenue from lap dances--that's OK.  Or, if you are the same venue and you bring in a buffet you charge for--you can open up.  So, to stay in business the owner is encouraged to do things that increase spread.  

I know the regulations are different in various places.  Hopefully some places are getting it right.  But, we have some very strange incentives here.  

 

[frogger]

2 hours ago, GoodGrief1 said:

There was a dramatic decrease in case from July to August here? I don't think that is true at all.  And no big outbreaks in the areas of the state without the same closures.

I said in August and also I meant new cases per day not total cases.  Only in Anchorage but here is the average daily per the DHSS

 

cases in Anchorage.pdf

Edited September 29, 2020 by frogger
accidentally copied State instead of Anchorage

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I am not convinced that many of the regulations are simply getting it a bit wrong, but mostly right.  When you tell someone that they can't do X they choose Y instead.  The unintended consequences can be worse than what would have happened if you had allowed X. 

And by setting standards that are really not related to COVID spread you encourage people to meet those standards and not really address the issue.  Here you cannot get more than 50% of your revenue from drinks--so if you can bring in strippers and get revenue from lap dances--that's OK.  Or, if you are the same venue and you bring in a buffet you charge for--you can open up.  So, to stay in business the owner is encouraged to do things that increase spread.  

I know the regulations are different in various places.  Hopefully some places are getting it right.  But, we have some very strange incentives here.  

Those do sound like strange incentives. 

I've had some of the same feelings about NYC regulations... like, they had the beaches closed on Independence Day, and I have no idea why. You WANT people congregating in people's apartments instead? 

If I had my druthers, as many outdoor things would be open as possible. And NYC would have closed its streets so that more restaurants could operate on the sidewalks while the weather is good. But who's asking me? 😛

[frogger]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

I am not convinced that many of the regulations are simply getting it a bit wrong, but mostly right.  When you tell someone that they can't do X they choose Y instead.  The unintended consequences can be worse than what would have happened if you had allowed X. 

And by setting standards that are really not related to COVID spread you encourage people to meet those standards and not really address the issue.  Here you cannot get more than 50% of your revenue from drinks--so if you can bring in strippers and get revenue from lap dances--that's OK.  Or, if you are the same venue and you bring in a buffet you charge for--you can open up.  So, to stay in business the owner is encouraged to do things that increase spread.  

I know the regulations are different in various places.  Hopefully some places are getting it right.  But, we have some very strange incentives here.  

 

This I can totally agree with. I really do think that messaging versus controls is soooo much more productive. You have to have buy in. 

 

 I do think it is difficult when people only care about how much risk something is to them rather than doing even the simple things for their community. I was glad to get take out and give a big tip to restaurants so that they still had revenue and it didn't kill me to eat at home or at the park  versus sitting inside even though the likelihood of me personally getting it and dyeing from it was (and still is) miniscule. The cost to me and the restaurant is low under those conditions. They still got revenue and we decreased likelihood of overall transmissions.  The risk to me may be small but  overrunning the hospitals is very likely if action isn't taken.    What I see is that people realized the likelihood of cost to them was very low and now don't want to be inconvenienced even though they could be helpful in trying to reduce the level of transmissions. 

 

They can say what they want but I have a sneaky suspicion that the "masks don't help" propaganda put out early in the year was to try to save PPE for health care workers.  My friend who is a nurse said that PPE was being stolen from her place of work (a local ER). If they had put out a message saying everyone wear masks would there have been massive hoarding. I mean if you think fights over toilet paper were bad... I 'm not sure how to communicate with people who seem to only care about their own needs but that is the human condition. I see it every time I see someone drive their car without regard for anyone around them.  

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, frogger said:

I do think it is difficult when people only care about how much risk something is to them rather than doing even the simple things for their community. I was glad to get take out and give a big tip to restaurants so that they still had revenue and it didn't kill me to eat at home or at the park  versus sitting inside even though the likelihood of me personally getting it and dyeing from it was (and still is) miniscule. The cost to me and the restaurant is low under those conditions. They still got revenue and we decreased likelihood of overall transmissions.  The risk to me may be small but  overrunning the hospitals is very likely if action isn't taken.    What I see is that people realized the likelihood of cost to them was very low and now don't want to be inconvenienced even though they could be helpful in trying to reduce the level of transmissions. 

 

Yeah, I wish everyone was doing stuff like this. 

[frogger]

3 hours ago, Bootsie said:

The what in regards to what?  Conclusions we draw?  Policies we put into place?

If that is what we know, then we should not draw conclusions about other things.  From a policy perspective if it is unlikely that someone has COVID and they are spending time outdoors perhaps we should have little regulation.  We have, for example, in my area a number of places with outdoor areas but they can't open because they are a "bar"--which simply means they get more than 50% of their revenue from drinks.  So, we have a hiking, cycling trail where people would be out getting sunshine and exercise and stop at a location with outdoor picnic benches for a beer--but we don't allow that because it would be classified as a "bar".  So instead, of having hundreds of people go to the bar over the weekend, and perhaps a cluster of five to ten developing, you have groups of five or ten go to private homes and apartments for the beer (allowed in my area) and get 20 outbreaks of 3 each--many more cases in the community now but none tied to a bar.  That is the type of thing you want to avoid.

I  agree. These kind of policies would be frustrating.  Many places allow for outdoor dining and beer service which would create better incentives. Incentives matter!

I disagree that having a larger number of smaller groups is completely bad since it's isn't like people are evenly distributed in those small groups. Often those small groups would be around each other at other times if they are friends anyway. There will be many opportunities for those closest to me for us to share germs but it is unlikely that I will be next to the people I'm around at a bar or restaurant. 

 

I do think overmanaging is tiring to people and creates neglect whereas giving them good principles to go by sounds better but then I realize they drive past kids playground at 50 when they should be gong 25 and lose all hope. 

[frogger]

4 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

In non-indoor stories, CA is finally allowing outside playgrounds to reopen. However, you aren't allowed to eat or drink anything because in order to do so, you'd have to remove your required mask. Great, kids can now play outside by themselves, but they can't have water. 

California is a whole different kind of special.  I would be very done with mandates if I lived there. There is reasonable and unreasonable and there is an awful lot of unreasonable going on there.  So you have my empathy.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Terabith said:

Okay, I do think that's ridiculous that a) playgrounds were still off limits, and b) that kids can't have water.  I'd think a campaign of "please move six feet away from others to drink on the playground" would be sufficient.  

 

We only just reopened playgrounds here, and one reason for leaving them closed was that it has been so hot until recently that parks and rec didn’t want to encourage people going when the water fountains, etc were closed. Now that it’s cooler, there’s less chance of dehydration and heat stroke. Summer in Memphis is a really hard time to have a pandemic that makes being outside the safest option. I kind of think they should have waited to open schools about a month. From what I can tell, the one across the street is spending about 75% of the time outside-lots of circles of kids sitting on mats or jackets, reading books or talking about stuff, sometimes with a teacher with a portable whiteboard. I like it. 

[Terabith]

20 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

We only just reopened playgrounds here, and one reason for leaving them closed was that it has been so hot until recently that parks and rec didn’t want to encourage people going when the water fountains, etc were closed. Now that it’s cooler, there’s less chance of dehydration and heat stroke. Summer in Memphis is a really hard time to have a pandemic that makes being outside the safest option. I kind of think they should have waited to open schools about a month. From what I can tell, the one across the street is spending about 75% of the time outside-lots of circles of kids sitting on mats or jackets, reading books or talking about stuff, sometimes with a teacher with a portable whiteboard. I like it. 

Yeah, I keep hearing folks talk about how worried they are about winter and everyone moving indoors, and I'm over here going, "Ya know, it's only just now getting nice enough to really spend serious time outdoors."  We do sometimes get bitterly cold weather in the winter, but it's far less consistent than miserably hot weather in the summer.   And our climate is far more mild than Memphis's.  

[frogger]

5 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Yeah, I keep hearing folks talk about how worried they are about winter and everyone moving indoors, and I'm over here going, "Ya know, it's only just now getting nice enough to really spend serious time outdoors."  We do sometimes get bitterly cold weather in the winter, but it's far less consistent than miserably hot weather in the summer.   And our climate is far more mild than Memphis's.  

Yep. I think we are going to see hot spots flip from the southern 1/2 to the northern 1/2 of the US. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, frogger said:

Yep. I think we are going to see hot spots flip from the southern 1/2 to the northern 1/2 of the US. 

That has been my expectation for basically the whole time -- that we're about to flip. Instead of people in the South going inside into the AC, people in the North will be going inside to get away from the cold. 

[wendyroo]

5 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

That has been my expectation for basically the whole time -- that we're about to flip. Instead of people in the South going inside into the AC, people in the North will be going inside to get away from the cold. 

A couple days ago my dental hygienist commented how good the timing is.  Up until now, with the good weather, she and her family have only been eating out when they could sit outside.  She is so glad that the risk is "so low" now and they can eat inside since the weather has turned decidedly chilly.

Up until now the homeschool group has been meeting at parks, but now they are organizing inside gatherings.  Parks and rec has been running their classes outside, but now they are starting fall sports inside.

Many schools are back in person, extracurriculars are meeting, everyone is switching from backyard barbeques to indoor parties.  I worry that the shit will be hitting the fan very soon.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, wendyroo said:

A couple days ago my dental hygienist commented how good the timing is.  Up until now, with the good weather, she and her family have only been eating out when they could sit outside.  She is so glad that the risk is "so low" now and they can eat inside since the weather has turned decidedly chilly.

Up until now the homeschool group has been meeting at parks, but now they are organizing inside gatherings.  Parks and rec has been running their classes outside, but now they are starting fall sports inside.

Many schools are back in person, extracurriculars are meeting, everyone is switching from backyard barbeques to indoor parties.  I worry that the shit will be hitting the fan very soon.

Yep. Our homeschooling center is starting up in person again. Our preschool has started up. People are being less careful -- I got major confusion at the dentist for not wanting to go in the waiting room. 

I'm also expecting this shit to hit the fan any day now. 

[ktgrok]

6 hours ago, Bootsie said:

Here you cannot get more than 50% of your revenue from drinks--so if you can bring in strippers and get revenue from lap dances--that's OK.  Or, if you are the same venue and you bring in a buffet you charge for--you can open up.  So, to stay in business the owner is encouraged to do things that increase spread.  

I know the regulations are different in various places.  Hopefully some places are getting it right.  But, we have some very strange incentives here.  

 

So..how do you determine what is an isn't a bar, then? Do you have to do it on a case by case basis? Is there the man power for that?

[Bootsie]

39 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

So..how do you determine what is an isn't a bar, then? Do you have to do it on a case by case basis? Is there the man power for that?

I don't think it should be necessary to determine what is and isn't "a bar".  If you want to limit things to outdoor, you can do that.  If you want to limit things to a % capacity that can be done.  If you want to limit things to  only sit down service with a certain amount of distance between people do that.  If you want to ban music and dancing.    Why do I care if the place is called a bar?   In fact, I would much rather a wine bar be open where a few people gather at an outdoor table and have a glass of wine than have an people indoors smoking cigars (yes cigar lounges can be open here--but the wine bar can't).  Or I would prefer people sitting at an outdoor table drinking a beer than people inside a crowded ice cream shop or coffee shop.   

[frogger]

6 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

When you're outside, it's when you can't guarantee social distancing but all the time at playgrounds, even when no other family is there. My niece and I were joking about it yesterday, "Timmy, run to the sidewalk before even thinking about taking that sip of water". (I'm sure it won't be highly enforced, but it's ridiculous that the state feels it's ok to say that kids can't have drinks at the playground. You also have to have an adult there to enforce mask wearing, so I told my teenage niece she can't go to the playground by herself. (Teens here go to the playground because it's a small town with nothing else to do.)

I think what would happen up here is that people would just ignore it. Heck, they ignore much more reasonable requests such as mask indoors when in large groups. I'm struggling to imagine how that could possibly be enforceable. Well, you said it really wasn't but yes at that point I'd ignore it. 

Edited October 1, 2020 by frogger

[Happy2BaMom]

On 9/29/2020 at 9:55 PM, wendyroo said:

Many schools are back in person, extracurriculars are meeting, everyone is switching from backyard barbeques to indoor parties.  I worry that the shit will be hitting the fan very soon.

Here's a current listing of states, ranked by positivity. Three states are at 20%+, with 11 more at 10%+.

Yeah, the shit is starting to hit the fan.

 

[ktgrok]

On 9/30/2020 at 12:26 AM, Bootsie said:

I don't think it should be necessary to determine what is and isn't "a bar".  If you want to limit things to outdoor, you can do that.  If you want to limit things to a % capacity that can be done.  If you want to limit things to  only sit down service with a certain amount of distance between people do that.  If you want to ban music and dancing.    Why do I care if the place is called a bar?   In fact, I would much rather a wine bar be open where a few people gather at an outdoor table and have a glass of wine than have an people indoors smoking cigars (yes cigar lounges can be open here--but the wine bar can't).  Or I would prefer people sitting at an outdoor table drinking a beer than people inside a crowded ice cream shop or coffee shop.   

Right - but then the only way to enforce that is to go inside and watch what happens the whole time. It's too onerous to say, make sure people are sitting down. 

 

 

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

Right - but then the only way to enforce that is to go inside and watch what happens the whole time. It's too onerous to say, make sure people are sitting down. 

 

 

We have this whole Covid Marshall thing here now where someone gets training and gets to be the official Covid Marshall and remind people of they aren’t social distancing or using wrong exits.  (They don’t actually report anyone or anything they just remind). It feels a bit dystopian but amazing how fast weird becomes normal.  And besides wearing a name tag or vest or whatever it’s no big deal.

[happi duck]

Regarding things like the playground and water rules...

Isn't it so much easier to get kids in the habit of getting off the playground to unmask for a drink of water instead of going through the steps of assessing whether or not someone will come within six feet of you in the time it will take to unmask, drink and mask up?

I'm sure no one is going to fine a kid on an empty playground for taking a drink but the rule is there for times when there is a problem.  A playground should be a dependable mask zone.

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Right - but then the only way to enforce that is to go inside and watch what happens the whole time. It's too onerous to say, make sure people are sitting down. 

 

 

But that is true for any of the regulations that we put in place..  If we have a restaurant that is supposed to be 50% capacity do we expect that someone is constantly watching?  Do we go in every gym and make sure that everyone is socially distanced and wiping down equipment between every use?  is someone watching in every church to make sure there is no hugging?  Is there someone watching in places where masks are required the whole time?  

To say that we shouldn't have a place open because 51% of its revenue comes form alcohol because it is too onerous to enforce rules, it seems like that same logic should be applied if 48% of the revenue comes from alcohol.  No one is constantly watching in the strip bars, the cigar lounges, or the sports bar that makes enough money selling wings and nachos to not fall under the 51% regulation.  I have seen no indication that COVID is more likely to spread in an establishment because of the percentage of revenue that comes from alcohol.  

My gut tells me that a club type of environment where people are mixing, dancing, singing and getting close to a lot of people fuels spread.  It also seems that a wine tasting room or an outdoor beer garden are some of the lower risk places.  The risk isn't tied to the source of the revenue.  

[happi duck]

@kdsuomi

I wasn't picturing stepping aside would mean heading somewhere crowded.  Our playgrounds all have a border and are within parks so that's what I picture.

I do hope that spaces that require masks are dependable.  Making a decision based on mask rules and having the rug pulled out is frustrating and potentially harmful.

 

[Corraleno]

A football coach and church leader in central NY knew he was sick and continued to attend practices, youth group and church services after testing positive. He infected his wife and 4 kids, who then knowingly continued to expose others through a birthday party, schools, daycare, music lessons, and a sleepover. The guy and his wife also took a bus trip to NY City while he was ill. More than 60 people are in quarantine and 40 more have been told to watch for symptoms as a result of exposure to members of this family. The school district has been forced to shut down as a result of 9 cases, and 2 more cases linked to the same outbreak were found in a neighboring school district.  The football coach and his church have refused to cooperate with county investigators and instead referred health officials to their lawyers.

https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus/2020/10/how-one-cny-man-with-coronavirus-failed-to-quarantine-may-have-exposed-hundreds.html?fbclid=IwAR2NLUHK7xSk7NL7aaYGEru8apR67Zrx1VVN3mKPl05ZGwyqt3x4YYK6xQs

 

[Happy2BaMom]

A football coach and church leader in central NY knew he was sick and continued to attend practices, youth group and church services after testing positive. He infected his wife and 4 kids, who then knowingly continued to expose others through a birthday party, schools, daycare, music lessons, and a sleepover. The guy and his wife also took a bus trip to NY City while he was ill. More than 60 people are in quarantine and 40 more have been told to watch for symptoms as a result of exposure to members of this family. The school district has been forced to shut down as a result of 9 cases, and 2 more cases linked to the same outbreak were found in a neighboring school district.  The football coach and his church have refused to cooperate with county investigators and instead referred health officials to their lawyers.

https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus/2020/10/how-one-cny-man-with-coronavirus-failed-to-quarantine-may-have-exposed-hundreds.html?fbclid=IwAR2NLUHK7xSk7NL7aaYGEru8apR67Zrx1VVN3mKPl05ZGwyqt3x4YYK6xQs

 

Color me shocked.

Not.

Maybe things will start to change now that the POTUS & wife have tested positive. (No, I don't wish them ill, I'm just saying that this may make certain people start to take the virus more seriously.)

[Sneezyone]

A football coach and church leader in central NY knew he was sick and continued to attend practices, youth group and church services after testing positive. He infected his wife and 4 kids, who then knowingly continued to expose others through a birthday party, schools, daycare, music lessons, and a sleepover. The guy and his wife also took a bus trip to NY City while he was ill. More than 60 people are in quarantine and 40 more have been told to watch for symptoms as a result of exposure to members of this family. The school district has been forced to shut down as a result of 9 cases, and 2 more cases linked to the same outbreak were found in a neighboring school district.  The football coach and his church have refused to cooperate with county investigators and instead referred health officials to their lawyers.

https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus/2020/10/how-one-cny-man-with-coronavirus-failed-to-quarantine-may-have-exposed-hundreds.html?fbclid=IwAR2NLUHK7xSk7NL7aaYGEru8apR67Zrx1VVN3mKPl05ZGwyqt3x4YYK6xQs

 

People like this should be prosecuted and/or sued. I don't even know what for yet but I'd find something. Reckless endangerment. Take the church, their house, cars, all of it as damages to cover the medical bills.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Not_a_Number]

A football coach and church leader in central NY knew he was sick and continued to attend practices, youth group and church services after testing positive. He infected his wife and 4 kids, who then knowingly continued to expose others through a birthday party, schools, daycare, music lessons, and a sleepover. The guy and his wife also took a bus trip to NY City while he was ill. More than 60 people are in quarantine and 40 more have been told to watch for symptoms as a result of exposure to members of this family. The school district has been forced to shut down as a result of 9 cases, and 2 more cases linked to the same outbreak were found in a neighboring school district.  The football coach and his church have refused to cooperate with county investigators and instead referred health officials to their lawyers.

https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus/2020/10/how-one-cny-man-with-coronavirus-failed-to-quarantine-may-have-exposed-hundreds.html?fbclid=IwAR2NLUHK7xSk7NL7aaYGEru8apR67Zrx1VVN3mKPl05ZGwyqt3x4YYK6xQs

 

This kind of behavior is how giant outbreaks start. It literally takes ONE person that spreads it and is careless.