General COVID-19 Topic

[DaveP043]

The disease numbers aren't all that great in FL either.  I looked at Florida and New York before Christmas, and between early May and early December, Florida had about 2.5 times as many infections as New York (1,034,000 compared to 423,000), and 2.2 times as many deaths (17,800 to 8,000).  New York had severe early surges that didn't effect Florida as badly, but Florida "caught up" over the ensuing months.  Please feel free to fact-check these numbers against the CDC database 

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/?fbclid=IwAR1cV0eHyVuTUSEMjSWV_d5r000gitapGalEFi_PTVdQBkzM-JVGyl84Boc#datatracker-home

I haven't checked those recently, other than to note that Florida seems to still have decreasing infection rates, I hope it keeps going that direction.

@Braivo makes a reasonable point, those in charge have to weigh the damage to the physical health of the population against the damage to the financial health.  I'm glad I don't have that responsibility. To me, though, simple and effective measures like masks have essentially no cost, while providing significant benefit.  To resist those simple measures is to put your personal "choice" above the health of those around you.

[saevel25]

31 minutes ago, Braivo said:

You always attack my word choices rather than the content of my statements. Telling. 

Is 1.68% worth the loss of economic activity over the last year? (Is that better?)

Loss of economy is completely different than collapse of the economy. Your choice of words make the context of your statement. Poor choice of words make it easy to take your statements out of context. I can't see your face. I can't hear the inflection of your words. I can not derive context from that. All I have is the literal meaning of what you right. Not the meaning that is in your head that you failed to convey with your words. 

If you meant something less significant than collapse, then say that. 

[Braivo]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Loss of economy is completely different than collapse of the economy. Your choice of words make the context of your statement. Poor choice of words make it easy to take your statements out of context. I can't see your face. I can't hear the inflection of your words. I can not derive context from that. All I have is the literal meaning of what you right. Not the meaning that is in your head that you failed to convey with your words. 

If you meant something less significant than collapse, then say that. 

You still have not offered an argument on the topic at hand. Still stewing over words, tone, inflection, etc. I'm focused on facts. Are government mandated restrictions worth it? What is gained and lost when we intervene in such a way that restricts private businesses from operating fully? What do we lose when we keep kids home from school for a year? Is it all worth it?

[phillyk]

15 minutes ago, Braivo said:

You still have not offered an argument on the topic at hand. Still stewing over words, tone, inflection, etc. I'm focused on facts. Are government mandated restrictions worth it? What is gained and lost when we intervene in such a way that restricts private businesses from operating fully? What do we lose when we keep kids home from school for a year? Is it all worth it?

Facts for your question really won’t be known for a while yet. You can’t simply say, we’re open, you’re not, therefore we are better. Loss of life is the main fact right now. Everything else is just a guess, until everything opens and then some. 

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, Braivo said:

You still have not offered an argument on the topic at hand. Still stewing over words, tone, inflection, etc. I'm focused on facts.

You don't get it. You complained about me taking your words out of context. Then state your intent more clearly. Don't over exaggerate your stance. There is a big difference between economic loss and economic collapse. 2008 was way different than the Great Depression. One was an actual economic collapse and the other was a huge economic loss. The facts you want to represent in your opinion is based on the words you choose. You misrepresented your intent by using the word collapse. As soon as I went after that word you backed down immediately. This tells me that your context wasn't actually based on the word collapse, but loss.

6 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Are government mandated restrictions worth it?

Yes, because the loss of how many months or years of economic production is worth less than the loss of life. Will people have to have 1-2 years of discomfort, or having to rebuild something, sure. Ask them, would they kill their family member for that production back? 

7 minutes ago, Braivo said:

What is gained and lost when we intervene in such a way that restricts private businesses from operating fully?

A pandemic is obviously the perfect time for a strong centralized government to operate versus times of prosperity when you don't want the government holding things down. Governments should be a state of fluctuation as to adapt to the needs of the country. 

11 minutes ago, Braivo said:

What do we lose when we keep kids home from school for a year? Is it all worth it?

IDK, I am 36 years old, and the most I got out of grade school and high school was learning how to read and math. I've learned more applicable things that I use daily from the ages of 25-36 than I ever did from the age of 5 to 25. My take on this is a bit less over dramatic than your take. 

[chspeed]

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

A pandemic is obviously the perfect time for a strong centralized government to operate versus times of prosperity when you don't want the government holding things down. Governments should be a state of fluctuation as to adapt to the needs of the country. 

Exactly. And this time around, the people voted for a more active government. Next election may be different. That's ok - that's democracy.

26 minutes ago, Braivo said:

What is gained and lost when we intervene in such a way that restricts private businesses from operating fully? What do we lose when we keep kids home from school for a year? Is it all worth it?

Private businesses are restricted by government all the time. Everything from licenses, inspections, consumer protection, anti-monopoly enforcement, registration, etc.

Are those restrictions worth it? As a business owner I may bitch about some of them, but I understand why they're there.

Economists study these things. I'm not an economist, but even they can't answer whether saving 100 lives is worth $X. That is a political/philosophical discussion that is best answered in the voting booth.

[ChetlovesMer]

1 hour ago, Braivo said:

Right. People can decide their own risk tolerance. If they want to stay home until a vaccine, their choice! 

That seems pretty cruel to me. 

Basically, (let me know if I'm wrong) you are saying. "I'm uncomfortable wearing a mask. So, if you are in a high risk population you have to stay home."

Wouldn't it be easier if we all just wear masks? Then the high risk folks can actually leave their homes. 

I'm in neither Pennsylvania nor Florida. I've been wearing my masks in public for about a year now. It really seems to work. The Ohio economy hasn't "collapsed". We pretty much do what we normally do, except when we do it inside we wear a mask. I don't understand the objection. Why not just wear a mask until this thing goes away? If other people can get it from your breath particles getting in their eyes, why not stop your breath particles from doing so? 

You don't have to wear it on the golf course. You don't have to wear it on a bike ride or a hike. Just when you are inside with people you don't live with. I'll grant you it's a little annoying when my glasses fog up. But after a few minutes inside that stops happening all on its own. Wiping my glasses once or twice when I enter a new building seems like such a small price to pay when it may actually save somebody's life. 

3 hours ago, StuM said:

Without knowing who is high risk I feel we owe it if each other to help reduce risk for all.  It is not about if I will survive it, it is about protecting those that will not.

This.

[DaveP043]

24 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Yes, because the loss of how many months or years of economic production is worth less than the loss of life. Will people have to have 1-2 years of discomfort, or having to rebuild something, sure. Ask them, would they kill their family member for that production back?

I don't know that the answer is this clear-cut.  Financial hardship impacts people's lives, some people will almost certainly die from hunger who otherwise wouldn't, more suicides, descent into poverty that can be hard to recover from, etc.  A government needs to balance the potential for loss of life due to disease, against the other impacts of restrictions.  Is it worth shutting things down, affecting millions, to save a single life?  Probably not.  Is it worth it to save millions of lives?  Yes.  At the extremes its easy to make a judgement, but in the middle its a balancing act.  Governments have to balance the value of lives and illness against guestimates of the effects of financial hardships.  

And of course the government can't look at a specific individual.  Do I think financial hardship for millions is OK if my wife or child stays healthy?  Probably.  But if its some stranger, maybe not.

[ChetlovesMer]

8 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I don't know that the answer is this clear-cut.  Financial hardship impacts people's lives, some people will almost certainly die from hunger who otherwise wouldn't, more suicides, descent into poverty that can be hard to recover from, etc.  A government needs to balance the potential for loss of life due to disease, against the other impacts of restrictions.  Is it worth shutting things down, affecting millions, to save a single life?  Probably not.  Is it worth it to save millions of lives?  Yes.  At the extremes its easy to make a judgement, but in the middle its a balancing act.  Governments have to balance the value of lives and illness against guestimates of the effects of financial hardships.  

And of course the government can't look at a specific individual.  Do I think financial hardship for millions is OK if my wife or child stays healthy?  Probably.  But if its some stranger, maybe not.

This is a well thought out, intelligent response. I appreciate your ability (or willingness) to try to see both sides of the issue.  

[Braivo]

8 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

Basically, (let me know if I'm wrong) you are saying. "I'm uncomfortable wearing a mask. So, if you are in a high risk population you have to stay home."

I never said anything about masks. I am of the opinion that we should all wear masks in indoor public spaces until everyone has had an opportunity to get a vaccine (some are saying July 4). I am talking about restrictions on businesses and schools. People losing their livelihoods. Kids falling behind because they aren't in school. etc. 

6 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I don't know that the answer is this clear-cut.  Financial hardship impacts people's lives, some people will almost certainly die from hunger who otherwise wouldn't, more suicides, descent into poverty that can be hard to recover from, etc.  A government needs to balance the potential for loss of life due to disease, against the other impacts of restrictions.  Is it worth shutting things down, affecting millions, to save a single life?  Probably not.  Is it worth it to save millions of lives?  Yes.  At the extremes its easy to make a judgement, but in the middle its a balancing act.  Governments have to balance the value of lives and illness against guestimates of the effects of financial hardships.  

And of course the government can't look at a specific individual.  Do I think financial hardship for millions is OK if my wife or child stays healthy?  Probably.  But if its some stranger, maybe not.

Well said, Dave. That's the debate that needs to happen. The virus ended up being right in the middle. If it was more severe, there wouldn't be much argument against restrictions (people would stay home without being forced because they wouldn't want to get it). If it was less severe it would be over. But it's right there in the middle with no clear, easy answer. 

Here's a good article on the issue, read all the way to the end. Highlights several things, including differences between states, and how these restrictions really hit teens the hardest. 

The Lost Year: What the Pandemic Cost Teenagers

---

In Hobbs, New Mexico, the high school closed and football was cancelled, while just across the state line in Texas, students seemed to be living nearly normal lives. Here’s how pandemic school…

 

[ChetlovesMer]

Just now, Braivo said:

I never said anything about masks. I am of the opinion that we should all wear masks in indoor public spaces until everyone has had an opportunity to get a vaccine (some are saying July 4). I am talking about restrictions on businesses and schools. People losing their livelihoods. Kids falling behind because they aren't in school. etc. 

 

In that case, I apologize unreservedly for the misunderstanding. I appreciate the correction. 

I don't think I can find fault in anything you said then. I agree with you. 

[bkuehn1952]

1 hour ago, Braivo said:

You still have not offered an argument on the topic at hand. Still stewing over words, tone, inflection, etc. I'm focused on facts. Are government mandated restrictions worth it? What is gained and lost when we intervene in such a way that restricts private businesses from operating fully? What do we lose when we keep kids home from school for a year? Is it all worth it?

Your focus is on the economic issue of business restrictions and closures, also the restrictions and closures of educational organizations.  You do support mandating masks, correct? (Edit: I did not see your most recent reply.  Good, we agree on that)

On the education front, it does seem like we have gone too far in Michigan with the elimination of children attending school in-person.  Anecdotally, a number of local private schools (religious and non-religious) have successfully navigated the pandemic with in-person schooling.  It is especially worrisome for the younger kids missing an entire year of in-person socialization and learning.  We should have done better.

As far as government intrusion into business, in Michigan at least, the approach was too heavy-handed and unevenly applied.  Casinos were allowed to open before restaurants.  One could go to Costco (wearing a mask!) but not Macy's.  On January 22, restaurants were advised they could re-open on February 1.  Why not January 23?  Or the 24th?  

I supported the "shut down" of Michigan initially.  I have no doubt this saved lives, prevented our health care system from collapsing and allowed time to figure out COVID.  We have been too slow at loosening some of the restrictions.

Edited March 18, 2021 by bkuehn1952

[Braivo]

https://twitter.com/tylerblack32/status/1372572093573783555?s=20

FWIW it looks like teen suicide is actually down during the pandemic. Good news. Perhaps less bullying/peer issues. 

[DaveP043]

11 minutes ago, Braivo said:

https://twitter.com/tylerblack32/status/1372572093573783555?s=20

FWIW it looks like teen suicide is actually down during the pandemic. Good news. Perhaps less bullying/peer issues. 

That study compared the first and second quarters of 2020 against the same period in 2019.  I honestly have no idea whether the trends for teen suicide attempts continued over the last 8 months, I certainly hope so.  

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

What is the trade-off for being 1.68% better than another state? Completely collapsing your local economy for 1.68% difference? Is it worth it? 

Like @saevel25 said, PA’s economy is not “completely collapsed.”

Your words matter… they’re the only thing we have to base responses and opinions on.

1 hour ago, Braivo said:

You still have not offered an argument on the topic at hand. Still stewing over words, tone, inflection, etc. I'm focused on facts. Are government mandated restrictions worth it? What is gained and lost when we intervene in such a way that restricts private businesses from operating fully? What do we lose when we keep kids home from school for a year? Is it all worth it?

The facts are the words you wrote, man. That’s all he’s saying. I had the same reaction. There is no tone here, no inflection. Choose better words.

Also, with regard to northern states versus southern states, “just the numbers” ignores weather, age, population density, etc. I could put Erie county against another county and find wildly different conclusions. Ditto state vs. state.

Also, please keep in mind that while many of us are somewhat aware of restrictions locally, we’re often not aware of what the situation feels like in other areas within our own state. I’m really familiar with what it is like in my home, quite familiar with what it’s like in schools, somewhat familiar with what it’s like in Erie, and almost not familiar at all with what it’s like even in Pittsburgh let alone Philadelphia. Let alone Michigan. Or Florida.

Your perspective is likely similarly limited. While Florida may be “more open” (they’re not “fully open”), many local areas have stricter guidelines. Miami I read has stricter guidelines, some locations have stricter guidelines, etc. And there’s weather differences, and even without a mask mandate, a good number of people might still be wearing masks, so one can say “fully open” but people might still be taking measures for their own sake and the sake of the people they’re in contact with.

The full ramifications will not be known for decades plus. I’ve always been on board with acquiring MORE information, more data. And erring on the side of caution. I’ve talked at length about how we have to balance the costs, too, to business and mental states and so on, but it’s within reason.

On the other hand, too, though Biden may be slightly off, I feel we’re so close to the end here that if everyone can get vaccinated when they’re offered it, we can be “fully open” or find a “new normal” pretty quickly here, pretty soon. We’re much closer to the end than the beginning.

So again, let’s not Leon Lett this thing now. Let’s not:

• Throw away all restrictions.
• Say “screw it” to getting vaccinated.
• Stop wearing masks.
• Go eat in full restaurants.
• Attend concerts and sporting events at full capacity (particularly hockey/basketball/indoors).
• Etc.

I feel like if we can be “good” for a few more months, restrictions can be eased, but backsliding early and easing things too early can cause a spike, which will cause politicians to freak out, may let the other strains gain a larger foothold, and could set us back much more than the smaller time we get to be “free” in the short or near term.

[iacas]

Yes, You Can Vacation With Your Unvaccinated Kids - The Atlantic

---

Parents should bet on vacations with their kids this summer.

 

[David in FL]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes, You Can Vacation With Your Unvaccinated Kids - The Atlantic

---

Parents should bet on vacations with their kids this summer.

 

Well, it’s awfully nice of the government to “allow” us to gather at a  BBQ in our own homes and take a vacation.  

[saevel25]

Just now, David in FL said:

Well, it’s awfully nice of the government to “allow” us to gather at a  BBQ in our own homes and take a vacation.  

It's nice of them to look at the scientific evidence and give suggestions. 

Like, "We should be able to have small family gatherings safely in July."