General COVID-19 Topic

[Braivo]

17 minutes ago, David in FL said:

For what it’s worth those of us who have opened up are showing Covid stats very similar to those places that remain locked down.  In some cases better.

This is the main point that should be debated and studied. Do restrictions work? If so, which ones? If not, we should eliminate them. Restrictions are costly to businesses, education, etc. They should be used only when absolutely necessary and proven to be effective. Perhaps there is strong science behind them, but the way the "open" and "closed" states are trending in tandem it's not real clear they work at all. 

8 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

I see that now. Not sure why I didn't see it before.

I edited to add the graph after I saw your question. More helpful to see both. 

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Do restrictions work?

Yes. Jesus.

[Braivo]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes. Jesus.

Ok. Let me rephrase the question. Do they work well enough to justify their trade-offs? That's the question we should be able to debate openly. 

[Darkfrog]

17 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Perhaps there is strong science behind them, but the way the "open" and "closed" states are trending in tandem it's not real clear they work at all. 

The USA is unfortunately a poor example because the timing and severity of the measures to prevent the pandemic varied so much from state to state, and even though there may have been restrictions on some interstate travel, it's not like it was enforced to a degree that mattered. Pandemic response, IMO, devolved into political theater (by all parties), and stopped being treated as a generational public health emergency. But it is pretty easy to see what measures are most effective by looking at the commonalities among countries that had really good outcomes, like Taiwan, New Zealand, Vietnam, etc. (kind of like commonalities of the swings of the best golfers).

• Extensive testing
• Extensive contact tracing
• Immediate and mandatory quarantine for positive cases and contacts
• Travel Restrictions
• Universal mask adoption
• Social distancing
• Lockdown/shelter in place when needed

With regards to economic tradeoff, I would guess that countries that did best in stopping the pandemic with these measures, also had the best economic outcomes.

[dennyjones]

Michigan had over 3k confirmed cases yesterday. 

[CarlSpackler]

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

This is the main point that should be debated and studied. Do restrictions work? If so, which ones? If not, we should eliminate them. Restrictions are costly to businesses, education, etc. They should be used only when absolutely necessary and proven to be effective. Perhaps there is strong science behind them, but the way the "open" and "closed" states are trending in tandem it's not real clear they work at all. 

I edited to add the graph after I saw your question. More helpful to see both. 

Ah. So I am not crazy.

Well, at least not because of that.

[Double Mocha Man]

2 hours ago, David in FL said:

If I’m not wearing a mask, I promise I won’t run up and hug you.

You probably wouldn't have hugged me before the coronavirus.  I'm quick, you wouldn't catch me.

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Yes. Jesus.

Hey, no politics or religion!  😁

[iacas]

7 hours ago, Braivo said:

Ok. Let me rephrase the question. Do they work well enough to justify their trade-offs? That's the question we should be able to debate openly. 

Yes, thank you.

[Missouri Swede]

9 hours ago, Braivo said:

Do restrictions work? If so, which ones?

From 

Dining Restrictions, Mask Mandates Tied to Less Illness, Death: CDC

---

Investigators compare rates of new COVID-19 daily cases and deaths before and after state mask mandates and the lifting of in-person dining restrictions.

Quote

The numbers are in to back up two policies designed to restrict the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that when states lifted restrictions on dining on premises at restaurants, rates of daily COVID-19 cases jumped 41 to 100 days later. COVID-19-related deaths also increased significantly after 60 days.

On the other hand, the same report demonstrates that state mask mandates slowed the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within a few weeks.

The study was published online March 5 in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

 

[David in FL]

9 hours ago, Braivo said:

Ok. Let me rephrase the question. Do they work well enough to justify their trade-offs? That's the question we should be able to debate openly. 

No, Jesus.  

But the difference probably lies between those who live in Pennsylvania which is deprived of freedom and those who live in Florida, which embraces it.  😊

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, David in FL said:

But the difference probably lies between those who live in Pennsylvania which is deprived of freedom and those who live in Florida, which embraces it.  😊

Nope.

• Florida: 9.24% of the population has had COVID-19.
• Pennsylvania: 7.58%.

And a good chunk of that was Philly right after New York spiked like crazy.

@David in FL, Florida's handling of COVID-19 has been a joke.

[David in FL]

41 minutes ago, iacas said:

Nope.

• Florida: 9.24% of the population has had COVID-19.
• Pennsylvania: 7.58%.

And a good chunk of that was Philly right after New York spiked like crazy.

@David in FL, Florida's handling of COVID-19 has been a joke.

And we are wide open and living life, as we have been for the past 8 months.  As a result, our economy is strong.
 

Pennsylvania’s handling of COVID-19 has been right up there with  California, New York, and Michigan.  Which may be why Florida has seen such an influx of people from your neck of the woods.  

Come on down. You can wear a mask if you like, or not.  We are easy to get along with.  😊

Edited March 18, 2021 by David in FL

[ChetlovesMer]

5 hours ago, David in FL said:

And we are wide open and living life, as we have been for the past 8 months.  As a result, our economy is strong.
 

Pennsylvania’s handling of COVID-19 has been right up there with  California, New York, and Michigan.  Which may be why Florida has seen such an influx of people from your neck of the woods.  

Come on down. You can wear a mask if you like, or not.  We are easy to get along with.  😊

First of all, I'm not a doctor. 

Second of all, I've stated many times the quality of my education. 

Having said that, I remember early in the pandemic "they" said that you had to wear your mask to protect others. From what I understood you can spread the disease through your mouth and through your nose. So wearing a mask helps stop the spread. But you can catch the disease through your mouth, through your nose, AND through your eyes. So, wearing a mask only partially protects you from catching the disease. 

I don't know if that's true. (As stated, I'm no doctor.) But if it is, then I think its rather selfish to not wear a mask. My feeling is if I get the COVID I can get through it. But if I don't wear a mask I'm jeopardizing the health of all the high risk folks I encounter, and they may or may not be able to get through it. 

[StuM]

12 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

I don't know if that's true. (As stated, I'm no doctor.) But if it is, then I think its rather selfish to not wear a mask. My feeling is if I get the COVID I can get through it. But if I don't wear a mask I'm jeopardizing the health of all the high risk folks I encounter, and they may or may not be able to get through it. 

I agree with this 100%.  I am not a Dr. either but my sister & sister in law are RNs and I have Doctors as clients and they tell me that if 1 of 2 people in close proximity wear a mask each have less risk of catching covid than if neither wears a mask.  If both wear a mask the risk goes down further for both.  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.

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, ChetlovesMer said:

So, wearing a mask only partially protects you from catching the disease. 

Well....we don’t eject fluids from our eyes like we do with our noses and mouths. Eyes can be a receiving port for particles but not a distributor. So, wearing masks are preventing one from casting matter that may contain the virus if infected. 

[Braivo]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

Nope.

• Florida: 9.24% of the population has had COVID-19.
• Pennsylvania: 7.58%.

And a good chunk of that was Philly right after New York spiked like crazy.

@David in FL, Florida's handling of COVID-19 has been a joke.

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? 

Again, you have to look at both sides of the equation. Looking strictly at virus numbers and ignoring the other impacts is too narrowly focused. 

7 hours ago, David in FL said:

And we are wide open and living life, as we have been for the past 8 months.  As a result, our economy is strong.
 

Pennsylvania’s handling of COVID-19 has been right up there with  California, New York, and Michigan.  Which may be why Florida has seen such an influx of people from your neck of the woods.  

Come on down. You can wear a mask if you like, or not.  We are easy to get along with.  😊

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

[saevel25]

4 minutes 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? 

Not sure I would claim that economy has collapsed in PA. This statement seems a bit over dramatic to me. 

[Braivo]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

Not sure I would claim that economy has collapsed in PA. This statement seems a bit over dramatic to me. 

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?)