Neverending Covid-19 Coronavirus

You keep saying we, but I'm not seeing anyone in my state or federal government showing the slightest interest in doing what you're suggesting. All I'm seeing is a bunch of threats to force everything back to normal as soon as possible from Trump and promises to not shut anything down again (no matter what the data shows in the coming months) from my governor. They haven't announced plans for how school will work, but I'm not too optimistic.

I appreciate your perspective and I agree with your hopes, but I don't think it matters what the media does, there's got to be a plan that is based on the actual data from the people in charge that uses data and expert opinions and I'm not seeing it. I hope some states are able to do better than mine, but they have to deal with threats of cut funding from the Feds if they don't do what Trump wants.

That's what's freaking me out and keeping me from seeing a light at the end of the tunnel.

Unfortunately, there can be no one defined path forward. Our country is EXTREMELY heterogeneous, and the right path forward for New York, South Carolina and Ohio will be vastly different. Expert opinions are divergent on what to do, and it's going to have to be state-by-state and locality by locality, especially since we have an UTTERLY INEPT commander in chief. This, unfortunately, is our reality at the very least until January 2021.

The horse is already out of the barn, though, and the virus be virusin'. There isn't much we can do outside of manage our own risks and cross our fingers that things continue to get better (which - they ARE). There are a few hot zones in the country, but outside of those areas, hospitalizations are down, death rates are down, treatment is getting better, and I'm hopeful that people will see first hand when it hits their communities they better wash their freakin' hands and stay the eff home when they feel sick. Future lockdowns in my mind are ill advised (they are not without humongous costs and the benefits are still argued), so we need to learn to deal with what our reality is until we reach herd immunity (either through natural means or a vaccine).

The densely populated areas have a lot more to worry about than spread out areas, and policy should be different for each. There will be success stories and failure stories until we reach enough prevalence of people with antibodies and/or a vaccine arrives (which it may never - still has never been a successful vaccine for a coronavirus).

In the meantime, we can take solace that the death rate is somewhere between 0.1-0.5%, secondary risks so far are reportedly rare, and in light of schools opening, studies have shown (although evidence still weak), school children are not thought to be effective vectors of transmission:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaF8TvBZYjE&at_campaign=64&at_custom2=twitter&at_medium=custom7&at_custom1=[post+type]&at_custom4=6B283BA2-C136-11EA-838A-CA8996E8478F&at_custom3=@BBCNewsnight

The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly encourage in-person schooling, so I defer to the experts on this matter. It is up to governors and local politicians to ensure we do it in as safe a way possible.
 
Unfortunately, there can be no one defined path forward. Our country is EXTREMELY heterogeneous, and the right path forward for New York, South Carolina and Ohio will be vastly different. Expert opinions are divergent on what to do, and it's going to have to be state-by-state and locality by locality, especially since we have an UTTERLY INEPT commander in chief. This, unfortunately, is our reality at the very least until January 2021.

The horse is already out of the barn, though, and the virus be virusin'. There isn't much we can do outside of manage our own risks and cross our fingers that things continue to get better (which - they ARE). There are a few hot zones in the country, but outside of those areas, hospitalizations are down, death rates are down, treatment is getting better, and I'm hopeful that people will see first hand when it hits their communities they better wash their freakin' hands and stay the eff home when they feel sick. Future lockdowns in my mind are ill advised (they are not without humongous costs and the benefits are still argued), so we need to learn to deal with what our reality is until we reach herd immunity (either through natural means or a vaccine).

The densely populated areas have a lot more to worry about than spread out areas, and policy should be different for each. There will be success stories and failure stories until we reach enough prevalence of people with antibodies and/or a vaccine arrives (which it may never - still has never been a successful vaccine for a coronavirus).

In the meantime, we can take solace that the death rate is somewhere between 0.1-0.5%, secondary risks so far are reportedly rare, and in light of schools opening, studies have shown (although evidence still weak), school children are not thought to be effective vectors of transmission:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaF8TvBZYjE&at_campaign=64&at_custom2=twitter&at_medium=custom7&at_custom1=[post+type]&at_custom4=6B283BA2-C136-11EA-838A-CA8996E8478F&at_custom3=@BBCNewsnight

The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly encourage in-person schooling, so I defer to the experts on this matter. It is up to governors and local politicians to ensure we do it in as safe a way possible.
I'm in a hot zone and nobody seems to be doing much of anything outside only very recently, some cities putting a relatively unenforceable face mask requirement out for specific business types.

I'm not sure why you have more faith in state governments than in our President. Many are following in his footsteps, that is my concern.

0.5% death rate is very high, especially for a disease this communicable and widespread, so I'm not sure I understand why you take solace in that. If you are saying we might not get a vaccine and herd immunity must be reached, we are talking about 70% of the population needing to be infected, which at the assumptive rate of 0.5% fatality, is over a million people dead.

The pediatric recommendation is (understandably considering the source) purely focused on the children and doesn't seem to take the safety of the adults involved into account.

I am envious of your hope, but with all the logic you are putting forward, I'm not seeing our governments that control the use of that data and logic taking it seriously, which is what I'm worried about. Many politicians are making it clear that they are much more concerned with not upsetting people who don't give a shit about the virus and getting reelected than with saving lives.
 
The fact that something is rare, has a low rate, etc only matters if you only care about things on an individual level. Sure, you or the people you know have a low chance of serious complications or deaths on an individual level.

But at a policy level, these rates need to be multiplied by the actual number of people that can get sick. That's what results in costly hospitalizations and increased risk to health care workers, even if there is full recovery at the end. How much does a 2-4 week hospitalization cost in your country? In ICU?

It makes me cringe when I see people focus on individual rates, because this is exactly what deniers everywhere are using as an excuse to do little. Hey, why do we need to worry if there is only a 0.6% chance of dying and it's skewed towards old people anyway?

The US is a massive, polarized country with a very different population across state lines. Smaller countries with more homogeneous populations are having a hard enough time coming up with a concise approach. I think policy should be left up to the states, partially because my optimism at the federal level with our current administration is.... lacking.

When setting policy, you HAVE to look at incidences of % of prevalence. It is impossible to mitigate all risks, and there is a lot of people that die of viruses and disease every year where we don't discuss continually locking down the country. for the millionth time I want to be clear I think it was right to lockdown at the beginning, but not now since there are SIGNIFICANT economic and maybe even moreso social costs involved).

You can't construct policy at the individual level or nothing would ever get done. When constructing policy, I think we need to protect the elderly and infirmed at all costs, continue to keep mass gatherings at a minimum, continue to educate the populace about hygiene/distancing/masking, and hope those estimating a 15-20% Herd Immunity Threshold are correct.


Not quite sure I am following your logic here, can you please explain why you think we want cases to continue to rise? Countries around the world are reporting a decrease in cases while still testing at a high level, yet we are testing at a high level and are seeing cases rise. This seems counter to what most of the world is seeing. Why should the US follow Sweden's path of trying to gain herd immunity when we still have no idea what the long term consequences of this disease has to offer.

I'm operating from the assumption that we locked down to flatten the curve, avoid hospitals getting overwhelmed, bring up PPE, figure out treatments (like remdesivir and dexamethasone) and allow the populace to get educated on hygiene/distancing. Once the curve was flattened in terms of hospitals being overwhelmed/under-supplied, it's time to open back up and get on with letting the virus do its thing while protecting the most vulnerable, since locking down forever would still not get rid of it, and we can't lockdown until a vaccine arrives since we have no idea if a vaccine will be successful. There has never been a successful vaccine for a coronavirus, and there's never been a vaccine created in under 4 years.

~8,000 people die in this country every single day - we cannot eliminate death. We can only do our best to take care of one another by assessing our risks and doing what's right.

Voting this November is crucial. I'm hoping we see progress for going in a positive direction for lower cost and/or universal healthcare and this awful situation will have been the impetus.
 
I'm in a hot zone and nobody seems to be doing much of anything outside only very recently, some cities putting a relatively unenforceable face mask requirement out for specific business types.

I'm not sure why you have more faith in state governments than in our President. Many are following in his footsteps, that is my concern.

0.5% death rate is very high, especially for a disease this communicable and widespread, so I'm not sure I understand why you take solace in that. If you are saying we might not get a vaccine and herd immunity must be reached, we are talking about 70% of the population needing to be infected, which at the assumptive rate of 0.5% fatality, is over a million people dead.

The pediatric recommendation is (understandably considering the source) purely focused on the children and doesn't seem to take the safety of the adults involved into account.

I am envious of your hope, but with all the logic you are putting forward, I'm not seeing our governments that control the use of that data and logic taking it seriously, which is what I'm worried about. Many politicians are making it clear that they are much more concerned with not upsetting people who don't give a shit about the virus and getting reelected than with saving lives.

Hopeful that research surrounding T cell cross immunity will put the Herd Immunity Threshold at possibly as low as 15-20%. See Diamond Princess cruise ship and Sweden (who had no lockdown) vs. new cases/deaths once those numbers were reached (you have to back into total infected with Sweden using IFR).

0.5% fatality rate is on the high end and that's across populations/ages/comorbidities. For healthy people under 50, it's more like 0.05% (according to CDC), possibly even lower depending on prevalence of asymptomatic infections (35% assumption to get the 0.05% number), which is in line with a bad flu. For elderly and infirmed this virus is EXTREMELY dangerous and scary, which for me hastens the need for herd immunity especially in the summer while people spend more time outside and immune systems are more robust vis a vis Vitamin D levels.

For those younger than 20, risk of flu is higher than risk from death of Covid.
 
I'm in a hot zone and nobody seems to be doing much of anything outside only very recently, some cities putting a relatively unenforceable face mask requirement out for specific business types.

I'm not sure why you have more faith in state governments than in our President. Many are following in his footsteps, that is my concern.

0.5% death rate is very high, especially for a disease this communicable and widespread, so I'm not sure I understand why you take solace in that. If you are saying we might not get a vaccine and herd immunity must be reached, we are talking about 70% of the population needing to be infected, which at the assumptive rate of 0.5% fatality, is over a million people dead.

The pediatric recommendation is (understandably considering the source) purely focused on the children and doesn't seem to take the safety of the adults involved into account.

I am envious of your hope, but with all the logic you are putting forward, I'm not seeing our governments that control the use of that data and logic taking it seriously, which is what I'm worried about. Many politicians are making it clear that they are much more concerned with not upsetting people who don't give a shit about the virus and getting reelected than with saving lives.

RE schools - they opened here in Quebec outside of Montreal in May. I think the key is that the local pandemic is controlled and that good tracing is in place. As you know, my daughter went and I went with a rational over an emotional decision, based on the science fragments that were available and the local situation. It worked out quite well over those 7 weeks.

A few takeaways:

-The pediatrics association pushed it quite hard here too. They clearly are only thinking about the kids and not the adults.

-Only primary schools opened and it was optional. The situation will be quite different when we add high schools and colleges and it's not optional anymore. Older kids are much more of a spreading risk. I wouldn't be opposed to sacrificing a risky sector like bars so that schools can remain open safely.

-The adults in schools are very much at risk, but mostly from each other. The young kids seems to be mostly at risk from the adults. This is why the local epidemic must be controlled for this to work. I'm basing this off a Dutch health authority survey that I'm pretty sure I posted here a while back. I think data from Australia backs this too. Certainly the data from Quebec primary schools. More than half the confirmed cases here were adults (though adults:children in primary schools must have been heavily skewed towards the children, even if only about half returned).
 
Hopeful that research surrounding T cell cross immunity will put the Herd Immunity Threshold at possibly as low as 15-20%. See Diamond Princess cruise ship and Sweden (who had no lockdown) vs. new cases/deaths once those numbers were reached (you have to back into total infected with Sweden using IFR).

0.5% fatality rate is on the high end and that's across populations/ages/comorbidities. For healthy people under 50, it's more like 0.05% (according to CDC), possibly even lower depending on prevalence of asymptomatic infections (35% assumption to get the 0.05% number), which is in line with a bad flu. For elderly and infirmed this virus is EXTREMELY dangerous and scary, which for me hastens the need for herd immunity especially in the summer while people spend more time outside and immune systems are more robust vis a vis Vitamin D levels.

For those younger than 20, risk of flu is higher than risk from death of Covid.
I hope you are right about the herd immunity threshold, but at least as far as I understand it, it is a lot more complicated than that. Reaching the herd immunity threshold doesn't magically stop the spread while a widespread pandemic is going on. The spread will likely continue far past the herd immunity threshold, regardless of what it is. The more rapidly we reach herd immunity, the further it will spread.

All of the stuff you are citing includes an enormous amount of uncontrolled variables, complexities and assumptions. We do not have even remotely close to a complete dataset to pull from for our current picture, which is why our country's current fatality rate is over 4%, so I hope you can understand my reticence to put my faith in optimistic conclusions.

If all of the optimistic hopes that you are listing end up being true, it will be because we got lucky, not because our government tried to do the right thing or listened to the experts, at least not in the realm of public health. That's what I'm upset and anxious about.

Continually stating things like your last statement really makes it sound like you aren't as concerned about the tens of thousands of old people that are dying. Telling me that my kid probably won't die, but my mom has a good chance if she gets it doesn't make me feel better. I'm sure that isn't your intent, but that's how it makes me feel.
 
Last edited:
I hope you are right about the herd immunity threshold, but at least as far as I understand it, it is a lot more complicated than that. Reaching the herd immunity threshold doesn't magically stop the spread while a widespread pandemic is going on. The spread will likely continue far past the herd immunity threshold, regardless of what it is. The more rapidly we reach herd immunity, the further it will spread.

All of the stuff you are citing includes an enormous amount of uncontrolled variables, complexities and assumptions. We do not have even remotely close to a complete dataset to pull from for our current picture, which is why our country's current fatality rate is over 4%, so I hope you can understand my reticence to put my faith in optimistic conclusions.

If all of the optimistic hopes that you are listing end up being true, it will be because we got lucky, not because our government did the right thing or listened to the experts. That's what I'm upset and anxious about.

Continually stating things like your last statement really makes it sound like you aren't concerned about the tens of thousands of old people that are dying. Telling me that my kid probably won't die, but my mom has a good chance if she gets it doesn't make me feel better. I'm sure that isn't your intent, but that's how it makes me feel.

Yeah, certainly not my intent. My parents are in their 60's. I don't want them to die or suffer complications. That doesn't change the fact that the virus is here. I also don't want anyone else to lose a parent or grandparent or loved one. I also don't want to catch the virus. Getting sick royally sucks, and even the remote risk I die and leave my children without a father is horrifying. What does that do, though? Being fearful wasn't doing me any good. I'm beyond hopeful some of these theories are accurate and the data from the CDC showing 35%+ asymptomatic cases and chances of being closer to herd immunity are true. I'm more hopeful that they are true since we've seen instances of it playing out in other populations vs. hoping we come up with a vaccine for a coronavirus when one has never existed before in 1/4 the time from the fastest ever developed vaccine.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as a thought experiment, South Carolina has a population of about 5.1 million residents. SC has had 884 deaths. Using CDC avg. IFR of 0.26%, that would be about 350k infected. This squares up with possible cases here: SC Cases by County & ZIP Code (COVID-19) | SCDHEC.

This puts the state about 50% of the way to the hypothetical herd immunity threshold being reached before R0 falls below 1 naturally (assuming there's any truth to the theory I'm hopeful of), which would lead to lowering cases/virus burning itself out.

Coronavirus: could it be burning out after 20% of a population is infected?

At the rate of ~15,000 new cases per day (7-day moving avg of 1,500 x 10), you'll be there in a month. Assuming it's mostly the younger/healthier population becoming infected, death rate should continue to go down and hospital stays should continue to decrease.

Of course this hypothetical as you mentioned doesn't make the virus disappear, but it serves as a light at the end of the tunnel where the pandemic is "under control" and it burns itself out. The faster we get there without overwhelming hospitals (see: younger/healthier population contracting it) the better.
 
That's a very libertarian point to take, 8,000 people die everyday but not because of a pandemic, people are dying because of a lack of concern for their well being and your point of view that lockdown are bad only further infuriates me. Fuck the economy peoples lives are more important than the economy it is the govt responsibility to ensure people are safe during a crisis like this, and your idea that America is so different county by county would make everyone in this country wonder why we need a federal government at all. I think while you have good intentions you are missing the larger picture and I remember why I avoided this thread in the first place.

I think the Federal government is important as well as social safety nets. Im against corporate bailouts in the form of PPP loans to billion dollar corporations. I’m for universal healthcare. I’d make a pretty fucking shitty libertarian.

I also am a realist and look at our current leadership and realize a cohesive approach is unlikely. We also have an extremely diverse population that may benefit in this scenario from a nuanced approach given local demographics.

My point of view that the first lockdown was bad isn’t accurate. Now we have more data and have had more time to prepare - locking down may save some people but to say it doesn’t cost other lives is inaccurate. People died due to medical procedures being postponed, losing access to mental health services (overdoses and suicides), and people who may die much sooner because of losing access to heart and cancer screenings (~70% drop) or chemotherapy appointments being canceled (~50% drop). Heart disease and cancer are the 2 largest causes of death in the US killing 1.2 million a year. You think lockdowns don’t increase those numbers? Don’t lose sight of that. Have to do cost-benefit analysis and take a measured approach and not operate on emotions.

Anecdotal examples:

Young mum dies from cancer after treatment is delayed due to coronavirus

Corbella: Alberta man died from the lockdown, not COVID-19

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/01/coronavirus-drug-overdose/
 
I think the Federal government is important as well as social safety nets. Im against corporate bailouts in the form of PPP loans to billion dollar corporations. I’m for universal healthcare. I’d make a pretty fucking shitty libertarian.

I also am a realist and look at our current leadership and realize a cohesive approach is unlikely. We also have an extremely diverse population that may benefit in this scenario from a nuanced approach given local demographics.

My point of view that the first lockdown was bad isn’t accurate. Now we have more data and have had more time to prepare - locking down may save some people but to say it doesn’t cost other lives is inaccurate. People died due to medical procedures being postponed, losing access to mental health services (overdoses and suicides), and people who may die much sooner because of losing access to heart and cancer screenings (~70% drop) or chemotherapy appointments being canceled (~50% drop). Heart disease and cancer are the 2 largest causes of death in the US killing 1.2 million a year. You think lockdowns don’t increase those numbers? Don’t lose sight of that. Have to do cost-benefit analysis and take a measured approach and not operate on emotions.

Anecdotal examples:

Young mum dies from cancer after treatment is delayed due to coronavirus

Corbella: Alberta man died from the lockdown, not COVID-19

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/01/coronavirus-drug-overdose/

You can't start citing anecdotal evidence as being meaningful after you trash a peer-reviewed article in one of the top neuroscience journals because you believe they reported too few N's.

If we start going down that road, lockdowns also reduced a lot of other types of deaths. Like those from car accidents. Why not mention that too?

 
You can't start citing anecdotal evidence as being meaningful after you trash a peer-reviewed article in one of the top neuroscience journals because you believe they reported too few N's.

If we start going down that road, lockdowns also reduced a lot of other types of deaths. Like those from car accidents. Why not mention that too?


1. I didn’t trash the article, I brought up how the paper didn’t prove a “glut” of secondary effects.

2. I provided anecdotal examples to illustrate the fact that there are costs to lockdowns.

3. Of course lockdowns saved lives too.

I think I’ve said all I need to say to illustrate my perspective/hopes and it’s clearly very emotional for many. I’ll see myself out to avoid pissing anyone else off since that was far from my initial intention.
 
Did anyone watch the last episode of Last Week with John Oliver? The last episode is form June 28th I believe. Virtually the entire episode is about how we are heading towards a homelessness crisis in August.

25% of renters spend 70% or more of their income on rent in the United States. 40% spend 50% of their income or more.

The vast majority of renters are living paycheck to paycheck as they tend to have less accumulated wealth than property owners (who's wealth comes from owning property). This means the majority of renters don't have savings for a raining day. And that shutdown wasn't just a rainy day, it was a flood.

The federal governments moratorium on evictions for renters only applies for properties with federally backed mortgages, or fewer than 25% properties nation wide.

Most states have passed their own moratorium on evictions, many set to expire by August. However, in most states these moratoriums did not halt all the legal proceedings up to eviction. So property owners / landlords have been able to file for evictions this entire time and have been doing so. Once the moratoriums on evictions end, evictions will come swiftly.

John Oliver played some clips recording by local news stations interviewing landlords / property management companies and here is what they had to say.

They interviewed a property owner from the midwest who is notorious for not giving any renters any exceptions. He follows what's laid out in the lease in every case. Here is what he had to say:

It's never fun evicting a single mother of 3, but it's business.

Here is a quote of a property management company interviewed from Denver:

We understand that people are afraid and going through a tough time right now because of the pandemic. But it's not the property owners fault. Maybe they should have saved up for a rainy day.

In Phenix AZ, a renter was unable to pay rent on April 1st after having her hours significantly cut back but not eligible for unemployment because she's still employed. She lives with her grandmother in an apartment. When she notified her landlord, who does not live in Arizona, she was told she and her grandma can go fuck themselves and should start looking for a new apartment. They reached out to the local news channel, who reached out to the landlord and informed him that Arizona has a moratorium on evictions.

The landlord responded by discounting Aprils rent by half, money he said he would have lost anyways had he had to find a new renter. And ended his email reply to the local news station with quote:

Now let's get on with our miserable lives.

It's estimated that 40% of renters are behind on payments. None of the rent was forgiven by any of the eviction moratoriums and is still all due. Many of these renters will need to be current by the end of the moratoriums to avoid evictions. Also in many cases, that won't be enough. The simple fact that they fell behind have secured them in their landlords eye for eviction and they have already started all the legal proceedings to evict them. Paying up by the end of the eviction moratorium will not be enough to stop the eviction processes.

An eviction is a permanent red flag on your background report and lives with you the rest of your life. In many cases it can prevent you from renting a new property or getting a mortgage. Any property who checks backgrounds / credit of renters won't rent to anyone who has been previously evicted. So their options are limited of where they can rent. Such as Title 8 housing or from landlords who own just a couple units who don't run all the checks. Virtually all property management companies and complexes will run the checks.

Also, statistics show that property owners are much less likely to work with people of color. Especially black single mothers who have the highest rates of eviction historically. Property owners are more likely to make exceptions for white people where as they are more likely to go through the eviction process for people of color.
 
We want cases and recoveries up and death rate to continue to go down. This would indicate being closer to herd immunity since a vaccine may never come, and would indicate healthier people are contracting the virus and treatment options are getting better.

Case count is only one small part of the story anymore. Case positivity % is up marginally, but not anywhere close to the previous peaks. Younger, healthier people being infected, gigantic number more being tested, antibody testing being lumped into PCR numbers, backlogged data being dumped, all hospital admissions being tested, multiple positives for one individual counting as multiple new daily cases, track and trace is up in certain areas, suspected cases included by many states as new cases, etc., etc.

Messaging needs to be fixed by media so we can better manage risks and reduce societal panic/anxiety while still being mindful that this isn’t going away.
ZXd17HC.png
Okay, so I really don't want this to be a bash Goat situation. And Goat, I really do appreciate your view point because you are getting us to think about a lot of things.

But I have to disagree with the focus on case positivity%. The reason positivity % was up in the early days is because we were only testing symptomatic people. We are now testing asymptomatic people, so our positivity % was going to decrease as a function of the underlying probability.

While I agree with a lot of what you say about focusing on the fact that most people come out of this unscathed, we need to be very, VERY careful when talking about a grand social experiment in herd immunity. If we were like Sweden and had their public medical infrastructure, I would be more on board with us not locking things down. The problem lies in that we have a class of people that are deemed "essential" but these people often have limited or no access to healthcare due to either not having insurance or having a high deductible, thus making their insurance as only a catastrophic policy, and it that policy ever has to be used, this person would probably end up bankrupt. Making cashiers and stock people work in conditions where they are more susceptible to the virus (like in a state that doesn't mandate masks) while simultaneously making health care if they get the virus out of reach for them, is going to cause more civil unrest. If we decide to do some sort of herd immunity thing and we do not protect our most vulnerable people, then this becomes a case of the rich get the medical care and get to survive and the poor just die in their beds. I realize that this is already the reality for many, but if you really want to highlight this disparity, stop enacting government policies to protect the public.

What you are saying makes sense and would work in a more homogeneous country where people had similar access to medical care that was either socialist or affordable. Only after this could we talk, but until we have a major shift in public policies and social safety nets, we cannot rationally have the herd immunity discussion.
 
Some local developments to share...

The government here is forcing bars to close at midnight as of tonight. They were allowed to reopen a little over a week ago, but it seems like they just can't operate and follow the health authority directives. There were tons of media reports of inconsiderate behavior over the weekend. This is in the wake of an outbreak in the township south of Montreal, started by a teenage house party where upwards of 30 attendees are now positive. Some went to a bar without practicing any of the guidelines afterwards, others to their work, prior to developing symptoms, and the whole thing spiraled out causing several other businesses to close for disinfection. There is even a fire department that is fully closed because it reached there.

At least contact tracing is working (to some extent, at least). A mobile testing unit was deployed in that area. With some luck, it should be contained. But it should not have happened if guidelines were followed. We have a 10 people maximum, from 3 households, for gatherings at private homes. Frankly, it's pretty permissive considering. People can gather indoors but it's recommended to gather outside.

In related news, the government of Quebec is making face coverings mandatory in all indoor public spaces as of July 20. This was pretty much inevitable. They needed to act now if they want to keep the current de-confinement level going and have schools mostly open in the fall.
 
Okay, so I really don't want this to be a bash Goat situation. And Goat, I really do appreciate your view point because you are getting us to think about a lot of things.

But I have to disagree with the focus on case positivity%. The reason positivity % was up in the early days is because we were only testing symptomatic people. We are now testing asymptomatic people, so our positivity % was going to decrease as a function of the underlying probability.

While I agree with a lot of what you say about focusing on the fact that most people come out of this unscathed, we need to be very, VERY careful when talking about a grand social experiment in herd immunity. If we were like Sweden and had their public medical infrastructure, I would be more on board with us not locking things down. The problem lies in that we have a class of people that are deemed "essential" but these people often have limited or no access to healthcare due to either not having insurance or having a high deductible, thus making their insurance as only a catastrophic policy, and it that policy ever has to be used, this person would probably end up bankrupt. Making cashiers and stock people work in conditions where they are more susceptible to the virus (like in a state that doesn't mandate masks) while simultaneously making health care if they get the virus out of reach for them, is going to cause more civil unrest. If we decide to do some sort of herd immunity thing and we do not protect our most vulnerable people, then this becomes a case of the rich get the medical care and get to survive and the poor just die in their beds. I realize that this is already the reality for many, but if you really want to highlight this disparity, stop enacting government policies to protect the public.

What you are saying makes sense and would work in a more homogeneous country where people had similar access to medical care that was either socialist or affordable. Only after this could we talk, but until we have a major shift in public policies and social safety nets, we cannot rationally have the herd immunity discussion.

One more thing for when it comes to low wage service jobs that are likely considered essential. Many of us probably haven't worked them in years, but there has been a trend over the the last 10 years to move to mostly part time employees.

When it comes to retail, grocery and chain restaurants they want to keep their employees under 30 hours a week average so that they are not eligible for benefits. Benefits are expensive costs to employers and impacts their bottom line. When the affordable care act went into place and costs of insurance went up many companies went this route. Not only does it save them money, but it's better to have more people on payroll. They always consider these employees to be replaceable, so if some one quits, doesn't show up or get's fired they have a larger pool of people to call from to cover.

I was working in Retail management 2010-2014 and was not allowed to hire any full time employees. Sure we had existing employees grandfathered in as full time. But any new hires we got had to be part time. Between 18 and 28 hours a week. Only salaried managers or department supervisors from that point on where I worked were full time / had benefits for new hires.

This is why you have people working 3 plus jobs to get by and yet they still don't have their own health insurance. Paying for it by them self on the market is either not an option in some areas where all plans pulled out of the obamacare exchange (mostly in red states), or where it is available can cost $1200 a month or more for a high deductible plan!.

So even if they can get a plan on the exchange, many can't afford it after combining their low wages with high rent.

The fact that people can remain on their parents health insurance until they are 26 further drives this practice. So yes, people under 26 have insurance most likely through their parents, but anyone older working these kinds of jobs likely do not.

Most family owned businesses in the retail and service industries do not offer insurance either. While it's likely they hire full time, if they have fewer than 50 employees they are not mandated to provide insurance as a benefit. Most don't because they can't afford it.
 
A lot of the plans to get students back in the classroom or remote learning don't take parents into consideration.

They are talking about this on the Today Show right now. The issue is the plans for schooling for kids are putting parents in the position of taking care of their kids or working. They can't do both.

If the parents can't work from home, how are they going to take care of child if they are not in school and supervise remote learning?

Many jobs are not tolerant of child care getting in the way of work. There are already lawsuits against employers for terminating employees for such things as kids being heard in the background on calls or intruding during calls. Parents not being able to work 9-5 because they they need to assist in their kids remote learning and make lunches and stuff. The parents are working, just stepping away as needed and putting in extra working hours earlier in the morning or late as night. Their productivity is not being effected and they are putting in more than their 8 hours, just not all between 9-5 which is a major issue for some employers.

Employers need to be more lenient. Lawmakers need to put in place protections so parents don't have to choose between taking care of their child or working.

Education plans need to take into account parents and not force them to choose between helping with remote learning.
 
Some people here are going to lose their shit over this, including many of my coworkers who are already very upset about masks.
"Do your research, they don't do ANYthing"


Why do people think masks work for doctors, but somehow magically stop working for everyone else?

I know, most people don't wear them right, don't doff and don properly, etc etc, but still.
 
Back
Top