In the early begiining I downplayed COVID-19....BUT

So if high numbers are indicative of people not adhering to lockdowns, then they must be absolutely partying in the streets.. oh wait.

I digress.



I'd believe small upticks were from some non-social distancing, but not massive numbers.

But then again, if masks worked we'd not need the lockdowns.



People see what they want in all this, that it's as simple as wearing a mask and everyone is safe and everything will be fine. Same for lockdowns, they want to believe that their suffering is for a greater good.

The data says that neither is true because nothing works against something that is biologically evolved to do exactly the thing it's doing.

I was being a bit sarcastic with the partying thing since there had been the large numbers of folks in the streets for reasons and most of those were folks were the same lamenting our leadership, although our government response was similar in overall scope and breadth to the average of other countries.

It seems that this would be a case of impossible implementation, and any subsequent failure would be blamed on "lax" something or other. 70% adherence would fail and someone would say it needed to be 75%, 99% needed to be 100%, etc.

But we've heard this before during the beginning of the last wave of cases that didn't result in deaths too. I see no reason to expect this wave to be different.

First, I really appreciate the civility of this discussion. We might not agree on the methods, but I know we both agree that this virus is a travesty.

But to your point, it's hard to say. I'd rather follow the data, but data is changing by the minute and certainly by whom collects it.

A line must be drawn between personal freedom and overreaching policy too. A test-and-certify approach might be useful but being denied entry into businesses or similar locations sure to lack of "certification" reeks of HIPAA violations at best or 80's HIV stigma at worst, or can even cross gender/race lines. People balk at needing an ID to vote, just wait until they need a license to walk into a store..

Lockdowns affect everyone to some degree, even those at least risk of death or serious illness. They disproportionately affect the poor who need to work and at no point in history has government been able to handle resolving poverty, so it's surely not going to get fixed in a few weeks at this point.

The only approach that at least tries to handle this situation with some equity is sheltering those that are at high risk, providing those with the necessary support and shielding them and their caregivers. We should figure out which rapid test has the lowest error rate and provide increased availability of it, also including the bias of ethnicity since in my area there is a lot of diverse ethnicity and a lot of people are very wary of government backed "testing". A doctor I know noted that as a free testing center, his clinic actually saw a decrease in patients, and one claimed that they had been told it was a way for government to find them for deportation.

Luckily, my state, georgia, took a fairly big wave early on and had since enjoyed a very low case rate with most cases now being the locations that were geographically isolated, like the mountainous towns.

I tend to think lockdowns work to reduce spread, and what we see in rising cases is the distributed timing of the end of lockdown, when a high enough percentage return to life as normal, all caution to the wind. Even in multi-tiered micro-lockdowns, the UK has a constant problem with illegal raves and street parties ignoring all advice - then those people blend back in to the general population. The UK population with any money to spend (or a package vacation they couldn’t cancel) appear to have all gone to the beaches in Portugal/Spain/Croatia as soon as they were allowed, and seeded the next wave quite well. It’s not just UK behavior, it’s general human behavior. A lockdown slows and flattens a peak, it’s never going to make it go away completely, it kicks future cases further down the road, which has great value from a medical patient load perspective. So many unknowns; i know people who’ve died, people who’ve been pretty ill, people who’ve had emergency room visits weeks after ‘recovering’, and two entire families in which one person in the house had it and 4-6 others never got it. None of it makes any sense yet.
A quick glance suggests 3.75 million US births/year, 2.8 million deaths/year. What will the excess death percentage for the year appear to be? It seems significant, with 6 weeks to go, apparently heading into the biggest peak yet.

Instead of protecting the elderly, retards like Cuomo and De Blasio moved covid patients into nursing homes killing them. They passed laws during epidemic to shield nursing homes and themselves from lawsuits. I doubt any of that will hold up. Post pandemic, their operators and the states will be facing billions in wrongful death lawsuits.

then again we live in a country that let the Sacklers keep their wealth instead of letting them starve on the street with the junkies they created.

Thanks.

I know it's a hot topic and I know that because it is, it's hard to have a discussion that doesn't include feelings and desires.  I understand that people want to believe that the government can and is doing something about all this because they personally feel powerless to change anything and need the comfort of belief in a greater power. 

I know it also drives folks to grasp at virtual straws and become emotionally invested in overly simple takes, like "if only we did X, things would be fixed".  However, as a person of science I feel like I have to divorce the feelings and the desires and let the data drive the direction.  Right now, the raw data says that there isn't anything we can do to "fix" this now besides shelter who we can and let immune systems do what they've evolved to do in the rest that have a low chance of mortality.  Lockdowns create a LOT of pain, disproportionately for poor people, and they do little but stymie infection rates for short periods which is evident in every single country that had rigorous lockdowns yet are experiencing subsequent waves of infections.   Arguments can be made for the percentage of adherence, but overall the aggregate result is that they do not work no matter who's tried them or how severe they were for COVID or actually for any of the related SARS/MERS waves we've had in the past few decades.  Some of the top scientists in the world have seen these come and go and they always follow similar evolutionary cycles.  The initial fear for covid was that it would be different, but it's followed textbook patterns.  it just seems worse because the scope now encompasses more regions than before.

No thanks.  There are no guarantees in life.  You can't mandate health or well being.  If you are alive, you're taking a risk.  Trump is not responsible if I get Covid.  Biden cannot stop me from contracting Covid.  The government is not responsible for my personal health.  I'm the only one who can take measures to protect myself.  Did we all forget that?  I'd rather not live in the type of world that your reasoning implies.  No offense.

Of the studies I know of, the one thing that has continually proven to prevent infections is hand washing. All other measures are pretty disappointing. Masks can definitely help too, but when they’re utilized the way we are using them, their effectiveness is pretty poor. Again, according to the studies I’ve seen.

I agree. I've also appreciated the civil discourse you and I've had.

As is always the case when it comes to this sort of thing, social cost and tradeoffs are at the heart of the discussion. I'm generally with you on the personal freedom thing, though I would point out that we already make similar tradeoffs in other areas of our life with things like enforced speed limits on highways.

The cost is that we can't all drive as fast as we possibly can, but that comes with the benefit that we aren't dying at much higher rates due to many more fatal wrecks. The public is generally supportive of this trade-off. In a nutshell I'm just simply pointing out that we don't live in a world where either end (absolute freedom versus absolute safety) of the the scale applies.

It's a sliding scale so, in the end, it just comes down to where that sweet spot between the two lies. In my opinion, at this point, we are about in the sweet spot as far as lockdowns, masks, etc. are concerned. I would just like to see them actually enforced.

The issue with rapid testing as a substitute for lockdowns and mask is that, as you pointed out, they can often provide false negatives. So now we're back in the same boat of people having a false sense of security. At least with masks and lockdowns, you are eliminating some of the potential avenues of transmission, regardless of who is or isn't positive and who does or doesn't know about it, again assuming that these policies are actually enforced.

In a perfect world, I think I would tend to agree with you on the testing being a better avenue. But there are just too many false negatives with our current testing methods, unfortunately. And, as you pointed out, it's also difficult to know who is actually negative, not to mention the civil liberty concerns. Just of note though, I would add that we similarly enforce proof of vaccination for kids to go to school. It's not an unprecedented concept or something that is complete anathema to the public, at large.

What frustrates me the most about all of this is that, as a society, I'm fine with having these sort of cost to benefit analysis conversations, provided that we are all intellectually honest with one another about where the goal posts lie and what the parameters are. The problem is that we (our society, not you and I) are not having an apples to apples comparison when science is villified by certain groups just because it doesn't fit their narrative. I say we all follow the facts and take them where it leads us. However, 8kun and Qanon are not arbiters of peer reviewed science, last time I checked.

Svart, from what I can tell, I think you and I have a similar understanding of the scientific method and can probably agree on a lot.

[/div]
[/quote]

You mean places like Portland? St. Louis? NYC? DC? Chicago? Democrat cities where they are being looted and burned down by 'protestors'?

It's almost as if they think protesting is the cure for COVID19. But I might be mistaken in my observations . . . and perhaps all those cities aren't protesting after all. It always amazes me how dangerous a church service is compared to 50,000 people shoulder to shoulder, peacefully celebrating the overthrow of a president. But I digress . . .


www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4cea9c.html
www.newsbreak.com/news/2061916952025/nolte-blm-riots-are-officially-the-most-costly-manmade-damage-to-american-property-in-history

BLM protesters don't carry arms. Right wing neo-nazis do - and they use them.[/quote][/b][/i]

You're right - BLM protesters (many) don't carry arms.  But they do seem to carry bricks and have been prone to burn out businesses in many cities across the country.  To call them right wing militia is a joke. I think maybe it's YOU who have been drinking the kool aide.

When BLM protestors were bussed into our small town from 100+ miles away, they were met by my NEIGHBORS - none of whom are Neo-nazi's - just peace loving folks who believe in justice, and a fair and very conspicuous police force.  My neighbors do happen to be gun carrying 2nd amendment enthusiasts, and since we are a concealed carry and open carry state - they were perfectly legal and within their rights to show up fully strapped and loaded alongside the protesters.  Guess what?  Officers had very little to do.  The BLM folks could see the resolve and essentially backed off their agenda.

Unlike so many other states and cities that burned with lack of police or a legally armed populace, they became a HUGE deterrent against the planned vandalizing and looting.  What was set up by outside our town forces for burning and chaos ended up essentially a standoff.  Both sides made their message very well known.  Not a shot was fired or a brick thrown, and to my knowledge, no one got arrested.  To call those armed folks "Neo-nazi's" is an insult to my neighbors, my town, and the country that I love.

Don't paint everyone with the same nazi brush John.

Ok, then give us the distilled non-kool-aid version of the facts please.


Clearly you do think it is, so I (for one) welcome your input. And as much as my stance is 180º different to John's, I respect any contrary POV.