COVID-19

[LGR4GM]

Quote

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

It isn't about ending the lockdown, which is over BTW. Places are open, schools are open, I am literally allowed to work from home or the office. It is about treating this disease like it is nothing. 200k dead Americans is nothing and they say almost as much. Further this is one of the worst uses of the term herd immunity every written. "society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity." That isn't how herd immunity works. Herd immunity works when enough ppl are immune that disease can't spread, that won't happen when we don't even know and there is growing evidence that you don't have permanent immunity. 

The GBD is political theatre written to advance and ideological agenda in which the economy is more important than human life. Period. 

Ask and you shall receive. From the CDC. There have been 300k access deaths since February. 200k are COVID, The largest percentage increases were seen among adults aged 25–44 years. But hey, resume life as normal because the GBD said you weren't at risk. So Covid has killed more people than would have normally died and we added 100k more deaths onto that. I bet some of those deaths were lockdown related but and this is important, the solution to fixing 100k extra deaths is not to kill 500k extra people with COVID infections.  Instead we need to find a middle solution in which the 100k extra are reduced AND the 200k covid deaths are flattened going forward. All I hear from the GBD "situation normal, all ***** up'd". SNAFU. You know what might help, mask wearing and social distancing, again 2 things shockingly absent from the GBD. 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm?s_cid=mm6942e2_w

[LGR4GM]

Just now, North Buffalo said:

IMO full lockdowns become less important for all the reasons Wyld mentions... but isolated localized short term lock downs sure because of the difficulty in contact tracing and folks not following protocols.  If there had been the leadership that NY implemented from the get go at its height the severity of this second/wave in other areas of the country would be a lot less imo.  While we are seeing a slight uptick nowhere near what we saw last April near NYC.  School are jumping on isolating any positive cases.

Yup because exponential growth is a thing. 1 to 2, 2 to 4, 4 to 8, 8 to 16 etc... but if you cut it off at 2, the rest doesn't happen. The GBD would have you assume otherwise because it isn't actually that good. If it was, how come they don't mention social distancing or mask wearing? Simple, it doesn't fit their narrative they want to push. 

[That Aud Smell]

59 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

We did know this and it's pandemic 101, there was always going to be a 2nd spike and there will be a 3rd as well, with almost every virus it does get weaker each spike. The illness is much less grave, so now it's time to carefully look forward at the same time and treating the current situation. 

Is there science associated with that being the case at present? Because anecdotally and non-clinically, that squares with what I am seeing, hearing, knowing in recent weeks, months.

[North Buffalo]

PS just heard-that we have 8 cases 3-4 of which are longterm positive including 1 positive 45 days... weird but apparently not unheard of and supposedly not contagious.?

[North Buffalo]

1 minute ago, That Aud Smell said:

Is there science associated with that being the case at present? Because anecdotally and non-clinically, that squares with what I am seeing, hearing, knowing in recent weeks, months.

Virus epidemiology science.  Immunity builds and virus does weaken over time.

[That Aud Smell]

Just now, North Buffalo said:

Virus epidemiology science.  Immunity builds and virus does weaken over time.

Thanks. I guess my question is whether there's clinical data tending to show that as well for this virus.

My tiny non-scientific sample involves stories I hear about several cohorts of college kids. Right around the time of everyone being sent home in March, I heard several stories of college-aged kids getting pretty sick (all fully recovered, as far as I know) and, to boot, there weren't that many cases being talked about. Then this fall, the stories are more along the lines of dang near err wun getting the virus (well, in Ohio anyway) and no one's really getting that ill.

[LTS]

First note: This is not commentary on Cuomo other than he happens to be the governor of NY State and leads the state in applying the following logic.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-travel-advisory-requiring-14-day-quarantine

This is why I have a problem with any concept of travel bans, shutdowns, etc.  The state acknowledged that New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania meet the criteria to be on the ban list but are not placed on it due to the interconnected nature of commerce between those states.  In other words, a lot of people need to travel between those states to maintain business.

So, ideally, the travel bans come with the quarantine requirement.  The travel ban excludes those who are in the banned state for more than 24 hours. Commuting into Pennsylvania would actually be a daily trip but you would be in the state for less than 24 hours and not required to quarantine anyway.  At least that's how I read it.

However, these states are not banned. So, instead, the states with high interstate travel remain off the list while states like Arizona which presumably see far less interstate travel are on the list. Fundamentally this is flawed logic in the effort to achieve protection of NY residents which is the purpose of these bans.

Again, you can find these kinds of logic flaws and gaps in every state, county, nation.  How can any shutdown/ban be touted as a safety measure without acknowledging that its a pipe dream that it has any impact.  The selective nature of such bans/shutdowns are what lead people to question all governments on the real intent.  NY state, for as good a job as its done, is also undermining its message with the announcement yesterday.

I feel this way with the mask argument as well.  We had a local case at school at one parent went on a witch hunt to find out who was infected. The argument was that their child comes into contact with two high risk family members. This, of course, ignores the logic that masks do not prevent the spread of the virus and as such, if her concerns were that great, her children should not be in school at all.  Her children could have been exposed and have never known it due to asymptomatic spreaders. 

Masks are important, they REDUCE the chance of spreading the virus.  Unfortunately many people believe it PREVENTS it.  Their own ignorance, or perhaps what they pull out of the messaging from health officials.  "You are safe if you wear a mask." That's not true.  You are also not safe if a business is shutdown or a travel ban exists because of the very selective nature by which those shutdowns and bans are put in place.

Bottom line, you end up at use your damn head and practice the very simple practices of wearing a mask, distance yourself, and if you believe or know you are an elevated risk person you are best to not be out in public, as much as that sucks.  Of course, that decision, is up to each person since there are no preventions, only reduction in chances and as such, there remains a chance.

[LGR4GM]

Here's an argument for opening schools that is worth a read and provides evidence. Good counterpoint to some of my misgivings and concerns. 

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/21/925794511/were-the-risks-of-reopening-schools-exaggerated

[spndnchz]

Anniversary of the lockout. The force is strong young Saprespacer 

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, LTS said:

The state acknowledged that New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania meet the criteria to be on the ban list but are not placed on it due to the interconnected nature of commerce between those states.  In other words, a lot of people need to travel between those states to maintain business.

That's a partial summary of the statement.  It's not exactly all about maintaining business.  The other part of the statement, at least as important  if not more important, is this:  "There is no practical way to quarantine New York from Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Connecticut."

Edited October 21, 2020 by Eleven

[LTS]

18 minutes ago, Eleven said:

That's a partial summary of the statement.  It's not exactly all about maintaining business.  The other part of the statement, at least as important  if not more important, is this:  "There is no practical way to quarantine New York from Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Connecticut."

That aside, you can still declare the quarantine restriction even if its not enforceable and you'd get some people who would abide by it. You will also get others who will ignore the non-essential travel suggestion.  I know this, because I know a travel hockey team going to Pittsburgh this weekend to play a tournament.  Which, by the way, is laughable, because within NYS they cannot play games.  Teams from Buffalo and Rochester have been going to Erie, PA to play games.  Think about that logic.

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by LTS

[Eleven]

2 hours ago, LTS said:

That aside, you can still declare the quarantine restriction even if its not enforceable and you'd get some people who would abide by it. You will also get others who will ignore the non-essential travel suggestion.  I know this, because I know a travel hockey team going to Pittsburgh this weekend to play a tournament.  Which, by the way, is laughable, because within NYS they cannot play games.  Teams from Buffalo and Rochester have been going to Erie, PA to play games.  Think about that logic.

 

That's exactly what makes it impossible to enforce in PA, CT, NJ (and MA for that matter).

[LTS]

41 minutes ago, Eleven said:

That's exactly what makes it impossible to enforce in PA, CT, NJ (and MA for that matter).

Yes, but to NOT put the quarantine in place, even though it's not enforceable is basically giving the green light on crossing the border to everyone.

I look at it like a travel ban during a winter storm.  Is it enforceable?  No. Do they still do it? Yes.  Why?  Because it discourages SOME to not engage in the behavior and should something happen there is at least some level of mandate to fall back on that says "You should not have been there."

Of course that's only arguing for the quarantines and bans.  I'm on the opposite side that their unwillingness to do it on the states where the most travel occurs is a good enough reason to not bother with the rest of the states.  It's not like COVID-19 only comes from Arizona.

So Sally in Delaware wanders into Philly and meets Joe from NYC.  Boom.. Delaware has met NY.  Those hockey teams are playing teams from border states too.  So, the Baltimore Checkers wander on up to Pittsburgh for a tournament and play against the Rochester Ice Dogs... boom.  Contact.  Travel restriction be damned.

Thus.. why bother having them at all?

[Weave]

A quarantine involving NY, CT, NJ won't work because the entire workforce in southern CT, southeastern NY, and NJ would be shut out.  The tri-state area is a massive commuter zone and employers would be required by law to respect that.  I know it would pretty much shut down my former employer.

[carpandean]

3 hours ago, Weave said:

A quarantine involving NY, CT, NJ won't work because the entire workforce in southern CT, southeastern NY, and NJ would be shut out.  The tri-state area is a massive commuter zone and employers would be required by law to respect that.  I know it would pretty much shut down my former employer.

The flaw is that the boundaries for determining quarantining are not (necessarily) based on practical reasons, but rather on the regions over which the decision makers exert control.  We (Western NY) have little in common with and are far more removed from NYC than the portions of the tri-state area that fall outside of the state.

[Andrew Amerk]

How about: don’t travel at all. 
 

There is a pandemic going on. 

[North Buffalo]

And now we have anti vaxxer ginnig up protesting flu and potential covid inoculations... duck...

https://apnews.com/article/30998a2aca26af17fe14f8da939ec0f4

Edited October 22, 2020 by North Buffalo

[bg17]

https://gript.ie/real-talk-have-facemasks-failed/

Across Europe, the picture is the same: Near universal mask wearing, and near universal record-setting in terms of the number of new cases.

[Wyldnwoody44]

10 hours ago, Andrew Amerk said:

How about: don’t travel at all. 
 

There is a pandemic going on. 

😂😂😂😂😂😂

 

Okkkkk

[LTS]

15 hours ago, Weave said:

A quarantine involving NY, CT, NJ won't work because the entire workforce in southern CT, southeastern NY, and NJ would be shut out.  The tri-state area is a massive commuter zone and employers would be required by law to respect that.  I know it would pretty much shut down my former employer.

I agree.. and so the need for business trumps the need for protection.  It's akin to locking all windows and your front door, but you leave the side door open.  

COVID-19 transmission doesn't stop just because you need to commute for work and those who commute don't have to quarantine.  So the rules that bind one state do not bind another and that's the problem. It effectively makes all of the bans worthless.

State A allows State B and State B allows state C.. ergo, State A allows State C.  Nothing is protected.

[Andrew Amerk]

9 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

😂😂😂😂😂😂

 

Okkkkk

Alright, well we will see what happens in a month when everyone can’t resist crisscrossing all over the country for Thanksgiving. 
 

And then again a month later for Xmas. 

[Wyldnwoody44]

36 minutes ago, Andrew Amerk said:

Alright, well we will see what happens in a month when everyone can’t resist crisscrossing all over the country for Thanksgiving. 
 

And then again a month later for Xmas. 

Probably the same thing thst has happened all along, the sheer stupidity I've seen in other countries, including our own regarding how to "fight Covid" rivals Tom hanks in Forrest Gump. It seriously deserves an academy award. Just this morning in Mexico they were taking Temps and O2 saturations at the airport.. But the kicker. If there were 2 or more people together, they took, get this, one person's vitals and then just ushered the group through. I wonder who is making money off all of this, mask companies, those companies that print those 6 foot signs that are so graciously placed approx 2 feet apart that people ignore anyways. Clearly I'm annoyed, I am jet lagged, but at a certain point, cmon man. 

[PerreaultForever]

17 hours ago, bg17 said:

https://gript.ie/real-talk-have-facemasks-failed/

Across Europe, the picture is the same: Near universal mask wearing, and near universal record-setting in terms of the number of new cases.

This is blatantly false. 

I'm not going to research all the actual real stats, you can do that yourself, but the rates are not shooting up at the same levels. Record setting in one place can be a lot lower than somewhere else. For example, I think New Brunswick set their daily record a week ago or so with like 30 cases................. you get the point?

In general, the mask compliance rate in Canada is estimated around 83 % vs. 68% in the U.S. and the per capita infection rates are substantially lower as a result. 

I mean come on, its not that difficult to think blocking your cough or spit (its an air born virus) with anything, like a mask, reduces the likelihood it gets passed on. It's as simple as saying the puck will slide better if the ice is frozen. As Fauci's saying, this is pretty simple stuff, it's not rocket science. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by PerreaultForever

[Wyldnwoody44]

47 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

This is blatantly false. 

I'm not going to research all the actual real stats, you can do that yourself, but the rates are not shooting up at the same levels. Record setting in one place can be a lot lower than somewhere else. For example, I think New Brunswick set their daily record a week ago or so with like 30 cases................. you get the point?

In general, the mask compliance rate in Canada is estimated around 83 % vs. 68% in the U.S. and the per capita infection rates are substantially lower as a result. 

I mean come on, its not that difficult to think blocking your cough or spit (its an air born virus) with anything, like a mask, reduces the likelihood it gets passed on. It's as simple as saying the puck will slide better if the ice is frozen. As Fauci's saying, this is pretty simple stuff, it's not rocket science. 

No one decided to watch the video I posted months ago, it was too long and not a "quick easy answer" which is typical of most not in the field. Masks can be and are also highly dangerous to the user, especially the woven face coverings. They are not changed often and not cleaned, that moist environment all day creates a haven for Serratia, Staph, Strep, H flu, etc. I've taken a sample of masks at the end of a day and grew them on Agar plates and the findings were absolutley disgusting. All we are seeing is numbers and cases and blah blah blah, there's so much more out there that we discount to just being defiant. Granted many are defiant for no particular reason, but that doesn't invalidate the negative science behind an extended period of masking. At this point in humanity they have all but disproved sterile field and masking in the OR as a means to prevention of infection, but it's what we know, so surgeons that are 100 years old abide by it, can't teach an old dog new tricks. 

[Curt]

On 10/21/2020 at 11:09 AM, WildCard said:

Weaker in what way/how? And what do you mean 'less grave' ?

Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

My understanding is that new viruses often mutate over time to become more easily spread, but also less lethal to their hosts.

There seems to be some early signs that this is happen with Covid-19.