Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

461 - 480 of 521 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,546 Posts
As long as you stay at least six feet away from me in public I don't give a rat's behind if you snort the virus. I still think folks who can't be bothered with simple safeguards are the scum of the earth.
I agree that people should be considerate of others. Perhaps not the part of the scum of the earth, because I like to leave room for the Hitlers of the world at the bottom, but I despise inconsiderate behavior as much as anyone.

It's funny, because I don't personally care if people are near to me in line, but lately I do have a sense of annoyance; not that they are too close to me, but that I could be anyone, and that person might not appreciate the lack of regard to these current guidelines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,402 Posts
That's exactly the point, that it's MY life, not the governments, and I'm responsible for assessing risk and making decisions for MY life.
The point on which I'd disagree has to do with the need to protect essential services like hospitals. I think there's a pretty good argument to be made that some restrictions, such as a ban on gatherings over a certain size, are needed if it looks like the health system is going to be swamped. And it really did look like that was going to happen back in March, which is why everyone clamped down so hard. People who say "we didn't need to do it" IMHO don't know what they're talking about. It's like saying "why did you bother calling the fire department, the building didn't burn down" after they put out the fire.

Now that things have stabilized, I think it's appropriate to carefully relax restrictions. But it takes 2-3 weeks for changes to show up in infection and hospitalization rates, so it has to be a measured approach. And the point about my previous post is that the folks who think opening things up again is going to solve the economic issues don't understand what's going on. Open up too much, the virus starts peaking again, and everyone will withdraw back into their homes and the economy will tank even more. The way to fix the economy is to conquer the virus - in the mean time we have to walk a fine line to balance both the economy and the well-being of the citizenry.

As long as you stay at least six feet away from me in public I don't give a rat's behind if you snort the virus.
I care. I don't want everyone else to go and have a big party and crash the medical system, because I need a place to go if I have a heart attack or get hit by a car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,655 Posts
I care. I don't want everyone else to go and have a big party and crash the medical system, because I need a place to go if I have a heart attack or get hit by a car.
Yes, of course. My wife has had to put off medical procedures because it is not safe for her to enter a hospital now. If bodies were piling up in the street, how would that be better?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,655 Posts
Looks like Sweden, which is running an experiment in what happens when you don't force schools and businesses to close, is still experiencing some pretty severe economic fallout. Their death toll has been higher than their neighbors but less than the worst hit countries such as the US, Italy, Spain, etc.
Sweden's deaths per million is 384 to the US at 289. So hardly a shining example. I find it pretty funny that conservatives are suddenly enamored of Sweden. In the past they hated Sweden's socialized welfare state policies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,655 Posts
If you want an idea of the economic fallout of COVID-19, watch this truck driver duo describe their experience.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,546 Posts
The point on which I'd disagree has to do with the need to protect essential services like hospitals. I think there's a pretty good argument to be made that some restrictions, such as a ban on gatherings over a certain size, are needed if it looks like the health system is going to be swamped. And it really did look like that was going to happen back in March, which is why everyone clamped down so hard. People who say "we didn't need to do it" IMHO don't know what they're talking about. It's like saying "why did you bother calling the fire department, the building didn't burn down" after they put out the fire.

Now that things have stabilized, I think it's appropriate to carefully relax restrictions. But it takes 2-3 weeks for changes to show up in infection and hospitalization rates, so it has to be a measured approach. And the point about my previous post is that the folks who think opening things up again is going to solve the economic issues don't understand what's going on. Open up too much, the virus starts peaking again, and everyone will withdraw back into their homes and the economy will tank even more. The way to fix the economy is to conquer the virus - in the mean time we have to walk a fine line to balance both the economy and the well-being of the citizenry.


I care. I don't want everyone else to go and have a big party and crash the medical system, because I need a place to go if I have a heart attack or get hit by a car.
I agree with all that. In the beginning when very little was known, it's appropriate to take a very cautious approach to allow time to evaluate the threat. I still don't know why things like going to the lake was banned. There's never occasion where I'm paddling my boat within 6ft of strangers, and even if there was, we can adopt social distancing guidelines.

Local government is responsible for evaluating their own healthcare capacity and health threats and determining the proper way to proceed. Even state level mandates are generally too broad and don't give enough authority into the hands of mayors and smaller local authorities. When you get down to governors making rules like you can sit on wet sand, but you cannot sit on dry sand, you've gone too far.

The economy will take years to recover, but allowing the things that will begin that recovery sooner rather than later (while still protecting healthcare resources) is the right thing to do.

Sweden's deaths per million is 384 to the US at 289. So hardly a shining example. I find it pretty funny that conservatives are suddenly enamored of Sweden. In the past they hated Sweden's socialized welfare state policies.
If the rest of the world catches back up, which is likely, then what will you say to this point? If the bulk of Sweden's deaths occurred earlier than the rest of the world and they sacrificed less of their economy and mental well-being in the process, would we consider that to be foolish? It's entirely possible they are closer to reaching herd immunity than other places, and that means they may have an advantage in getting back to "normal". That would mean they have an advantage in that the rest of the world is not prepared for "normal" so they would have further economic advantages that will pay dividends well into the future.

I don't know why conservatives or liberals need to think in terms of all or nothing. A group or country can have some ideas that work out great, and some ideas that don't work out so well. Things should be evaluated at the smallest level of detail possible, not lumped into arbitrary groups and blanket adopted or dismissed based on tribalism. Letting the tribe do the thinking for the individual is pure laziness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,655 Posts
It's entirely possible they are closer to reaching herd immunity than other places, and that means they may have an advantage in getting back to "normal".
The experts say herd immunity may never happen, or be good for part of a year at best. They also say we may never have an effective vaccine for this virus. There is a great deal of wishful thinking going on in government and business, but it is not coming from the experts. The more time we have to figure out how we could have some sort of functioning society under that scenario the better.

Did you bother to check out the truck drivers' story? If you get very sick and can't work for months, and then might get it again in six months, how does that work?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,546 Posts
I read the article now about the truck drivers since you asked. Generally I skip anecdotes and health and policy advice from truck drivers. After reading the article, I confirm my decision to skip it initially.

The Washington Post link takes me to a page with various headlines. My main source of news is the daily updates by Dr. John Campbell via Youtube channel. His most recent comment was that reinfection is unlikely, and that a study showed that mask wearing is extremely effective at reducing transmission. His estimate is that if 80% of people wore a mask, it would reduce the spread of infection by 50%, which is as effective as lockdown currently is. In other words, 80% of us could wear masks when going out in public and we'd be no worse off than our current lockdown situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,818 Posts
I agree that mask would reduce transmission significantly. In my mind, basic physics would say that the virus particle sticking to stuff and our face mask (since you're breathing on it) would be damp and sticky, so much reduced risk of the virus particle floating into your airway.

Might be a good idea to use one or two cloth masks a day and then just wash it in your laundry (with longer soak) + run it through the dryer to clean it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,655 Posts
Generally I skip anecdotes and health and policy advice from truck drivers. After reading the article, I confirm my decision to skip it initially.

The Washington Post link takes me to a page with various headlines. My main source of news is the daily updates by Dr. John Campbell via Youtube channel. His most recent comment was that reinfection is unlikely, and that a study showed that mask wearing is extremely effective at reducing transmission. His estimate is that if 80% of people wore a mask, it would reduce the spread of infection by 50%, which is as effective as lockdown currently is. In other words, 80% of us could wear masks when going out in public and we'd be no worse off than our current lockdown situation.
OK. So you think truck drivers who describe their many weeks of recovery are making it up...or stupid? The experts say the same thing. Many people get very sick from this disease. Even mild cases take several weeks to recover. And we do not yet know if or for how long you will have immunity...which is why we may need to continue wearing masks, social distancing, and tracking and tracing outbreaks for the foreseeable future.

The nursing instructor you mentioned is in the ball park with others in the field.


So how do you suggest we get enough people to do the things the CDC, WHO, and most of the world's experts have come to suggest are needed to open our economies, if our president, vice president, and most of the Republicans in government promote ignoring the guidelines?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,655 Posts
The Washington Post link takes me to a page with various headlines.
"Columbia University epidemiologists estimate in a new study that enacting social distancing measures a week earlier, on March 8 instead of March 15, could have saved up to 36,000 lives in the United States. That’s about 40 percent of the current reported fatalities from the novel coronavirus. The study found that imposing the social distancing measures on March 1 that would ultimately go into effect two weeks later could have saved about 54,000 American lives"

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,402 Posts
"Columbia University epidemiologists estimate in a new study that enacting social distancing measures a week earlier, on March 8 instead of March 15, could have saved up to 36,000 lives in the United States.
Yeah, this is why it's so important to clamp down early on an epidemic. Each new case can be the root of a tree of infections that can branch out to thousands or even hundreds of thousands of leaves. So each case you can avoid early can save thousands of lives.

Unfortunately, it's politically very difficult to impose draconian measures when things don't look dire yet. It's exactly the same apathy problem that we have with spurring action on climate change, but on a much compressed time scale.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,546 Posts
So you think truck drivers who describe their many weeks of recovery are making it up...or stupid?

...So how do you suggest we get enough people to do the things the CDC, WHO, and most of the world's experts have come to suggest are needed to open our economies, if our president, vice president, and most of the Republicans in government promote ignoring the guidelines?
The veracity of an account by 2 truck drivers is irrelevant is what I'm saying, because you don't guide behavior based on an anecdote. They could tell a story about how they bent over to tie their shoe laces and slipped a disc and have had back pain ever since, and that isn't a compelling reason to forgo tying my shoes.

The government isn't responsible for the decisions I make regarding my safety and health. There's no law against licking a power transformer, yet somehow I'm still alive. They have a role to play in enforcing certain reasonable rules, and mask wearing might be among them. Closing down businesses is not among those reasonable rules.

Look, we have speed limits that are enforced by the government that keep traffic accidents to a certain level. We don't have the government saying you can't drive period, thus ensuring we'll never have another traffic fatality again. We're given the decision on if we risk death by driving, and they enforce guidelines meant to keep the public reasonably safe.

What I'm saying is that binary positions like "take no precaution to protect the public" and "lock down everything until it's absolutely safe" are equally retarded. People that think in binary terms lack the mental sophistication to even involve themselves in the discussion. They should leave the decision making to the adults while they entertain themselves in the sandbox.

"Columbia University epidemiologists estimate in a new study that enacting social distancing measures a week earlier, on March 8 instead of March 15, could have saved up to 36,000 lives in the United States. That’s about 40 percent of the current reported fatalities from the novel coronavirus. The study found that imposing the social distancing measures on March 1 that would ultimately go into effect two weeks later could have saved about 54,000 American lives"

That garbage "study" is fine entertainment for people not serious about the issue. Unless that study came out before March 8th, it's completely meaningless. Arguing from hindsight is for scoundrels with too much time on their hands and an audience gullible enough to entertain it. Even if the argument was made beforehand, it assumes a future which we'll never know.

Maybe I should release a study showing that 100% of people that stayed home on 9/11 would have survived the terrorists attacks, and that clearly we should always stay home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,402 Posts
Maybe I should release a study showing that 100% of people that stayed home on 9/11 would have survived the terrorists attacks, and that clearly we should always stay home.
To be fair to the 911 analogy, COVID would be more like flagship buildings had been taken out by terrorists in multiple countries around the world before 911 happened, and people were starting to feel anxious about working in the World Trade Center because it was America's flagship building.

In other words, we saw COVID coming at us a lot more clearly than we saw 911 coming. So I think there's some basis for saying that earlier action could have saved lives. But as I mentioned above, there's a difference between knowing it's coming and having the populace actually feeling the need to support taking concrete steps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,655 Posts
But as I mentioned above, there's a difference between knowing it's coming and having the populace actually feeling the need to support taking concrete steps.
Yes. And I think Americans, in particular, are especially susceptible to believing nothing bad can happen here. Bad stuff always happens elsewhere because we are the center of the empire. This always leads to conspirator theories of "inside jobs."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,655 Posts
The government isn't responsible for the decisions I make regarding my safety and health.

Look, we have speed limits that are enforced by the government that keep traffic accidents to a certain level.

What I'm saying is that binary positions like "take no precaution to protect the public" and "lock down everything until it's absolutely safe" are equally retarded.

That garbage "study" is fine entertainment for people not serious about the issue.
The government is responsible for enforcing a society's rules regarding how your behavior impacts others. Our chaotic system works pretty well for folks with your viewpoint.

Speed limits are a good example of citizens' stated goals being in conflict with their personal desires. We all say we want safe roads,and we set speed limits to virtue signal. Then we go whatever speed we want, and under-fund enforcement. Physics, and the data, show that higher speeds are more dangerous. The cheapest thing to do, given current technology, would be to have all cars wirelessly governed to travel at the posted limit. Since we are only pretending to want safe roads, we won't allow it. What we really want is to be able to drive like an idiot, talking on our phones, and be personally safe. This alone, largely explains the almost total move to huge SUVs, and trucks.

I hear you don't like the obvious math being pointed out by this study...the speed and power of exponential growth. Many people are puzzled by some poorer nations having much lower case/M numbers than rich nations. As this study demonstrates, much of the difference is not due to better preparedness, but simply timing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,655 Posts
Viruses don't kill people, people kill people.

The other day I saw a news video from Afghanistan, I think it was. It was a scene we have all seen many times on the news...a bunch of people walking in a crowded city street shouting about something or other, and every so often, one or another of them would fire off an assault rifle, straight up into the air. They seem totally oblivious to the fact that these bullets rain down somewhere, and occasionally someone is struck, and rarely someone is killed. This got me thinking about parallels between this virus and guns.

Some societies don't allow individuals to own guns. Some allow private gun ownership, with strict rules for when, where, and how they may be used. At the other end of the spectrum are countries where anybody with money can walk around with loaded assault rifles, discharging them at random.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,546 Posts
Study shows you can get hamsters to wear masks.

This study is way more useful than the garbage study arguing a stupid point from hindsight. It demonstrates that wearing a mask reduces the R0 of of the virus spread.

Back to that stupid study, we've been droning on for pages now that containing the virus was no longer an option the moment confining it to China failed. Locking things down sooner would have merely pushed back the date when more people get infected. Who really cares if we get infected today, or 2 months from today? We would have saved zero more people by locking down sooner, we'd simply have pushed back their deaths by a couple months.
 
461 - 480 of 521 Posts
Top