Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At It

[Handyman]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

I haven't heard of any. I talked to a guy yesterday who operates a restaurant and his trade group tells him there is some discussion opening with limited (maybe 25%) capacity that may be implemented in the middle of June, but nothing definite.

If it goes anything like the patio open is working a lot of places are going to be complete clusters. My friends who are servers are not enjoying life right now. (and not just cause they assume the spread is happening at their place now)

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

No one was predicting a calamity in GA like we saw in NYC. We predicted that cases would increase, which they did. I think it's pretty clear GA and FL are at least manipulating their data. FL fired the person in charge of their data for refusing to manipulate it, and GA was reporting data out of sequence to make it look like cases were decreasing when they weren't. Every post you find a place to throw in "I have no idea," but you don't seem to let that stop you from telling everyone how right you were.

I've readily admitted I have no idea. I'm just trying to get the rest of you to admit it too.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

After I wrote my post, I hunted around for Minnesota information.

In Minnesota there is an "occupancy load" that is calculated for each building based upon its particular use. Bars and restaurants have a particular calculation that is applied to them. It primarily has to do with square footage, and what that space is used for, whether it's seating, storage, etc... That's the occupancy load that is in place whether there is a pandemic or not.

The State website that I saw basically said then that if the Governor reduces capacity by 50%, you just cut the number of the occupancy load in half.

Thus, in my example, if a bar/restaurant has an occupancy load of 120 people, a 50% covid limitation would reduce that to 60 people, regardless of the number of chairs/tables in there.

That would make the most sense. Otherwise people would push that to the edge and it could get real ugly.

I would assume even if they go 50% SRO is dead in the water for quite some time.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Ok, but again is that due to testing, or a spike in infections?

As I said, take a look at your link for Georgia and look at deaths. They re-opened...

Where are you seeing that? I see in order:

-Large gathering ban (Mar 23)
-Shelter in place (Apr 2)
-Shelter in place extended for at risk (May 1)

Their peak for deaths (Apr 16) occurred well before the latter.

 

[Scarlet]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

I got a voicemail from my mayor that testing is now available locally for anyone that wants it. You need to make an appointment but do not need a doctor to request, or whatever you needed earlier. I'm thinking of doing it.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

I've readily admitted I have no idea. I'm just trying to get the rest of you to admit it too.

Except the data backs up that we do have some idea. This is literally not that complicated to understand the big picture, sure, the fine details are very complex. But this is a highly infectious respiratory virus, it spreads when you have groups of people close together. The other important thing to keep in mind regarding all the "re-opening" data is that it does not mean everything is back to normal. A majority of Americans still believe we are not ready to reopen and do not believe it is safe. So the increases you are seeing are based on a minority of the population getting back to life as usual. What is keeping the numbers from getting out of hand is that a majority of us are smarter than the president. So the spikes you are seeing COULD be much worse, but our behavior is preventing that right now.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

And as I mentioned it's not even all about money. There are plenty of other issues with an extended lockdown. We all want to minimize deaths. The most vulnerable people can continue to stay home as much as possible and do what is best for them. And people in general can do the same. Take it slow, implement guidelines and do the best we can.

So, I think enough people answered your first question. I just finished 'attending' a conference on the impact of C19 on communities at risk- including those struggling with mental health, substances, domestic violence, homeless. All of those things are a mess. I apologize if that didn't come across in my post- I had typed it numerous times before.

I struggle mightily with the way reopening is framed- all about the economy, like they are letting the animals out of the kennel because people deserve their freedom.

As in everything else right now we are not getting a clear message. Our State is doing a fairly good job acknowledgint the issues, providing resources (I get texts with links to the places to get help). There are many other states telling people nothing except we need to go out to get the economy going. The Feds listed what is needed to be considered safe and then actively workded to send the message that States should ignore the guidelines that were published. They are actively fostering the attitude for people to do the wrong things and ignore being safe. Sort of like encouraging a kid to pitch a temper tantrum to get the candy at the check out line and ignoring the parent who says they can't afford it.

It is a fallacy that the most vulnerable people can safely home as much as possible and do what is best for them. No. They can't. If you have someone who is at risk and the non-essential place they work for has the go ahead to open up they chose between risk and $ or safety and losing all benefits. Many, many people who are at risk are also working in places that are considered high risk without the protections needed or in places where they are impossible. That is systemic.

We hear open the economy or disaster. We hear the narrative that no one should expect to live for free. The real message is- if you are financially at risk you are supposed to put your life on the line and have no problem with it so someone can do something non-essential.

There isn't an answer, of course. Our country is incapable of acknowledging this and it is one of the main reasons we are sucking so bad. There is no other developed country where people cannot seek help for their medical problems, their substance use because of financial reasons. It was always an issue but now it is out in the open- except not because we still can call them lazy if they try to stay safe.

What would I like to see- (take a hallucinogenic and you could almost believe the greatest country in the world was capable....)
-clear messaging from the national level expecting people to be socially responsible
-clear messaging if they are opening that this involves risk and there will be consequences
-clear guidelines regarding what should be expected to be safe
-clear guidelines for what should happen for clearance to return to the outside world if sick or positive test.
-holding accountable entities that are not doing above

 

[rufus]

Here's the thing, though. We really don't know exactly what will happen with the re-openings, or with all these protests, or anything else relating to this disease. Even the experts are just guessing, in large part, and there aren't many experts on this board.

Around the third week of April, Georgia announced they were opening up. There were a number of posters who were quick to hop on this board with all kinds of comments like "this should end well" or "can't wait to see it in two weeks," etc...

Well, we're 6-7 weeks down the road, and what have we seen? There hasn't been any re-opening spike in Georgia. Cases haven't dropped to nothing, either, but the state is managing. Hospitals aren't overwhelmed. Dead bodies aren't lining the gutters.

Now, I'm not pointing fingers particularly at you because I don't recall you making that claim about what would happen to Georgia due to the re-opening, but there were certainly others who did.

The same is true in Florida and California when we saw the crowds at the beaches, and all the protests in Michigan, etc...

I don't know what's going to happen as a result of all these restaurants going to outdoor dining or partial re-openings. But it's easy for people to claim we're going to see this catastrophe two weeks from now, then by the time we get there everybody has moved on to a new topic.

You do realize that cases in Florida, California and Georgia are going up, right?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Where are you seeing that? I see in order:

-Large gathering ban (Mar 23)
-Shelter in place (Apr 2)
-Shelter in place extended for at risk (May 1)

Their peak for deaths (Apr 16) occurred well before the latter.

Georgia reopened on April 24, and that's when the scrutiny began. Here is one of a hundred articles I'm sure were published on the subject.

https://www.newsweek.com/its-been-o...ckdown-reopened-businessesheres-where-1501487

The deaths chart shows that Georgia's seven day moving average for deaths hit a peak (thus far) on April 22, which is why I think I wrote something like "at about the same time" as when they reopened. I knew it wasn't literally that exact day, but it was pretty close.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

So, I think enough people answered your first question. I just finished 'attending' a conference on the impact of C19 on communities at risk- including those struggling with mental health, substances, domestic violence, homeless. All of those things are a mess. I apologize if that didn't come across in my post- I had typed it numerous times before.

I struggle mightily with the way reopening is framed- all about the economy, like they are letting the animals out of the kennel because people deserve their freedom.

As in everything else right now we are not getting a clear message. Our State is doing a fairly good job acknowledgint the issues, providing resources (I get texts with links to the places to get help). There are many other states telling people nothing except we need to go out to get the economy going. The Feds listed what is needed to be considered safe and then actively workded to send the message that States should ignore the guidelines that were published. They are actively fostering the attitude for people to do the wrong things and ignore being safe. Sort of like encouraging a kid to pitch a temper tantrum to get the candy at the check out line and ignoring the parent who says they can't afford it.

It is a fallacy that the most vulnerable people can safely home as much as possible and do what is best for them. No. They can't. If you have someone who is at risk and the non-essential place they work for has the go ahead to open up they chose between risk and $ or safety and losing all benefits. Many, many people who are at risk are also working in places that are considered high risk without the protections needed or in places where they are impossible. That is systemic.

We hear open the economy or disaster. We hear the narrative that no one should expect to live for free. The real message is- if you are financially at risk you are supposed to put your life on the line and have no problem with it so someone can do something non-essential.

There isn't an answer, of course. Our country is incapable of acknowledging this and it is one of the main reasons we are sucking so bad. There is no other developed country where people cannot seek help for their medical problems, their substance use because of financial reasons. It was always an issue but now it is out in the open- except not because we still can call them lazy if they try to stay safe.

What would I like to see- (take a hallucinogenic and you could almost believe the greatest country in the world was capable....)
-clear messaging from the national level expecting people to be socially responsible
-clear messaging if they are opening that this involves risk and there will be consequences
-clear guidelines regarding what should be expected to be safe
-clear guidelines for what should happen for clearance to return to the outside world if sick or positive test.
-holding accountable entities that are not doing above

Must spread rep.... I tried.

JD- we could easily, and temporarily support every single person in this country if we just levied a tax to anyone who has way more money than they need. Instead, the narrative is that we need to get everyone back to work. And we should accept some level of deaths because there's nothing we can do.

That's total BS. We can still lock down for a month, support everyone who has lost a job, make sure people pay their employees, etc. The Bush and dumpy tax cuts will cost more than that. And if we include Clinton's stupid capitol gains tax, funding everyone until this is over (like S Korea) would be pretty easy. And we could also make sure mental health is dealt with.

But people like you are pushing us to reopen for the sake of the economy. You bought that message hook, line, and sinker. We are actively accepting people will die so that the economy can move, and who does that benefit in the long run? Not you and me. Not the normal person in this country.

And in the mist of that, nobody sees the problem with rushing to the end- plants are closing because so many people got sick. Do you honestly think people will do the right thing we it comes to going back to work and social distancing? That's the reason we had to stay at home in the first place.

The only reason small businesses on main street are suffering is because nobody is willing to help them out for a few months. r's pretend that deficits are bad, in spite of the result of their own tax cuts. Or handouts are bad- in spite of the corporate handouts.

 

[J.D.]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Have Democrats proposed something like a new tax on billionaires to help Americans through this? I don't ****ing care about billionaires. I can't be any more clear. But there is a fat chance something like that gets implemented. In theory, great. But it's not going to happen.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Have Democrats proposed something like a new tax on billionaires to help Americans through this? I don't ****ing care about billionaires. I can't be any more clear. But there is a fat chance something like that gets implemented. In theory, great. But it's not going to happen.

Because people like you vote for pols who refuse to seriously consider it lest their billionaire benefactors choose to back their challengers in the next cycle.

 

[J.D.]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

I do? You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[J.D.]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

Nor does it change the fact that we're stuck with Trump for a little longer.

 

[rufus]

Give me a break with this dying for your job BS. It's utter nonsense. We don't hibernate during flu season and a lot of people die from it. It's not exactly the same as COVID, I get that. But in this case nobody is telling the most vulnerable people to just go back to work and take no precautions etc. You slowly try to get back to life while taking precautions. People are going to die, there is no way around that. If you think otherwise you're naive.

The thing is, and has been from the beginning, and you don't seem to want to consider, is a lot of them DIDN'T HAVE TO.

 

[rufus]

I've readily admitted I have no idea. I'm just trying to get the rest of you to admit it too.

Except the rest of us were telling you cases were going to rise. And guess what, they have. So maybe we did have an idea.

And as far as I know, there hasn't been a huge surge in number of tests being done. There's a rise, but its not Benn a huge increase week to week.

 

[J.D.]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

The thing is, and has been from the beginning, and you don't seem to want to consider, is a lot of them DIDN'T HAVE TO.

So you're saying we could have handled it better when we first got word about this? Guess what? I agree!

 

[rufus]

Have Democrats proposed something like a new tax on billionaires to help Americans through this? I don't ****ing care about billionaires. I can't be any more clear. But there is a fat chance something like that gets implemented. In theory, great. But it's not going to happen.

And that's the problem with this country.

Everyone should suffer, everyone needs to sacrifice.

Oh, except for the 1%.

 

[net presence]

Re: Covfefe-19 The 10th Part: Might As Well Reject No Shirt, No Shoes While You're At

I'm kind of surprised no one else has posted this yet (at least, I haven't seen it anywhere else) but, it's an article from last Wednesday from Science magazine. Here's the link:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113051/number-reported-deaths-from-covid-pneumonia-and-flu-us/

It's a very interesting read. They discussed the latest information addressing both how the virus spreads -- contrary to previous info they strongly believe the virus is capable of being and has likely been aerosolized -- along with the latest on how effective the various types of masks are in preventing infection. What's frustrating, especially regarding the mask effectiveness debate, is the different messages coming from different experts. For example, over the last 14 days, Michael Olsterholm, considered one of the top 5 people in the world on infectious diseases, has been on a number of media outlets saying he doesn't think cloth or even surgical masks do much to prevent infection. Yet, the researchers in the article are very confident that even cloth masks can help reduce infection risks, especially in an indoor setting. The ability of the virus to be aerosolized was even contradicted just yesterday by Dr. Bill Morice, the Chair of the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at Mayo Clinic, on the Twin Cities' sports talk station KFAN where he downplayed the risk of aerosolized spread.

In the article, they are now stating that especially in indoor situations, there is a chance the virus could hang in the air for "hours". Here's a couple of excerpt from
the article;

"Respiratory infections occur through the transmission of virus-containing droplets (>5 to 10 μm) and aerosols (≤5 μm) exhaled from infected individuals during breathing, speaking, coughing, and sneezing. Traditional respiratory disease control measures are designed to reduce transmission by droplets produced in the sneezes and coughs of infected individuals. However, a large proportion of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears to be occurring through airborne transmission of aerosols produced by asymptomatic individuals during breathing and speaking (1–3). Aerosols can accumulate, remain infectious in indoor air for hours, and be easily inhaled deep into the lungs. For society to resume, measures designed to reduce aerosol transmission must be implemented, including universal masking and regular, widespread testing to identify and isolate infected asymptomatic individuals."

"Identifying infected individuals to curb SARS-CoV-2 transmission is more challenging compared to SARS and other respiratory viruses because infected individuals can be highly contagious for several days, peaking on or before symptoms occur (2, 7). These “silent shedders” could be critical drivers of the enhanced spread of SARS-CoV-2. In Wuhan, China, it has been estimated that undiagnosed cases of COVID-19 infection, who were presumably asymptomatic, were responsible for up to 79% of viral infections (3). Therefore, regular, widespread testing is essential to identify and isolate infected asymptomatic individuals."

"A study in hospitals in Wuhan, China, found SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols further than 6 ft from patients with higher concentrations detected in more crowded areas (8). Estimates using an average sputum viral load for SARS-CoV-2 indicate that 1 min of loud speaking could generate >1000 virion-containing aerosols (9). Assuming viral titers for infected super-emitters (with 100-fold higher viral load than average) yields an increase to more than 100,000 virions in emitted droplets per minute of speaking."

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for social distancing of 6 ft and hand washing to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 are based on studies of respiratory droplets carried out in the 1930s. These studies showed that large, ~100 μm droplets produced in coughs and sneezes quickly underwent gravitational settling (1). However, when these studies were conducted, the technology did not exist for detecting submicron aerosols. As a comparison, calculations predict that in still air, a 100-μm droplet will settle to the ground from 8 ft in 4.6 s whereas a 1-μm aerosol particle will take 12.4 hours (4). Measurements now show that intense coughs and sneezes that propel larger droplets more than 20 ft can also create thousands of aerosols that can travel even further (1). Increasing evidence for SARS-CoV-2 suggests the 6 ft CDC recommendation is likely not enough under many indoor conditions where aerosols can remain airborne for hours, accumulate over time, and follow air flows over distances further than 6 ft (5, 10)."

"Airborne spread from undiagnosed infections will continuously undermine the effectiveness of even the most vigorous testing, tracing, and social distancing programs. After evidence revealed that airborne transmission by asymptomatic individuals might be a key driver in the global spread of COVID-19, the CDC recommended the use of cloth face coverings. Masks provide a critical barrier, reducing the number of infectious viruses in exhaled breath, especially of asymptomatic people and those with mild symptoms (12) (see the figure). Surgical mask material reduces the likelihood and severity of COVID-19 by substantially reducing airborne viral concentrations (13). Masks can also protect uninfected individuals from SARS-CoV-2 aerosols and droplets (13, 14). Thus, it is particularly important to wear masks in locations with conditions that can accumulate high concentrations of viruses, such as health care settings, airplanes, restaurants, and other crowded places with reduced ventilation. The aerosol filtering efficiency of different materials, thicknesses, and layers used in properly fitted homemade masks was recently found to be similar to that of the medical masks that were tested (14). Thus, the option of universal masking is no longer held back by shortages."

In my opinion, these are some of the more important parts of the article but I highly recommend you read it in it's entirety. Interested to know what some of the rest of you think. It's also interesting to note that in his interview yesterday, Dr. Morice indicated he felt very strongly that some of the early returns on some current trials of therapeutics are indicating that their could very well produce potential usable therapies by the end of the summer. On the other hand, he was asked about how confident he was that kids would return to school on time (in Minnesota) and, he said he wasn't as confident about a return to school on time as there is still much they don't know about enough how the virus truly affects kids.

Finally, the lead epidemiologist from Sweden who lead their decision making about keeping everything open and going for "herd immunity", is now acknowledging it was a mistake and that they should've enacted much stronger restrictions. The Guardian is now reporting that Sweden currently has the world's highest per capita death rate.

 

[rufus]

So you're saying we could have handled it better when we first got word about this? Guess what? I agree!

And we could still be handling it better now. So PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO BE DYING.

But now you're like, "oh well, nothing can be done"