What would you be willing to sacrifice to get back to normal? The next Lockdown Phase (2 Viewers)

[The Commish]

My dad who is a WWII vet really doesn't feel that way, but ok. 

For me personally, I'm not sure the "common good" is to shutdown and live with the consequences of mental and economic issues.  Perhaps the greater common good is to mask and distance as best we can while staying open so the economy doesn't collapse, our kids don't lose a year of learning, etc.  

Absolutely agree with the bold.  Problem is, we are passed that point.  We already know that people are refusing to do this and spreading the disease.  So, what's the next step after that?  I have yet to hear a person suggest shutting down as the FIRST option.  All these shutdowns are being discussed because people aren't doing the bold and the virus is spreading like crazy.

Everything in here in Florida is open and businesses are suffering significantly.  They've lost their protections from when they were shut down and people still aren't coming out in the necessary amounts to support businesses.  It's like a brownout type of event.  Businesses now have to make choices with virtually no safety net and it's not going well.  

It continues to baffle me how virtually no one in charge sees that controlling the virus is the way to keep businesses open and help the economy.  It's the most "water is wet" part of this whole thing and it's completely lost on most.  

 

[Manster]

Absolutely agree with the bold.  Problem is, we are passed that point.  We already know that people are refusing to do this and spreading the disease.  So, what's the next step after that?  I have yet to hear a person suggest shutting down as the FIRST option.  All these shutdowns are being discussed because people aren't doing the bold and the virus is spreading like crazy.

Everything in here in Florida is open and businesses are suffering significantly.  They've lost their protections from when they were shut down and people still aren't coming out in the necessary amounts to support businesses.  It's like a brownout type of event.  Businesses now have to make choices with virtually no safety net and it's not going well.  

It continues to baffle me how virtually no one in charge sees that controlling the virus is the way to keep businesses open and help the economy.  It's the most "water is wet" part of this whole thing and it's completely lost on most.  

Where I live the numbers are going up and everyone is wearing masks

 

[Shula-holic]

Absolutely agree with the bold.  Problem is, we are passed that point.  We already know that people are refusing to do this and spreading the disease.  So, what's the next step after that?  I have yet to hear a person suggest shutting down as the FIRST option.  All these shutdowns are being discussed because people aren't doing the bold and the virus is spreading like crazy.

Everything in here in Florida is open and businesses are suffering significantly.  They've lost their protections from when they were shut down and people still aren't coming out in the necessary amounts to support businesses.  It's like a brownout type of event.  Businesses now have to make choices with virtually no safety net and it's not going well.  

It continues to baffle me how virtually no one in charge sees that controlling the virus is the way to keep businesses open and help the economy.  It's the most "water is wet" part of this whole thing and it's completely lost on most.  

I'm confused by the second paragraph as to your meaning of protections.  Are you referring to PPP?  I do agree that demand is beyond soft in many sectors.

Count me in as someone who would do better the moment the virus ceases to be a public health threat.  Financially I have every interest in agreeing with you there.  I don't want to rehash all the arguments and sniping on what the government did, could have done, didn't do, there's a whole thread for that.  Just narrowing it to the scope of business and demand, I honestly don't see a path we could have taken that would have us normalized there at this point.  I don't think anyone would think that we as a society would do as the Chinese have imposed on their citizenry to get there.  In fact, my fear is even after a vaccine, the back half of 2021 demand is a scary looking projection.  I don't know if or when demand for many public gathering type events and businesses will return, and to what extent they will in 2021.  2022 may be the better bet.

 

[The Commish]

I'm confused by the second paragraph as to your meaning of protections.  Are you referring to PPP?  I do agree that demand is beyond soft in many sectors.

Count me in as someone who would do better the moment the virus ceases to be a public health threat.  Financially I have every interest in agreeing with you there.  I don't want to rehash all the arguments and sniping on what the government did, could have done, didn't do, there's a whole thread for that.  Just narrowing it to the scope of business and demand, I honestly don't see a path we could have taken that would have us normalized there at this point.  I don't think anyone would think that we as a society would do as the Chinese have imposed on their citizenry to get there.  In fact, my fear is even after a vaccine, the back half of 2021 demand is a scary looking projection.  I don't know if or when demand for many public gathering type events and businesses will return, and to what extent they will in 2021.  2022 may be the better bet.

PPP and local funds the counties had to help.  The inability to boot people for not paying their rent/mortgages.  Several things local were helping and most of that went away as an option when our state said "we're open".  Not to mention the unemployment system in this state that STILL has people not getting a single penny since March.  I see some significant things that could have been done like pounding the message about staying away from each other, wearing a mask, washing your hands and participating in contact tracing/testing.  If we had a national campaign that basically said "we need to do those things to avoid shutting down the whole thing" people would respond.  I mean, we see people responding NOW that were resistant before and the message still isn't clear.  

 

[MTskibum]

Yeah, I know. And some people wanted to shop without a mask because they thought it was a safe activity during the pandemic. And some people wanted to open up and go to crowded bars because they thought it was a safe activity during the pandemic. 

At some point there is a health crisis where "people with different opinions" are affecting everyone else. The longer we have to acquiesce to every group that has differing opinions on what is safe during a pandemic the longer that it will drag on. Extending the pandemic also has mental/economic consequences.

I also think that some outdoor activities are fine during a pandemic but going outdoors where large groups of people tend to congregate probably aren't as safe as just spending time outdoors where you can more readily distance from other people. Back to the title of this thread, "What would you be willing to sacrifice" it seems pretty obvious that the answer for a lot of people is very, very little. Often times in life people that aren't willing to choose even the smallest sacrifices in the short term are rewarded by being forced to make huge sacrifices in the long term. 

I wear a mask 100% of the time, I was one of the first to wear a mask if you read the Coronavirus thread in the FFA. I washed my groceries for many months as well.

I have not seen any friends this year, I have a 5 year old daughter that is virtual schooling and has not seen anyone her own age in the last 9 months.We have made many sacrifices, it is borderline unfair to ask that of a 5 year old girl who wants nothing more than to be a social butterfly.

Do not punish the people who follow the rules by arbitrarily closing down outdoor spaces in the hope that it will help, because it will not. The people that group up at outdoor spaces will be the same people that have house parties if those outdoor spaces are closed. Closing the beaches does nothing except punish the people who follow the rules. It will not slow down the spread.

 

[Quint]

I wear a mask 100% of the time, I was one of the first to wear a mask if you read the Coronavirus thread in the FFA. I washed my groceries for many months as well.

I have not seen any friends this year, I have a 5 year old daughter that is virtual schooling and has not seen anyone her own age in the last 9 months.We have made many sacrifices, it is borderline unfair to ask that of a 5 year old girl who wants nothing more than to be a social butterfly.

Do not punish the people who follow the rules by arbitrarily closing down outdoor spaces in the hope that it will help, because it will not. The people that group up at outdoor spaces will be the same people that have house parties if those outdoor spaces are closed. Closing the beaches does nothing except punish the people who follow the rules. It will not slow down the spread.

100% correct. 

 

[Kao-Lin]

We won't need another lockdown if the science deniers would just wear a mask, 

Landmark study shows no statistically significant difference between those who wear masks and those who don't.

Devil's advocate - seems like you have the science denier label misapplied a bit? Is this dogma speaking here or are we truly following the studies?  Do we have a competing comprehensive study showing efficacy?

 

[RCon]

Landmark study shows no statistically significant difference between those who wear masks and those who don't.

Devil's advocate - seems like you have the science denier label misapplied a bit? Is this dogma speaking here or are we truly following the studies?  Do we have a competing comprehensive study showing efficacy?

There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of studies showing mask effectiveness.

Regarding this particular study, I skimmed it, but:

- Small sample size
- In what world is 16.7% risk increase not considered "significant"?
- 46% of the mask wearing group "admitted" to not doing so properly.  Even if we assume that the others did do so properly, we've effectively cut the original small sample size in half.
- This study made no attempt whatsoever to analyze the effectiveness of masks as source control

 

[Kao-Lin]

There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of studies showing mask effectiveness.

Regarding this particular study, I skimmed it, but:

- Small sample size
- In what world is 16.7% risk increase not considered "significant"?
- 46% of the mask wearing group "admitted" to not doing so properly.  Even if we assume that the others did do so properly, we've effectively cut the original small sample size in half.
- This study made no attempt whatsoever to analyze the effectiveness of masks as source control

3000 is small?  That's a decent sized study.  I think we can assume a peer reviewed journal would get the statistical analysis correct.  We're dealing with humans - very few will bat 100% at anything.  It shows that within the realm of human fallibility the dogma surrounding mask use may not be correct.

Personally I wear masks and do think they are effective - lab studies do show that they reduce droplet dispersion.  It does bother me, though, that we seem to be in the virtue signaling phase of this, so wanted to poke at such proclamations.  Humans tend to get emotionally wrapped around some beliefs and become very resistant to any discussion that would burst that bubble.

 

[RCon]

3000 is small?  That's a decent sized study.  I think we can assume a peer reviewed journal would get the statistical analysis correct.  We're dealing with humans - very few will bat 100% at anything.  It shows that within the realm of human fallibility the dogma surrounding mask use may not be correct.

Personally I wear masks and do think they are effective - lab studies do show that they reduce droplet dispersion.  It does bother me, though, that we seem to be in the virtue signaling phase of this, so wanted to poke at such proclamations.  Humans tend to get emotionally wrapped around some beliefs and become very resistant to any discussion that would burst that bubble.

Yes, 3000 is quite small.  That's a test group of 1500, of which at least half need to be removed, since they admitted they didn't follow instructions.  Take away another non-zero portion of the test group that were embarrassed to admit they didn't follow instructions, and you've got a test group of a few hundred.  Yes, that's small.

You did not address the other notes I provided.  16.7% is not "insignificant", especially when we're talking about exponential effects.  The study also only analyzed "target protection", and completely ignored source control.

 

[Quint]

right on cue

Newsom says stay-at-home order likely if COVID-19 surge continues

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a Monday press conference the state is considering a new stay-at-home order in purple-tier counties if cases continue to surge. The state is experiencing the highest rate of increase in COVID-19 cases since the start of the pandemic, and in one to two weeks, new cases resulting from Thanksgiving gatherings are expected to pop up and accelerate the surge.

"If these trends continue, we're going to have to take much more dramatic, arguably drastic action," Newsom said. With 51 of the state's 58 counties in the most restrictive tier, 99% of the population could fall under a lockdown. The governor didn't outline the details of the potential new order, but when the state issued one in March it required people to stay indoors except for essential services and exercise. In the Bay Area, all counties are in the purple tier expect Marin, which is still in the red tier.

SFGate link

 

[parasaurolophus]

There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of studies showing mask effectiveness.

Regarding this particular study, I skimmed it, but:

- Small sample size
- In what world is 16.7% risk increase not considered "significant"?
- 46% of the mask wearing group "admitted" to not doing so properly.  Even if we assume that the others did do so properly, we've effectively cut the original small sample size in half.
- This study made no attempt whatsoever to analyze the effectiveness of masks as source control

I will add to this too. 

No differentiation between outdoor and indoor. 

People that wore them at work were excluded. 

Prevalence of the disease was super low at this time. 

 

[the rover]

Landmark study shows no statistically significant difference between those who wear masks and those who don't.

Devil's advocate - seems like you have the science denier label misapplied a bit? Is this dogma speaking here or are we truly following the studies?  Do we have a competing comprehensive study showing efficacy?

Even though this was just published, the study was done in April and it’s been consistently cited by the anti-mask crowd.  I’m not aware of any reputable study that has come to the same conclusion.   Before I hit your link I knew what I was going to see.

 

[Bamboo Bill]

Kansas study...

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/23/937173060/mask-mandates-work-to-slow-spread-of-coronavirus-kansas-study-finds