What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Government Response To The Coronavirus (10 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Commish said:
To be clear, I am not talking about the HOW (ie your ways) I am talking about the WHAT, and no, they won't contribute in a meaningful way.  Keeping people from being out in the open exercising with appropriate distance is NOT going to help things (masked or unmasked at the distance talked about above is insignificant when out in the fresh air).  It WILL contribute to issues people experience from being locked up in their homes or feeling isolated from the world.  
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood me. I don’t want to keep anyone from being out in the open exercising. 

 
From the information I've been able to synthesize over the past several months ... COVID-19 is very hard-pressed to spread outdoors absent either (a) shoulder-to-shoulder crowd situations or (b) fairly contrived social situations. Fairly still air is also required -- even a gentle breeze prevents exhaled aerosol "clouds" from accumulating.

I consider the "briefly passing an infectious jogger within a few feet" scenario to be a pretty definite no-spread situation. Not enough time exposure.

 
I liken the whole "wear a mask to protect others" similar to how the government dealt with second hand smoke. First smokers couldn't smoke in public buildings and offices. Then they (we) were forced to stand 25' away from the entrance. Then entire outdoor facilities became smoke-free. All for the benefit of public health. New laws were written and punishments dealt with strict enforcement.

I don't view the corona virus mask mandates much differently. Both are meant to protect public health from air-borne contaminates. Only the the time the smoking restrictions were implemented and expanded, smokers were largely pariahs so not a lot of push-back. This time it affects all of us on some level and suddenly we cry "but my freedoms".

Just how I see it. 

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
The Z Machine said:
The difference is that smoking is gross and jogging is not. 
Click to expand...
Right, its all about perspective and whether someone is personally affected or not. But the purpose of both is to protect the health of others. Hence, the big crack-down on second hand smoke. When my personal choice was found to affect others, the government implemented additional laws and penalties to protect the rights of others from my action.

I don't see a huge difference between second hand smoke and covid vapors. I could even be argued that contact with my covid vapors is potentially far more harmful than someone's brief exposure my second hand smoke. 

 
36Kevon said:
Ok. The person you were talking to lives in an area were smoking is allowed in parks. 
Click to expand...
Awesome. But that is not the same throughout the country. How much push-back is there if a town bans smoking in a public park? I bet most people are fine with it because that only affects a minority of people. There isn't much of an outcry of "muh freedoms!". It usually met with wide approval.

 
Amused to Death said:
Awesome. But that is not the same throughout the country. How much push-back is there if a town bans smoking in a public park? I bet most people are fine with it because that only affects a minority of people. There isn't much of an outcry of "muh freedoms!". It usually met with wide approval.
Click to expand...
Wide approval?  There are still 12 states without any statewide ban on smoking at all. 

 
Alex P Keaton said:
I carry a mask and wear it in the rare occasions I’m going to be walking near others.

It’s important to note that most people who yell - at me or others - are 20-30 feet away and full of courage.  Their virtue signaling is truly inspirational.  Especially the ones sitting at an outdoor coffee table drinking coffee closer to other tables than I am by a factor of 3X.
Click to expand...
Not taking sides or passing judgement

I had a bit of a discussion with my Doctor on this topic. I was on the side of not needing a mask while running or biking. His point was that when you are running with any elevated heart rate the distance your droplets can travel increases. His point was not that it definitely is unsafe and irresponsible.  His point was “it is probably safe, but is it worth it?  I don’t know for sure.”

Just sharing the conversation

 
Amused to Death said:
I liken the whole "wear a mask to protect others" similar to how the government dealt with second hand smoke. First smokers couldn't smoke in public buildings and offices. Then they (we) were forced to stand 25' away from the entrance. Then entire outdoor facilities became smoke-free. All for the benefit of public health. New laws were written and punishments dealt with strict enforcement.

I don't view the corona virus mask mandates much differently. Both are meant to protect public health from air-borne contaminates. Only the the time the smoking restrictions were implemented and expanded, smokers were largely pariahs so not a lot of push-back. This time it affects all of us on some level and suddenly we cry "but my freedoms".

Just how I see it. 
Click to expand...
In 1999 I flew from Dubai to Cairo on a Gulf Air flight. I am allergic to cigarette smoke so I asked to be in the non-smoking section.  I was placed 2 rows in front of the smoking section.

First of all, smoking sections don’t work on planes. Second of all, none of those passengers followed the rules (any of the rules, it was so weird).

🤮

 
JAA said:
In 1999 I flew from Dubai to Cairo on a Gulf Air flight. I am allergic to cigarette smoke so I asked to be in the non-smoking section.  I was placed 2 rows in front of the smoking section.

First of all, smoking sections don’t work on planes. Second of all, none of those passengers followed the rules (any of the rules, it was so weird).

🤮
Click to expand...
Same as in restaurants, "no smoking" sections just don't work. So our government created new laws to ban indoor smoking all together and there are penalties associated for not following the law. I'd guess most people agree with that as we don't want to eat our meals while being exposed to someone else's pollution.

I thought of this analogy because I have a SIL who lives in GA. Die-hard Trump supporter and you're-not-going-to-make-me-wear-a-mask-muh-freedoms! type. Frequently posts photos of her and friends (she's divorced) out at a bar dancing, drinking...not a mask in sight with large groups of people. But 20, 30 years ago she was all for banning cigarettes and very happy when the local malls went smokeless. I dunno, seems kinda hypocritical to me. "keep your dangerous smoke away from me" but "I don't have to wear a mask to protect you if I don't want to".

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
The Z Machine said:
I think the science of COVID transmission is far from settled at this point. I'd prefer to err on the side of caution if it is little imposition on the public. 

This is really true for behaviors that might have a detrimental effect on others, such as the spread of a deadly virus.  Other behaviors that don't have such an effect on the public should be governed by a bias toward fewer restrictions. 
Click to expand...
Good posting. But caution is subjective, and there's really no precedent or compelling evidence any virus spreads effectively from brief interactions outdoors with adequate spacing. The few covid cases that have been attributed to outdoor exposure occurred in crowded situations (from 538.com):

And if there is one thing we can definitively state, it’s that this virus is much, much less likely to spread outdoors than in. For example, in a study of 7,324 Chinese case reports, only two — part of the same transmission event — could be linked to outdoor settings. A database of more than 20,000 cases (including the 7,324 Chinese cases) found 461 that were associated with transmission in completely outdoor environments — predominantly crowded events like markets and rallies. Overall, only 6 percent of all the cases in that database were linked to events that were either totally or partially outdoors. The rest were tied to indoor events. That fact is actually why experts are concerned that fall and winter could lead to an increase in transmission — not because it’s colder, but because people are spending more time inside.
Click to expand...
So even though we've all seen the videos of particulates traveling great distances, with implication for SARS-CoV-2 outdoor transmission, there are several other factors necessary for infection to occur (especially an adequate infectious dose, which is a function of duration of exposure).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Terminalxylem said:
Good posting. But caution is subjective, and there's really no precedent or compelling evidence any virus spreads effectively from brief interactions outdoors with adequate spacing. The few covid cases that have attributed to outdoor exposure occurred in crowded situations (from 538.com):

So even though we've all seen the videos of particulates traveling great distances, with implication for SARS-CoV-2 outdoor transmission, there are several other factors necessary for infection to occur (especially an adequate infectious dose, which is a function of duration of exposure).
Click to expand...
Good posting.  Thanks. I agree that the general consensus is that the rate of transmission is low outdoors. 

Howrver, there are also interactions where one party is indoors and the other outdoors, say on a doorstep.  I really don't want unmasked people coming to my door to speak to me. 

Finally, a blanket rule for mask wearing outside the house would increase compliance for those that run an errand to a store or restaurant. Sometimes those are spur of the moment, "I'll just pop in and get a coffee / sandwich / milk". Universal outside the house mask wearing would reduce the likelihood that a customer would enter an indoor space without a mask. We all agree that's unacceptable, right?

 
"I know the science says that covid isn't spread through solitary outdoor activity, but everyone needs to wear a mask anyway because this is an emergency and we have to treat it as such."

"Also, consenting adults should not be allowed to receive a safe vaccine candidate until the Assistant to the Deputy Director of the FDA has completed Form 4997C pursuant to Section 310.39.05.  Skipping this step would be unthinkable."

"Also, mass outdoor gatherings are basically okay as long as they're for a good cause."

 
IvanKaramazov said:
"I know the science says that covid isn't spread through solitary outdoor activity, but everyone needs to wear a mask anyway because this is an emergency and we have to treat it as such."

"Also, consenting adults should not be allowed to receive a safe vaccine candidate until the Assistant to the Deputy Director of the FDA has completed Form 4997C pursuant to Section 310.39.05.  Skipping this step would be unthinkable."

"Also, mass outdoor gatherings are basically okay as long as they're for a good cause."
Click to expand...
I understand your concerns in each statement.

However, I never said the first statement or anything that definite.  I had a ton of issues with the situation in the 3rd statement. The second statement really came down to a) the possibility of further erosion in vaccine compliance with a COVID vaccine that was ineffective. 

 
The Z Machine said:
Good posting.  Thanks. I agree that the general consensus is that the rate of transmission is low outdoors. 

Howrver, there are also interactions where one party is indoors and the other outdoors, say on a doorstep.  I really don't want unmasked people coming to my door to speak to me. 

Finally, a blanket rule for mask wearing outside the house would increase compliance for those that run an errand to a store or restaurant. Sometimes those are spur of the moment, "I'll just pop in and get a coffee / sandwich / milk". Universal outside the house mask wearing would reduce the likelihood that a customer would enter an indoor space without a mask. We all agree that's unacceptable, right?
Click to expand...
Everybody should wear masks while driving then too. This way nobody would leave their mask at home.

Probably should just wear it in your house too so that when you get in the car you already have it on and wont forget to go back inside to get it.

 
parasaurolophus said:
You ignore the declaration of the atate of Maryland that outdoor recreation is high risk behavior???

Science denier. 
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure there is not much distancing when a dozen people cram onto a 20 foot boat to go out on the bay and tie up to a hundred other boats and party.   And have you been to Gunpowder State Park (Hammerman area, not the falls) or Sandy Point or Ocean City for a day at the beach?  Add walking around Harbor Place, one of the Avenues, or one of the boardwalks and that is going to be 80% of the outdoor recreation in Maryland.  (Been almost three years since I was in Maryland so maybe I'm slightly off on the percentages.)  ETA:  At least until ski season and everyone crowds the few resorts in the mountains.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amused to Death said:
Same as in restaurants, "no smoking" sections just don't work. So our government created new laws to ban indoor smoking all together and there are penalties associated for not following the law. I'd guess most people agree with that as we don't want to eat our meals while being exposed to someone else's pollution.

I thought of this analogy because I have a SIL who lives in GA. Die-hard Trump supporter and you're-not-going-to-make-me-wear-a-mask-muh-freedoms! type. Frequently posts photos of her and friends (she's divorced) out at a bar dancing, drinking...not a mask in sight with large groups of people. But 20, 30 years ago she was all for banning cigarettes and very happy when the local malls went smokeless. I dunno, seems kinda hypocritical to me. "keep your dangerous smoke away from me" but "I don't have to wear a mask to protect you if I don't want to".
Click to expand...
Cigarette smoke smells like crap. That is probably a bigger factor than the fear of dying from second hand smoke. Most people I know that love the smoking bans, love that their clothes don't reek after being in a bar. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
Cigarette smoke smells like crap. That is probably a bigger factor than the fear of dying from second hand smoke. Most people I know that love the smoking bans, love that their clothes don't reek after being in a bar. 
Click to expand...
Sure, not many like it which is why there isn't much push-back on the restrictions. But the bans arose due to the health risks of second-hand smoke. There was scientific evidence that second-hand smoke had adverse effects on people, especially those with pre-existing conditions. So they started enforcing restrictions on where you can smoke.

HISTORY OF U.S. SMOKING POLICIES

The first surgeon general’s report on the adverse health effects of smoking was published in 1964 (HHS, 1964). Within a year of that report, the first law requiring the labeling of cigarette packages with health warnings was passed (the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965); it was followed a few years later by bans on cigarette advertising on television and radio (the 1969 Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act). By 1972, another report of the surgeon general, The Health Consequences of Smoking, discussed the potential adverse effects of secondhand-tobacco smoke in people with preexisting disease (HHS, 1972). Table 5-1 lists some of the scientific reports and the clean-air policies implemented in the United States since the 1972 report; these milestones are detailed further in the surgeon general’s 2006 report (HHS, 2006). Restrictions on smoking in public places, government buildings, and airplanes were implemented in the 1970s, most of which limited but did not ban smoking. In 1973, Arizona became the first state to have some smoke-free public places, and the Civil Aeronautics Board requested no-smoking sections on all commercial airline flights (Koop, 1986). In the 1980s, several reports—The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General (HHS, 1986) and the National Research Council reports Indoor Pollutants (NRC, 1981) and The Airliner Cabin Environment: Air Quality and Safety (NRC, 1986)—concluded that involuntary smoking has adverse effects. Increasing activity of nonsmokers’ rights organizations and shifts in public opinion led to implementation of more comprehensive bans, including bans on smoking on some domestic flights and in some government buildings (HHS, 2006). By 1986, 41 states and the District of Columbia had statutes that restricted smoking to some extent, but that were not as strong or extensive as most bans currently in place (Bayer and Colgrove, 2002; IOM, 2007). In 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released The Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders (EPA, 1992), which concluded that “environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact.” EPA concluded that ETS is “a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers” and designated it a group A carcinogen, a known human carcinogen. EPA also cited other respiratory health effects in that report. As can be seen in Table 5-1, following the release of that report and with an increasing body of evidence demonstrating the adverse health effects of secondhand smoke, during the 1990s state and local governments across the country enacted an increasing number of more restrictive bans, including bans on smoking in most workplaces in some states. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, some states implemented comprehensive smoking bans that prohibited smoking in most workplaces and all public places, including previously exempted bars and restaurants (HHS, 2006). The first report about the association between cardiovascular risk and secondhand smoke appeared in 1985 (Garland et al., 1985).

 
We failed to better understand the spread of the virus by not doing a national contact tracing study using 10s of thousands people in a few cities. Such a study would've had to pay 100,000 or so participants about  $1,000 per month to use 24-7 GPS and come in weekly for blood tests. In Lacrosse WI, research showed that opening colleges and universities led to the spread of 2 out of 8 strains of the virus from students to a couple of nursing homes, leading to some deaths. Health students were likely responsible. The data on spread from restaurants is all over the place, although many cite the NY study showing 1.4%.

https://mobile.twitter.com/drericding/status/1333446524630659073?lang=en

https://www.wpr.org/study-shows-covid-19-spillover-colleges-nursing-homes

 
parasaurolophus said:
You ignore the declaration of the atate of Maryland that outdoor recreation is high risk behavior???
Click to expand...
By the way - link to such declaration?

I assume you are referencing the July order referenced here which links to the actual order here which simply states-

b. Requirement to Wear Face Coverings.

i. Except as provided in paragraph IV.c, all persons in Maryland over the age of five (5) years old are required to wear a Face Covering when they are:
1. in or on any Public Transportation;
2. indoors at any location where members of the public are generally permitted, including without limitation, Religious Facilities, Retail Establishments, Foodservice Establishments, Fitness Centers, Gaming Facilities, Indoor Recreation Establishments, and Personal Services Establishments;
3. outdoors and unable to consistently maintain at least six feet of distance from individuals who are not members of their household;
Click to expand...
Here is Montgomery County's "portal"

When must a face covering be worn?

When you leave your home, you are required to wear a face covering when you are likely to come in contact with others who are not members of your household. As a precaution, carry a face covering with you just in case you unexpectedly come in close contact with others.

Whether you are out walking or jogging, wearing a face covering when you are likely to be within six feet of someone, even if it is solely in passing, is required.
Click to expand...
But maybe you mean something else.

If this is what you are referencing then I think you mischaracterized the "declaration".  It can be argued that "solely in passing" lacks the time element that made Dez Bryant's hugs not a NFL close contact and is erroring too much but I doubt that the medical community agrees that erroring to the side of caution with this is "anti science".

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
By the way - link to such declaration?

I assume you are referencing the July order referenced here which links to the actual order here which simply states-

Here is Montgomery County's "portal"

But maybe you mean something else.

If this is what you are referencing then I think you mischaracterized the "declaration".  It can be argued that "solely in passing" lacks the time element that made Dez Bryant's hugs not a NFL close contact and is erroring too much but I doubt that the medical community agrees that erroring to the side of caution with this is "anti science".
Click to expand...
Nope. I am referring to this graphic on their contact tracing data site (cant link directly to graphic, but if you click through graphics on the bottom you will see it) that shows a list of high risk locations and the number of people that tested positive that did/went to them. They have outdoor recreation listed right behind outdoor dining. 

Pretty sure they have very flawed methodology for this data. I think they simply listed the survey responses that got the most hits and listed them as high risk, since they had the most hits. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
Nope. I am referring to this graphic on their contact tracing data site (cant link directly to graphic, but if you click through graphics on the bottom you will see it) that shows a list of high risk locations and the number of people that tested positive that did/went to them. They have outdoor recreation listed right behind outdoor dining. 

Pretty sure they have very flawed methodology for this data. I think they simply listed the survey responses that got the most hits and listed them as high risk, since they had the most hits. 
Click to expand...
Are you saying that they are anti science because they are using data driven statistics to inform their response and some people with Covid 19 reported that they participated in outdoor recreational activity in the past 14 days?  Because if they measure it with other high risk activities they are ignoring the science that this must be low risk?  Sorry this is at best a reasonable criticism of the labeling.  It is a ridiculous criticism of the approach to inform their decision making and the criticism itself is rejecting one of the most important premises of science - testing!

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Are you saying that they are anti science because they are using data driven statistics to inform their response and some people with Covid 19 reported that they participated in outdoor recreational activity in the past 14 days?  Because if they measure it with other high risk activities they are ignoring the science that this must be low risk?  Sorry this is at best a reasonable criticism of the labeling.  It is a ridiculous criticism of the approach to inform their decision making and the criticism itself is rejecting one of the most important premises of science - testing!
Click to expand...
Breathing is a high risk activity too. Since you know, every person that tested positive had done it in the 14 days prior

 
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus said:
Breathing is a high risk activity too. Since you know, every person that tested positive has done it in the last 14 days. 
Click to expand...
Which is why they didn't bother to ask.  But seems to me that about 10% of the responses were involved in outdoor recreation within 14 days of testing positive on your chart.  Other than the label I don't see any declaration that this 10% crosses some threshold or even how many of these were the only activity to make a "high risk declaration".  It is just data collection and necessary.  Quibbling over the label for the category for the survey is not proving any helpful point.    And for reasons mentioned I think it supports that this broad category of activities that make up outdoor recreation is showing to be relatively low.  I wonder if they have any further granularity?  (Or maybe they would if it was higher.)

So maybe when they put the survey together they could have spent more time with how the category was labeled, but I think they would be rightfully condescending in reminding everyone that time was precious and the actual responses are what matter.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Which is why they didn't bother to ask.  But seems to me that about 10% of the responses were involved in outdoor recreation within 14 days of testing positive on your chart.  Other than the label I don't see any declaration that this 10% crosses some threshold or even how many of these were the only activity to make a "high risk declaration".  It is just data collection and necessary.  Quibbling over the label for the category for the survey is not proving any helpful point.    And for reasons mentioned I think it supports that this broad category of activities that make up outdoor recreation is showing to be relatively low.  I wonder if they have any further granularity?  (Or maybe they would if it was higher.)

So maybe when they put the survey together they could have spent more time with how the category was labeled, but I think they would be rightfully condescending in reminding everyone that time was precious and the actual responses are what matter.
Click to expand...
They have a state site that says outdoor recreation is high risk. 

Feel free to contort yourself all you want. 

 
Wife's facility just had a confirmed case of a patient re-infection with COVID.  This specific patient was confirmed CV back in June and was even in the CV ward.  This patient now has CV again, is on oxygen and transported to the hospital :(.

 
JAA said:
Wife's facility just had a confirmed case of a patient re-infection with COVID.  This specific patient was confirmed CV back in June and was even in the CV ward.  This patient now has CV again, is on oxygen and transported to the hospital :(.
Click to expand...
Do they have any idea if it is different strains?

 
shader said:
JAA said:
Wife's facility just had a confirmed case of a patient re-infection with COVID.  This specific patient was confirmed CV back in June and was even in the CV ward.  This patient now has CV again, is on oxygen and transported to the hospital :(.
Click to expand...
Do they have any idea if it is different strains?
Click to expand...
Im not aware of any additional details.  Im not sure if my wife would, but I will see what I can find out.

 
Apparently, people think once they get the vaccine they are immune instantly?  Like, they don't understand that the body still has to have time to build antibodies and the like?  Really?  We're never going to get out of this :lol:  

 
The Commish said:
Apparently, people think once they get the vaccine they are immune instantly?  Like, they don't understand that the body still has to have time to build antibodies and the like?  Really?  We're never going to get out of this :lol:  
Click to expand...
Is this because some people are freaking out about the nurse that got it after getting the vaccine a few days earlier?

 
parasaurolophus said:
Is this because some people are freaking out about the nurse that got it after getting the vaccine a few days earlier?
Click to expand...
I hadn't heard about this, so I guess the answer is "no"?  It's a comment because I made the mistake of going to social media to find contact information for a classmate of mine who committed suicide just before Christmas and saw a bunch of "see, this vaccine is a hoax.  it doesn't even work after you take it" posts from people.  I know no more than that.  What I do know is that the vaccine is now rolling out and even the first person who got it still hasn't had time to build up the antibodies in a meaningful way.  It's been just a couple weeks.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, these are also the people who had their conspiracy world rocked hard with the bombing.  They can't seem to decide if the guy was part of the deep state or if he was trying to blow up the companies bringing the cancerous 5G into the world.  It's a bad episode of "When conspiracy theories collide".....sort of like when work George and social George cross each other I guess.

 
The Commish said:
Apparently, people think once they get the vaccine they are immune instantly?  Like, they don't understand that the body still has to have time to build antibodies and the like?  Really?  We're never going to get out of this :lol:  
Click to expand...
Not exactly new, there are probably millions of people who don’t get a flu shot because one time they ‘got the flu from the flu shot’ even though it was likely impossible.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Biden Violates Own "Disrespect" Edict By Refusing To Fire WHPS Psaki (4/18/22 18:29PST)
Replies
14
Views
597
JIslander
J
GordonGekko
Operation Fast & Furious Scandal: Obama Administration's ATF Sent Guns To Drug Cartels (5/27/22 20:22 PST)
Replies
7
Views
536
Max Power
Max Power
GordonGekko
Biden Administration Considering Sending Gas Rebate Cards To Millions Of Americans (6/18/22 19:28 PST)
Replies
43
Views
1K
AAABatteries
AAABatteries

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 11 (members: 0, guests: 11)
Top