Do you think that the more people you encounter, the more likely it is that you will encounter more germs?
Yes, that surely stands to reason.
Well, the smart people are mostly staying away from other people, and wearing masks when they can’t do that. I haven’t been inside any of my friends’ houses since March and none of my friends have been in mine. When we get together, it’s outside and (mostly) socially distanced. It’s not quite as critical, since all of my friends are as cautious as me and hardly ever go into their workplace, and when they do, it’s not on public transportation. The shutdown continues to make traffic to NYC a thing of beauty.
My kids each have one friend they’re allowed to bring into the house, and I’ve called their parents beforehand to make sure they’re being careful as well.
What we’re not doing is hanging around in a crowd with a bunch of strangers without wearing masks.
Even without too many people close to me getting sick or dying, or losing their jobs, this pandemic has not been easy. Bullshit like Sturgis pisses me off because all the work my friends and I are doing to be careful is wasted when idiots on motorcycles spend a week breathing into each others’ maskless faces.
South Dakota has had more that 2,000 cases in the last week. The idea that Sturgis only causes 200 excess cases is ludicrous.
It seems you’ve confused “have not been tested” with “have not been infected/become infectious.” Those are very different things. With vastly different consequences for themselves and, far more importantly, the far more numerous people they later come in contact with.
He’s just following the logic of Dear Leader. “If we don’t test people for the Rona, they won’t have the Rona.”
As I said on another board, that’s so far up Denial you’ll have to portage around the Aswan Dam to get to the coast.
So even if you use the earlier X10 of confirmed cases you still have 98.5% did not get Covid. Recall these 200k attendees were spread over 2 weeks. I doubt all 200k were there for all 10 days. So now it is more like 50-75k for each weekend and 15 k for each of the other days. And it’s not like everyone crowded into a convention center or arena.
hijack: where is the daily Covid infection update on the BLM “March on Washington” from last month? I’ve seen reports of over 100k from all over the nation at one event but no follow up on infections.
No. As I mentioned in an earlier post. The timing of SD surge (especially in the counties of and surrounding Sturgis) are unique to SD and a little bit ND.
A critical mass of those people were wearing masks and not hanging around in small indoor venues like bars. Researchers were expecting an upswing but were surprised at the low numbers attributed to BLM. They concluded that this was a perfect case study. Outside and mostly masked works. Not 100% because they did trace people to protests but much lower than unmasked people.
More than 1%? Fewer?
Your point?
Their positive test rate has gone up like crazy post Sturgis and they are hovering above 20% at this time.
Perhaps they just stopped testing. 
Apparently testing has actually gone up, so that’s not it.
I’m not buying into the 1% number as I’ve already stated. Scientists don’t either because it’s not simply the people directly involved and you can’t rely on people answering the contact tracers truthfully or at all. Those numbers are going to be way too low. The surprise came from many cities that had daily, large BLM protests that were either still in lockdown or had just come out of lockdown. Their numbers remained low regardless of the protests. Contract tracers probably caught waaaay below your magical 1%. The only places where numbers increased were places that had opened up too quickly and were mostly traced back to memorial day and later 4th of july. .
I won’t further derail this with the rally discussion. When I have more time I’ll check out numbers.
No masks, lots of body contact, no distancing.
Right. I’d imagine they could have been doing that exact same thing at some activity back home. Not sure what the mask laws are everywhere, though. But you don’t figure those people were just going to sit in a basement for two weeks if they hadn’t gone to the rally.
You really seem invested in the notion that this rally isn’t truly the cause of the disease transmission. You’re saying that they probably would have just caught it at home anyway. You’re ignoring that they probably wouldn’t have been congregating had they not been attending a yearly event. Certainly not congregating in groups of 200,000. Why is this so important to you?
I would flip that entirely on its head and observe that others feel really invested in decrying the event as evil, or at the very least as something that spread a whole lot of disease to a whole lot of places. Me, I do imagine that the event spread some virus to some who would not have caught it had they stayed home. But I also am under the impression that the virus is spreading everywhere, given what we are seeing from school testing and the like, so I wonder what difference it really makes in the grand scheme of things. I, personally, am heartened by all stories I see about people managing to find ways to get on with life, so I’m inclined not to paint any individuals as evil.
So: Hooray! Good for them! They caught CV-19 by getting on with life! Sure, they could have worn masks, but … ??.. …they were getting on with life!
The fact is, they opted not to wear masks, they caught CV, and they likely passed it along to other people who were also too ignorant to wear masks, who will eventually pass it along to people who have no say in the matter.
Since the advent of the whole COVID/lockdown/lifestyle limitations thing, the most striking thing to me has been the inability of some to recognize the potential consequences of their actions on other people.
[Fully recognizing that they might get it, but simply and utterly not care.]
They seem to view masks (for example) as equal to the wearing of motorcycle helmets. Putting aside the fact that their helmet-less crashes tend to result in catastrophic injuries and massive medical bills that inure to the detriment of the rest of us … your helmet-less crash tends to cause harm to just you.
The COVID ‘rules’ thing is much more similar to driving drunk … in its proven tendency to put others, unwittingly, in (serious) harm’s way.
While some of these people may view laws against DWI as ‘tyranny,’ you really have to work around that cohort, no matter what. I haven’t seen an effective way to work with them.
I have been impressed – for nearly four years, but particularly for this one – at the World Class Demagogue at the helm, and how – like all demagogues before him – he found such a ready, willing, and unable audience to manipulate and enrage.
That well never seems to run dry, does it ?
Have you spent some time thinking about how many of the people making policy these days will suffer at the hands of their own policies, or to what extent if they will? I wonder how many of them have lost families, livelihoods, health care, housing, or even a sense of purpose fulfilled by a vocation. I wonder how many of them have seen their life’s work damaged perhaps beyond repair.
It’s hard not to believe that the brunt of the public policy measures put in place worldwide are being borne by people other than the ones who are making them. In fact, it’s hard to even find evidence that those who are suffering the most even have a say at all in the matter.
I know that’s not exactly a response to what you said, but I think it’s part and parcel of it all.