# Am I missing something here? (re: reopening of bars, etc... now) **URL:** \ **Category:** The Quarantine Zone\ **Tags:** covid-quarantine\ **Created:** [October 6, 2020, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356 "2020-10-06T17:27:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 33
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2020, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/641 "2020-11-18T20:58:38Z")
> [@SayTwo](#): > > I’m not sure anyone has successfully made the case, or possibly could, that the virus is in the same category as whatever the things were that we fought a world war about, You have got to be kidding. We’ve had more people die from COVID since March than were killed in combat in the Civil War, and we’re losing them at almost twice the rate on average as we lost military personnel in any previous war. (Civil War = 420/day, WWII = 416/day, COVID-19 = 918 per day) > **[Coronavirus daily deaths vs all causes United States 2022 | Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109281/covid-19-daily-deaths-compared-to-all-causes/)** > > As of January 6, 2022, an average of 1,192 people per day have died from COVID-19 in the U.S. > **[United States military casualties of war](https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war)** > > This article lists the United States of America's military dead, wounded, and missing person totals for wars and major deployments. "Deaths per day" is the total number of US military killed, divided by the number of days between the dates of the... It’s pretty cut and dried- a LOT of people are dying from this in absolute numbers. Certainly not the same percentage of the population as in those wars, but larger absolute numbers nonetheless, and in the deaths per day, the almost 2x difference is about in line with the slightly more than 2x greater population since WWII too. So maybe not _quite_ as deadly as WWII, but not far off. So yeah, we can suck it up and deal with it. Historically others have done much worse for much longer, and not bitched, moaned and whined about it like we are. Nobody’s rationing your food, nobody’s bombing our cities, nobody’s leading a chevauchee through our countryside either. All we’re being asked to do is stay home, not eat in restaurants, drink in bars, or have gatherings, and people can’t even manage that. We really should be embarrassed, not arguing that it’s unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![C3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/c3/32/3108_2.png) [@C3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C3)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2020, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/642 "2020-11-18T21:49:26Z")
Just read this piece today, about how maybe the only thing the Greatest Generation had over us was better leadership. They had plenty of people not on board with making sacrifices then, but more people at the top pushing the cause. > **[What the Greatest Generation had that the Covid generation lacks | CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/18/opinions/thanksgiving-covid-19-shared-sacrifice-myth-hemmer/index.html)** > > From WWII to Covid-19, Americans have always been slow to make sacrifices, says historian Nicole Hemmer; she debunks as myth the nostalgia today for the Greatest Generation's response to wartime privation. Americans are no more selfish in 2020 than... ---
**Author:** ![SayTwo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@SayTwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SayTwo)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/643 "2020-11-19T02:06:50Z")
> [@bump](#): > > You have got to be kidding. We’ve had more people die from COVID since March than were killed in combat in the Civil War, and we’re losing them at almost twice the rate on average as we lost military personnel in any previous war. (Civil War = 420/day, WWII = 416/day, COVID-19 = 918 per day) That’s not at all what I was talking about. Not some tally of deaths. I meant that lives lost in that war, or any other one, can be seen as sacrifices made in the pursuit of some national, international, or humanistic goal. You could say that we chose to put those lives at risk. Where is the analogy to lives lost from lack of health? If anything, the analogy should go the other way! As in, we sacrificed all those lives in wars in pursuit of gaining or maintaining some way of life, yet we cannot stomach loss of life from a virus to do the same. I’d say we should poll those members of the Greatest Generation to see how they feel, about being abandoned in isolation or about seeing their grandchildren’s hopes taken away. Let’s see how tough they think we are. Not that many of them left, though. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/644 "2020-11-19T04:24:28Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > WOW. First off you divided the world into Asian American and white people which is a simplistic and rather racist view of the world. All the other groups that form New York are non existent. Secondly, you assume other businesses weren’t trashed by the pandemic. Wow, I should have guessed this would be the direction you would take it. Let’s recap how we got here. **Banquet\_Bear** said: > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …to clarify: I’m talking about a “national lockdown” in the same sense as I’m assuming Dr Osterholm used it: gaining the co-operation of the governors to agree to a nationwide lockdown To which you replied, > [@Magiver](#): > > Politicians on both coasts went out of their way to encourage public gatherings in support of Chinese businesses when flights were first shut down. What is the connection? Were you trying to somehow insinuate that the “politicians on both coasts” equates to Democratic governors? Were you trying to say that because back in February there was a counter-response to people avoiding Asian American (Not just Chinese American, but Korean, Hmong, Filipino, et al) businesses that those politicians would have been against a later effort at a coordinated national shutdown? So I tried to point out that the businesses being hit were not Chinese government owned, but Chinese _American_ and other Asian _American_ owned businesses. > [@Irishman](#): > > Yes, because there were reactionaries who were pointing at the Chinese and blaming them, and consequently blaming Chinese Americans. There was a counter effort to reduce the hostility to innocent Americans for something the Chinese Government handled poorly. But instead of acknowledging the obvious, that Asian businesses were being hit 40% prior to any local or national shutdown efforts, you responded > [@Magiver](#): > > How many “reactionaries” killed someone? How many people in NYC died of covid because politicians invited them to parades and restaurants? First, I never said reactionaries actually killed anyone. Second, I did not try to equate the actions of reactionaries to the deaths of covid. YOU did that. But here’s the thing - as far as we can tell, **nobody** died from politicians inviting people to parades and restaurants. Which I cited sources. Then you said > [@Magiver](#): > > My position was and is a challenge to your statement that politicians promoted public gatherings because “reactionaries” were blaming Chinese Americans. This was done when there was a known crisis in China. I’m asking you to give examples of “reactionaries” harming Chinese Americans and how that weighs against public gatherings in light of a pandemic in China. Regardless of the balance of any harms done by reactionaries or by politicians, you are directly rejecting the stated motives of the politicians in question. So I provided cites > [@Irishman](#): > > Flights were first shut down on Jan. 31 (actually, Feb. 2). On Feb. 13, Mayor de Blasio was encouraging supporting Asian American businesses because there were no known cases in New York yet, but business was down by 40 percent in Asian businesses, but not other businesses. > [@Irishman](#): > > So, as stated by Pelosi and de Blasio, their motives were to support Asian _Americans_ because they were being punished for _China_ having a pandemic. So, do you accept that the politicians in question were acting for the reasons they stated, or are you trying to propose they had an alternative motive? So I asked you about the economic harm to Asian American businesses that was happening prior to any government shutdown efforts. > [@Irishman](#): > > I will also ask why you are so worried about the economic impacts to the country now, but you have no care for the economic impacts to the Asian-American communities back in February, To which you replied > [@Magiver](#): > > Because it’s been 8 months of economic damage. I would think that obvious. So, we’ve had shutdowns for 8 months (since March), which has caused a lot of economic damage. No argument. But there were three months of economic damage to Asian American businesses prior to the shutdowns that you seem to be ignoring, or even justifying as the rational response. _That_ is the backdrop for why I stated > [@Irishman](#): > > So the hits to Asian American businesses that have been going on for longer don’t count? Only white businesses count? Because you keep ignoring the Asian American businesses. I’m not trying to separate the world into two groups, I’m trying to get you to see that you have already done so. Of course all races and ethnic groups in New York and across the country have been hit by the pandemic, and hit by severe economic damage. But you were the one who said that avoiding Chinese restaurants was the rational thing to do. I remind you, > [@Magiver](#): > > > [@Irishman](#): > > > > Flights were first shut down on Jan. 31 (actually, Feb. 2). On Feb. 13, Mayor de Blasio was encouraging supporting Asian American businesses because there were no known cases in New York yet, but business was down by 40 percent in Asian businesses, but not other businesses. > > Yes, who could have predicted that Chinese people traveling to and from cities with large ethnic connections to China might spread a virus known to be out of control in China. > > A rational person might look at the need to shut down flights to prevent the virus from spreading as an indication of what not to do. Then you said: > [@Magiver](#): > > No, I’m blaming CHINA where it was deliberately allowed to travel by air while they shut down ground travel. Great, blame CHINA for it’s handling of the pandemic, for it’s sloppy markets that are perfect pandemic breeding grounds, for it’s hiding the severity from the world, for it’s failure to stop international travel out while locking down people inside. All of the above, and anything else CHINA did wrong. But you were the one saying that avoiding Chinese American businesses was rational. That is punishing Chinese _Americans_ for what China did wrong. > [@Magiver](#): > > The Federal Government isn’t empowered to to enforce restrictions. It is forbidden to send in troops unless a states requests them. That’s funny, because Trump seemed to think he had the power to do anything he wanted - to close if he wanted, or force states to open if he wanted. But regardless, why did you latch on to that comment, as if I tried to assert the Federal Government did have the authority to force governors to comply? I never said that. You ignored the part where I said > [@Irishman](#): > > And as the pandemic ramped up, as cases began to spread through the U.S., they did jack shit to limit that spread, and **actively promoted not doing anything to control the spread**. Even when the President created a Task Force to address the issue, **he then promptly ignored or actively campaigned against their recommendations.** I bolded the critical parts that you pretended not to see. > [@Magiver](#): > > Guidelines were put in place and resources were martialed within the scope of the War Powers Act to make needed medical products and fast-track vaccines. We’re looking at the fastest vaccine response in history by a significant amount. You are blindly citing these events without any context as if they were fully implemented and engaged by the President eagerly and urgently. That is just not the case. 1. The President did appoint a Task Force, and did gather a lot of infectious disease and national medical resource experts to address the topic. He put Pence in charge. But he then ignored or derided the very guidelines his Task Force came up with. He mocked wearing masks. He argued for a fast reopening, skipping the progressive milestones the Task Force recommended. He berated Democratic Governors who tried to follow those guidelines and praised Republican Governors who avoided lockdowns in the first place or opened immediately. He promoted and held huge crowded gatherings without masks, where he mocked anyone who did wear a mask. He publicly derided Dr. Fauci multiple times, Dr. Redfield and the CDC, and anyone who tried to correct his numerous outright lies about the virus. That’s the context. 2. He did engage some element of the War Powers Act to get companies making ventilators and PPE. But he was slow to do so, and only reluctantly did so. He wasted a lot of time when he could have been coordinating a national distribution of PPE for health care workers, but instead he wanted to leave it up to the states to negotiate for it on the open market. He put off for weeks using the War Powers Act to get ventilators produced. Instead, he spent his time blaming Obama for _using_ the federal stockpile during H1N1. That the stockpile was not replenished had more to do with Republican Congress budgets than with Presidential budget recommendations. But he likes to blame Obama. 3. The vaccine fast track is truly a remarkable thing, and he does get credit for making it possible. However, the vaccine seems to be his only response to the pandemic, and he refuses to anything to mitigate the spread until the vaccines are ready. It is also concerning that he has pushed the process for approving the vaccines to such a point that is hard to trust they are getting the proper review for effectivity and safety. And we have glaring examples just this year of his administration blundering on medical rollouts precisely because of the rush to get something out there. I.e. the whole testing debacle with the tests we had to make here in the U.S., only to find they gave false positives for a lot of other coronaviruses, not just covid19. So to watch him push phases of the trials in parallel that normally are done sequentially is eyebrow raising. To see him pressure the CDC and FDA to ignore testing protocols and skip steps to meet his arbitrary deadline (the election) is maddening. And don’t forget, these vaccines that we are getting use new technology that hasn’t been used before. Not only that, but we have some indication that the virus itself does not grant lasting immunity, with people being reinfected in as little as 3 months. That does not bode well for any vaccine having lasting protective abilities. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/645 "2020-11-19T14:22:38Z")
> [@SayTwo](#): > > My reading of the situation is that there are underlying factors, the kinds of things that cause stark observable differences between places like the great bulk of the African continent and East and Southeast Asia on the one hand and Europe and the Americas on the other, that outweigh those mitigation efforts so severely as to render them essentially moot. And I think any fair and unbiased analysis – or even simple observation, really – of the measures taken in places all around the world and the data regarding spread in those places would necessarily conclude that there seems to be next to zero correlation. Just to be clear, you are rejecting wearing masks, closing bars and limiting restaurants, preventing sports with their close physical activity and crowded spectators, and limiting large gatherings - because you claim the evidence does not support those as being effective? > [@SayTwo](#): > > If you’re talking about how the virus itself spreads, I’d say there is little disagreement by anyone about that, at least in as much as we’ve managed to peer deeply enough past whatever biological mysteries remain. Yes, and what that tells us is that universal mask wearing and limiting gatherings to prevent exposure are the two greatest tools to prevent the biology from doing it’s thing. At least until we get widespread effective vaccination. And those are the mitigation efforts I stressed. > [@SayTwo](#): > > The things like 10 pm curfews are not. Or closing one place when folks can simply go to another. There is no ‘science’ about that. Or at least, not any that has been anywhere near sufficiently executed. All we have are terribly confounded observations and (perhaps misguided) intuition. 10 pm curfews are part of the effort to limit people from congregating, especially in venues where they can’t wear masks and don’t socially distance. As nighttime rolls on, crowds go from quiet to somewhat noisy conversations to partying, drinking in excess, dancing and singing, and other non-socially distant behaviors. Bars are inherently not compatible with preventing the spread of an airborne respiratory disease precisely because of those behaviors I mentioned. Restaurants are a little better in that you can separate tables and limit capacities and people will tend to stay in their groups, but as the night rolls on, the behavior patterns shift to be essentially bars. Closing public venues and limiting private gatherings is supposed to go hand in hand. Naturally, it is easier to enforce the former over the latter. Of course people are being asked to utilize good judgment. Unfortunately, that seems to be in short supply. If you plan to socialize with those outside your household, keep the group size small, keep distance, outside or well ventilated environment, and wear masks. No hugging, kissing, etc. I don’t see how you can sit there and say there is no sense to these practices. It doesn’t take ~~rocket science~~ online aromatherapy to understand. This isn’t something that requires massive data collection or linear regression analysis or computer modeling. It’s a direct correlation to the mechanics of the virus propagation and the behavior patterns of people. We _do_ have data to draw upon. Looking at the world, whenever masking is common and accepted, rates are lower than places where mask use is down. Whenever tight restrictions are in place to limit socialization, rates go down. Whenever restrictions are loosened, rates go up. The places that isolated and restricted hard for sufficient time have got their numbers way down, into the single digits. The places that rushed to reopen or didn’t really close down in the first place are seeing dramatic increases in numbers. That’s not just the U.S., that is Europe, Asia, and Australia for sure. Also seems to be the case in Central and South America. I’m not sure what the data from Africa says, I don’t hear about it much. Oh, and Antarctica is doing pretty good with the pandemic. > [@SayTwo](#): > > To the extent that the reputation of real and true science has suffered during this ordeal, perhaps irreversibly on the timescale of at least a generation, it’s because we’re in an age where that kind of stuff passes for ‘the science’ – and, I might add, very loudly so. You keep saying that the reputation of science has taken a hit because of the scientists, but I dispute that. First off, science has already been maligned and assaulted by political and financial interests for decades. Starting with big tobacco, then evolution deniers, then Pro-Lifers, then the oil industry and climate change deniers, and don’t forget the alt-medicine crowd and woo fanatics. This pandemic is just the latest phase of a long-term war against science. The forces destroying the reputation of real and true science are the political hacks and anti-government paranoids wildly spewing nonsense for their own agendas. You’ve got foreign agents seeding dumbitude on social media to foster chaos and political turmoil to disrupt our country’s political and economic power. You’ve got anti-government paranoids who disbelieve in the Moon Landings and think everything is a plot by the Liberals to take away their guns, property, freedom, religion, and free thought. You’ve got the President of the United States actively declaring the scientists dummies while spewing stupid ideas like injecting disinfectants into the body. Science is taking the hit because the political and ideological agendas of the freaks are aligned to accomplish disparate goals, and they have the tools to reach more people than ever - whether it is internet sites like Breitbart, social media, or traditional talk radio like Alex Jones. > [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > The analogy, like all analogies, only goes so far. Yeah, I’ve come to the conclusion that analogies suck. Analogies don’t convince people. Nobody ever takes an analogy for the reason chosen. Instead, they hack apart the parts that don’t apply or the underlying assumptions. > [@SayTwo](#): > > I’m not sure anyone has successfully made the case, or possibly could, that the virus is in the same category as whatever the things were that we fought a world war about, That’s not the point. The point is that hardships have been endured and sacrifices made for extended durations in the past, and considered patriotic. But today the “patriots” refuse to wear masks in public and socially distance, because “freedom”. They can’t put up with a few months of hardship for something that is killing more people than wars that went on years. “Sacrifice for others” seems to be a dwindling value. “You can’t make me” is taking it’s place. ---
**Author:** ![Trom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Trom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trom)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/646 "2020-11-19T15:53:10Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Sure, but this is the real world. You can’t isolate your variables and test them independently of everything else, with a control group and all the other accoutrements of a good scientific experiment. > > The best we can do is to identify what _might_ be effective based on knowledge, experience and a little intuition, and then as we learn more, revise the recommendations. No, this isn’t the best we can do. We have plenty of [statistical methods](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mlr.asp) to tease out the effects of individual variables in multivariable situations. I hope to see some research along these lines so that we can have some data showing the effectiveness of policies on a society-wide level. > [@bump](#): > > Full shelter-in-place lockdown- roughly about 2-3 weeks starting about March 19th. The transmission rate dropped dramatically here in Texas. > > Starting in early-mid April, they started relaxing restrictions gradually. And not surprisingly, case counts and deaths started rising as well, reaching a peak of infections in the last week of July, and deaths peaked about two weeks later. > > Meanwhile, seeing this rising case and death count, the governor had enacted a mask mandate of sorts on July 3rd. Not shockingly, the case counts and deaths peaked and started dropping, you guessed it, about six weeks later. He also shut down bars and more tightly restricted restaurants a few days prior to that as well. > > They continued to decline until right around, yep, early October, when the state government relaxed the restrictions on bars and restaurants again. And school had started, in-person for more or less half of students a few weeks earlier. > > And just like clockwork, the case count numbers have increased dramatically again. And it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the weather or anything like that- here in North Texas, it’s been a surprisingly beautiful Fall, with moderate temps, lots of sun, etc… people are spending MORE time outdoors than in the oppressively hot summer. This isn’t science. It’s a mixture of hindsight bias and confirmation bias. It would be trivially easy to find some graphs showing spikes after a mask mandate was implemented. However, it wouldn’t be proper to then conclude that mask mandates don’t have an effect on transmission. The only way to figure out what policies are working and what are not is through objective, statistical analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/647 "2020-11-19T18:09:06Z")
> [@Trom](#): > > This isn’t science. It’s a mixture of hindsight bias and confirmation bias. … nonsense. It is well established science that by limiting the chains of transmission you limit the spread of the virus. bump uses anecdotes to describe it, but what they described actually fits the established science. ---
**Author:** ![Trom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Trom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trom)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/648 "2020-11-19T18:14:18Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > … nonsense. It is well established science that by limiting the chains of transmission you limit the spread of the virus. bump uses anecdotes to describe it, but what they described actually fits the established science. … I’m aware of 5th grade level biology. The question is how well policies that have been implemented around the world have actually fared in practice. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/649 "2020-11-19T18:22:05Z")
> [@Trom](#): > > … I’m aware of 5th grade level biology. The question is how well policies that have been implemented around the world have actually fared in practice …so you’ve pivoted from “this isn’t science” to “well actually this actually is science, 5th grade elementary science”, and when you said it’s " a mixture of hindsight bias and confirmation bias" what you actually meant was it wasn’t a mixture of those things at all. Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/650 "2020-11-19T18:40:47Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > I can assure you, when we all put up plexiglass 7 months ago, we didn’t think it would actually do anything, but it looked good and made people feel better. > Granted, looking back, the plexiglass probably does make for one of the better safety measures, but I’m not sure shorter hours do. Not intending to call you out, but I have to wonder how you or anyone can have faith in your own opinions about the efficacy of anything when you know this is what your reasoning looks like: 1. Experts recommended barriers. 2. I didn’t believe the experts that it would be useful. 3. We implemented barriers, and it actually looks like they were useful. 4. Experts recommend shorter hours. 5. I don’t believe the experts when they say it will be useful. 6. Profit? I mean, not everything the experts recommend is guaranteed to be totally effective. This is all a murky intersection of epidemiology, social science and public policy, and nothing is guaranteed (particularly as success of any given strategy is likely dependent on the degree to which it’s adopted). But it’s precisely because it’s so complicated that none of us should assume that our personal takes after reading a few articles are worth a hill of beans compared to the recommendations that are the outcomes of collaborations of experts. Of course, we shouldn’t put blind faith in anyone, but at this point “I don’t believe the experts when they give us strategies for mitigation” is not a reasonable/rational position. ---
**Author:** ![Trom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Trom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trom)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/651 "2020-11-19T18:48:25Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …so you’ve pivoted from “this isn’t science” to “well actually this actually is science, 5th grade elementary science”, and when you said it’s " a mixture of hindsight bias and confirmation bias" what you actually meant was it wasn’t a mixture of those things at all. > > Gotcha. …you clearly don’t. This is 5th grade biology: “by limiting the chains of transmission you limit the spread of the virus.” This is obvious. This is not up for debate. It’s a given. The question is this: **How have the policies that have been enacted in pursuit of limiting the chains of transmission fared in the real world?** I maintain that looking at the date a policy was enacted and then eyeballing a line graph is not the correct way to answer the question above. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/652 "2020-11-19T19:00:28Z")
> [@Trom](#): > > How have the policies that have been enacted in pursuit of limiting the chains of transmission fared in the real world? …and the answer to that question is “really fucking well actually.”. In the real world where the chains of transmission have been broken those places are doing really really well. NZ only had 25 deaths. Currently no community transmission. Economy opened up. We are doing just fine. > [@Trom](#): > > I maintain that looking at the date a policy was enacted and then eyeballing a line graph is not the correct way to answer the question above. But you would agree that you can see general trends yes? And that those trends also fit the data? If the science says controlling the chains of transmission help control the spread of the virus then what is it you are actually disputing? This is a message board, not a scientific dissertation. It’s okay to draw in big strokes. ---
**Author:** ![Trom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Trom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trom)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/653 "2020-11-19T19:29:12Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …and the answer to that question is “really fucking well actually.”. In the real world where the chains of transmission have been broken those places are doing really really well. NZ only had 25 deaths. Currently no community transmission. Economy opened up. We are doing just fine. … you really believe that _the policies_ enacted to fight transmission around the world have worked “really fucking well?” Countries around the world have tried to emulate New Zealand. I don’t think it has worked well at all. Places like Peru and Argentina have been ravaged by the virus despite some of the most draconian countermeasures. It seems to me that policies that should have worked in theory haven’t in practice. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > But you would agree that you can see general trends yes? And that those trends also fit the data? If the science says controlling the chains of transmission help control the spread of the virus then what is it you are actually disputing? This is a message board, not a scientific dissertation. It’s okay to draw in big strokes. There’s too much data and too many variables for me to make a judgement on which policies are having what effects. Even if I thought I knew, the human brain loves to see patterns in data. This is why we have to look at this statistically - scientifically. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/654 "2020-11-19T20:03:31Z")
> [@Trom](#): > > … you really believe that _the policies_ enacted to fight transmission around the world have worked “really fucking well?” …that wasn’t the question I answered. Please don’t be disengenuous. > [@Trom](#): > > Countries around the world have tried to emulate New Zealand. I don’t think it has worked well at all. Except they haven’t. The only place that really did try to emulate what we did was Victoria Australia and that resulted in a drop from hundreds of cases a day to practically zero. > [@Trom](#): > > Places like Peru and Argentina have been ravaged by the virus despite some of the most draconian countermeasures. New Zealand didn’t implement draconian countermeasures. The cornerstone of the elimination plan was “kindness .” It started with the premise we are going to look after each other, follow the science and get through this together. > [@Trom](#): > > It seems to me that policies that should have worked in theory haven’t in practice. Or perhaps you don’t actually know much at all about the countries you’ve just mentioned and you are drawing the same broad strokes you are complaining about. > [@Trom](#): > > There’s too much data and too many variables for me to make a judgement on which policies are having what effects. There might be too much data for **you**. Fortunately in the real world that doesn’t really matter. > [@Trom](#): > > Even if I thought I knew, the human brain loves to see patterns in data. This is why we have to look at this statistically - scientifically. The data and patterns fit the science. Break the chains, test trace and isolation, public education, keep it simple. There is almost zero effective public messaging in America. Even Dr Fauci needlessly complicates the messaging. I’m not surprised that people struggle with this. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/655 "2020-11-19T20:17:55Z")
TLDR: I used to think some things, than I learned I was wrong and now I think other things. > [@Eonwe](#): > > Not intending to call you out, but I have to wonder how you or anyone can have faith in your own opinions about the efficacy of anything when you know this is what your reasoning looks like: But you glossed over the most important part. I ignored my own opinions and did what they experts told me to do. I put up plexiglass, we implemented mask requirements very early on, we got in the habit of sanitizing everything and sanitizing often. At the beginning, the plexiglass thing didn’t seem like it would work because I couldn’t wrap my head around WHY it would work. Same for masks, at the beginning, it didn’t make sense. We’re all still breathing the same air, right? But I worked on the assumption that the experts know more about this than I do. As time went on and there was more information available, I understood why they worked. I’ve seen a lot of stores shortening hours, but I haven’t seen that as an actual recommendation. Not being open exceedingly early or late, the shortened hours thing hasn’t come into play for me, so if it’s been an official recommendation or if there’s been solid reasons why it helps, I just haven’t heard them yet. The only reason I’ve seen stores give for voluntarily reducing their hours is so that their crew can use the extra time to do a really good job cleaning without customers in the building. So: > [@Eonwe](#): > > Experts recommended barriers. Correct. > [@Eonwe](#): > > I didn’t believe the experts that it would be useful. Correct, that’s how I felt 8 months ago. > [@Eonwe](#): > > We implemented barriers, and it actually looks like they were useful. Correct again. I ignored my opinions and used official recommendations. > [@Eonwe](#): > > Experts recommend shorter hours. I haven’t seen that, but I’m not saying it hasn’t happened. > [@Eonwe](#): > > I don’t believe the experts when they say it will be useful. I didn’t say that. The closest statement I made to that was when I questioned the reasoning behind the shorter hours. > [@Eonwe](#): > > “I don’t believe the experts when they give us strategies for mitigation” is not a reasonable/rational position. Just to be utterly clear about this. I never said that. I said I didn’t understand the suggestions, but I implemented them regardless of my feelings about them. Also, it’s important to note, this was over half a year ago. I put up plexiglass back in March, IIRC. The statements you’re making are much more applicable to the people that are actively denying that any of these protective measures are useful. Similarly, if you were to dig up posts of mine from way back in March or April, you’ll likely be able to find me saying ‘it’s no worse than the flu’, but I quickly stopped saying that and transitioned to explaining to others who say it why they’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/656 "2020-11-19T20:18:33Z")
My point was that in pretty much any reckoning, this is a BIG deal. Huge. As in, on the same scale of deaths as WWII, a war that we’ve had dozens, if not hundreds of movies and TV shows made about it, similar numbers of war memorials, and whose aftereffects are still resonating to this day. The point I’m trying to make is that a whole lot, maybe even a majority of those deaths could have been preventable, if we had effective, science-based leadership from the top, and a much lesser degree of selfishness and stupidity in our society. I personally disagree that economic well being is worth any number of lives. Would you volunteer to die so that the economy would be strong? Would you sacrifice your kids? Your grandparents? Your parents? In effect that’s exactly what all the selfish people and science deniers are doing- they’re in effect saying “It may take a lot of _you_ to die in order for us to have our comfortable way of life, but it’s a risk _ **I’m** _ willing to take.” To me, that’s unconscionable. Maybe I’d feel different if I was less well off- I don’t know. But from where I’m sitting, the whole argument seems to boil down to what’s an acceptable casualty rate in order to keep the economy going. And I can say this… 250,000 people can’t be acceptable. We’re talking about mere economic well being, not defeating fascism and stopping genocide here. ---
**Author:** ![Trom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Trom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trom)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/657 "2020-11-19T20:37:31Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …that wasn’t the question I answered. Please don’t be disengenuous. … this is false. I’ve quote the exchange for you below: > [@Trom](#): > > How have the policies that have been enacted in pursuit of limiting the chains of transmission fared in the real world? > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …and the answer to that question is “really fucking well actually.” This is literally the question I asked and you answered. I’m the one being disingenuous? > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Except they haven’t. The only place that really did try to emulate what we did was Victoria Australia and that resulted in a drop from hundreds of cases a day to practically zero. Other countries have been trying to break the chain of transmission. Peru and Argentina have tried to do the best they can under their circumstances. What do you believe Peru and Argentina have been trying to achieve by locking down if not stopping transmission of the virus? > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Or perhaps you don’t actually know much at all about the countries you’ve just mentioned and you are drawing the same broad strokes you are complaining about. Do you disagree with my assertion that the policies implemented in Peru and Argentina don’t seem to have worked well? Also, I’m not complaining about broad strokes (where did this come from?). Please don’t put words in my mouth. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > There might be too much data for **you**. Fortunately in the real world that doesn’t really matter. Then please share it. I’d love to see some data - real, statistical analysis of the effects of policies implemented around the world. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > The data and patterns fit the science. Break the chains, test trace and isolation, public education, keep it simple. There is almost zero effective public messaging in America. Even Dr Fauci needlessly complicates the messaging. I’m not surprised that people struggle with this. Who struggles with this concept? Again, I repeat the question is this: **How have the policies that have been enacted in pursuit of limiting the chains of transmission fared in the real world?** Not, “How are viruses transmitted? What should work in theory? What worked in New Zealand?” We know things have worked well in New Zealand. A+. How have various policies - masks, lockdowns, travel restrictions, etc - actually affected virus transmission in practice around the world on a broader scale? What are the hard numbers and data as we currently understand it? ---
**Author:** ![Trom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Trom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trom)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/658 "2020-11-19T20:52:56Z")
Actually searching through journals is a better use of time than arguing for internet points. Here’s the kind of thing I’ve been looking for: From _The Lancet_ [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext) **Method** Information on COVID-19 policies and health outcomes were extracted from websites and country specific sources. Data collection included the government’s action, level of national preparedness, and country specific socioeconomic factors. Data was collected from the top 50 countries ranked by number of cases. Multivariable negative binomial regression was used to identify factors associated with COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes. **Findings** Increasing COVID-19 caseloads were associated with countries with higher obesity (adjusted rate ratio [RR]=1.06; 95%CI: 1.01–1.11), median population age (RR=1.10; 95%CI: 1.05–1.15) and longer time to border closures from the first reported case (RR=1.04; 95%CI: 1.01–1.08). Increased mortality per million was significantly associated with higher obesity prevalence (RR=1.12; 95%CI: 1.06–1.19) and per capita gross domestic product (GDP) (RR=1.03; 95%CI: 1.00–1.06). Reduced income dispersion reduced mortality (RR=0.88; 95%CI: 0.83–0.93) and the number of critical cases (RR=0.92; 95% CI: 0.87–0.97). Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people. However, full lockdowns (RR=2.47: 95%CI: 1.08–5.64) and reduced country vulnerability to biological threats (i.e. high scores on the global health security scale for risk environment) (RR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.13–2.12) were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates. _The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene:_ [https://www.ajtmh.org/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.20-1015](https://www.ajtmh.org/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.20-1015) > We studied sources of variation between countries in per-capita mortality from COVID-19 (caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus). Potential predictors of per-capita coronavirus-related mortality in 200 countries by May 9, 2020 were examined, including age, gender, obesity prevalence, temperature, urbanization, smoking, duration of the outbreak, lockdowns, viral testing, contact-tracing policies, and public mask-wearing norms and policies. **Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed.** In univariate analysis, the prevalence of smoking, per-capita gross domestic product, urbanization, and colder average country temperature was positively associated with coronavirus-related mortality. In a multivariable analysis of 196 countries, the duration of the outbreak in the country, and the proportion of the population aged 60 years or older were positively associated with per-capita mortality, whereas duration of mask-wearing by the public was negatively associated with mortality (all P \< 0.001). Obesity and less stringent international travel restrictions were independently associated with mortality in a model which controlled for testing policy. Viral testing policies and levels were not associated with mortality. Internal lockdown was associated with a nonsignificant 2.4% reduction in mortality each week (P = 0.83). The association of contact-tracing policy with mortality was not statistically significant (P = 0.06). In countries with cultural norms or government policies supporting public mask-wearing, per-capita coronavirus mortality increased on average by just 16.2% each week, as compared with 61.9% each week in remaining countries. Societal norms and government policies supporting the wearing of masks by the public, as well as international travel controls, are independently associated with lower per-capita mortality from COVID-19. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/659 "2020-11-19T21:11:27Z")
> [@Trom](#): > > This is literally the question I asked and you answered. I’m the one being disingenuous? …I explained to you how policies enacted in the “real world” to limit the chains of transmission really actually worked. Your response flipped that. I wasn’t talking about **every policy enacted around the world.** My answer was very specific. And you ignored that. I answered the question as asked. I’m not interested in answering this brand new disingenuous question you’ve asked me. > [@Trom](#): > > Other countries have been trying to break the chain of transmission. Other countries haven’t implemented policies that would be effective in breaking the chains of transmission. Those other countries **haven’t** tried to emulate New Zealand. > [@Trom](#): > > Peru and Argentina have tried to do the best they can under their circumstances. And your point is? I’ve just looked at the stats. The curve in Peru is heading in the right direction. The curve in Argentina is trending down after a peak in October. What is it, exactly, are you trying to say? > [@Trom](#): > > What do you believe Peru and Argentina have been trying to achieve by locking down if not stopping transmission of the virus? Again I’m not seeing your point. Lockdowns in themselves won’t break the chain of transmission. Not without government financial support for people to stay home, not without building a comprehensive test, trace and isolation regime, not without control of the borders, not without increasing ICU capacity and making PPE widely available for medical teams. > [@Trom](#): > > Do you disagree with my assertion that the policies implemented in Peru and Argentina don’t seem to have worked well? Do you agree with my assertion that Peru and Argentina haven’t tried to emulate what we did in New Zealand? > [@Trom](#): > > Also, I’m not complaining about broad strokes (where did this come from?). Please don’t put words in my mouth. bump’s post made broad strokes. But they weren’t incorrect. You complained about those broad strokes. We can see what you did. > [@Trom](#): > > Then please share it. I’d love to see some data - real, statistical analysis of the effects of policies implemented around the world. I’m not your fucking monkey. I’ve shown you **policies that worked.** That fit the science. I’m under no obligation to provide data for you for **all of the policies implemented all around the world.** I gave you a real world answer. But it looks like you don’t want to actually know anything about the real world. > [@Trom](#): > > Who struggles with this concept? You do for starters. > [@Trom](#): > > Again, I repeat the question is this: **How have the policies that have been enacted in pursuit of limiting the chains of transmission fared in the real world?** Again I repeat my answer to this. They have worked really fucking well. > [@Trom](#): > > Not, “How are viruses transmitted? What should work in theory? What worked in New Zealand?” We know things have worked well in New Zealand. A+. So New Zealand isn’t part of the real world. Gotcha. We know how virus’s work. We know pretty well how this particular coronavirus works. This isn’t a theoretical discussion. We can see what worked. Why do you want to casually dismiss what worked? > [@Trom](#): > > How have various policies - masks, lockdowns, travel restrictions, etc - actually affected virus transmission in practice around the world **on a broader scale**? Why would you want to know this on a broader scale? No seriously. How broad do you want to get? Why broad and not specific? ---
**Author:** ![Trom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Trom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trom)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2020, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/660 "2020-11-19T21:34:42Z")
Thanks for the discussion, but I feel like we’ve crowded up the thread enough. It’s led me to what I was looking for (at least a start). I’m glad to see there are scientists/statisticians are looking at this stuff quantitatively on a broad scale and getting published. Data from these kinds of studies are needed to inform future policy decisions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356.md?page=34)