# 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:** 62
**Author:** ![FigNorton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fignorton/32/5619_2.png) [@FigNorton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FigNorton)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2021, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1222 "2021-01-15T21:15:19Z")
What about them? McDonald’s closes at 8:30 like everything else. Otherwise, it’s not a damn curfew. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2021, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1223 "2021-01-15T21:34:10Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > You picked a random day to compare the death rate on a widely varying statistic. If I picked Jan 2 instead of Jan 11, FL would be 217 and CA would be 239 with CA having double the population of FL. That would be less significant. Sorry, I flipped the data in my summary. Daily Deaths seem to favor Florida by number, but per 100M Florida is higher. That’s what I meant by “pick your poison”. Yes, that’s data from one specific day. I tried to reference 7-day moving average over single day numbers, and my longer explanation tried to give a comparison of overall trends, but I didn’t actually try to compute a slope. That would have been more reflective of my intent. ---
**Author:** ![SayTwo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@SayTwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SayTwo)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2021, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1224 "2021-01-15T21:34:45Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > Even IF I accept your logic (and I DO NOT), the reailty is that fewer venues means fewer opportunities for spread of infection - can we shut down shops selling essentials? Lots to look at here. First, are you entirely sure that fewer venues means fewer opportunities for spread? I mean, it’s certainly not as though the people who would have gone to eat indoors at a restaurant somehow cease to exist during the hour they would have spent there. What if, let’s say, we closed half the restaurants, and left everything else equal. Does it follow, do you think, that we’d have half the infections from restaurants? Or does it maybe stand to reason that the non-closed restaurants would get more busy? Or that grocery stores would see more traffic? Or that people would get fast food and then go sit in a theater instead? I don’t know, imagine whatever scenario you want. But do you think it’s necessarily true that everyone would simply stay at home instead? Can you close even places that are essential? Well, I guess if the threat of leaving one’s own house were Ebola-type severe, you wouldn’t even have to ask the question, because people would answer it for you in advance. People are far less stupid than they are made out to be. But _could_ you? If it were a dire threat to your very survival as a community, of course you could. For a little while, at least. But if it weren’t so dire a threat, and you felt like you could stomach just a little risk from those being open, then let’s not act like you are going to stamp out spread in the community by closing some other places instead. ---
**Author:** ![Trom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Trom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trom)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2021, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1225 "2021-01-15T21:37:06Z")
Sorry, I just don’t see how a total societal shut down at 8:30pm could feasibly be implemented and enforced in any non-disastrous way. We can’t even enforce restaurant closures. ---
**Author:** ![FigNorton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fignorton/32/5619_2.png) [@FigNorton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FigNorton)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2021, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1226 "2021-01-15T22:23:31Z")
I don’t see why not. If we were shutting down restaurants overnight there’d have been a lot less resistance than shutting them down for a month. ---
**Author:** ![Trom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Trom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trom)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2021, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1227 "2021-01-15T22:32:29Z")
We’re kind of hijacked here… And I don’t really have anything else to say. If you think the police in America have the ability/power/will to enforce a complete lockdown of all people driving on the roads after 8:30pm and that it’d be a good idea to try in an effort to stop spread of COVID-19 in restaurants, you and I have a fundamentally different view of the world in this regard. ---
**Author:** ![FigNorton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fignorton/32/5619_2.png) [@FigNorton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FigNorton)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1228 "2021-01-16T00:32:46Z")
You hand out enough fines until people get the message. I’m sure there’s places where the cops would lack the “will” to do it. Country has plenty of crappy cops. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1229 "2021-01-16T15:25:09Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …haven’t we already established that these numbers are completely made up and don’t actually demonstrate anything at all? It establishes the principle, explains the possibility. It says nothing about the actuality of what is happening. It is speculation serving an agenda to push opening everything up. ---
**Author:** ![SayTwo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@SayTwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SayTwo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1230 "2021-01-16T18:57:04Z")
Does there exist speculation serving an agenda to push keeping everything closed? Or, would you put it like that? I advocate for removing inconsequential restrictions, which I believe cause more harm than they prevent. That’s it. It doesn’t come with an agenda. It comes with a desire to hash through these thorny issues and analyze them with rationality and not morality. If anyone wants to step up and provide a rebuttal or counterargument that they think says more about the actuality of what is happening, their voice would be more than welcome. You notice, though, that’s not happening. I suspect there may be more than one agenda on the table. ---
**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:** [January 16, 2021, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1231 "2021-01-16T19:49:07Z")
> [@SayTwo](#): > > You notice, though, that’s not happening …nonsense. In post after post, thread after thread, your agenda has been debunked. In our last exchange you demonstrated that you don’t even understand the basics of exponential spread. And not understanding those basics explains exactly why your theory is wrong in **this** thread. Plugging imaginary numbers into a formula simply do not back up your theory. The study that you cite does not back up your theory. The way that you have applied “risk” in this thread do not match any of the standard epidemiological models, models that in our last exchange you showed you didn’t understand. You can’t say that nobody has provided a rebuttal or counterargument when one can simply scroll up the thread to read multiple people providing evidence-based rebuttals and counterarguments. You can’t claim to be talking about the “actuality” of what is happening by plugging imaginary numbers into a formula you just invented that bear no relation to any real life scenario. It really wouldn’t matter if we were talking about almost any other subject. But this forum is about a global pandemic that is killing thousands of people a day. The stakes are much higher than just"message board cred". I do have an agenda. It’s to fight ignorance, it’s to save as many lives as possible. I think the evidence is clear the positions you advocate for are often in opposition to those ideals. ---
**Author:** ![SayTwo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@SayTwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SayTwo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1232 "2021-01-16T20:16:35Z")
You have not debunked the model because you _cannot_ debunk the model. You can’t do it because there is _no_ hard data to do it with. You can’t say that restaurants are twice as risky as grocery stores, or ten times, or a hundred times, because there is no empirical evidence of that. All you have are models of your own – or at best, weak contact-tracing data that don’t support the initial claims in the first place. If you think you have empirical evidence of just exactly how risky one category of places is compared to another, then bring it on. Until then, don’t think you have proven a thing. ---
**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:** [January 16, 2021, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1233 "2021-01-16T21:37:05Z")
> [@SayTwo](#): > > You have not debunked the model because you _cannot_ debunk the model. …of course we can. It is very easy to debunk a model based on imaginary numbers and a formula you just invented. We just need to point out the model is based on imaginary numbers with a formula you just invented. Debunked. > [@SayTwo](#): > > You can’t do it because there is _no_ hard data to do it with. Of course we do. We have data from contact tracers. We have decades of epidemiological research into how virus’s, etc spread. > [@SayTwo](#): > > You can’t say that restaurants are twice as risky as grocery stores, or ten times, or a hundred times, because there is no empirical evidence of that. Strawman. We can say that its riskier in a nightclub than a supermarket without needing to quantify that degree of risk by a multiplier. We know that its riskier because of the factors you’ve dismissed: people are closer for longer, inhibitions are lower. > [@SayTwo](#): > > All you have are models of your own – or at best, weak contact-tracing data that don’t support the initial claims in the first place. They aren’t **my** models. They are models created by experts in the field. Its laughable to compare actual epidemiological modeling with the musings of a random person on the internet. > [@SayTwo](#): > > If you think you have empirical evidence of just exactly how risky one category of places is compared to another, then bring it on. Until then, don’t think you have proven a thing. I don’t need to follow your rules. I don’t need to prove anything to your standard. We don’t need to know **exactly** how risky one behavior is to another to be able to know that one behavior is riskier than another. I don’t need to know exactly how much riskier it is to play Russian Roulette than to not play Russian Roulette to know that its less risky to simply not play the game. But here’s the thing that you don’t understand. Supermarkets are essential services. They need to be open, even during a pandemic, to ensure that people can get food so that they can live. Nightclubs or restaurants? They **aren’t** essential. They **don’t** provide services that are a matter of life or death. If “Johnny’s Disco” is closed then nobody is going to die. Basic epidemiological modelling shows that limiting the points of exposure will help break the chains of transmission and the more dramatically and faster you do this the more likely you are to be able to bring the pandemic under some measure of control. So there are very important reasons why we keep supermarkets open but we should close nightclubs and restaurants. And that would be the case even **if** it were riskier to be in a supermarket than a nightclub or a restaurant. And that brings us to where we are today, with the pandemic out of control in places like the US and the UK. We are so far beyond the conversation you are wanting to have. The metrics are not good. And without making an effort to break the chains of transmission the numbers will only get worse. These are basic epidemiological facts. It is a basic epidemiological fact that restrictions, when applied stringently and universally, are **consequential**. That breaking a chain of transmission (which you confused in the other thread for **immunity** ) will mean less people will get infected. Break enough chains for long enough and you break the back of the virus. But if you let up too early: if you don’t break the back, if you don’t set up adequate testing and tracing, if you don’t set up multiple lines of defense, then it will come back. In places where covid is out of control restrictions haven’t been stringent or universal enough. And because they haven’t been stringent or universal enough they have had to be extended, which has lead to lockdown fatigue, which (in some cases, understandably) has lead to many people choosing to ignore restrictions that would otherwise save lives. And the reality is that this is going to be hard to fix. In the UK they are stuck with the government they have for a few more years. And in the US the incoming administration will have to deal with a year of mismanagement and disinformation campaigns as well as a substantial proportion of the population who will actively fight measures that may have worked at the start of the pandemic. So its more important now than ever to continue the battle against ignorance. If you want to “hash through these thorny issues and analyze them with rationality and not morality” then you need to start by learning and understanding basic epidemiological principles. Because everything else flows from there. Understanding that these restrictions are **not** inconsequential is fundamental to being able to “hash out” these issues. ---
**Author:** ![SayTwo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@SayTwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SayTwo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1234 "2021-01-16T23:19:00Z")
Either you don’t understand my arguments or you are misrepresenting them. The former would be far worse, but I’m afraid it’s much closer to the truth. And I just don’t know what to do about that, as many times as I’ve tried to make the points more simple and more clear. That you don’t understand the difference between ‘made up numbers’ and an illustration for the sake of argument is something I just can’t get around. I’m not sure it would matter, though, as long as you are so summarily convinced that theory is fact. You have settled all matters in your own mind before the discussion even begins. That would be of no consequence to me, as you are more than welcome to your own points of view and I’m not trying to change them, if it weren’t for your derailing conversations with your dogmatic approach. Here’s a recent study that addresses these questions. I think I know what you’ll make of it, since you believe the matter was settled long ago, well before covid. I guess if there is anything I’d be curious to ask you in regard to it, it would be why you think scientists even bother with these types of studies in this day and age, if there is established scientific consensus on the matter and established scientific consensus cannot be wrong. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484) > # Assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19 > > ### Abstract > > ### Background and Aims > > The most restrictive non‐pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID‐19 are mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closures. Given the consequences of these policies, it is important to assess their effects. We evaluate the effects on epidemic case growth of more restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs), above and beyond those of less restrictive NPIs (lrNPIs). > ### Conclusions > > While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions. ---
**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:** [January 16, 2021, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1235 "2021-01-16T23:32:48Z")
> [@SayTwo](#): > > That you don’t understand the difference between ‘made up numbers’ and an illustration for the sake of argument is something I just can’t get around. …but I can make up numbers too, use your exact formula, and it **will illustrate the complete opposite of your point.** The numbers need to at the very least have some **grounding in reality** for them to mean anything. Without that grounding they have no relevance. > [@SayTwo](#): > > Here’s a recent study that addresses these questions. Which questions in particular do you think that study addresses? Jay Bhattacharya is one of the people behind the Great Barrington Declaration. So I’m not exactly inclined to dig deeper into a scientific study that has been authored by people spinning theories that have been largely debunked by the greater scientific community. ---
**Author:** ![SayTwo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@SayTwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SayTwo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1236 "2021-01-16T23:45:11Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …but I can make up numbers too, use your exact formula, and it **will illustrate the complete opposite of your point.** The numbers need to at the very least have some **grounding in reality** for them to mean anything. Without that grounding they have no relevance. Go for it, if you think there’s a point to illustrate. This whole strand of discussion got started when someone said it wouldn’t be possible for more infectious places to contribute less to community spread. They gave that as a theoretical framework, as I understood it. I then tried to illustrate an example that would disprove the theory. All that has either gone over your head or has been twisted by you into something it never was. Again, I ask: If the dentist office were the most dangerous place in town\*, would that mean it contributes the most to community spread? \*Disclaimer (since it appears, sadly, that I need to spell this all out): I am not claiming it is fact that the dentist office is the most dangerous place in town. I am not even claiming it is necessarily more dangerous than any other place. It was chosen as a hypothetical, for the sake of argument, to illustrate the kind of analysis that may be undertaken in deciding which mitigative measures to take first, if the goal is to reduce community spread as much as possible with the fewest interventions. ---
**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:** [January 17, 2021, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1237 "2021-01-17T00:05:42Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > Why do you think a nightclub would be safer than a grocery store? Or what exactly are you saying? > [@SayTwo](#): > > The word ‘safer’ is not one I would use. But more spread from grocery stores than from nightclubs? Because a whole lot more people use grocery stores than they do nightclubs. And a whole lot more _kinds_ of people, at that. Up to that point it should be obvious enough, no? > [@Biffster](#): > > No. People tend to sit very close together and talk really loudly because the music is loud in nightclubs. There’s also the disinhibitory effect of alcohol combined with a frequent lack of judgement. At grocery stores, most people aren’t drunk and talking loudly, and in my experience are very conscientious about keeping their distance from each other. YMMV, but I would say those factors alone make nightclubs more dangerous for Covid-19. > [@SayTwo](#): > > Well, but now you’re getting to the next level. The point I’m trying to make it is that it makes a difference not only how infectious an environment is but also how many people frequent that environment. A place that is one-tenth as infectious as another would still contribute far more to spread if a hundred times more people went there. Or that’s the theory, anyway. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …it isn’t “the next level.” The next level of what? This is the fundamental basis of risk management in a pandemic. A place that is one-tenth as infectious as another **would not necessarily** still contribute far more to spread if a hundred times more people went there. That **isn’t** the theory. This isn’t **how any of this works.** > [@SayTwo](#): > > Explain how that would work. How would a more infectious situation not result in more infection, as else being equal? > > The ‘next level’ means the next level of analysis. Like, the first level is where does the community as a whole stand to infect the most people, and the next level is to assess the risks in each environment. The dentist office could be the most infectious place in town but might not be the biggest problem if nobody goes there. > > What it does no one any good at all to do is focus on one level of analysis only. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …because in the real world we don’t rely on SayTwo’s subjective determination of what is and isn’t “a more infectious situation.” Because in the real world where a pandemic is raging across the planet **all things aren’t equal.** The pandemic doesn’t care about artificial parameters that you have personally decided as a metric for debate. In almost every circumstance the nightclub will be more infectious than the supermarket because **things aren’t equal**. > [@SayTwo](#): > > I’m not saying that all is equal between a nightclub and a grocery store. I can see, and I fully appreciate, the very obvious differences between the two. In fact, the very obvious differences between the two also inform part of my own argument. Yes, people behave differently in nightclubs as compared to grocery stores. But it’s also non-identical populations that go to nightclubs and grocery stores. And the two populations also aren’t anywhere near the same size. > > See, there’s more to being unequal than the _way_ in which people behave. _Who_ and _how many_ behave in those different ways in those different places could be every bit as important, if not much more so. > > When I said that one environment could be one-tenth as infectious – and that means that we’ve factored in all those other parts of the analysis, like kissing and dancing and masking and social distance – yet still contribute more to spread in the community if a hundred times more people go there, you said that would not necessarily be the case. I asked then, and am asking again, how you arrive at that conclusion? **If one in ten people at a nightclub contract a virus and one in a hundred people at a grocery store, and a hundred people go to a nightclub while a thousand people go to a grocery store, is one contributing more to spread in the community than the other?** …quoting the entire conversation in full because this: > [@SayTwo](#): > > Go for it, if you think there’s a point to illustrate. This whole strand of discussion got started when someone said it wouldn’t be possible for more infectious places to contribute less to community spread. Simply isn’t an accurate paraphrase of what lead to the creation of your imaginary numbers. > [@SayTwo](#): > > Again, I ask: If the dentist office were the most dangerous place in town\*, would that mean it contributes the most to community spread? Without additional context an answer to this question has no epidemiological relevance. The more relevant question would be “is the dental office an essential service?” If it isn’t, and if the goal is to break the chains of community transmission, then closing the dental office in order to break the chain is an appropriate thing to do. By making “the fewest interventions” part of your priority matrix it leads you to make bad decisions. ---
**Author:** ![SayTwo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@SayTwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SayTwo)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1238 "2021-01-17T00:16:44Z")
Well, there’s a growing body of evidence that something like the opposite of ‘the fewest interventions’ is also leading to bad decisions. The brute-force approach of ‘close all but the essential’ I do not believe is demonstrably the best one in every situation. You would seem to believe something closer to that it is, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. But either way, what I am trying to do here is to ask you to consider why it may not ensure control of the virus if we close every non-essential place but leave the essential ones operating. I don’t know if that scenario is just too nuanced, or if it doesn’t fit well enough in a certain narrative, or what. But it seems plausible to me. ---
**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:** [January 17, 2021, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1239 "2021-01-17T01:00:36Z")
> [@SayTwo](#): > > Well, there’s a growing body of evidence that something like the opposite of ‘the fewest interventions’ is also leading to bad decisions. …you misunderstand. I’m talking about where “the fewest number of interventions” is prioritized. The priority should be developing a strategy that will best mitigate Covid-19. If that strategy means more places have to close then you don’t look for a way around it: you just do what you have to do. > [@SayTwo](#): > > The brute-force approach of ‘close all but the essential’ I do not believe is demonstrably the best one in every situation. You would seem to believe something closer to that it is, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. You need to understand the epidemiological model that you casually dismissed in the other thread. If you break the chains of transmission the virus has nowhere to go. If you break **all** the possible chains of transmission: if we all locked ourselves in our bedroom for two weeks and never leave that room then covid dies. But we all know that thats impossible. So as well as introducing other control measures like testing, tracing, PPE, social distancing, and no vaccinations, breaking chains of transmissions by temporarily closing down non-essential businesses is just another tool in the box. > [@SayTwo](#): > > But either way, what I am trying to do here is to ask you to consider why it may not ensure control of the virus if we close every non-essential place but leave the essential ones operating. I’m not arguing that it is. Everything is entirely situational. NZ had an outbreak in August that didn’t result in closing down schools, it didn’t result in every non-essential business closing down. And that’s how it **should** work. Because we did a number of things during the first lockdown that prepared us for what happened in August. Our rest homes and hospices procedures were more robust. We scaled up our testing regime so that we could test and process tens of thousands of tests and get results back in 24 hours. The contact tracing teams contacted 100% of close contacts withn 24 hours. The daily briefings meant that we saw in real time the progress of the outbreak, when someone from a school got infected the close contacts got quickly identified and isolated, the school shut down for a deep clean and was **open again the very next day.** Its the Swiss Cheese model. [![](https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/aem/content/auckland/en/news/2020/10/22/covid-19-and-the-swiss-cheese-system/jcr:content/leftpar/imagecomponent/image.img.768.medium.jpg/1603396585089.jpg) ](https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/aem/content/auckland/en/news/2020/10/22/covid-19-and-the-swiss-cheese-system/jcr:content/leftpar/imagecomponent/image.img.768.medium.jpg/1603396585089.jpg) (illustrations created by Toby Morris in collaboration with Siouxsie Wiles) > **[Covid-19 and the Swiss cheese system - The University of Auckland](https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2020/10/22/covid-19-and-the-swiss-cheese-system.html)** > > Opinion: The effort to defeat the coronavirus relies on many layers of defense. Or, let’s call them, slices of cheese. Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles explains New Zealand’s Swiss cheese/Emmental model for managing Covid-19. In America you’ve effectively only got **one layer of cheese**. So until you scale up your testing regime, until you adequately resource your hospitals and your doctors and nurses, until you have effective contact tracing, until you’ve got vaccination happening at a massive scale, the only layer of protection you have is masking and social distancing. **You’ve got so much work to do.** But nobody wants to do the work. So that **only** leaves the “brute force” approach. You are failing to see the bigger picture. Its all connected. Locking down was the first thing we did and it gave us the time and the space to set up several additional layers of defense. But in America you never did the work. When you opened up again last year all you did was nibble at that single slice of cheese. And now you are trying to patch up the holes in the cheese. But what you should really be doing is **adding more layers of cheese.** ---
**Author:** ![SayTwo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@SayTwo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SayTwo)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1240 "2021-01-17T02:05:55Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > You need to understand the epidemiological model that you casually dismissed in the other thread. If you break the chains of transmission the virus has nowhere to go. If you break **all** the possible chains of transmission: if we all locked ourselves in our bedroom for two weeks and never leave that room then covid dies. > > But we all know that thats impossible. > > So as well as introducing other control measures like testing, tracing, PPE, social distancing, and no vaccinations, breaking chains of transmissions by temporarily closing down non-essential businesses is just another tool in the box. Two things: One, how temporary is ‘temporary’? We’re going on one full year now for many school and business closures. It feels more than temporary. We heard often in the beginning about ‘flatten the curve’, perhaps with stringent and short interventions of a handful of weeks. We don’t hear that expression anymore. If anyone is still believing that the lockdown approach can succeed in mere short strokes, I suggest they haven’t been paying attention. Relatedly, you can look at Germany, Czechia, California, and a number of other places that seemed to enjoy many successful months of being relatively virus free (and were lauded by media and experts for their approaches) only to later experience serious outbreaks. I just don’t think the evidence points to a battle on the order of a few weeks with the result being indefinite success. For most of the world besides New Zealand, the applicable model seems very different. Two, what makes you so certain we should use all the tools in the box? Throughout this thread, and certainly in the last day, you have spoken with great certainty, as though these policy matters are not up for debate. You often mention that anonymous voices on this forum carry no weight. Do you believe that your own voice carries more? Or is it just that you believe you are reciting expert opinion, and infallible expert opinion at that? I really just want to get to the bottom of why you believe these are not matters that are eligible for the court of public opinion. I find that attitude counterproductive. I’m skeptical when I sense it anywhere, this air of unquestionable authority, but I’m especially skeptical during this ordeal, when the ‘received’ science, if you will, has been so fluid throughout – and not to mention, when the majority view has run counter to previously accepted best practices, such as broadly locking down only as a matter of last resort. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > You are failing to see the bigger picture. Its all connected. Well, it’s certainly safe to say you and I see this through different lenses. It is my perception that your approach is the narrow one, the one that views public health as having one ingredient and one ingredient only, that being the suppression of one specific virus. It is my perception that your approach sees broad sacrifices in the name of virus suppression as not only justifiable but in fact morally imperative. I see virus suppression as one concern among many, and I advocate an approach that gives equal considerations to all aspects of the ‘bigger picture’, even if it leaves every single one of these aspects individually in worse shape than it could have been with singular focus at the exclusion of all other concerns. In other words, to me you seem to think I disagree that kitchen-sink mitigation strategies are the wrong approach and unjustified, _if your one and only focus is virus suppression_. I do not believe that, necessarily, and I’m certainly not saying that. I’m saying, and I believe, that kitchen-sink mitigation strategies are not the best approach if your focus is maximizing _overall_ public health, with a big-picture point of view. ---
**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:** [January 17, 2021, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356/1241 "2021-01-17T03:13:26Z")
> [@SayTwo](#): > > One, how temporary is ‘temporary’? We’re going on one full year now for many school and business closures. It feels more than temporary. …I didn’t use the word “temporary.” I used the words “doing the work.” You are going on one full year now for many school and business closures because nobody wants to do the work. Because the additional layers of defense are so inadequate it leaves you with that single block of cheese. You are proposing poking holes in the single layer of cheese that is protecting you. I’m advocating adding more layers of cheese. How long is “temporary?” Until you’ve got those other layers in place. You’ve got to do the work. > [@SayTwo](#): > > We heard often in the beginning about ‘flatten the curve’, perhaps with stringent and short interventions of a handful of weeks. We don’t hear that expression anymore. If anyone is still believing that the lockdown approach can succeed in mere short strokes, I suggest they haven’t been paying attention. > [@The Prime Minister of New Zealand](#): > > When the virus began hitting Europe early in the year, Ardern said, the only two options countries were considering were herd immunity or flattening the curve. She opted for the latter. > > “Originally, that was where we started, because there just simply was not really much of a view that elimination was possible,” she said. > > But her thinking quickly changed. > > “I remember my chief science adviser bringing me a graph that showed me what flattening the curve would look like for New Zealand. And where our hospital and health capacity was. And the curve was not sitting under that line. So we knew that flattening the curve was not sufficient for us.” [https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300185880/flattening-curve-was-not-enough-jacinda-ardern-talks-about-new-zealands-covid-response-us-elections-in-ap-interview](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300185880/flattening-curve-was-not-enough-jacinda-ardern-talks-about-new-zealands-covid-response-us-elections-in-ap-interview) Just to be clear here: it was in **March 2020** that the Prime Minister decided **that flattening the curve wouldn’t be enough.** I’ve long argued on these boards that there is an fundamental difference in paradigm between “flattening the curve” and our approach which was “to break the chains.” I’m not on the “flatten the curve” bandwagon. Your mistake is to conflate “flatten the curve” with lockdowns. They aren’t the same thing. March 2020 everyone. Just imagine how different things would be right now in the US and the UK and Brazil and so many other places with different leadership. > [@SayTwo](#): > > Relatedly, you can look at Germany, Czechia, California, and a number of other places that seemed to enjoy many successful months of being relatively virus free (and were lauded by media and experts for their approaches) only to later experience serious outbreaks. I just don’t think the evidence points to a battle on the order of a few weeks with the result being indefinite success. For most of the world besides New Zealand, the applicable model seems very different. The model isn’t different. You are looking at one aspect of the model **in isolation**. You can’t do one thing really well and then relax and expect things to stay the same. You need those additional layers of defense. > [@SayTwo](#): > > Two, what makes you so certain we should use all the tools in the box? Because we can see in real time what happens in places that have multiple lines of defense and what happens in places that do not. And the best example of this is what happened in Victoria Australia, where they had an outbreak spinning out of control and they bought it back by using all of the tools in the box. At one stage Victoria was on a par with France. Victoria pulled it back: France did not. > [@SayTwo](#): > > Throughout this thread, and certainly in the last day, you have spoken with great certainty, as though these policy matters are not up for debate. Throughout this thread, and certainly in the last day, and in almost every post you’ve made in these forums you have spoken with great certainty, as though these policy matters are not up for debate. Do you believe that your own voice carries more? Or is it just that you believe you are reciting expert opinion, and infallible expert opinion at that? > [@SayTwo](#): > > I really just want to get to the bottom of why you believe these are not matters that are eligible for the court of public opinion. Why do you need to get to the bottom of this? I find that attitude counterproductive. I’m on topic here. If you’ve got a problem with me the pit is probably your best remedy. > [@SayTwo](#): > > Well, it’s certainly safe to say you and I see this through different lenses. It is my perception that your approach is the narrow one, the one that views public health as having one ingredient and one ingredient only, that being the suppression of one specific virus. It is my perception that your approach sees broad sacrifices in the name of virus suppression as not only justifiable but in fact morally imperative. Its a fucking global pandemic. America had 3744 covid deaths today. Yesterday 3944. The day before 4406. You are losing more Americans every day to Covid than you lost in a single day on 9/11. If you do the work you can reduce that daily toll **significantly**. But if you re-contextualize that daily death toll as “the suppression of one specific virus” then you are seriously downplaying a global event that is going to have repercussions for generations. > [@SayTwo](#): > > I see virus suppression as one concern among many, and I advocate an approach that gives equal considerations to all aspects of the ‘bigger picture’, even if it leaves every single one of these aspects individually in worse shape than it could have been with singular focus at the exclusion of all other concerns. And in New Zealand virus suppression **was** just one concern among many. It was the priority because if we had let Covid get a foothold here our health services would have been quickly overwhelmed. But once we set up a strategy of how to suppress Covid everything else flowed on from there. Many businesses (including my own) were protected from the financial impact by government subsidies. Businesses adapted. Hospitals and schools adapted. We were given a new normal and we adapted. The problem with your approach is the “new normal” is a daily death toll of 4000 people a day. Here’s the thing. If, during a global pandemic, your focus is not on dealing with the global pandemic, lots of people are going to die from that global pandemic. Pretending that it isn’t happening won’t make it go away. It deserves the focus. But that doesn’t mean everything else gets ignored. We are all capable of doing many different things at once. > [@SayTwo](#): > > I do not believe that, necessarily, and I’m certainly not saying that. I’m saying, and I believe, that kitchen-sink mitigation strategies are not the best approach if your focus is maximizing _overall_ public health, with a big-picture point of view. You can’t maximize overall public health if your doctors and nurses and support staff are exhausted, if ICU capacity is stretched, if elective appointments are deferred, if you are running out of oxygen, if you are half-way through a vaccination programme only to find out you have no vaccines in reserve. You’ve got this all **backwards**. This isn’t a big picture view because it **ignores** the effect the pandemic has on everything else. Its the exact opposite of a big picture point of view. You are looking at covid in isolation ignoring the impact covid has on every other part of the system. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356.md?page=61) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-missing-something-here-re-reopening-of-bars-etc-now/922356.md?page=63)