Am I missing something here? (re: reopening of bars, etc... now)

The Quarantine Zone
241

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that you live in Wisconsin. You’ve been observant of public health guidelines: you wear a mask when you’re at indoor sites that are not your home (e.g., stores, doctor’s offices, etc.), you limit close contact with people who aren’t in your bubble, you try to stay at least 6’ away from others (even when you’re outside), you wash your hands often, etc. You’ve been told that it’s important to do these things, so that we can keep the spread of COVID under control, and hopefully, life can get back to something like normal sooner rather than later.

But, a significant minority of your fellow Wisconsinites aren’t doing this. They refuse to wear masks (or they grudgingly do so when told to, but take them back off soon after), they have gone back to regularly going to indoor bars and restaurants (and, of course, it’s not possible to wear a mask while drinking or eating), and they otherwise have gone back to living life they way they want to. They say, “it’s my choice if I risk my own health.” Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled state legislature, and the powerful Tavern League of Wisconsin, have been fighting tooth-and-nail against socially-restrictive executive orders implemented by the Democratic governor.

And, not surprisingly, the number of cases in Wisconsin have risen dramatically in the past month-plus, to the point where many hospitals in the state are at or near capacity, and the death rate is also spiking, as the graphs on this page from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel show:

https://projects.jsonline.com/topics/coronavirus/tracking/covid-19-cases-testing-and-deaths-in-wisconsin.html

COVID is now spiking in the state as it never has before (it’s now 3 times where it was during the last peak, in late July). And, even if you, as a dutiful Wisconsinite, have been “following the rules,” the people who haven’t been doing so are likely a major factor driving the sudden, dramatic rise in cases. Because of that spike, even if you’re being careful, you now face an increased risk of infection every time you go to the store, because there are more infected people out there. And, if you happen to get sick from something else, you may have a more difficult time getting treatment, because the healthcare system in much of Wisconsin is at or near capacity.

And, that is the mechanism.

242

If you consider my post to be a “scold”, then there is nothing I can do.

243

Oh you did what you could do.

244

I checked, and apparently Dallas County has escalated back to Level Red, according to this report:
https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-in-north-texas-updates-wednesday-october-14/287-28bf73d0-ca4d-41a9-a38e-93fdb50d8006
The level was reduced to “extreme caution” on September 2nd, but that didn’t last long.

245

So, let me be sure I’m following you. The non-compliers used to comply, correct, before the rise in cases? And how much higher, if any, do you think the case count would be if the compliers weren’t complying?

246

As this WSJ article describes, what researchers hypothesize has happened in Wisconsin is twofold:

But, regardless, it gets back to people not masking and not social-distancing.

247

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

248

I think you’re missing some of our points. Yes, the risks are small. Yes, the number of deaths is statistically small.

But here’s the thing though- when you’re dealing with nearly 330 million people, even TINY numbers turn out to be large numbers.

For example, if say… 1/3 of the population (110 million people) gets COVID-19, and the 0.26% death rate (potentially too low) is applied, we’re still looking at 286,000 deaths.

That is a LOT of deaths any way you look at it. And to me, it looks like the 0.26% death rate some are throwing around out there (not necessarily in this thread) is already too low, because the population estimates are nowhere near 33% and we’re already over 200,000 deaths.

For me personally, the thinking goes like this- if I can pull up my big-boy pants and do without socializing in person, eating in restaurants, shopping in person, etc… for the duration, maybe I can break some chain of transmission and not have a part in killing someone, especially not someone’s infirm mother or grandfather or great uncle, or someone younger. It’s a matter of priorities, as I see it.

249

Sure. But do you think that people in their 80s who want to continue seeing their grandchildren have fucked up, selfish priorities? I mean, they could get COVID from one grandchild and give it to another, or pick it up from a grandchild and give it to someone at the doctor’s office on a rare trip, but it seems very, very unlikely. And if you are in your 80s, COVID may well be around for the rest of your life–the next couple of years. That’s spending your last couple years of life away from your family, in isolation, because letting half a dozen people into your “bubble” could theoretically add some tiny number to the risk pool.

I don’t think that’s a fair criticism.

250

What’s got me spooked is the number of people in my immediate area who are probably 50 or younger who are acting like this is essentially over- they’re having play dates, they’re going to each other’s houses for dinner, going out to eat, going on vacations around the country, etc… It really does seem like they think that mask wearing and/(unfortunately) or social distancing clears them to do whatever/however they used to do things, as long as they stick however nominally to those conventions. Which isn’t the case, and people always stretch it a number or two on the dial past what is recommended.

It’s not the lesser number of elderly people who are generally (but not always) leading more sedate lives who are really the concern in my book. It’s true that they’re at higher risk, but to some degree, they’re responsible for their own situation- they ought to be aware of the risks and make those decisions accordingly. But it’s also a community issue- if the rest of us are doing as we should, then the elderly have less risk and easier decisions to make.

251

Really I am not the one missing the point here. Your choice knowing your circumstances is fine to make. Be proud that you can wear big boys now. I’ll even be proud for you.

Meanwhile I am not just making up my concern that my mother in law is more likely to have a premature death caused by loneliness and stress than by COVID. Social isolation kills people. The “widowhood effect” is perhaps the best documented but the impact is not limited to that circumstance. This specific woman in other times might be able to offset the impact by her social nature and ability to connect in even casual contacts. Now? The impact is amplified instead.

Yeah those deaths will be lumped in with “excess mortality” figures. But they are avoidable. They also add up. Fast.

In the real world I cannot imagine ANYONE being so rude as to even imply that my mother in law is being selfish by not staying completely in isolation. I don’t have expletives strong enough to describe what I’d think of someone who did.

In what is increasingly for more of us a more predominantly virtual social world the scolds have no such constraints. And the impact of their intent to shame does kill people, even as they pat themselves on their backs for their superior sense of social responsibility.

Their argument that ANY contact is imposing risks on others is also so extreme that it pushes more into the opposite camp.

The only function such comments make is serving their ability to feel smug about themselves as they ignorantly offend and cause real harms.

252

I’ve been single for a while, and just prior to March I’d begun really getting out and socializing in an effort to find like-minded acquaintances, and non-platonic encounters.
I recently moved to where I’m currently located for work, I have no friends here, everyone at work is married, I choose not to use apps or sites for dating purposes, and there are few reasons to go to any brick and mortar establishment for any reason, let alone long enough to meet anyone (I order practically everything I need online).
So, I have no recourse until things get “better”, whatever that might mean. I believe that my actions are responsible measures that afford me a certain degree of safety (which helps me get by), but I’d really like to have options - and soon.
Nonetheless, I will wait until the risk is low enough for me to justify doing things that really don’t seem worthwhile at the moment. For me, it seems entirely reckless and unnecessary to go to a Meetup bar crawl or dinner now. Surely, such things can wait.
Luckily, I have plenty of things to occupy my time, but none of these replace human interaction.

253

I don’t think there’s a point where I would say the elderly have “easy decisions to make” since March. Maybe not until September 2021. Or later.

We’re not New Zealand. Maybe that’s the only way. Maybe if you only knock it down for months at a time can you really be safe opening up.

If you can’t, at what point do you let people make their own decisions? At what point do you let them make their own risk assessments?

254

Things can’t wait for the businesses going under.

Human interaction is not to be dismissed as something trivial. Losing a business or a job is made much worse with the loss of social interaction.

This was never an either/or situation. As the death toll goes down it’s important that we rescue those in financial distress by opening up businesses.

255

I’m not sure where you @Magiver are. Where I am (Greater Miami metroblob) no businesses are closed. Many, including my employer, are struggling with limited customer headcounts that preclude profitability. Because the would-be customers are too scared to come out because of the number of possibly-sick people who aren’t taking this seriously and refuse to wear masks, or behave responsibly.

The danger to business today is not government closure edicts. The danger to business is the unwillingness of the vast majority of sensible people to expose themselves to the wholly unnecessary risk created by the anti-mask/it’s a hoax crowd.

Let’s fix that and we’ll all be safe enough to resume semi-normal ops.

I’m 62. I expect to wear a mask in public for most of the rest of my life. 30+ years if all goes well. COVID is now a permanent feature of the human condition. Masks & distance & no drunken shouting in crowds save lives. Just like traffic lights do. But only when we choose to honor them.

256

Some of the current non-compliers did comply at first, with masks and social distancing and staying home. With the summer and extended months has come complacency and exhaustion of the changes to lifestyle. The desire to have this over has lead to acting like it is over for many. So the number of non-compliers is up.

Plus, the opening of businesses and schools and bars and social venues like theaters and the like has made more opportunities for the non-compliers to socialize in groups and spread it more. So that means cases are up and hospitalizations are up, and yes, deaths are up in some areas and will be up in others as the lag time passes.

As for how bad the case count could be if all the compliers didn’t comply, I would suggest Italy in April

Or Brazil in August

Or Mexico in August

Or Spain in March

Hospitals over capacity, emergency hospitals set up everywhere and understaffed because there are too many of them, refrigerator trucks everywhere because morgues are full. Basically, what we actually saw before measures were instituted.

Meh, in this increasingly virtual social world, I’m much more concerned about the trolls and the people that think any disagreements in opinion should be met with death threats and scare tactics. People judging you for your choices is hard to measure up, since that’s been the world since forever. I mean, getting burned at the stake or locked up in stocks or whipped in public or having your lifestyle made illegal are much more significant historical impacts than some people feeling a little less restraint in posting online to strangers “you are evil”.

257

Reminds me of how people worry more about airplane crashes than car accidents …

FWIW I believe you are making a choice that benefits us all. Thank you. It is no small thing that you are doing.

258

Bolding mine.

Moderator Instructions

Ok, DSeid, that’s enough of that. It’s clear that this is directed at other posters in this thread who have expressed a contrary opinion to yours. Since you don’t seem to be able to keep from taking these opinions personally, I’m instructing you to stop posting in this thread.

If you have any objections, make them in ATMB. Do not reply to this here.

Colibri
Quarantine Zone Moderator

As a corollary, I’m instructing other posters to not address specific criticism to DSeid’s mother-in-law, although you may discuss the issues more generally.

259

I’d considered it to be more of a necessity than a selfless act, but I appreciate your thanks.

Sent using the mobile mail app

260

I get what you’re saying. And to a certain extent I agree. The PPP was meant to address this (providing finances without the business needing to be open to stay afloat). But even if it were reestablished, I understand that it couldn’t be forever, and there’s no incentive for the government to foot the bill of a business that’s shuttered for an indeterminate amount of time.
I do wonder what the economic impact is of both the lives lost and those predicted to be lost. That revenue of the departed is gone, and there’s no way to accurately assess how much more will go. But maybe those numbers would still be too negligible to count?

Sent using the mobile mail app