Is it? People over 60, with cancer histories, with respiratory impairment, with decreased immune capacity, with diabetes should not go to an open establishment? Seems like an ADA issue.
The bar owner seems to be unclear on the concept. Masks are not used to prevent you from getting the virus, it is to protect others.
The fact that people like this bar owner can’t get this through their thick heads makes me think the second wave is inevitable.
True if everyone practiced good hygiene maybe - but that is pretty unlikely.
Maybe it’s because I don’t go to bars, that I don’t see them as essential. I’m not too upset about high-risk people not being able to go to select bars. I would have a different reaction if it was restaurants, general stores or grocery stores. I guess there’s an argument that it’s a slippery slope. I wasn’t seeing it like that.
I don’t know if this is the first rollback of shutdown orders in the US. But a county in California has rolled back its shutdown orders due to an increase in cases.
California county first to roll back reopening orders
A spike in cases has forced Lassen County to shut down again.
The spike is only 4 cases, and they’re doing contact tracing on them. Will other places do the same or just let the cases rise until the hospitals can’t handle them and then close back down? For some places, it’s too late to follow every case. When do they decide to roll back the shutdown orders?
What likely effect will tourist season have on the second wave? These “Don’t Wear a Mask in Here” places are even more dangerous when they’re in towns that get a lot of summer tourists.
This site (which uses a complicated algorithm that I’ll admit I’m not qualified to evaluate) purports to calculate virus transmissability (Rt) by state, with 1 being the break point between increased and decreased spread. A low point, with only four states showing values above 1, was reached a few weeks ago. As of this morning, the number of states with Rt > 1 is up to 11, suggesting that we may indeed be heading toward a second wave, albeit slowly.
I keep seeing this phrase. How? How are you going to protect the vulnerable? They are part of the population. You cannot just wave some magic wand. If COVID sweeps through the population, it’s going to hit the vulnerable too.
Exactly. It is clear the phrase has become meaningless. Nobody has any real clue how to do this. Short of shipping the “vulnerable” off to some isolated island and never allowing any possibly infected person to set foot it just isn’t clear how you do this.
My father relates being evacuated to the countryside as a schoolboy. He was at a boarding school in Exeter, which was not a good place to be in WWII. So entire schools were transplanted into surrounding townships. Which is great when the threat is bombers aiming at cities. It doesn’t work so well when the enemy arrives on a breath.
Those who perceive that they are not members of the vulnerable seem to be suggesting that “protecting the vulnerable” is some sort of magic mechanism by which they get to go back to a normal life. Everyone else should just shut up and stay home.
So far protection of the vulnerable has been a total failure. One of the hardest hit professions, and one that pretty much gets you into the vulnerable category, is medical workers.
The only useful way you stop people dying is to stamp out community spread.
The most vulnerable are clearly people in long term care homes. They make up almost 80% of the fatalities here in Ontario. There are a bunch of policies, procedures and funding that can make those homes safer.
The most vulnerable are clearly people in long term care homes. They make up almost 80% of the fatalities here in Ontario. There are a bunch of policies, procedures and funding that can make those homes safer.
From Vox: Why Georgia’s reopening hasn’t led to a surge in coronavirus cases (so far)
Their first suggested explanation (also implied in the headline) is that it’s still going to happen. Which ties in to the point I’ve been making earlier. The window of how long it takes from lifting restrictions until a surge is apparently now anywhere from a few days to months, which makes it impossible to assess whether any spike (if there is one) is connected to the lifting of restrictions.
Their third and fourth suggestions are that people are going to keep a lot of the restrictions voluntarily (as discussed earlier in this thread by H&R) may be valid, but would seem to argue that lifting the restrictions is the right thing to do.
At any rate, the history here is that most of these explanations are just after-the-fact rationalizations. When the governor in Georgia lifted the restrictions he was enormously criticized, and many people made dire predictions which do not seem to have happened for whatever reason. If you ask me, the 5th suggestion in the linked article is the most on point: we don’t really know or understand much about how this all works.
For sure. That’s hard to argue with. There’s anothertheory that seems a little far out to me because why would it weaken in some places but not others. But I thought I’d throw it out there anyway. Scientists in Italy think that the strain there is turning less lethal. The WHO doesn’t buy it. It still would be nice if it were true.
There will be more data a few weeks from now. The cities with the protests where people got together in massive numbers standing very close to each other should show whether getting together in massive numbers increases the cases in an appreciable way or not. The event has more of a definite timeline and the pictures of the people congregating are public. We don’t have to guess how many people showed up at a private establishment. We can see how many people showed up in a public place. People might argue that people came from outside the area to protest, and that may be somewhat true, but if there was a protest near to you, most people wouldn’t travel a far distance. And transportation was more difficult to find during this time as well.
FWIW, I happen to live in a community which was ravished by Covid in the second half of March and first half of April. Community doctors have estimated that about 30% of the population was infected, and about 0.1% of the population died. (The people doing local antibody testing say about 60% of these tests come back positive, but I think people who think they had it are more likely to get tested.) I personally probably know hundreds of people who were infected and several people who died.
Anyway, the population was initially shocked into strict compliance with social distancing guidelines, but after the epidemic faded in mid-April, the feeling took hold that we were pretty much done here, and compliance weakened consistently after that. At this point, there are still no large scale gatherings which would attract the attention of law enforcement, but in terms of personal contact, people are pretty much ignoring it for the most part (with the exception of older people or those with medical conditions). Kids are all playing together in the street, people are back to talking at arm’s length, and so on.
And the results are … nothing. The locals doctors say there has been a tiny trickle of new cases, but no major uptick, let alone a significant outbreak. I personally only know of one person who got infected since mid-April. A local EMT told me they haven’t gotten any Covid-related calls in weeks and weeks, after getting hundreds a week at the height. So it would tentatively appear that this community has achieved something along the lines of “herd immunity” based on an infection rate of about 30%.
One data point, anyway.
ravaged
It’s rather useless to assess your datapoint without a clue whereabouts you live.
Sorry to hear that.
Will you expecting that same kind of pattern for places like New York and New Jersey that were initially hit hard?
30% seems low for herd immunity from what I’ve read. It also seems like a high estimate considering that places like Sweden have a 7% infection rate without them locking down very much.
Do you think that the 30% of people in your community are the ones who would likely be spreading it to others while the other 70% don’t go out much or see too many people?
Several states including Texas, Arizona and Florida are seeing increases of cases after they have reopened.
Coronavirus cases spike in Texas, Arizona, Florida after reopening
Arizona’s former department of health director believes that the protests pose less health risks from coronavirus than opening clubs and other outdoor events. The article doesn’t really explain why.
Banner Health in Arizona is reaching 100% capacity in ICU beds. Banner Health is Arizona’s largest health care provider.
You shouldn’t be throwing around that “7% infected in Sweden” stat without noting it likely represents mid-April. It is undoubtedly higher now.
You shouldn’t be telling me what to post when you’re too lazy to link the stat yourself. The 7% is from the end of April. The reason I brought it up was that Sweden thought they were at 1/3 immunity at the time, similar to the estimate of 30% given in **FP’**s post.
Of course immunity will be higher than whenever it was measured if the cases are continuing to rise.
Just 7.3% of Stockholm had Covid-19 antibodies by end of April, study shows
You didn’t link it either. Wtf? Anyway, I will look for a link later but antibody testing seems to be most accurate after 2-3 weeks of symptom onset. So samples taken end of April/early May are showing the reality of mid/early April.