Too much then, too little now?

[Fretful_Porpentine]

@Do_Not_Taunt

I’ll upfront state that my understanding is that IFR without medical care is 3-4%, but with huge error bands because we don’t really know the I in IFR with any certainty. With medical care seems to be more around the 0.5% range, and it seems like we can keep the actual IFR to that as long as we can keep the curve flat. I am open to better information.

That sounds about right, from my understanding, but it’s not really essential to the point I was making, which is that popular perception of the fatality rate is generally lower than it was in March, both because the official estimates are lower and because people are less likely to engage in wild-spitball guessing.

[Voyager]

@Monocracy

Back in March, the health officials were saying that if the shutdown worked, then people would complain that the shutdown was unnecessary or too strict. And if people were saying “whew, it’s a good thing we shut down”, then the shutdown was too late. I bet they never thought that with this many deaths, people would still be complaining about the shutdown.

So, no, the shutdown was not too strict back then, and yes, things are opening up too quickly now.

In the Bay Area we shut down early, and I haven’t heard many complaints, possibly because we can compare ourselves to New York which shut down too late. California has about 1/3 the cases as New York.
People are still wearing masks.
It appears the new case rate is wildly different depending on the state, and some of it might be from government and the general consensus pooh-poohing mask wearing and social distancing.
I agree with you that the message we get from some parts of government is that too bad if 1,000 people die a day (may be more soon) but it doesn’t matter so long as you can go back to the bar without a mask.

[RTFirefly]

@Monocracy

Are people forgetting that over 100,000 Americans died in two months from this disease? And this was with the “unreasonable” shutdown. Over 1000 people dying per day unfortunately has become normalized, and many people act as if it’s no big deal.

I for one have been pissed as hell about this since April. I’d say more, but not in this forum.

[needscoffee]

@Dinsdale

Back in March, I caught a bit of grief both here and IRL, for questioning the reasonableness of some aspects of social distancing. I thought it made perfect sense to avoid certain activities, such as coming in close contact w/ large numbers of other people - especially in confined spaces. But I thought measures such as locking tennis courts ridiculous. I thought there was negligible - if any - risk in having another couple over for drinks, or a small group playing music in a large room. And I fully supported isolating those at risk.

Now, we are at “Phase 3” around here - whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, and whatever the hell science is supposed to be behind that. From my point of view, people are acting as tho all bets are off. There are large yard parties in my neighborhood, etc. And they unlocked the tennis courts and opened the golf courses! Not to mention unmasked protest gatherings.

Meanwhile, my position is pretty much the same. Avoid certain activities, such as coming in close contact w/ large numbers of other people …

I thought institutions and individuals were exercising extreme and unreasonable precautions then, and I think they are practicing irresponsible (or borderline irresponsible) activities now. Meanwhile - I don’t see what has changed - at least in terms of me and those I care for getting/transmitting the disease.

Wondering if anyone else feels similarly - or itf you would explain to me why I had my head up my ass then, now, or both!

You were the one arguing relentlessly early on that all your bandmates should be able to come over and jam because everyone seemed in good health and why should you have to cater to alarmists?

I think it’s obvious that for a lot of people, it’s best to have blanket rules and not leave things open to personal wishes. I personally saw nothing wrong with playing tennis, but there’s more involved than just hitting balls: traveling unnecessarily, encouraging others to hang out in parks, etc.

[Dinsdale]

@needscoffee

You were the one arguing relentlessly early on that all your bandmates should be able to come over and jam because everyone seemed in good health and why should you have to cater to alarmists?

I think it’s obvious that for a lot of people, it’s best to have blanket rules and not leave things open to personal wishes. I personally saw nothing wrong with playing tennis, but there’s more involved than just hitting balls: traveling unnecessarily, encouraging others to hang out in parks, etc.

Nice paraphrase. Which illustrates the difficulty of trying to communicating reasonably these days. By “all my bandmates”, I was referring to 3 healthy, relatively unsocial people, sitting in a large room. And I’d be shocked if I referred to “alarmists.” I perceived myself as confused and seeking answers/explanations. You perceive me as “arguing relentlessly”…

Not junior-modding at all - just stating that as a human being trying to communicate with other human beings, it is really bullshit when one person rephrases and exaggerates what the other person said/wrote in order to make one’s own position seem more reasonable. But certainly carry on however you wish.

I thought then that there was insufficient reason to completely shut down small stores and businesses, while allowing large ones to remain open. I thought the term “essential” horrendous meaningless doublespeak. I saw no reason why people ought not engage in limited, occasional, small group interactions. And no reason one shouldn’t go for a pleasure drive. I thought it misguided to lock local tennis courts…

At the same time, I perceived the challenges of running a restaurant safely. I saw plenty of sense in barring large gatherings, and lost any desire to attend a movie or sporting event, or engage in air travel. I was even quickly convinced of the merits of wearing masks in stores. My office was slow to close - I still do not understand why I am not allowed to even enter my office today - which would allow me to attend to certain work items that are languishing, at no risk to myself or others.

I still feel pretty much the same on all points.

[UltraVires]

@joebuck20

As I mentioned in one of the other threads, I think the big protests are going to make people complacent. For months, we’ve been told to avoid large gatherings, to avoid making outings unless really necessary, and to take a lot of precautions if we do have to go out. I’m afraid many folks who’ve been adhering to the guidelines, even if wearily, will look at footage of thousands marching in the streets, without epidemiologists making much of a fuss (or even in some cases endorsing the gatherings), and think that we’re in the clear, throwing caution to the wind.

And I’ve already started seeing a more carefree attitude. When I went to the grocery over the weekend, there seemed to be a lot fewer people wearing masks than there had been a week before.

Agreed. And I believe that allowing these protests feeds into the right wing narrative that this was a hoax/not as bad as it was made out to be. Telling everyone to close down their businesses, closing schools, closing summer camps and summer swimming pools because we must do the Responsible Thing and Make Sacrifices, but oh, there is a left wing mass protest in town? Well, we can make an exception for that.

It looks like the left really doesn’t believe it. If they did, they would have the same attitude about the protests: Do it later. We have to be cautious now. Have online gatherings. Email your representatives, etc. just like they told us how we could worship.

I mean for Christ’s sakes, Maryland even currently has guidelines that say no more than 10 people in a gathering, but for a protest, 100 is okay. Fucking really? So Covid-19 acts differently because of the purpose of a gathering?

And I remember a few weeks ago that people on this board were demanding that the anti-lockdown protesters be arrested, but are nowhere to be found when it comes to arresting BLM protestors.

Is this based on science or political viewpoint?

[needscoffee]

@Dinsdale

Nice paraphrase. Which illustrates the difficulty of trying to communicating reasonably these days. By “all my bandmates”, I was referring to 3 healthy, relatively unsocial people, sitting in a large room. And I’d be shocked if I referred to “alarmists.” I perceived myself as confused and seeking answers/explanations. You perceive me as “arguing relentlessly”…

Not junior-modding at all - just stating that as a human being trying to communicate with other human beings, it is really bullshit when one person rephrases and exaggerates what the other person said/wrote in order to make one’s own position seem more reasonable. But certainly carry on however you wish.

I thought then that there was insufficient reason to completely shut down small stores and businesses, while allowing large ones to remain open. I thought the term “essential” horrendous meaningless doublespeak. I saw no reason why people ought not engage in limited, occasional, small group interactions. And no reason one shouldn’t go for a pleasure drive. I thought it misguided to lock local tennis courts…

At the same time, I perceived the challenges of running a restaurant safely. I saw plenty of sense in barring large gatherings, and lost any desire to attend a movie or sporting event, or engage in air travel. I was even quickly convinced of the merits of wearing masks in stores. My office was slow to close - I still do not understand why I am not allowed to even enter my office today - which would allow me to attend to certain work items that are languishing, at no risk to myself or others.

I still feel pretty much the same on all points.

I guess we remember it differently. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=891890

[DSeid]

@needscoffee

I guess we remember it differently. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=891890

Yeah reading the link Dinsdale describes his position then pretty accurately and you misrepresent it horribly.
The sad thing is that here is is three months past that op and we are still not much better informed to the meat of the op back then and now.

Conclusively knowing how much of the spread would be decreased with a focus on what his op then referred to as crowds and excessive contact vs how much more added by much more stringent lockdowns and things like not allowing a few kids to shoot hoops together outside and not allowing people to go fishing is still not firmly decided. FWIW the current evidence is leaning to the side that most of the spread occurs at very specific sorts of superspreader events.

According to mounting data, as little as 10 percent to 20 percent of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 may be responsible for around 80 percent of transmission. On the flip side, a stunning 70 percent of infected people may not pass the virus to anyone … Superspreading events tend to occur in specific settings—large social gatherings, bustling nightclubs, crammed workplaces. Instances where one apparently highly contagious person can spread it to many others in short order.

“It’s very difficult to identify an individual superspreader,” Barry Bloom, a distinguished professor of public health at Harvard, tells Ars. “It is not difficult to identify events that bring a very large number of people together in a small, enclosed space.” …

OTOH a recent article doesn’t claim that other social distancing measures do nothing but the data they present demonstrates that of all the interventions done the one that actually has the evidence that it works is the cheap and simple one of wearing face coverings. The curves, they claim, were not impacted by other measures until face covering was included.

Not saying either is right or wrong but three months later and there still is NOT “clear agreement as to the relative effect of various specific actions/interactions in transmitting the disease.”

The question in my mind is not “too much” or “too little” but the right ones … it is knowing which actions are the biggest value of prevention for costs (in the global meaning of costs, inclusive of morbidity, mortality, and quality of life impacts, of the intervention) and which have fairly little, if any impact, at large costs.

Some articles for general consumption try to place different activities in some context of relative risk, by some individual opinions. For what that is worth.

What degree of risk is worth taking, why, when, and how, is another discussion.

[needscoffee]

@DSeid

Yeah reading the link Dinsdale describes his position then pretty accurately and you misrepresent it horribly.

Fine, remove my word “relentlessly”.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=22195310&postcount=1
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=22195465&postcount=8
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=22195491&postcount=12
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=22196918&postcount=77
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=22197242&postcount=95