Covid Discussion

[kitzbuel]

Tricky situation, indeed. Do you shut down athletics because your handful of high donors can’t go to games? Maybe we need a handful of Covid-19 protection suites for these folks.

Maybe give them an optional high-quality stream and charge others for the stream. Season ticket holders would get bandwidth priority.

Interestingly, NBA is looking at bringing all its teams to Orlando and playing out the season/playoffs on the ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex at Walt Disney World Resort according to Seth Davis on his The Athletic podcast.

[JPtheBeasta]

There was little evidence for mask wear prior to Covid-19. There are newer studies on both sides of the equation. Necessary mask use by non-sick persons in the general public is controversial for good reasons.

[kitzbuel]

There was little evidence for mask wear prior to Covid-19. There are newer studies on both sides of the equation. Necessary mask use by non-sick persons in the general public is controversial for good reasons.

I will wear a mask at stores or if in close contact with non-family members, but I don't wear them when I run or cycle, it is too hard to breathe. That is a good technique for simulating training at altitude, though.

[JPtheBeasta]

I will wear a mask at stores or if in close contact with non-family members, but I don't wear them when I run or cycle, it is too hard to breathe. That is a good technique for simulating training at altitude, though.

That article above should make you feel better about exercising outdoors without one. (The low exposure time conversation)

[Markburn1]

Your list seamlessly mixes 2 local political policies with 2 virus biology predictions or viral mitigation methods.

I agree (and think 99% of people would agree) that were many poor political choices made at nearly all level of USA politics and our regulatory agencies (FDA/CDC) as well as in most other countries. Up through the second week in February, Trump was still effusively praising China's leader and China's response, and saying this would soon disappear. He wasn't alone in such sentiments.

I agree (and think 99% of people would agree) that initial health agency suggestions to not bother with masks or which minimized airborne human spread were counterproductive to fighting COVID. How much of his was based on well-intentioned ignorance vs unethical political calculations, I don't know.

NYC, as part of NY state, must follow that state's constitution which requires the state government to house and home (with a bed) everyone in the state every night. It's a foolish political policy, in my opinion, but leaves the sitting governor with few options when it comes to finding a willing facility to accept a recovering homeless person or recovering senior citizen with COVID. With NYC hospitals at or near full in April, recovering patients had to be discharged and there were not step-down severity clinics willing or able to accept these folks.

Was 1.7 million American deaths (over a time horizon of years) really incorrect as a worst-case scenario? With no lockdowns, large gathering bans, or major social distancing or masking, what percentage of the country do you think would get infected in 24 months from March 2020? If it's half the country and there's an infected death rate of 1%, that is 1.7million deaths. I don't think we'll end up nearly that high, but I hardly see it as an unreasonable or baseless "worst case scenario".

-----------------

There's a kind of nihilism at hand among many who are having their initial predictions and worldview challenged by the state of reality today. An attitudinal fallback to universal distrust when the median stat or trend line isn't what they would have expected.

"We don't know many things, so I don't trust any data"
"Some were prominently wrong so now all the stats are crooked, all the viral research is wrong, we don't know enough to make any conclusions"

I'm a skeptical person and sympathetic to some of this worldview, but you must ask yourself if it's selective:

If COVID had been far less deadly than the media first predicted, and Trump's predictions domestically and faith in China's leadership had proven well-founded, would you still be equally as skeptical of any stats showing a hypothetical low transmission and very few deaths? Or would you more easily believe those hypothetical low stats produced by the same agencies, universities, testing systems, etc that you now doubt?

If an Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, or (Insert any team you hate here) presidential administration had been in charge right now, and had publicly downplayed the threat, how much more would you believe the accuracy of current high death counts or possibly higher deaths from all-cause mortality increases, if you knew that such tragedy would be politically blamable on "the other team" which you previously disliked?

To be skeptical is to be wise. To be selectively skeptical is to be... human? And for the record I am not immune from this selectivity.

Two things. The initial model that most all of the political decisions were made included mitigation efforts including social distancing and predicted your 1.7 to 2.2 million deaths.

The political calculations of the team out of power included accusations of racism for banning flights from China, encouragements to visit restaurants in Chinatown, admonishments for suggesting European travel was not smart and all manner of “Don’t panic, this is nothing.” Lots of revisionist history going on.

Neither “ team” got it all right or anywhere near. Suggesting anyone could have done better with the available information is a fool’s game.

[bballbeachbum]

[QUOTE=Markburn1;1519512Suggesting anyone could have done better with the available information is a fool’s game.[/QUOTE]

too wide a brush stroke seems to me. yes, difficult calls, but some appear to have listened to the experts while others did not. Nothing revisionist about it, just different calls made with the same data

https://www.propublica.org/article/t...-as-california

[bballbeachbum]

re. masks, I wear one to protect my fellow citizens, not to protect myself; I wear it so I don't spread it if I have it, not so I don't get it. The data is pretty clear on that. So when folks are out in those situations with no mask, they aren't being brave and risking their own health, lol; they are putting others at risk with fake bravado.

Let's say I think my freedom includes driving 100mph, but since it endangers the freedoms of others, there are restrictions on my speed. Same with driving drunk. Same with polluting waterways up river; if my freedoms put others at risk, there are restrictions. It's not a new thought. I can't just go grab a woman to express my freedom becasue it infringes on hers. I could literally go on and on.

But the leadership on this was so divisive that not wearing a mask is somehow about freedom...what a sad joke. reveals a basic lack of understanding about why to wear a mask seems to me, and the total politicization of it.

and before you start, I've been for reopening for some time...but not stupid and uninformed as if this is about freedom. Is freedom ordering meat plant workers back to infested sites? Is it authorizing warrantless spying on US citizens? Now that stuff is about freedom in my humble opinion

[LTownZag]

Two things. The initial model that most all of the political decisions were made included mitigation efforts including social distancing and predicted your 1.7 to 2.2 million deaths.

The political calculations of the team out of power included accusations of racism for banning flights from China, encouragements to visit restaurants in Chinatown, admonishments for suggesting European travel was not smart and all manner of “Don’t panic, this is nothing.” Lots of revisionist history going on.

Neither “ team” got it all right or anywhere near. Suggesting anyone could have done better with the available information is a fool’s game.

And not suggesting that there could be anyone (out of 300 million) who could have done better than Trump and his team isn't a fool's game?

I definitely think *somebody* could have done better than our national status quo even given the limited info. Look to New Zealand, Australia, Greece, South Korea, Germany, etc. Or simply take your current most favored governor, imagine them as president or ambassador to China, or head of the CDC or FDA, and extrapolate from there. I have a hard time imaging that the median republican governor or senator wouldn't have done better.

At no point did I say or imply that either conventional political left-right team got it all, or even mostly right. The "team" that got it right more than anyone were the smart silicon valley venture capitalists, nerdy tech disagreeable coder types, iconoclast economists, and others who make their living thinking exponentially and finding phenomena that begin small and have the traits to grow huge.

Mark, what was the model (name? source?) predicting 1.7-2.2million domestic deaths even with social distancing mitigation? I'd love to go back and read about it.

[ZagaZags]

Dr. Fauci Says Staying Closed Too Long Could Cause Irreversible Damage, But Urges States To Take ‘Very Significant Precautions’

[sonuvazag]

Dr. Fauci Says Staying Closed Too Long Could Cause Irreversible Damage, But Urges States To Take ‘Very Significant Precautions’

That's basically what I believe. Fauci has been on point the whole time and he says very positive things about his Jesuit education which is an extra plus in my book.

[kitzbuel]

re. masks, I wear one to protect my fellow citizens, not to protect myself; I wear it so I don't spread it if I have it, not so I don't get it. The data is pretty clear on that. So when folks are out in those situations with no mask, they aren't being brave and risking their own health, lol; they are putting others at risk with fake bravado.

Let's say I think my freedom includes driving 100mph, but since it endangers the freedoms of others, there are restrictions on my speed. Same with driving drunk. Same with polluting waterways up river; if my freedoms put others at risk, there are restrictions. It's not a new thought. I can't just go grab a woman to express my freedom becasue it infringes on hers. I could literally go on and on.

But the leadership on this was so divisive that not wearing a mask is somehow about freedom...what a sad joke. reveals a basic lack of understanding about why to wear a mask seems to me, and the total politicization of it.

and before you start, I've been for reopening for some time...but not stupid and uninformed as if this is about freedom. Is freedom ordering meat plant workers back to infested sites? Is it authorizing warrantless spying on US citizens? Now that stuff is about freedom in my humble opinion

Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LTownZag]

Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bballbeachbum - excellent post.

[Markburn1]

https://youtu.be/Fn8MxJx_erk

[willandi]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/coronaviru...ve_twopack_hed

"12:50 p.m.: New York sports teams can train again
New York professional sports leagues can begin spring training, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced on Sunday.

That includes teams and athletes part of MLB, the NBA, WNBA, NFL, NHL, U.S. Tennis Association and Major League Soccer.

The teams must follow appropriate health protocols, the governor said.

Last week, Cuomo encouraged major sports teams in the state to reopen without fans, a point he repeated at Sunday's daily press briefing.

"I believe sports can come back without having people in the stadium and in the arena," Cuomo said. "Work out the economics if you can. We want people to be able to watch sports, to the extent people are staying home. It gives people something to do and is a return to normalcy."

Most live sports have been shut down since March due to the coronavirus pandemic. Last Sunday, NASCAR held its first race since lockdown measures began in South Carolina.

New York continues to reopen its economy this week. Campgrounds can reopen on Monday, followed by veterinarian offices on Tuesday, Cuomo said.

The mid-Hudson region and Long Island are still on track to reopen Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively, the governor said.

There were 109 daily deaths in the state from COVID-19 in the last 24 hours, Cuomo said Sunday."

[MDABE80]

Beach says "But the leadership on this was so divisive that not wearing a mask is somehow about freedom...what a sad joke. reveals a basic lack of understanding about why to wear a mask seems to me, and the total politicization of it." I f you have something somewhere that confirms this, I would be surprised. I don't see division from leadership ( I do see whatever "leadership" you're referring to being attacked incessantly by majority of media) but NOBODY I've seen says not wearing a mask is about freedom...……<--this is where my comment on Beach's post stops.

_---------> this is where a new general comment begins...Everyone I know of recommends distancing and masks......and nobody's said don't wear a mask. Almost universally leadership and anyone with a brain has said wear masks! Where did you get this idea??I have seen statements to the effect wherein" you do not HAVE to wear a mask".....and you don't. Never yet have I seen the grotesque idea that mixes politics with mask wearing. Maybe there some confusion over reopening the country for business and mask wearing. Media's made that a political item. "you care about money more than health" lol.....

WEAR a mask! But there are 8 states who've done nothing and they do have low low infection and death rates (for whatever death rates mean in these confusing data sets) . Most people don't require commands from on on high to wear a mask in an infectious environment. Just common sense. No offense intended but I had to drop a note on this one.