SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   How Is Covid-19 Impacting Life in Your City? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=242036)

iheartthed Oct 6, 2020 9:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9065627)
I'm talking about now, not March or April.

Millions of people are doing just fine having had Covid now, and we have real data to look at to see who tends to get seriously ill and who tends not to. The CDC has this data. That wasn't available in March.

This is how science works. People who claim to be "informed" by science are either informed by science, or they are just talking nonsense.

Public policy is set based on data, when done correctly.

What policy does any state currently have implemented that is beyond CDC guidelines?

JManc Oct 6, 2020 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9065606)

We are either a data driven society in earnest or we are simply playing lip service to it.

The problem is how we are fed the data; it's from the media not so much from the horse's mouth. AKA the medical/ scientific community so if you're a CNN/MSNBC watcher, we are undergoing a civilization ending plague and we should expect to wear masks indefinitely and treat friends and family as Typhoid Mary while Fox viewers think all this is just the sniffles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001 (Post 9065621)

I don't personally agree with that (at least, not to the same extent as some of the others here [caveat: I'm overweight]), but it only encourages the monstrosity of thought toward people with health/weight issues.

Guys like 10023 are finding this all a massive inconvenience and dismiss the seriousness of it because it may not affect them personally.

someone123 Oct 6, 2020 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 9065767)
The problem is how we are fed the data; it's from the media not so much from the horse's mouth. AKA the medical/ scientific community

I agree that the news media have done a poor job but the data's pretty accessible, e.g.:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...scenarios.html

Probability of death given covid infection by age, best case to worst case range in CDC models:

0-19 years: 0.002 to 0.01%
20-49 years: 0.007 to 0.03%
50-69 years: 0.25 to 1%
70+ years: 2.8 to 9.3%

Ratio of estimated infections to reported case counts: 6x - 24x

I think part of the problem is that the spread in risk is extreme and a bit hard to relate to. Also, known case counts have only picked up a small percentage of true cases (with some countries probably picking up 1% or 0.1% of cases because they are testing very few people). Another problem is that most people don't have a good sense of baseline risk. If you're 80+, it's about a 10% fatality rate per year without covid.

JManc Oct 7, 2020 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 9065776)
I agree that the news media have done a poor job but the data's pretty accessible, e.g.:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...scenarios.html

Probability of death given covid infection by age, best case to worst case range in CDC models:

0-19 years: 0.002 to 0.01%
20-49 years: 0.007 to 0.03%
50-69 years: 0.25 to 1%
70+ years: 2.8 to 9.3%

Ratio of estimated infections to reported case counts: 6x - 24x

I think part of the problem is that the spread in risk is extreme and a bit hard to relate to. Also, known case counts have only picked up a small percentage of true cases (with some countries probably picking up 1% or 0.1% of cases because they are testing very few people). Another problem is that most people don't have a good sense of baseline risk. If you're 80+, it's about a 10% fatality rate per year without covid.

True but many either are not interested in combing through the data and just want someone else to spell it out for them or they can't interpret the data. Like you said, most people don't have a basis of reference.

Acajack Oct 7, 2020 12:42 AM

Posted this in the Canadian forum:

I don't live in a place that has over the top friendliness but early on in the pandemic even the level of friendliness with strangers I was used to here had diminished a lot.

Six months later I can say that it has not returned.

There is a level of caution vis-à-vis strangers in almost all situations that I had never observed here before 2020.

In some ways it kinda feels like a U.S. metro area with a high crime rate where people never truly let their guard down. Everyone just seems a bit more on edge and subtly suspicious of others.

I wonder if the way most people used to be in this place (and I assume many other places have undergone the same) will ever go back to the way it was.

Acajack Oct 7, 2020 1:36 AM

One casualty of COVID-19 might be the French-inspired Quebec custom of kissing on both cheeks. Pretty much everyone does (or did) it here as an informal greeting, whether of French origin or not.

It's completely disappeared since March.

10023 Oct 7, 2020 8:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 9065566)
Thing is that we know about Strep and Mono, we still know relatively little about Covid. I am not for shutting things down; quite the opposite actually but 10023's assertion that over 70's should be isolated indefinitely so he can go back to the gym and that anyone under 40 has nothing to worry about. Again, there's a lot of fat/ out of shape under 40's who are inching toward all kinds of health problems later in life and what if the virus rears its ugly head in 15-20 years with some unknown issue(s)?

Then isolate the morbidly obese under 40s too. I can’t say I would miss them.

The rest is an overabundance of caution bordering on paranoia. People are far too scared of this thing and it’s ruined this year. It can’t be allowed to ruin next.

10023 Oct 7, 2020 8:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 9065882)
Posted this in the Canadian forum:

I don't live in a place that has over the top friendliness but early on in the pandemic even the level of friendliness with strangers I was used to here had diminished a lot.

Six months later I can say that it has not returned.

There is a level of caution vis-à-vis strangers in almost all situations that I had never observed here before 2020.

In some ways it kinda feels like a U.S. metro area with a high crime rate where people never truly let their guard down. Everyone just seems a bit more on edge and subtly suspicious of others.

I wonder if the way most people used to be in this place (and I assume many other places have undergone the same) will ever go back to the way it was.

That would be a bigger tragedy than the deaths, IMO.

10023 Oct 7, 2020 8:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9065424)
Because it's age discrimination.

We cannot ban somebody from a business based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. It's not enforceable.

It is NOT age discrimination!

That’s like saying it’s gender discrimination to give mammograms to women but not to men. Or how a business decline to serve a pregnant woman alcohol. Or an adult under the age of 21, for that matter.

isaidso Oct 7, 2020 2:19 PM

My life has changed but not drastically. I spend less money as I'm only in a retail store (usually for groceries) maybe 5-6 times/month. I've been to a restaurant twice since March and both times were outside the city in an area with zero cases. So I've saved money there too. I don't miss restaurants all that much. My diet was very good to begin with but has become even healthier now that I'm making every meal myself. I have more free time so I've been exercising more and play catch with 2 different people on a regular basis. It's nice not being indoors at a gym and won't be going back till community spread goes to zero and stays there for at least 3 weeks.

The big difference has been my interaction with strangers. I physical distance 100% of the time (2-4m depending on circumstances) but am extra careful around high risk people: under 40 and children. It's a bit of a nuisance having to keep an eye on people constantly so they don't get too close but it's almost second nature now. Some of them are pretty rude and inconsiderate but what else is new? I try not to let people like that get me down. I just ignore them, say nothing, walk around, keep going. The only significant negative has been sports. I miss football and going to games.

I was working at a university lab that conducted research on infection but that's been put on hold temporarily. A large part of our study involved face to face time with participants. We also did blood draws, throat/rectal swabs, and took urine. The whole thing became unworkable with COVID. We're governed by science in everything we do while the university abides by science/fact based pandemic protocols. It wasn't even a question whether we would ignore protocols. Research is bound by strict 'research ethics' so we follow pandemic protocols.... no exceptions. That carries over to my personal life 24/7.

iheartthed Oct 7, 2020 2:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123 (Post 9065776)
I think part of the problem is that the spread in risk is extreme and a bit hard to relate to. Also, known case counts have only picked up a small percentage of true cases (with some countries probably picking up 1% or 0.1% of cases because they are testing very few people). Another problem is that most people don't have a good sense of baseline risk. If you're 80+, it's about a 10% fatality rate per year without covid.

I think the data we have so far is also not representative of the general population. The early outbreak was heavily biased to the elderly in the U.S. Closing down schools in the early spring did a lot to limit the spread in the under 20 age group. Since the mid-summer the spread has been trending younger, so we will find out how kids are affected.

But mortality rates aren't the only thing to worry about. A friend of mine caught COVID in March and may have permanently lost her sense of taste and smell. She's mid-30s, thin, had no previous health issues, and has otherwise fully recovered. Her doctors told her that if it doesn't return within a year then it's probably gone forever.

the urban politician Oct 7, 2020 2:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9066068)
Then isolate the morbidly obese under 40s too. I can’t say I would miss them.

^ I've had many a good conversation (and drink) with the "morbidly obese under 40" crowd so lets not knock them

the urban politician Oct 7, 2020 2:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9066071)
It is NOT age discrimination!

That’s like saying it’s gender discrimination to give mammograms to women but not to men. Or how a business decline to serve a pregnant woman alcohol. Or an adult under the age of 21, for that matter.

Sorry, but I don't buy your argument.

A man can get a mammogram if he's silly enough to do so, but his insurance probably wouldn't cover it, and he would have to convince his doctor to order it

Businesses are able to decline giving alcohol to pregnant women? I wasn't aware of this. But that's still not gender discrimination. They are declining giving her alcohol to protect her fetus, not because she is a female.

And banning giving alcohol to people under 21 is the law and I have a hard time accepting that this counts as age discrimination. You might as well then say that not being allowed to run for President when you're under 35 is age discrimination as well. It doesn't work that way....

10023 Oct 7, 2020 3:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9066208)
Sorry, but I don't buy your argument.

A man can get a mammogram if he's silly enough to do so, but his insurance probably wouldn't cover it, and he would have to convince his doctor to order it

Businesses are able to decline giving alcohol to pregnant women? I wasn't aware of this. But that's still not gender discrimination. They are declining giving her alcohol to protect her fetus, not because she is a female.

And banning giving alcohol to people under 21 is the law and I have a hard time accepting that this counts as age discrimination. You might as well then say that not being allowed to run for President when you're under 35 is age discrimination as well. It doesn't work that way....

Businesses can definitely decline to serve pregnant women, on the grounds that serving them presents a risk to their health. This restriction on the elderly in most bars and restaurants would be on the same grounds.

How is telling people under 21 (at least 18-20 year olds, who are legally adults and able to vote) that they can’t drink not age discrimination? This again was ostensibly decided on health grounds.

If you need to make it a law, make it a law. A local ordinance will be fine. Restaurants are not allowed to admit or serve people over 65 unless they comply with certain requirements (social distancing, masks, only table service, early closure, etc). And I’m sure some restaurants would do all of those things in order to cater to older customers. Others would not and would go back to being places that are actually enjoyable for younger customers (and able to make money). It’s so obvious.

MonkeyRonin Oct 7, 2020 6:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9066251)
If you need to make it a law, make it a law. A local ordinance will be fine. Restaurants are not allowed to admit or serve people over 65 unless they comply with certain requirements (social distancing, masks, only table service, early closure, etc). And I’m sure some restaurants would do all of those things in order to cater to older customers. Others would not and would go back to being places that are actually enjoyable for younger customers (and able to make money). It’s so obvious.


I'm guessing the restrictions on restaurants in the UK are fairly similar to here - ie. reduced capacity limits indoors, max 6 people per table, staff & customers required to wear masks when not seated.

Assuming that's the case, what exactly is preventing it from being any less enjoyable of an experience than usual? Unless you regularly dine in big groups, the only one that even impacts you directly are the mask requirements - and just how precious and sheltered must one be for it to cause such a great, unjust ordeal to have to wear a piece of cloth over their face for a few minutes?

The capacity limits on the other hand may pose a challenge when restaurant margins are already so slim; but, just from having talked with people in the industry, it sounds like many bars & restaurants are having a hard time even just reaching their reduced capacity limits. Demand itself is way down.

That said, governments absolutely should be doing more to support & protect small businesses rather than the current approach of doing absolutely nothing, which most seem to be taking.

iheartthed Oct 7, 2020 6:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9066251)
Businesses can definitely decline to serve pregnant women, on the grounds that serving them presents a risk to their health. This restriction on the elderly in most bars and restaurants would be on the same grounds.

How is telling people under 21 (at least 18-20 year olds, who are legally adults and able to vote) that they can’t drink not age discrimination? This again was ostensibly decided on health grounds.

If you need to make it a law, make it a law. A local ordinance will be fine. Restaurants are not allowed to admit or serve people over 65 unless they comply with certain requirements (social distancing, masks, only table service, early closure, etc). And I’m sure some restaurants would do all of those things in order to cater to older customers. Others would not and would go back to being places that are actually enjoyable for younger customers (and able to make money). It’s so obvious.

I don't know what the law in the U.K. is, but you should really learn about protected classes before continuing your asinine arguments about U.S. policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

the urban politician Oct 7, 2020 6:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9066251)
Businesses can definitely decline to serve pregnant women, on the grounds that serving them presents a risk to their health. This restriction on the elderly in most bars and restaurants would be on the same grounds.

Businesses can decline to serve pregnant women alcohol, yes. But they can't decline to serve pregnant women at all. They can't bar them from entry. They can't decline to serve them a glass of Coke or something. Therein lies the difference between what you are proposing about the elderly (don't let them enter at all) versus your pregnant woman scenario.

Quote:

How is telling people under 21 (at least 18-20 year olds, who are legally adults and able to vote) that they can’t drink not age discrimination? This again was ostensibly decided on health grounds.
I think most of the civil rights concerns regarding age discrimination have to do with being too young, not being too old. After all, every young person will eventually get old enough to drink. But being "too old" is a one way, dead end street.

Stay Stoked Brah Oct 7, 2020 7:31 PM

It's against the law to NOT serve a pregnant woman an alcoholic drink. It sounds crazy, but that is a form of discrimination and it is against the law.

iheartthed Oct 7, 2020 8:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9066609)
Businesses can decline to serve pregnant women alcohol, yes. But they can't decline to serve pregnant women at all. They can't bar them from entry. They can't decline to serve them a glass of Coke or something. Therein lies the difference between what you are proposing about the elderly (don't let them enter at all) versus your pregnant woman scenario.

As mentioned above, in most places it is not legal to deny women alcohol on basis of (perceived) pregnancy (and might be unconstitutional where ever there is an explicit law). Similarly, a barista at Starbucks can't refuse to serve a pregnant woman coffee with caffeine.

Stay Stoked Brah Oct 7, 2020 8:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9066683)
As mentioned above, in most places it is not legal to deny women alcohol on basis of (perceived) pregnancy (and might be unconstitutional where ever there is an explicit law). Similarly, a barista at Starbucks can't refuse to serve a pregnant woman coffee with caffeine.

The sale of tobacco products to pregnant women must occur as well.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.