Quote:
People forget that the goal at the start was "flatten the curve", not "completely eliminate a brand new virus in 4 months". the curve has been successfully flattened, and despite some friction regarding schools starting back up, it's been a pretty cohesive response from everyone in power. |
Quote:
|
See which NYC neighborhoods have the highest rates of COVID antibodies
https://imgs.6sqft.com/wp-content/up...7851267908.png Quote:
Quote:
1. Courtesy of NYC Health Department 2. 6sqft |
Here is the interactive map data: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/...a-testing.page
1. Antibody Testing by ZIP Code of Residence 2. Antibody Testing Rates 3. Antibody Tests 4. Virus (Diagnostic) Tests (People tested / Percent of people with positive results |
https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus...o-kidding.html
Cuomo’s coronavirus rules: No dancing, no cornhole, no karaoke, no kidding syracuse ^ | 08/20/2020 | Michelle Breidenbach There is no dancing allowed in New York’s bars and restaurants, even at a wedding reception, according to the New York State Liquor Authority. To control the spread of the coronavirus, Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s liquor authority has also specifically banned darts, pool, cornhole, karaoke and exotic dancing. … “I have to say: Who’s asking the why?” Palladino said. “Where are these regulations coming from? We know that our cases are declining, yet we continue to come out with more and more regulations, putting a tourniquet on businesses.” ... |
Is it not obvious that if you want your businesses to stay open long-term, that you don't make them a hotbed of transmission like Texas and Arizona did with a complete free-for-all opening? Would people/business owners prefer a few weeks or a month of business as usual and then complete shutdown again?
|
IDK when this was filmed, looks like April or maybe March prior to the pandemic really going in full swing, but kinda makes one miss the hustle and bustle.
Make full screen, make 4k or 8k, and use mouse to move around. |
^ Nice find!
We will be back to that some day, and even better :tup: |
Quote:
We have lots of people pulling their hair out about irresponsible "kids" (i.e. 20 and 30 somethings) partying and ruining it for everyone. We are nowhere near 100% hospital utilization. Nobody really knows the personal details of the party crowd, and the identified cases get isolated, but many people assume social interaction -> covid cases -> deaths (except BLM protests). There's a lot of moralizing, this being Canada. 80% of our deaths were in care homes but the dominant narrative seems to be that the risk is even across the population (push this and people will tell you that deaths in younger people are lower but we just don't know what else might happen to them in the long run). We're still not doing randomized testing from what I can tell so the numbers are just based on who shows up to be tested and contact tracing. PCR seems somewhat available and antibody or T-cell screening less so. The dominant attitude seems to be that we should be in semi-lockdown indefinitely. School reopenings are borderline and controversial. Few people seem to talk about the cost of lockdown policies or the endgame, which I guess is assumed to be that a vaccine will allow us to reopen. Policy seems to have gradually shifted from keeping hospital utilization under 100% to getting cases down as low as possible. It feels like we did pretty well here around March-April, maybe partly by accident (with us being farther from NYC and Europe), but it seems like May-August has been mostly a holding pattern. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
In BC we actually had a problem of low hospital utilization. Many were bumped from hospitals and then the covid patients did not show up in sufficient number to bring up utilization. So we simply lost out on hospital use (surgeries rescheduled and so on). That will have a cost in health and lives. The key observation is that until there is a vaccine it doesn't matter much what we do to curb infections. Our options are some mix of being locked down and getting covid. I don't think the costs of the lockdown are being fully accounted for nor do I think there is much appreciation for the effect the lockdown and government and media messaging has on behaviour (e.g. some people say behaviour would be the same no matter what). I think we will have a vaccine in 2021, not 2024, but I am not sure a ~12 month slow burn or mix of lockdowns would have been worth it instead of just living normally while the high-risk demographic alone does a lockdown. I don't think it's quite true that the point of the lockdown was to save 5 lives. It saved lives equivalent to the difference between the deaths we saw and what the deaths would have been without a lockdown. Potentially thousands of deaths. It's worth pointing out however that early modeling predicted vastly more deaths than manifested even in places with less severe lockdowns yet authorities seem to be very conservative in moving to more relaxed policies, and people are not changing their behaviour much. If people can go from talking about 3-7% fatality rates to 0.3% without much changing behaviour or policy-wise are we rationally balancing costs and benefits? Personally I haven't been out to a restaurant in 6 months or so now. Not sure that is rational. I am in my 30's with no health conditions. Yet it does not seem like a good proposition if I have to wear a mask to go out, register my name, then maybe get asked to isolate for 14 days if there was simply another infected person somewhere in the restaurant, etc. That is the current protocol. Right now in Canada it doesn't seem like testing cuts down on the 14-day window. In Nova Scotia they are saying returning out-of-province students need to isolate for 14 days AND test. There's no mention of shortening the isolation period after negative results. I suspect part of what's happening is lots of people are scared of liability or blame now and that's driving decisions more than anything else. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
People will point out that Sweden had a relatively large number of deaths but their absolute number of deaths was low and the people who died mostly had a low life expectancy. The direct covid deaths have had almost no impact on life expectancy there (I worked it out based on life expectancy by age and it's on the order of days of life expectancy lost). Sweden has a population of 10 million and as of August 18, 27 people under age 40 have died there. This is remarkable yet it's hard to get most Canadians to admit that this has implications for how covid should be handled (i.e. maybe society-wide one-size-fits-all policies are not the way to go). I think a lot of the enjoyable stuff that has been cut out during the pandemic like events and dates and visits with family is what makes life worth living. I don't think it is rational to live in purgatory for 1-2% of your expected lifespan to avoid a 0.2% chance of dying. I understand why authorities here locked down in March when less was known about the virus but I don't think we have pivoted in a useful way as more information has become available, particularly during the May to August period. It feels like we are stuck in May, at least here in BC. |
Quote:
The number WITHOUT lockdowns would be dramatically higher. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
When you look at large populations, there are typically outliers in medical outcomes, unlucky people who suffer dangerous or deadly effects. It does not make sense to craft public health policy around these anecdotes or corner cases. I think if anything around here there's been a media bias toward promoting the idea that kids are at risk of these rare Kawasaki disease like conditions, etc. It's telling that when the media talk about children they tend to switch gears and rely on anecdotes. This is fear-based reporting. Great for ad revenues, bad basis for public policy. We are many months into the pandemic now and we can look at the data from countries that followed different policies. For example Sweden kept daycares and schools open and they had a total of 1 death under age 20 (source). With data like that, it's clear that closing down schools would not have been in the best interests of young children. Yet many schools in North America remain closed. Children will pay the cost for that in terms of delayed education and increased abuse. |
You think closing schools is about protecting kids? This thread is one misconception after another.
Closing schools is mostly about protecting families, teachers, and societal infection rates overall. Especially since evidence is mounting that kids are extremely efficient Covid spreaders. |
Quote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/o...t-disease.html https://www.statnews.com/2020/07/27/...-heart-damage/ https://www.pennmedicine.org/updates...-heart-disease Yeah, I'd like my heart to remain functional and not equivalent to someone 60 years older than I. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 5:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.