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)

JManc Oct 9, 2020 9:18 PM

Social distancing is destroying how we interact with people and it's only been six months. Another six months of this shit and we'll be a society of social introverts and awkward around people.

Acajack Oct 9, 2020 9:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 9068987)
Social distancing is destroying how we interact with people and it's only been six months. Another six months of this shit and we'll be a society of social introverts and awkward around people.

I am torn between this and the urge to do the right thing on this one.

We tease 10023 a lot for being self-absorbed (and I often do it too!) but on this he - and you and others - do make valid points.

Pedestrian Oct 9, 2020 9:28 PM

I so enjoy reading the whining and crying over the terrible privation of COVID and imagining how this generation would have coped with, say, WW II or the Depression.

One difference is we kind of know when this will end: We WILL have vaccines and effective drugs by the end of the year although probably not enough to give them to everybody. That time may come 3 to 6 months later. A year from now, COVID limitations imposed by government will probably be over but I suspect it will take another year or two before a lot of people really feel comfortable with indoor dining or attending an indoor entertainment event, whether high culture, popular culture or sports. It will be allowed though and those of you who really feel deprived will probably be able to indulge all you want.

We may indeed have some residua of the type JManc implies. Some people have always wanted "their space" preserved and now more are likely too. Some people have never liked crowds and now more are likely to avoid them for a long time to come. There may be some benefits to them personally in that other diseases like colds and flu are transmitted much as COVID is and taking COVID style measures should reduce your chances of catching those as well.

the urban politician Oct 9, 2020 9:30 PM

Throw me in there as well as being 100% convinced that we are overdoing it.

Except for masking and banning large crowds. Those are sensible policies.

Pedestrian Oct 9, 2020 9:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 9068995)
We tease 10023 a lot for being self-absorbed (and I often do it too!) but on this he - and you and others - do make valid points.

The valid point is that government has too often been illogical and irrational on this one, sometimes cheered on by the "scientists" who have a narrow vision on the epidemiology of the virus and ignore the consequences, intended and unintended of efforts to control it.

For example, I question the point or value ocf curfews. Why is someone more at risk or dangerous at 11 PM than at 9:30. It depends what they are doing at that hour and most of the things they might do that are risky are themselves banned. If someone craves a midnight stroll, why not?

Michigan seems to have been an example of whacky restriction run riot. But it isn't alone.

I've long said if I were told I literally had to stay at home and couldn't go out, I would ignore such a Chinese-style policy. Between that and simple mask-wearing and reasonable "distancing" there is a lot to debate (argue over if you prefer). And I strongly oppose 10023's ideas about imposing some of the mandatory policies he objects to having applied to him to those more vulnerable, especially in the absence of any governmental help to avoid the risk of going out for necessary purposes (no one's going to do my shopping for me except me unless I pay maybe 50% more to have everything delivered which I can afford but many others can't).

Acajack Oct 9, 2020 9:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9069025)

For example, I question the point or value ocf curfews. Why is someone more at risk or dangerous at 11 PM than at 9:30. It depends what they are doing at that hour and most of the things they might do that are risky are themselves banned. If someone craves a midnight stroll, why not?

Well, here we have imposed much earlier last calls in bars. At first glance that appears odd but when you think about it I guess people who stay out later are likely to drink more, get more drunk, and therefore more likely to not respect the various social distancing and other rules.

niwell Oct 9, 2020 9:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack (Post 9068965)
That could be the last time for a while, no?

We really only go outside to patios in public and are keeping a bubble (nobody has family in Toronto either) so I think we should be able to keep it up until it gets too cold. Enough people I know work in the industry so at least going to try and keep it going as long as possible!

Acajack Oct 9, 2020 9:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niwell (Post 9069036)
We really only go outside to patios in public and are keeping a bubble (nobody has family in Toronto either) so I think we should be able to keep it up until it gets too cold. Enough people I know work in the industry so at least going to try and keep it going as long as possible!

My wife just said: "We're going out for dinner with the kids! Could be the last chance!"

Indoor dining has not be banned here (yet), but we're surrounded by areas that have banned or are banning it: Ottawa just across the river and Montreal to the east.

Acajack Oct 9, 2020 9:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 9068987)
Social distancing is destroying how we interact with people and it's only been six months. Another six months of this shit and we'll be a society of social introverts and awkward around people.

Another thing I am seeing is a kind of neo-puritanism coming out of the woodwork. These people were quiet before but now there are way more people who are anti-bar, anti-alcohol, anti-strip joint, anti-party, etc. who are way more vocal, and advocate for shutting down these things for public health reasons.

Because, "who needs 'em?"

JManc Oct 9, 2020 9:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9069004)
I so enjoy reading the whining and crying over the terrible privation of COVID and imagining how this generation would have coped with, say, WW II or the Depression.

One difference is we kind of know when this will end: We WILL have vaccines and effective drugs by the end of the year although probably not enough to give them to everybody. That time may come 3 to 6 months later. A year from now, COVID limitations imposed by government will probably be over but I suspect it will take another year or two before a lot of people really feel comfortable with indoor dining or attending an indoor entertainment event, whether high culture, popular culture or sports. It will be allowed though and those of you who really feel deprived will probably be able to indulge all you want.

We may indeed have some residua of the type JManc implies. Some people have always wanted "their space" preserved and now more are likely too. Some people have never liked crowds and now more are likely to avoid them for a long time to come. There may be some benefits to them personally in that other diseases like colds and flu are transmitted much as COVID is and taking COVID style measures should reduce your chances of catching those as well.

.

I think there's too much hope pinned on the vaccine and people will still get sick from covid even with it'll widely available at your local CVS. Just like with the flu. As I said in another thread, we're going to have to learn to live with a world with covid and those of us most at risk will have to be more prudent at least until there's a more proven treatment available. 10023 does have somewhat of a point that the rest of us can't give up on life until covid goes away. I absolutely disagree with his views on how to deal with at the at risk population and I take a more libertarian view. It's all about personal accountability but I could deal with living in an area where the governor says i had to wear a mask between bites at a restaurant.

the urban politician Oct 9, 2020 9:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9069025)
The valid point is that government has too often been illogical and irrational on this one, sometimes cheered on by the "scientists" who have a narrow vision on the epidemiology of the virus and ignore the consequences, intended and unintended of efforts to control it.
.

^ This basically should be the official statement of 2020

Pedestrian Oct 9, 2020 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 9069051)
.

I think there's too much hope pinned on the vaccine and people will still get sick and die from covid even with it widely available at your local CVS. Just like with the flu. As I said in another thread, we're going to have to learn to live with a world with covid and those of us most at risk will have to be more prudent at least until there's a more proven treatment available. 10023 does have somewhat of a point that the rest of us can't give up on life until covid goes away. I absolutely disagree with his views on how to deal with at the at risk population and I take a more libertarian view. It's all about personal accountability but I could deal with living in an area where the governor says i had to wear a mask between bites at a restaurant.

I expect about 70% effectiveness which is what Tony Fauci and Scott Gottlieb have suggested. If I may mention the T word, Trump's miraculous bounce back is very reassuring about the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies which, in turn, reasures about the vaccines undergoing testing. They cause the production of endogenous antibodies broader in scope but including those in the monoclonal drugs and if those drugs knock out the disease in people already sick, they should work well to prevent it.

If they are 70% effective or better, it will knock the RO way below 1 which means the disease should gradually become rare--rare enough so there's almost no justification for government restrictions. Whether it will result in true "herd immunity" isn't known because we don't know what that figure is for this virus, but it seems likely new cases will become sporadic.

At that point, we do and can "live with it", especially if besides the vaccine we have a couple of effective monoclonal antibody "cocktails" and one or more additional small molecule antivirals that are effective so that anyone who gets it can be treated and isn't likely to die. At that point it becomes something like HIV--a much more deadly disease--today.

By the way, all the complaints do remind me a lot of the response of some to the HIV restrictions on the early 1980s: Bathhouses close, the "safe sex" drum constantly being beaten, some afraid to have sex at all etc. SARS-CoV-2 is actually a much easier virus to beat than HIV. But oh the whining back then about the interference with the free and easy sex of the 1970s.

JManc Oct 9, 2020 10:22 PM

In all honesty, isn't Trump getting the best of the best as far as care? I hear he's 'high risk' because he's 74 and a little fluffy but he's actually in decent health and rigorous for a man of his age.

iheartthed Oct 9, 2020 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9069025)
Michigan seems to have been an example of whacky restriction run riot. But it isn't alone.

It's not. Michigan's rules are not as restrictive as New York's, and are probably similar to California's. But we all know why you brought up Michigan.

JManc Oct 9, 2020 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9069084)
It's not. Michigan's rules are not as restrictive as New York's, and are probably similar to California's. But we all know why you brought up Michigan.

Probably because people showed up with guns at the MI state Capitol last spring and then tried overthrowing their governor recently so they made headlines where as Cuomo has/ had his daily covid talk show where he drones on about his kids. Though upstate is about to revolt.

iheartthed Oct 9, 2020 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 9069088)
Probably because people showed up with guns at the MI state Capitol last spring and then tried overthrowing their governor recently so they made headlines where as Cuomo has/ had his daily covid talk show where he drones on about his kids. Though upstate is about to revolt.

Most people in Michigan actually approve of the way she's handled it. The media just focuses on the hillbilly morons.

Also, both Whitmer and Cuomo get much better reviews on how they've handled the crisis than the president has received.

JManc Oct 9, 2020 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9069092)
Most people in Michigan actually approve of the way she's handled it. The media just focuses on the hillbilly morons.

Also, both Whitmer and Cuomo get much better reviews on how they've handled the crisis than the president has received.

Because semi-automatic rifles in government buildings and attempted coups are huge newsworthy events. Kinda overshadows everything else. Cuomo or Newsome haven't had to face anything like this. Michigan has always had a crazy right wing element going back to the 90's brought to light since the OKC bombing.

iheartthed Oct 9, 2020 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 9069100)
Because semi-automatic rifles in government buildings and attempted coups are huge newsworthy events. Kinda overshadows everything else. Cuomo or Newsome haven't had to face anything like this. Michigan has always had a crazy right wing element going back to the 90's brought to light since the OKC bombing.

The only reason Newsom wasn't dealing with automatic rifles in the California capital is because Ronald Reagan had them outlawed.

iheartthed Oct 9, 2020 11:16 PM

Attempts at controlling the virus by federal agencies has consistently been undermined:

Quote:

White House Blocked C.D.C. From Requiring Masks on Public Transportation

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention drafted a sweeping order last month requiring all passengers and employees to wear masks on all forms of public and commercial transportation in the United States, but it was blocked by the White House, according to two federal health officials.

The order would have been the toughest federal mandate to date aimed at curbing the spread of the coronavirus, which continues to infect more than 40,000 Americans a day. The officials said that it was drafted under the agency’s “quarantine powers” and that it had the support of the secretary of health and human services, Alex M. Azar II, but the White House Coronavirus Task Force, led by Vice President Mike Pence, declined to even discuss it.

The two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment, said the order would have required face coverings on airplanes, trains, buses and subways, and in transit hubs such as airports, train stations and bus depots.

A task force official said the decision to require masks should be left up to states and localities. The administration requires the task force to sign off on coronavirus-related policies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/h...masks-cdc.html

Pedestrian Oct 10, 2020 1:55 AM

We have a gym room with exercise equipment in my condo. Today the HOA sent this out:

Quote:

The Board of Directors received the following information
from house counsel regarding the gym:
We have received the following Information from the
SF City Attorneys’ office regarding the guidelines that
specify “monitoring”.
Indoor gyms and fitness facilities that are unattended by
staff at any time during the hours of operation must remain
closed at this time. Exercising indoors in spaces shared or
accessible by others increases the risk of community
transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19. Indoor
gyms may operate if they meet strict conditions that
include daily screening of patrons, enhanced personal and
equipment sanitization measures, enhanced ventilation
requirements, and strict rules on face coverings,
distancing, and capacity limits. Indoor gyms and fitness
centers without full time staff cannot ensure the 10%
capacity limit or meet these other critical risk-reduction
standards, and must therefore remain closed at this time
.
They estimate it would cost $200,000 per year to hire "full time staff" to cover the hours the gym is normally available. Hence the gym is closed again p*ssing off a lot of people.

Previously

Quote:

In preparation for the gym opening a few weeks ago, the Board made modifications as specified by the San Francisco Department of Public Health which included adding signage, setting up the reservation system, moving equipment, adding air purifiers, installing a camera, preparing the waiver, and installing sanitizing stations.

In addition, the Board adopted temporary gym rules to meet the requirements of wearing masks, social distancing and users sanitizing equipment before and after use.

Based on the San Francisco Department of Public Health guidelines, the Board felt the initial modifications met the requirements. The Board believed the installation of an additional camera would fulfill the monitoring requirements.
But no go.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.