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)

the urban politician May 23, 2021 6:42 PM

Goes to show you that all of these top-down shutdown measures were unnecessary and did more harm than good

All you had to do was tell everybody, “There is a virus spreading and it’s killing people!” and that would’ve been enough.

biguc May 23, 2021 6:57 PM

It's spring. We went through this last year. It takes a special kind of idiot to reach for an explanation beyond that, and a special kind of asshole to make it political and still downplay things.

Pedestrian May 23, 2021 6:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 9289122)
I think adversarial rhetoric such as this aren't going to get vax fence sitters to change their mind. It probably has opposite effect. I have friend who is apprehensive about vaccine because of side effects but I didn't judge or lecture him; only mentioned that my personal reaction was minimal and gone within 24 hours.

I don't think this forum is the place to convince anyone to do anything and I doubt any minds have ever been changed, ever. It's a place to express rather firm opinions and debate. At most there are maybe 20 people actively participating. If I'm not mistaken, most of the "adversarial rhetoric" has been directed at me (check the number of posts in which I am called out). So when there is disagreement, I think it's entirely appropriate to be specific about it . . . HERE.

When it come to campaigns intended to have a mass effect on changing minds, that's another matter and a lot of thought at the government level has been put into that:

Quote:

Here's What Will Actually Convince People to Get Vaccinated
BY JEFFREY KLUGER
APRIL 2, 2021 9:31 AM EDT

In theory, when so many of the strategies for beating the COVID-19 pandemic depend on abiding by social distancing and other rules, shaming people who don’t ought to be a powerful way to bring us back in line. But increasingly, experts believe, the opposite is true. “The thinking has been that the more you shame people the more they will obey,” says Giovanni Travaglino, an assistant professor of social psychology at Kent University. “But this turns out to be absolutely wrong.”

Last month, Travaglino and Chanki Moon, an assistant professor of psychology at Leeds Beckett University, published a paper in Frontiers in Psychology that threw the ineffectiveness of shaming into relief. They assembled nearly 1,900 people from the U.S., Italy and South Korea—choosing those countries on the basis of their differing sense of the collective culture, with the U.S. judged the most individualistic, South Korea the most group-oriented and Italy in between. The subjects were asked to rate how ashamed or guilty they’d feel if they contracted COVID-19. They were also asked to rate how often they obey guidelines like social distancing and how likely they’d be to tell friends, acquaintances and health authorities if they tested positive. In all three countries, the higher the level of shame and guilt people felt over falling ill, the less likely they were to play it safe and to report their COVID-19 status.

In the U.S. and elsewhere, the antivaccine movement has long been a threat to public health, and many pro-vaccine messages have been designed to shame adherents. A December story in the U.K.’s Metro featured the headline “People think anti-vaxxers are ‘stupid and selfish.'” Attention-grabbing, maybe, but counterproductive. “It’s hard to get people to act in a cooperative manner when you approach them that way,” says Travaglino. “It’s associated with subordination to authority, and people don’t like that.”

A new TIME/Harris Poll survey similarly suggests individual authority figures aren’t very effective at convincing vaccine skeptics.

Of U.S. adults who had recently been vaccinated, only 32% said they were influenced by a local official reaching out directly via email, phone or mail. Much more effective, it seems, are appeals to people’s individual needs and desires. Some 52% of those polled said they got the vaccine because they wanted to travel, for example. The people around us also play a major role, with 56% of respondents saying they got vaccinated after a friend or family member did, and 59% saying they were influenced merely by having a conversation with such a closely connected person. And despite our ostensible mistrust in the media, 63% said they were influenced by news reports about people who had already been vaccinated.

Indeed, past research shows value in appealing to us through personal stories. In a 2015 study published in the PNAS, volunteers took a survey on their attitudes about vaccines and were then divided into three groups, each given one of three things to read: material showing that autism and vaccines are not related; a paragraph of a mother describing her child’s bout with measles; and material on an unrelated science topic. When the subjects took the vaccine survey again, all were more pro-vaccine than before, but the ones who read the mother’s account were dramatically more so, with an increase five times as great as that of the group that had read the material on autism and six times that of the control group.

Personal accounts can have a negative impact too. A new study published in PLOS ONE, by researchers from the University of Illinois and the Annenberg Public Policy Center, found that subjects who saw a video clip of Dr. Anthony Fauci talking about the safety and effectiveness of the measles vaccine came away from it more favorably disposed to vaccination overall. But the positive effect was diminished when they saw another video clip first, of a mother describing the severe rash one of her children developed after receiving the vaccine. The solution, the paper concluded, is not for the media to censor such accounts but to precede them with real-world data on the minimal risks and the considerable benefits of vaccines . . . .
https://time.com/5951755/how-to-conv...et-vaccinated/

The article concludes by saying

Quote:

What doesn’t work, clearly, is pointing fingers and casting blame and shame. It’s the virus that’s the enemy, after all, not the people it infects.
I think that's absolutely true in terms of public campaigns but it's not what we are about HERE. On the mass level, this is an exercise in PR and using whatever psychological tricks and manipulation the government can come up with, for the good of us all. But I'd hate to think SSP forums are about psychological tricks and manipulation.

TWAK May 23, 2021 7:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9289378)
Goes to show you that all of these top-down shutdown measures were unnecessary and did more harm than good

All you had to do was tell everybody, “There is a virus spreading and it’s killing people!” and that would’ve been enough.

Deaths were the first thing the pro-virus people were trying to downplay, and the lockdown prevented more deaths from happening. As well as preventing more cases and infections, but that has also been downplayed.

Pedestrian May 23, 2021 7:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9289378)
Goes to show you that all of these top-down shutdown measures were unnecessary and did more harm than good

All you had to do was tell everybody, “There is a virus spreading and it’s killing people!” and that would’ve been enough.

You greatly over-estimate the intelligence and rationality of the average American. At the very least, in addition to telling them that, you have to tell them what they can do about it if they choose to. I agree there's an argument about whether any level of compulsion is appropriate, but scientifically-based advice certainly is/was.

And there's another thing: We know so much more about this virus now than we did a year ago. Back then we knew almost nothing. Nobody would argue every decision made then was the right one. But the people arguing the most vociferously that bad decisions were made would have probably made worse ones.

Finally, what's missing in all this and always has been is concrete government direct action. 10023 argued from the beginning they should just keep all then old people in their homes and let the rest proceed as normal. What I responded a year ago and would today is that in order to do that, there would have needed to be government help for them to get food, get a home repair done safely if one was needed, get their other medical needs met and so on. No one can just "stay home" for a year and have no interaction with other younger, healthier people and not everyone can afford Doordash and other delivery services. For the first 6 months of the pandemic I mostly stayed home and did get most things delivered until important reasons to go out or to invite outsiders in began piling up. You can only do that for so long and I was near my limit when the vaccine came along. I'm sure other people were as well, but government could have helped and mostly didn't.

eixample May 23, 2021 8:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 9288406)
I'd like to see legislation explicitly allowing employers to require vaccination for at least new employees/promotions. I've heard anecdotally that a lot of places are scared to require that of employees for legal reasons, real or imagined. UChicago is requiring vaccination of students, but not of staff or faculty, for example (though I suspect vaccination rates among at least the academic staff are near 100%.). It seems like they're likely figuring it out with the lawyers...

I may be wrong, but I don't think there is much of a legal risk to employers (or universities) for having a vaccine mandate. The employer wouldn't face liability for side effects from the vaccine since there is a special statutory liability system for that and any concern about an exemption can be handled on a case by case basis. The issue the U of Chicago is likely facing is that they have unionized staff and faculty and they don't want to have to bargain over vaccines. The reason most employers aren't mandating vaccines is because they (a) don't care, (b) know it will be unpopular and difficult to enforce or (c) don't think it's necessary.

twister244 May 23, 2021 9:09 PM

Ran on the lakefront Friday night.... Went out to eat in the West Loop, and was on a boat all day Saturday. Thank god normal Chicago summer is here.

Camelback May 23, 2021 9:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 9289142)
Got up to the upper 80s today. Beach day!

Shit was packed on the Chicago lakefront.

I thankfully didn't see a single fucking mask.

Normal summer. The sweetest fruit there is.

Welcome back to the new normal of 2019!

SIGSEGV May 23, 2021 9:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eixample (Post 9289457)
I may be wrong, but I don't think there is much of a legal risk to employers (or universities) for having a vaccine mandate. The employer wouldn't face liability for side effects from the vaccine since there is a special statutory liability system for that and any concern about an exemption can be handled on a case by case basis. The issue the U of Chicago is likely facing is that they have unionized staff and faculty and they don't want to have to bargain over vaccines. The reason most employers aren't mandating vaccines is because they (a) don't care, (b) know it will be unpopular and difficult to enforce or (c) don't think it's necessary.

I've heard from friends at various finance places that they have similar legal concerns and as many as 25% of their employees have said they won't get the vaccine. But maybe that's cover for not wanting to piss specific people off...

Anyway while faculty are unionized, other academic staff (including postdocs) are not. Much of the service staff is externally contracted, so that might be another barrier.

jtown,man May 23, 2021 9:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9289255)
My local grocer lifted their mask requirement for those who’ve been vaccinated.

I was self conscious last week so I kept it on.

Then yesterday I said “screw it” and went in without the mask. It felt odd. I then realized I had not done a very good job of trimming my nose hairs.

May sound silly, but after a year of wearing a mask everywhere these little details become important again.

Yeah, I was out in the burbs and forgot I didn't need to wear a mask. I only saw like 6 people not wearing their masks in the grocery stores so I just kept mine on (I am also completely burnt from being outside all day on Sat, so it worked out for me lol). It will probably take the burbs a few more weeks until we see a significant minority of people going maskless in places like Wal Mart.

Camelback May 23, 2021 10:28 PM

This summer is going to be like:

WEST COAST:
Video Link


EAST COAST:
Video Link


EVERY OTHER PLACE IN BETWEEN THE COASTS:
Video Link

Camelback May 23, 2021 11:32 PM

And after all these BS Covid lockdowns end we'll all be singing from COAST to COAST this summer:

Video Link


"I'm on vacation every single day, if you don't like your life then you should go and change it!"

Camelback May 24, 2021 12:14 AM

And for those in the legal states, special shout out to Chris!:

Video Link


Let's do it America, all open and back to doing the things we used to do!

Next weekend is going to be off the mfn chain!

(Thank me later for your Mem Day playlist :D)

SlidellWx May 24, 2021 12:32 AM

Today was the most normal day I've had in over a year here in New Orleans. No mask wearing anywhere. Our church celebrated it's 50th anniversary with a large indoor celebration after service. Easily 100 people all eating and hanging out together with no social distancing. It was a beautiful thing. We then went out to a bar for a few drinks with good friends, and it was completely normal. No social distancing, no masks, just good times and good drink. :cheers:

Now the mayor needs to end the ridiculous 1 AM bar closure time. There is no reason for that to still be in place, and it is only hurting the bars and bartenders.

LA21st May 24, 2021 12:35 AM

I went to Melrose/Fairfax, and the Grove and Farmers Market today.
If it weren't for the masks, I wouldn't know covid ever happened. Those places are back, for sure. People are everywhere. Fairfax/Melrose actually looks cooler than it did before.

Same for Santa Monica , I was there a couple weeks ago. Crowds are getting back to pre covid levels.

eschaton May 24, 2021 12:48 AM

I've been watching the national numbers, and COVID seems basically over in urban areas. There's a handful of cities which have relatively high levels still (particularly Miami) but it's in steady retreat basically everywhere now. Another two weeks of decline at current rates and we'll be below late March 2020 levels.

There still are spikes happening in rural areas - which I am guessing will continue to happen for some time to come given lower levels of vaccination (and many probably missing being infected the first time around). But overall it seems like COVID is just going to putter along at very low levels where it actually could be managed by contact tracing.

MolsonExport May 24, 2021 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9289378)
Goes to show you that all of these top-down shutdown measures were unnecessary and did more harm than good

All you had to do was tell everybody, “There is a virus spreading and it’s killing people!” and that would’ve been enough.

really? This is your position?

Sorry, but this sounds really stupid to me.

Pedestrian May 24, 2021 2:13 AM

Los Angeles now has the 10th lowest infection rate in the US at 1.3 cases per day per 100,000 residents. The reason is believed to be that 61% of adult residents have received at least 1 dose of vaccine AND 30% of the population is believed to have had covid during the winter peak resulting in them now having antibodies. Put together, about 75% of the adult population probably now has some level of immunity. That's in the range experts have been saying was needed for "herd immunity". Cases tend to lag actual infections by a couple of weeks and LA's cases have been falling as they have everywhere in CA. It will be very interesting to see where LA is in 2-3 weeks. They could reach an infection rate below 1/100,000/day which experts consider a very low rate and really justify removing all mandated precautions (unlike the higher rates in many places that are removing them when they probably shouldn't't).
Source of data: https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/ar...t-16197882.php

Pedestrian May 24, 2021 2:33 AM

The US has, true to form, put most of its faith during the covid pandemic in a technological solution: A vaccine. But other places in the world, mostly in Asia, have sought to keep the virus away by rigorous application of traditional public health measures which may succeed in suppressing the disease but leaves most of the population susceptible and allows for the continuous risk that the disease will escape containment.

Quote:

Covid-19: What went wrong in Singapore and Taiwan?
By Yvette Tan
BBC News, Singapore
Published4 days ago

They've been hailed as virus success stories - places that have seen virtually zero or single-digit Covid cases since the start of the year. But this month, Singapore and Taiwan have both seen a sudden and aggressive rise in cases - with Singapore logging 248 new cases just last week, and Taiwan 1,200 local infections.

Both places have gone into a heightened state of restrictions, limiting the size of social gatherings and closing schools. By global standards, these numbers may seem small - but for these places, these figures would have been unthinkable just months ago. So what exactly went wrong?

A tale of complacency: Taiwan
Taiwan was among the first places to ban foreign visitors almost as soon as China reported the emergence of the virus - and these tough border restrictions still remain in place. Locally however, the population started to become complacent - as did its government.

Hospitals stopped aggressively testing people for Covid, even those with a fever - a common symptom of the virus, according to Associate Professor Lin Hsien-ho of the National Taiwan University.

According to online publication Our World in Data, Taiwan was administering just 0.57 virus tests per 1,000 people in mid-Feb. This compared to Singapore's rate of 6.21 and the UK's rate of 8.68 at around the same period.

"There was a general assumption even with people showing symptoms that the probability of having Covid-19 was essentially zero," Dr Lin told the BBC, adding that it stemmed from a belief that the virus could not break through Taiwan's strong borders . . . .

This was especially highlighted when Taiwan relaxed its quarantine requirements for non-vaccinated airline pilots from an initial 14-day period, to five days - and then, just three days. Shortly afterwards, a cluster broke out connected to a handful of China Airlines pilots who had been staying at a Novotel near Taoyuan Airport. Many of those linked to this cluster were later found to have contracted the UK variant, known as B.1.1.7.

The virus then spread through the community, eventually making its way to Taiwan's "tea houses" - adult entertainment venues . . . .

Professor Chen Chien-jen, an epidemiologist and former vice-president of Taiwan, says the fact that many who tested positive were unwilling to declare they had visited such adult entertainment venues made contact tracing even more difficult . . . .

According to Associate Professor Alex Cook of the National University of Singapore (NUS), Taiwan's situation is a "a reflection of the constant risk of a strategy that puts too much emphasis on border control and not enough on measures to prevent within country spread".

Cracks in the wall: Singapore
In Singapore however, it was a different story.

Measures here have always been stringent despite low cases - public gatherings were kept to a maximum of eight, clubs have not been allowed to open and there is still a cap on mass gatherings like weddings. But there were still gaps in its vaccine playbook, and by late May, Singapore's Changi Airport - which also boasts a popular shopping centre - had turned into the country's biggest Covid cluster this year.

Authorities later found out that a number of infected airport staff had been working in a zone that received travellers from high-risk countries, including those in South Asia.

Some of these workers then went on to have their meals in the airport's food courts - which are open to members of the public - further spreading the virus.
Singapore has now closed its passenger terminals to members of the public temporarily as a result.

Many of the infected were later found to have a highly contagious variant that first surfaced in India - known as B.1.617.

Singapore has now also announced that it would segregate flights and passengers from high-risk countries and regions from those arriving from lower-risk places. Staff will also be ring-fenced and segregated by zones.
Some online are asking why such measures were not taken earlier, noting potential loopholes were pointed out up to a month ago.

But one expert said he thinks it was "inevitable" that the new variant would have found its way into Singapore . . . .

A slow vaccination drive
There is one problem that's plaguing both Singapore and Taiwan: vaccines.

Many in Taiwan didn't want to take the vaccine when things were going well, with fears around the AstraZeneca vaccine - the main one Taiwan currently stocks - further adding to this hesitancy.

The current rise in cases however, means that people in Taiwan are now flocking to get the vaccine. The only problem is - there isn't enough to go around. Taiwan has to date received just 300,000 vaccines - for a population of 24 million.

Taiwan is currently working on producing two local vaccines, which could be available as quickly as the end of July.

It's a similar tale in Singapore.

Around 30% of people have received at least one dose of the vaccine, according to Our World in Data, the highest vaccination rate in South East Asia. But the country is limited by its vaccine supply - though the government expects to vaccinate its entire population by the end of the year . . . .
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57153195

China itself seems to understand that lockdowns and border closures can have on temporary and limited effect, even in an authoritarian society. At first it was exporting a high percentage of the vaccines it produced in order to gain friendship points in the countries on the receiving end. But now it has a massive vaccination campaign underway, giving almost 15 million doses per day and having vaccinated almost 500 million Chinese according to Bloomberg ( https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/c...-distribution/ )

I just wonder if the seemingly lackadaisical approach in places like Australia andNew Zealand will catch up to them.

Pedestrian May 24, 2021 2:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlidellWx (Post 9289568)
Now the mayor needs to end the ridiculous 1 AM bar closure time. There is no reason for that to still be in place, and it is only hurting the bars and bartenders.

I know it's a foreign concept in NOLA but in places that have always had 2 or 4 AM closing times, many people like them. If your goal is to go home with somebody, bar closings make it clear to all parties that it's "now or never".


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:17 AM.

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