How Is Covid-19 Impacting Life in Your City?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Camelback

What if the CDC said to put on a cotton based dick cloth (tube sock) to prevent stds and pregnancy? Would we not all laugh?! That's basically what a face covering is with an airborne virus.

The best prevention methods are personal hygiene/cleanliness, frequent hand washing, no touching of the face or eyes and social distancing (much greater than 6 feet and in open air).

A sock would be pretty effective at preventing STDs and pregnancy because you'd never have sex.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by homebucket

And California has been the lowest.

We can keep doing this silly “competition” if you want. At the end of the day I don’t think any Californians wishes they were in the South.

It's not a silly competition, it is a defense. People keep acting like states in the south are horrible and are needlessly killing people but the data doesn't support that. Certainly from the last 1-2 months.

And good for California. Seriously. I want that state opened up ASAP. They are far too important economically to be dormant.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Masking as a political party badge is only important to the most partisan obsessed people.

I see people outdoors all over the place where I live—young Moms, older men, etc and they aren’t wearing masks. They aren’t all of the same political stripe.

Great point that a fellow South Looper friend of mine makes all the time:

If its just stupid Republicans not wearing masks then why are there so many maskless people in Chicago (certainly on the lakefront)?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

For the last year I've said temperature checks were useless and now I think a consensus of "experts" agrees. They are one more "feel good" measure like spraying disinfectant around city streets like you see them doing in some developing world countries.


https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...-is-that-helpf

And driving the speed limit and being a defensive driver and wearing a seat belt doesn't guarantee you won't get in a wreck and die.


When did we become a nation of fools who think they need 100% assurance they will never ever be put at any risk?

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

A sock would be pretty effective at preventing STDs and pregnancy because you'd never have sex.

I hope you got the point, I'm not sure though. There was a time when people used animal intestines and many people today use the pull-out method. Neither prevent std transmission or pregnancy. It's like the recommendations from some places that wanted people to wear face masks during intimacy, lol.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Camelback

I hope you got the point, I'm not sure though. There was a time when people used animal intestines and many people today use the pull-out method. Neither prevent std transmission or pregnancy. It's like the recommendations from some places that wanted people to wear face masks during intimacy, lol.

Well, no one ever claimed that face masks completely prevented COVID-19 transmission. The point of masks is to reduce the rate of transmission. Having an obstruction over your face reduces the amount of virus going directly in or out of your nose/mouth. Just like wearing a sock over your penis would reduce the amount of semen going into your hand (because you're sure as hell not putting a sock covered penis into a vagina).

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Well, no one ever claimed that face masks completely prevented COVID-19 transmission. The point of masks is to reduce the rate of transmission. Having an obstruction over your face reduces the amount of virus going directly in or out of your nose/mouth. Just like wearing a sock over your penis would reduce the amount of semen going into your hand (because you're sure as hell not putting a sock covered penis into a vagina).

There's no need to be discriminatory, there are a lot of vaginas out there that can handle a tube sock!

Enough with the joking on a serious matter. We do agree that a cloth covering a couple bodily openings of the face (not all, the eyes are still exposed) doesn't do much to prevent the spread of an easily transmissible airborne disease, right?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Camelback

There's no need to be discriminatory, there are a lot of vaginas out there that can handle a tube sock!

Enough with the joking on a serious matter. We do agree that a cloth covering a couple bodily openings of the face (not all, the eyes are still exposed) doesn't do much to prevent the spread of an easily transmissible airborne disease, right?

Nah, I don't agree. They should've advised us to wear them earlier than they did.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Nah, I don't agree. They should've advised us to wear them earlier than they did.

I'll have to point out that "easily transmissible airborne disease" seems like evidence somebody would say to support wearing masks?
Or is he going for "it's so easy to get nobody can get away from it"? I'll take it at half-post value.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by TWAK

I'll have to point out that "easily transmissible airborne disease" seems like evidence somebody would say to support wearing masks?
Or is he going for "it's so easy to get nobody can get away from it"? I'll take it at half-post value.

I continue to wear and have always worn a mask while indoors and at local establishments that require them. Remember, there was a time when masks were not available anywhere. My first non-surgerical grade was purchased on Amazon for $20. I still have it because it's see-through and is funny.

My retired Army brat mom hit up her sewing machine over-time and made as many masks as possible and donated them to her local hospital until PPE caught up, retired and still contributing to the best of her ability.

[homebucket]

Largest convention booked in SF for 2021 gets canceled

San Francisco's travel and convention industry that brought $11 billion into the city in 2019 is struggling amid the year-long COVID-19 pandemic.

Another big blow came last week.

The American College of Rheumatology canceled its in-person convention that was scheduled to take place at San Francisco's Moscone Center with 16,000 attendees in November 2021.

"Just last week, they reached out to us and notified the hotels," said Joe D'Allesandro, president and CEO of the San Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau. "They felt it wasn't practical to have a live conference without more clarity."

D'Allesandro said the conference would have had at least a $30 million impact on the city. This was the largest conference that was still scheduled to take place this year.

"The cancellation was primarily pandemic related," he said. "They didn't feel comfortable without having specific guidelines from the state about what conferences will look like in the fall. Sixty-five percent are international delegates and there's a lot of uncertainly about international arrivals in the states."

Moscone Center and city hotels typically host 30 to 50 major citywide conferences a year, and before the pandemic Moscone was fully booked in 2020 and 2021. There are currently about eight or 10 conferences scheduled through the end of the year.

"We easily lost 60 citywide conventions and countless smaller meetings," D'Allesandro said.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...P-CP-Spotlight

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I think everyone was surprised with the Florida death rate given the demographics. I remember thinking this time last year that the numbers coming out of the retirement communities would be catastrophic.

Didn't the Florida governor screw with the numbers? I don't believe anything that guy says.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

For the last year I've said temperature checks were useless and now I think a consensus of "experts" agrees. They are one more "feel good" measure like spraying disinfectant around city streets like you see them doing in some developing world countries.


https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...-is-that-helpf

DeSantis had plenty of motivation. Last summer when Florida was the worst, he was getting killed by the media for not locking down. And then all of a sudden, Florida got "better'. It will always be weird.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by someone123

Your link isn't consistent with what you're claiming. The link says that the check will pick up on some proportion of covid cases but not all, with some speculation about how this might lead to a false sense of security. One of the people interviewed says they have a net benefit and provide some additional layered protection (low cost, low benefit).

The "false sense of security" argument, presented without data, was also used against masks in the spring of 2020.

If, as the link says, as many as half the infectious people are not detected, the environment that is supposedly made safe by this type of screening will remain distinctly unsafe. That's all there is too it. Will it be twice as safe if half the infectious people are screened out? Not really. Contagion doesn't work that way.

Taking temperatures is NOT a way to keep an environment safe and nobody should delude themselves into thinking it is. It's just something to make the management of the space feel like they are accomplishing something.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

And driving the speed limit and being a defensive driver and wearing a seat belt doesn't guarantee you won't get in a wreck and die.


When did we become a nation of fools who think they need 100% assurance they will never ever be put at any risk?

The analogies don't work. It may take only one germ-spewing infectious person in a room to infect most of the other people in it. That you screened out another germ spewer who had a fever doesn't matter.

Driving safely and wearing a seat belt may be additive in what they add to your safety but putting only half as many infectious people in a space does not come close to cutting the risk of being in that space in half.

If taking temperatures were highly effective in finding the infected, it might make sense even though not perfect, but 50% is nowhere near good enough for this purpose even to make a modest difference.

Again, it's not exactly equivalent but recall that Tony Fauci said sometime last year before we had data on the vaccines that the FDA would likely require 70% efficacy to approve them. Had they been only 50% effective, they would not have been approved (even if the vaccine had been extremely safe with almost no side effects). When it comes to a highly transmissible airborne pathogen that can be transmitted to a high percentage of people with whom one infected person comes into contact, you need a high degree of effectiveness in the methods you are using against it and taking temps doesn't cut it.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

If, as the link says, as many as half the infectious people are not detected, the environment that is supposedly made safe by this type of screening will remain distinctly unsafe. That's all there is too it. Will it be twice as safe if half the infectious people are screened out? Not really. Contagion doesn't work that way.

Taking temperatures is NOT a way to keep an environment safe and nobody should delude themselves into thinking it is. It's just something to make the management of the space feel like they are accomplishing something.

This is true of the vast majority of Covid restrictions, from masks to the 2-meter / 6-foot rule.

You either take the view that a bunch of only partly effective measures added together provide enough protection in combination to make things “safe”, or you just accept that it’s not safe for the elderly/vulnerable and tell them not to do it.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by 10023

This is true of the vast majority of Covid restrictions, from masks to the 2-meter / 6-foot rule.

The CDC is cool with lowering it, since they did for schools....only 3 feet. For CA, some private schools were opened in January because they implemented temp checks.

[10023]

Originally Posted by TWAK

The CDC is cool with lowering it, they did for schools....only 3 feet.

Completely beside the point. The 3-foot rule is actually even more meaningless.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by 10023

Completely beside the point. The 3-foot rule is actually even more meaningless.

That's your answer to everything you don't like about COVID, though. Can you tell me why it's meaningless? I might even be nice and confirm it, but schools still have to operate under those rules. I figured the lowering of the distance would make you happy

[10023]

Originally Posted by TWAK

That's your answer to everything you don't like about COVID, though. Can you tell me why it's meaningless? I might even be nice and confirm it, but schools still have to operate under those rules. I figured the lowering of the distance would make you happy

If I sneeze from 3 feet away from you, my snot will land on your face. I can just about reach out and touch you. Exhaled particles can easily travel 3 feet.

But the real reason it is meaningless is that, unless you’re on a crowded subway platform or boarding an airplane (in which case neither the 6-foot or 3-foot rule are observed as I know from recent experience), people are generally about 3 feet from each other anyway. Maybe 2 feet, maybe 3, but that’s just called personal space in the West.

The only people really affected by a 3-foot social distancing guideline are like this guy:

• Video Link