COVID-19 Non Political Thread

[moonslav59]

IMO, if a post was a point of contention on the other thread, regardless of whether there was any intent behind it, then it should not be brought over to this thread. I will take your word on it that you had no political intent behind posting those numbers, but regardless, it created controversy on the other thread so it doesn't belong in this thread.

As I stated before, the problem with such posts is that they almost always trigger a response, which then just snowballs. This current argument is going on 4 pages.

As far as I took it, the only contention about the data point I kept posting on the other thread was not about it being politically motivated, but that other data points held more meaning or that this stat was misleading or lacked context.

It seems like almost data can be viewed as being political or having political intentions.

I find it strange that some who have been saying the stat I posted here is political have, themselves, been posting stats about their state's numbers going down or positive trends here and there. I never viewed their numbers as being politically motivated, but maybe I'm being naive in thinking nobody should take my posting as being neutral.

I honestly thought my choice of data was actually making the USA look better in the context of other countries that share similar demographics as us, and I explained that context on the other thread, too, but sadly, some people want to keep assigning false motives and intentions on my points. I'm not going to claim I did not make inflamatory remarks on the other thread, but in all honesty, the posting of this meaningful stat was never meant to be political. I still don't see how it can be viewed as political or anymore political than the many other stats and numbers posted here.

[yeszir]

Ok, next insult in this thread = 7 day ban for whoever slings it, for whatever reason. I don't care who started it or how veiled the insult is. That includes posts intended to bait others.

If you guys NEED to fight online over COVID 1) re-evaluate your priorities 2) go somewhere else.

JFC.

Quoting to new page

[moonslav59]

100%.

To me, knowing that we were at under 90 per million, when I first posted the data point and are over 300, now has meaning.

Using just total deaths does a disservice to our situation when compared to many countries who have way less total deaths but double or almost triple the deaths per million rates.

If the stat has no meaning to you or others, okay, but I still don't see why or how it can or should be viewed as inflammatory.

If you want me to erase that post or stop posting it here going forward, I will, but I will then wonder why other other stats are allowable. Is it just about the perception that my data point is depressing or glum?

[Elktonnick]

To me, knowing that we were at under 90 per million, when I first posted the data point and are over 300, now has meaning.

Using just total deaths does a disservice to our situation when compared to many countries who have way less total deaths but double or almost triple the deaths per million rates.

If the stat has no meaning to you or others, okay, but I still don't see why or how it can or should be viewed as inflammatory.

If you want me to erase that post or stop posting it here going forward, I will, but I will then wonder why other other stats are allowable. Is it just about the perception that my data point is depressing or glum?

While I understand your point I perhaps should rephrase my characterization of the deaths per million stat not as meaningless because I understand it does have certain value but as less illustrative. The stats that public health officials in this state are placing more meaning however are those that I cited. Those are the stats that our state officials are using to determine when to lessen the restrictions. So needless to say those are the stats that we are watching the closest.

[moonslav59]

While I understand your point I perhaps should rephrase my characterization of the deaths per million stat not as meaningless because I understand it does have certain value but as less illustrative. The stats that public health officials in this state are placing more meaning however are those that I cited. Those are the stats that our state officials are using to determine when to lessen the restrictions. So needless to say those are the stats that we are watching the closest.

I do think the stats you cited are very important, especially in making important decisions about opening up or not.

I will just point out that when I first started posting the deaths per million data, testing was not taking place consistently or evenly across the country, so I felt like those numbers lacked the proper context, and than once testing began to increase sharply, some numbers would appear to be rising more than they actually were.

I felt like deaths were more reliable and less likely to be fudged or dependent on varying methodologies. (I found out later, this might not be true.)

Someone also pointed out that my number lacked context, and that was true to some extent.

Without knowing what the number was 1, 2,3 or 4 weeks ago, it will seem just as abstract as 97,000.

I meant it to be a base number to observe how quickly it is rising or slowing and how we compare to other nations with much lower or higher populations than ours.

I will agree, the numbers you are using have more meaning at this point in the progression of our situation and the higher amount of testing we are conducting, despite issues with testing accuracy and areas with vast differences in testing per capita.

Also, looking at states, individually rather than the country as a whole has a lot of merit, too.

[FredLynn]

Ok, next insult in this thread = 7 day ban for whoever slings it, for whatever reason. I don't care who started it or how veiled the insult is. That includes posts intended to bait others.

If you guys NEED to fight online over COVID 1) re-evaluate your priorities 2) go somewhere else.

JFC.

Thank you

[mvp 78]

Please be nice in this thread. Go crazy in the other thread for all I care.

You don’t always have to be the one with the last word in.

[Kimmi]

I hope you're right, and a lot of people are still being very careful & cautious.

We keep hearing about how one person of group event can and apparently has caused dozens of new infections. It's hard for me to think the chances of just a mild increase will be the result of all these re-openings. Maybe seeing a few people being careless is making me think it's worse than it really is, so I'm trying to stay optimistic.

Again, I'm not against re-opening, but I'm concerned too many people are taking the re-openings as signal that all is okay. There is a way to re-open and socialize in safer manners than appears to be happening in many places. We all need to be smart about this, so we won't have to go back to more restrictive measures.

I asked once before on this thread, what numbers would cause a need for us to return to heavy restrictions. I think only one person answered.

Right now, we are seeing a little over 1,000 deaths per day. I'm curious what each of us think is a number that would cause us to think staying "opened up" or semi-opened up is acceptable.

Id in 10-20 days, the deaths per day spiked to 1,500 or 2,000 for several days in a row, would that be enough for you to support stricter measures?

Would 3,000 a day be enough?

3,500?

I'll give my opinion first. I'm thinking a slight increase is painful and troubling, but if we see only a hundred or two more deaths per day over an extended time, and it seems to be leveling out, I wouldn't argue for closing back down, except maybe in the worst hot spots. I can understand how some might feel even 1 to 10 more deaths per day is too much. I can understand how some might feel 200-300 more is okay or a necessary trade-off, but to me, there has to be a point where we should all mostly agree, it's too much to keep going on without increasing restrictions, again.

I'm curious what others think.

I share the same concerns that you do Moon. I have posted several times here that I would have preferred to delay the reopening of states about one more month, though I fully understand the need to reopen. I, too, am concerned that people will take the reopening as a sign that everything is safe, and therefore, loosen up on their safety measures.

I think the ones that are acting recklessly are a small minority. They are the ones that tend to get the most coverage, so hopefully it just seems like more people are being foolish than there really are.

As far as what an acceptable increase in deaths is, I don't have an answer for that. It's a difficult balance between keeping the infections down and getting people back to work to save their livelihoods. We can only hope that the reopening of states will not cause those spikes and we won't have to worry about making a decision to shut down again.

[Kimmi]

Ok, next insult in this thread = 7 day ban for whoever slings it, for whatever reason. I don't care who started it or how veiled the insult is. That includes posts intended to bait others.

If you guys NEED to fight online over COVID 1) re-evaluate your priorities 2) go somewhere else.

JFC.

Yeszir to the rescue!

Amen, brother.

[moonslav59]

I share the same concerns that you do Moon. I have posted several times here that I would have preferred to delay the reopening of states about one more month, though I fully understand the need to reopen. I, too, am concerned that people will take the reopening as a sign that everything is safe, and therefore, loosen up on their safety measures.

I think the ones that are acting recklessly are a small minority. They are the ones that tend to get the most coverage, so hopefully it just seems like more people are being foolish than there really are.

As far as what an acceptable increase in deaths is, I don't have an answer for that. It's a difficult balance between keeping the infections down and getting people back to work to save their livelihoods. We can only hope that the reopening of states will not cause those spikes and we won't have to worry about making a decision to shut down again.

Good answer to a question nearly impossible to even try to sort out all the factors.

It's a hard trade off, and there are no simple answers.

I'm hoping it's just a few, but then again, it doesn't take many to get this thing spiking again, at least in a few areas.

It's a;so worrisome that just about nobody met the initial (more detailed) guidelines outlined for states to re-open. Certain areas with-in states did or came close, but many areas blasted into re-opening with very few of the recommended boxes checked off. It's hard to think that won't matter much, but this virus is a tough one to predict and contain.

[Elktonnick]

Good answer to a question nearly impossible to even try to sort out all the factors.

It's a hard trade off, and there are no simple answers.

I'm hoping it's just a few, but then again, it doesn't take many to get this thing spiking again, at least in a few areas.

It's a;so worrisome that just about nobody met the initial (more detailed) guidelines outlined for states to re-open. Certain areas with-in states did or came close, but many areas blasted into re-opening with very few of the recommended boxes checked off. It's hard to think that won't matter much, but this virus is a tough one to predict and contain.

What I think is interesting is that now even Dr Fauci recognizes that prolonged lockdown may do irreparable harm.

[dgalehouse]

A little common sense is needed. If a business is able to operate safely and intelligently, they should be allowed to open . If you can work from home , fine . But not everyone can do that . You can't just pay lip service and shrug off the concerns of people who are losing everything they worked for .

[a700hitter]

Nationwide New Cases and Daily Deaths are at end of March levels.

[moonslav59]

A little common sense is needed. If a business is able to operate safely and intelligently, they should be allowed to open . If you can work from home , fine . But not everyone can do that . You can't just pay lip service and shrug off the concerns of people who are losing everything they worked for .

I'm not sure many are shrugging that off. I think they weigh both sides and think one side outweighs the other.

There is also the concern that blue collar workers will be risking their lives and their family's, too going back to work, while many bosses and CEOs can stay more risk-free.

That being said, most blue collar workers I know want to and need to get back to work. They might not be "willing" or "comfortable" going back, but they realize there's not much choice. It may end up a lose-lose choice for some. Some will get sick and die. Some may get their families sick and watch loved ones die. Some may work their butts off, never get sick but still never get caught back up, since they were living pay check to paycheck before all this happened.

It's a tough balancing act. I hope the businesses opening back up go out of their way make things as safe as possible for their workers. I'd like to believe all will, and I'll just leave it at that.

[moonslav59]

What I think is interesting is that now even Dr Fauci recognizes that prolonged lockdown may do irreparable harm.

...and also that going back quickly increases the odds for a stronger or longer second spike.

I think he's crossing his fingers, and if it was up to him, we'd be re-opening more slowly.