Coronavirus Thread

[armeck]

That's not true. It may become true in the future, but its not showing up right now.

I don't know where that chart is from, but here is GA's.

 

[LawyersGunsandMoney]

I tend towards libertarian ends, but I also believe in property rights. If the owner of a store wants me to wear a mask to shop there, I will do so or not shop there. I wish some of the FREEDOM people were respectful of other people's property rights.

 

[armeck]

I know you know this... but be careful using your FB timeline to conclude anything.

I think I am able to accurately conclude that many people I know personally weren't even attempting social distancing.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I don't know where that chart is from, but here is GA's.

The one I posted is the national chart. I don’t doubt some areas are increasing. But across the country as a whole, the numbers are not increasing right now.

And actually that one from Georgia is still TBD - I can see the numbers could go up or down as more tests in that recent window come back.

 

[LawyersGunsandMoney]

I think I am able to accurately conclude that many people I know personally weren't even attempting social distancing.

I am only consciously avoiding the at-risk people and the people who want to be avoided. I am not going to live for the next two years as if the miniscule risk of death I face from COVID trumps every single other human concern I have.

 

[awbuzz]

Not so sure about your number one. Although I'm sure there's a good the truth behind some of it. My wife is a teacher and I know that she was putting in 4 to 8 hours a day.
None of her colleagues I have spoken with are enamoured with working from home. It is hard to teach elementary kids remotely. Especially that need special needs, tier learning, etc. All of them I want to start school as "normal".

 

[FredJacket]

I think I am able to accurately conclude that many people I know personally weren't even attempting social distancing.

There are a lot (how many? ...I have no idea) of folks who really do believe this is overblown and the risk is not sufficient to really adjust their behavior. It is what it is...I think the 'lines' are now drawn and few minds are going to change. Therefore, the level of 'interaction' is baked in now and going forward. We can only hope the number of folks in that category is low enough to avoid spikes in the future.

 

[LawyersGunsandMoney]

There are a lot (how many? ...I have no idea) of folks who really do believe this is overblown and the risk is not sufficient to really adjust their behavior. It is what it is...I think the 'lines' are now drawn and few minds are going to change. Therefore, the level of 'interaction' is baked in now and going forward. We can only hope the number of folks in that category is low enough to avoid spikes in the future.

I mean the average age of those dying is 80+ in Europe. I don't even think I'll make it to 75. I have a lot more to worry about than COVID. That said, we should absolutely protect our seniors.

 

[armeck]

The one I posted is the national chart. I don’t doubt some areas are increasing. But across the country as a whole, the numbers are not increasing right now.

And actually that one from Georgia is still TBD - I can see the numbers could go up or down as more tests in that recent window come back.

That shaded, 14 day window of uncertainty has almost always gone up, not down as data continues to be posted. Nationally, our numbers are going down (I think) because the initially hot spots are cooling off, and now the new ones are rising.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

That shaded, 14 day window of uncertainty has almost always gone up, not down as data continues to be posted. Nationally, our numbers are going down (I think) because the initially hot spots are cooling off, and now the new ones are rising.

That's a good point, because those numbers are incomplete and can only go up. They could stay constant if more tests don't come in, but odds are much more in favor of future updates being higher.

But yea, in order for numbers to be decreasing nationally, for every new hot spot there has to be other areas decreasing.

 

[LawyersGunsandMoney]

In GA it has never spiked above hospital capacity. Not even close. The purpose of the distancing is to avoid overwhelming with the disease, not to eradicate it.

 

[Milwaukee]

From an economics blog recently:


“The coronavirus kills, everyone knows it. But this isn't the first deadly virus the world has seen, so what happened? Why did we react the way we did? One answer is that this is the first social media pandemic. News and narratives travel in real-time right into our hands.

This spreads fear in a way we have never experienced. Drastic and historically unprecedented lockdowns of the economy happened and seemed to be accepted with little question.

We think the world is confusing "scary" with "dangerous." They are not the same thing. It seems many have accepted as fact that coronavirus is one of the scariest things the human race has ever dealt with. But is it the most dangerous? Or even close?

There are four ways to categorize any given reality. It can be scary but not dangerous, scary and dangerous, dangerous but not scary, or not dangerous and not scary.

Clearly, COVID-19 ranks high on the scary scale. A Google news search on the virus brings up over 1.5 billion news results. To date, the virus has tragically killed nearly 100,000 people in the United States, and more lives will be lost. But on a scale of harmless to extremely dangerous, it would still fall into the category of slightly to mildly dangerous for most people, excluding the elderly and those with preexisting medical conditions.

In comparison, many have no idea that heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, killing around 650,000 people every year, 54,000 per month, or approximately 200,000 people between February and mid-May of this year. This qualifies as extremely dangerous. But most people are not very frightened of it. A Google news search for heart disease brings up around 100 million results, under one-fifteenth the results of the COVID-19 search.

It's critical to be able to distinguish between fear and danger. Fear is an emotion, it's the risk that we perceive. As an emotion, it is often blind to the facts. For example, the chances of dying from a shark attack are minuscule, but the thought still crosses most people's minds when they play in the ocean. Danger is measurable, and in the case of sharks, the danger is low, even if fear is sometimes high.

Imagine if an insurance actuary was so scared of something that she graded it 1,000 times riskier than the data showed. This might be a career-ending mistake. This is exactly what people have done regarding COVID-19: making decisions on fear and not data.“

 

[cyclejacket]

I don't think everything should stay locked down, but I think that large gatherings should be banned (concerts, movies, churches). I think face coverings should be mandated. I think any business who can effectively follow the guidelines should be allowed to be open.

Just out of curiosity, do you think church gatherings should be banned temporarily, or do you think govt should go ahead and just ban churches?

If the answer to that was church gatherings, why do you think businesses can be exempt as long as they follow safety protocols but not houses of worship?

 

[armeck]

Just out of curiosity, do you think church gatherings should be banned temporarily, or do you think govt should go ahead and just ban churches?

If the answer to that was church gatherings, why do you think businesses can be exempt as long as they follow safety protocols but not houses of worship?

I think church gatherings should be banned, unless of course they can reduce the volume of people and keep the distance like businesses are required to do. Also, 100% masked.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I think church gatherings should be banned, unless of course they can reduce the volume of people and keep the distance like businesses are required to do. Also, 100% masked.

So the answer then in your opinion is that church gatherings actually shouldn't be banned, which is the correct legal and constitutional answer. Just like any other business, they need to adhere to certain health precautions.

 

[armeck]

So the answer then in your opinion is that church gatherings actually shouldn't be banned, which is the correct legal and constitutional answer. Just like any other business, they need to adhere to certain health precautions.

I personally would like to see them banned (along with all non-essential gatherings), but I would not ask that of the government. I also don't have much faith (heh) in churches actually doing due diligence in maintaining proper guidelines.

Also, they are NOT a business, and if they are to be granted business protections and considerations - then pay taxes.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I personally would like to see them banned (along with all non-essential gatherings), but I would not ask that of the government. I also don't have much faith (heh) in churches actually doing due diligence in maintaining proper guidelines.

Also, they are NOT a business, and if they are to be granted business protections and considerations - then pay taxes.

Churches have more constitutional protections than businesses do, not less. If you don't want any unsafe gatherings banned, just churches, then that's going to be an unpopular opinion. I keep thinking you're not saying that, but then you don't completely clear the air about it. I don't intend to go back into church anytime soon - its all online (and was available before that way anyway). But if they choose to allow people back in, safely distance people, and so on, then there is no justifiable reason to ban them whatsoever.

 

[Techster]

I personally would like to see them banned (along with all non-essential gatherings), but I would not ask that of the government. I also don't have much faith (heh) in churches actually doing due diligence in maintaining proper guidelines.

Also, they are NOT a business, and if they are to be granted business protections and considerations - then pay taxes.

I was driving in my car the other day, and I thought to myself "Man, how great would it be to be driving down this beautiful road with a brand new beautiful car...?"

I thought I was thinking to myself, but it most definitely could have been God speaking to me and telling me to get that beautiful new car because I'm just stagnating...

 

[LibertyTurns]

I tend towards libertarian ends, but I also believe in property rights. If the owner of a store wants me to wear a mask to shop there, I will do so or not shop there. I wish some of the FREEDOM people were respectful of other people's property rights.

That’s exactly how a good card carrying Libertarian would respond. Owner has a right to sell stuff under his terms, you have the opportunity to buy under your terms. Only a fascist would say neither of you have the right to decide, I’ll tell you what you can and can’t do.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I was driving in my car the other day, and I thought to myself "Man, how great would it be to be driving down this beautiful road with a brand new beautiful car...?"

I thought I was thinking to myself, but it most definitely could have been God speaking to me and telling me to get that beautiful new car because I'm just stagnating...

These people were bizarre wacky nut jobs before they supposedly found religion. There isn't anything Biblical about these sorts of people or the content of those conversations.