Coronavirus Thread

[JacketOff]

Let’s ban serving alcohol at bars, stadiums and restaurants. That will solve the drunk driving problem.

If me wearing a mask is to protect others from me possibly having the virus and potentially giving it to them, then banning alcohol will protect innocent drivers from being exposed to the potential of you possibly getting drunk and driving. Right?

There are laws in place that are deterrents for drunk driving with some pretty severe penalties. Should somebody be in a car accident while drunk, the penalties are extremely stiff. So your comparison is apples to oranges.

If you wanted a real comparison, it would be whether or not there should be laws in place requiring masks in public places, with “anti-maskers” subject to penalties. If you are found to been the source of contact for somebody who contracted the virus, those penalties would become very stiff.

 

[YJMD]

Let’s ban serving alcohol at bars, stadiums and restaurants. That will solve the drunk driving problem.

If me wearing a mask is to protect others from me possibly having the virus and potentially giving it to them, then banning alcohol will protect innocent drivers from being exposed to the potential of you possibly getting drunk and driving. Right?

You're begging the question. Analogies are meant to assist in illustrating a principle. That has been achieved. There is a conflict in each: your exercise of your liberty puts others at risk. We are rife with that in society. In each situation, we must decide whether the benefits to others in restricting your liberty justifies the cost of your liberty. This is where you have erred. What we determine is the best balance for alcohol doesn't matter as to what we determine as the best balance for COVID.

So, if you wish to further discuss this balance, we must come to some clearer understanding as to:
1. What are the benefits of compulsory mask wearing?
2. What is the harm to your individual liberty?

 

[MidtownJacket]

You're begging the question. Analogies are meant to assist in illustrating a principle. That has been achieved. There is a conflict in each: your exercise of your liberty puts others at risk. We are rife with that in society. In each situation, we must decide whether the benefits to others in restricting your liberty justifies the cost of your liberty. This is where you have erred. What we determine is the best balance for alcohol doesn't matter as to what we determine as the best balance for COVID.

So, if you wish to further discuss this balance, we must come to some clearer understanding as to:
1. What are the benefits of compulsory mask wearing?
2. What is the harm to your individual liberty?

Bolding is my own, but this 100 percent. We live in a society with laws, which all remove some individual liberties to protect / benefit the masses. It is the social contract we accept to live in a nation that allows and protects other freedoms.

 

[YJMD]

well that’s conflating two different things. Don’t get me wrong, like I said I totally believe in wearing masks. There is science from numerous studies that shows it prevents the spread of disease. I wear them all the time where it’s applicable. Anecdotally, the people in Asia who deal with these sorts of diseases all the time also wear them. But the math behind it is what it is. We are barely at 1% of the population having gotten the virus – and a fraction of that population was/is out spreading it asymptomatically where masks would have prevented it. So maybe it’s 500 to 1 or 1000 to 1. But the point is, if roughly half the people right now are wearing masks, the person that you see not wearing one is 99.9% a jerk and 0.1% dangerous. Or somewhere roughly thereabouts.

This is flawed. We don't know the likelihood that someone has COVID. People who are at risk of spreading COVID may not know they have COVID. People who are engaging in public readily without mask wearing are far likelier to have COVID than the general population. We don't know exactly how likely. We can't expect to know it. If we make the wrong assumptions even using really good methods, our model's results may be very far off observed reality. It is also very far from static over time. Your risk of COVID exposure today in public is far higher than it was in May.

Simply put, this is not a useful way to examine things when we have actual outcomes to study.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

This is flawed. We don't know the likelihood that someone has COVID. People who are at risk of spreading COVID may not know they have COVID. People who are engaging in public readily without mask wearing are far likelier to have COVID than the general population. We don't know exactly how likely. We can't expect to know it. If we make the wrong assumptions even using really good methods, our model's results may be very far off observed reality. It is also very far from static over time. Your risk of COVID exposure today in public is far higher than it was in May.

Simply put, this is not a useful way to examine things when we have actual outcomes to study.

well, if we have 30 million asymptomatic people out there spreading the disease, that is indirectly actually good news in terms of the weakness of the disease and the march towards herd immunity. I just happen to think nothing even remotely like that is true. But I could be wrong.

 

[WreckinGT]

Well first of all, 70 cases linked to schools in the entirety of France I wouldn't call a flare up or break out. They shut the schools down temporarily, cleaned and what-not, and then restarted IIRC. We would be so lucky to only see 70 cases linked to schools in a single state. We can't be scared of numbers like those. You clean, alert people, move to online for a week or two, try and correct what may have caused it, and then try again.

If that's true about Georgia, that's really embarrassing and unnecessary. We have all known the main things to do to limit the spread. To not even cover those basics is just sad.

I mean, it was an outbreak. You can argue if the numbers are significant enough to care but it was still an outbreak. I am not as worried about that though as I am with the Missouri summer camp that had to shut down because 82 people were infected or the camp in Arkansas that had to shut down because they had an outbreak. If we struggled to open summer camps then im not sure what is going to happen with real schools.

Also, here is an actual quote related to one of the counties in Georgia:

"Social distancing will be encouraged, but cannot be guaranteed because of space and other considerations, according to the Q&A. “When possible, we will move desks apart and use other common-sense practices; due to space constraints as well as the nature of teaching and learning, we will not be able to consistently maintain six feet of distance between students or six feet of distance between students and teachers or other staff who work with students,” the Q&A reads."

Find me a European country who took a similar approach. We essentially gave up without even trying.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I mean, it was an outbreak. You can argue if the numbers are significant enough to care but it was still an outbreak. I am not as worried about that though as I am with the Missouri summer camp that had to shut down because 82 people were infected or the camp in Arkansas that had to shut down because they had an outbreak. If we struggled to open summer camps then im not sure what is going to happen with real schools.

70 cases in an entire country the size of France is an outbreak?

In terms of the camp, that's exactly why I think our most difficult challenge opening schools up will be the teachers and staff (most of those infected at the camp were staff and counselors). We have to find ways to keep them safe...both on the front end, so they'll show up...but you get an outbreak of a bunch of teachers and you can say bye-bye to having any onsite school anytime soon. Those people are the ones at risk for serious health consequences. Many people are worried about the students, but we better keep our eye on the correct target.

 

[BuzzStone]

Hete is South Carolinas plan - it’s been out about a month: http://dedicationtoeducation.com/

It’s designed to follow the science, Data, and recommendations of educational and health experts. The mode of school is different based on the number of cases in the area. So while you may not know where the cases will be a month from now, you should always know what mode you are heading towards based on where the cases are right now and how they are trending.

Keep in mind this is not a plan state wide. Each district will have to figure out how to do this. And I know that at least 7 districts in the upstate have no clue how school will happen.

 

[YJMD]

well, if we have 30 million asymptomatic people out there spreading the disease, that is indirectly actually good news in terms of the weakness of the disease and the march towards herd immunity. I just happen to think nothing even remotely like that is true. But I could be wrong.

Please read my posts carefully before replying to them.

 

[BuzzStone]

I couldn’t disagree more. The plan is there and has been there for all to see. There are three modes - all online, hybrid, or in school. They will be in one of those three depending on the case level. The end. If it bothers you, you can choose to go 100% online.

it amazes me that you know more about my kids school situation than the administrator I just talked to at one of my kids schools...

In Spartanburg we have no plan on how the school system will play out yet.

 

[armeck]

Keep in mind this is not a plan state wide. Each district will have to figure out how to do this. And I know that at least 7 districts in the upstate have no clue how school will happen.

Because those SC plans are simply guidelines - nothing concrete at all. It is no more or less than CDC guidelines. What parents need are real, concrete plans.

Model 1: “Traditional” Scheduling
In this scenario, health guidelines and facility considerations allow for all students and staff to return to a school to open the school year due to low or no spread of COVID-19 in the area and low to no positive cases within the school building. Districts should still make modifications to their scheduling and instructional practices to mitigate continued COVID-19 risks.

Model 2: Hybrid Scheduling
This situation is most likely to be experienced during a period of medium COVID-19 spread. In this scenario, only a portion of staff and students can report to a physical school building.

Model 3: Full Distance Learning
In this scenario, all students and staff are unable to return to a physical school building. Districts must then rely on a full distance learning schedule.

I mean, ok? But what does any of that actually look like in practice?

 

[BuzzStone]

Because those SC plans are simply guidelines - nothing concrete at all. It is no more or less than CDC guidelines. What parents need are real, concrete plans.


I mean, ok? But what does any of that actually look like in practice?

That is my problem and we have just a little over a week left to make our choice on how our kids will attend. So we have to make the choice not knowing our options....

 

[CTJacket]

Both of the main political ideologies in the US, liberal and conservative, have taken hard stands on issues with no science to back them up.

A truth told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent
https://www.epsilontheory.com/a-truth-thats-told-with-bad-intent/
It's a couple of months old but the part about both sides using it against us is laid bare.

 

[armeck]

That is my problem and we have just a little over a week left to make our choice on how our kids will attend. So we have to make the choice not knowing our options....

We were notified a week ago that we have - a week - to decide. have to make up our mind today by 11:59 PM.

 

[WreckinGT]

70 cases in an entire country the size of France is an outbreak?

In terms of the camp, that's exactly why I think our most difficult challenge opening schools up will be the teachers and staff (most of those infected at the camp were staff and counselors). We have to find ways to keep them safe...both on the front end, so they'll show up...but you get an outbreak of a bunch of teachers and you can say bye-bye to having any onsite school anytime soon. Those people are the ones at risk for serious health consequences. Many people are worried about the students, but we better keep our eye on the correct target.

It was a significant enough outbreak in France that the Minister of Education not only shut down several schools but went to the media publicly to express the danger of contamination and spread in schools. In other words they took it seriously. But you have to keep in mind how they reopened. They only allowed schools in green zones (low infection rates) to reopen. They started with grade school children. They only brought back about 1/3rd of schools in the beginning. They capped class sizes at 15 kids. There is a safe way to go about this if safety is an actual concern.

 

[dtm1997]

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Please read my posts carefully before replying to them.

Oh I have.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

it amazes me that you know more about my kids school situation than the administrator I just talked to at one of my kids schools...

In Spartanburg we have no plan on how the school system will play out yet.

I love your condescension. I didn't say that. What I said is there is a plan, its been out, and its very clear. If your particular district chooses to ignore that or do something else, its on them. You might think about moving. But there is a solid and very detailed framework for them to work from.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Because those SC plans are simply guidelines - nothing concrete at all. It is no more or less than CDC guidelines. What parents need are real, concrete plans.


I mean, ok? But what does any of that actually look like in practice?

Yes, it is a very detailed report you can read. Plastic dividers/shields on desks, information on class size numbers, and so on.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

It was a significant enough outbreak in France that the Minister of Education not only shut down several schools but went to the media publicly to express the danger of contamination and spread in schools. In other words they took it seriously. But you have to keep in mind how they reopened. They only allowed schools in green zones (low infection rates) to reopen. They started with grade school children. They only brought back about 1/3rd of schools in the beginning. They capped class sizes at 15 kids. There is a safe way to go about this if safety is an actual concern.

Yep, exactly. In my state we will most likely start online due to the numbers. But they are planning for how to implement the hybrid strategy for medium levels of area infection (think like Mon/Wed vs Tues/Thurs class splitting) and a regular full on attendance (which will still have precautions in place).