bobongo
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 7,753
But Bwelbo — and I know you look at all sides — there are so many articles and statements like this:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...t-back-cloth-masks-limit-covid-19-experts-say
And so science specifically with respect to Covid and masks is definitely not certain. Really the evidence and debate seems to mirror that of global warming...
The CDC and a few other sites will provide cases, hospitalizations, and deaths per 100k as well as totals. California and Florida look better when adjusted for population. Louisiana and Michigan look worse that way. I didn’t see a good way to filter for the last month, though.
https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/
As far as lockdowns are concerned, China locked down regions until they could get a plan in place, but it seems like we just learned to lock down. I’m not sure who has a good strategy, but it seems like the southeast asian countries are doing better.
Regarding masks, most studies I’ve seen lately are that they’re effective. I haven’t seen any evidence that they’re harmful other than raising your heart rate a bit when you’re exercising. It seems like they have a preponderance of the evidence for an upside, little to no evidence for a downside, and they’re cheap and have individual control.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
800 posts complaining about lack of data in Florida. A couple google searches, and everything seems to be right at your fingertips. So I guess I’ll fall for it and ask what am I missing?
https://tallahasseereports.com/2020...ive-trends-for-florida-in-coronavirus-battle/
The only negative I’m aware of it reduces the amount of O2 being breathed in. I’d post the study but it’s from THAT institution we dislike, but reduction in O2 is 5-20% causing lightheadedness and dizziness if work too long. It can also cause lung damage. If you have respiratory issues, ie asthma it’s obviously a bit of an issue. Ambient air is 21% or so, therefore a mask reduces your O2 intake down to 17-20%. OSHA requires 19.5%. We’ve told our employees masks are required anywhere they’re near others but they should be wary of their personal situation and if they have any signs of being lightheaded, dizzy they are to go to a break area and take 5-10 mins. Repeated instances they need to go see the nurse and be evaluated if they need to be moved to an area requiring less mask use.Regarding masks, most studies I’ve seen lately are that they’re effective. I haven’t seen any evidence that they’re harmful other than raising your heart rate a bit when you’re exercising. It seems like they have a preponderance of the evidence for an upside, little to no evidence for a downside, and they’re cheap and have individual control.
There are a few things that went in China's favor:The CDC and a few other sites will provide cases, hospitalizations, and deaths per 100k as well as totals. California and Florida look better when adjusted for population. Louisiana and Michigan look worse that way. I didn’t see a good way to filter for the last month, though.
https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/
As far as lockdowns are concerned, China locked down regions until they could get a plan in place, but it seems like we just learned to lock down. I’m not sure who has a good strategy, but it seems like the southeast asian countries are doing better.
Regarding masks, most studies I’ve seen lately are that they’re effective. I haven’t seen any evidence that they’re harmful other than raising your heart rate a bit when you’re exercising. It seems like they have a preponderance of the evidence for an upside, little to no evidence for a downside, and they’re cheap and have individual control.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
There are a few things that went in China's favor:
1. They can obviously implement any kind of lockdown they want with incredible speed. They had government arranged food delivery services shortly after shutting down. How long would it take us to do something like that?
2. Things shutdown during Chinese new year when most people weren't working anyways making the transition smoother.
3. Mask culture is already established in China. Even before the virus it is pretty common see plenty of people wearing masks and its never shunned in any way. Most wear them because of pollution.
4. Chinese people are generally on board with the governments efforts. When the vast majority of the nation is working together towards a common goal it obviously helps things.
No, I meant that the people I have spoken to are generally on board with the way the government has handled this situation. For full disclosure, I have family and friends in China and I work with teams in China on a daily basis. They don't feel oppressed from my experience. They feel it is necessary. There is plenty of criticism for how they handled the start of the pandemic, especially with regards to Li Wenliang, but for the most part everyone has been pretty much on board with the response to the virus itself.Or said another way - its an oppressive communist regime. Take the most recent lockdown. 18 people tested positive in one area. China blockaded the neighborhoods. Nobody was allowed to come or go. Only 1 person was allowed outside in each household per day, and only once per day, and only for emergency supplies. People were given required time schedules to show up to be tested. No vehicles are allowed to be used. So when people are 'generally onboard', that's by force of gun by the military.
As far as lockdowns are concerned, China locked down regions until they could get a plan in place, but it seems like we just learned to lock down. I’m not sure who has a good strategy, but it seems like the southeast asian countries are doing better.
Almost all of these measures (the business about only one person leaving a house would, I think, be out) would be constitutional in the U.S. under a national emergency declaration. We don't do this kind of thing because we have a political culture that doesn't like the government to try it. There's nothing necessarily oppressive about measures to control an infectious disease that can spread through asymptomatic individuals. The problem with SARS-Cov-2 is that it isn't deadly enough to lead to a demand here to take such measures to suppress it. The barriers are lower in China, probably as much due to past experience (SARS) as an expectation that the government's commands would be wise to obey.Or said another way - its an oppressive communist regime. Take the most recent lockdown. 18 people tested positive in one area. China blockaded the neighborhoods. Nobody was allowed to come or go. Only 1 person was allowed outside in each household per day, and only once per day, and only for emergency supplies. People were given required time schedules to show up to be tested. No vehicles are allowed to be used. So when people are 'generally onboard', that's by force of gun by the military.
On the shutdown and its effects, see:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w27432.pdf
Yet another study that uses cell phone records to track movement and a "quasi-experimental" research design. The abstract tells the story. Short paper: people quit going to "leisure and entertainment" businesses because they were scared, that started well before any mandated shutdowns, and the rebound in activity from "reopening" has been modest for the same reason.
I took the family to Universal Studios this past weekend, so we engaged in activities rated 6 and 8. (eating indoors at restaurants and amusement parks) I guess we will see within a couple of weeks if we got the virus.
Read pages 5 - 7 again. Goolsby and Syverson's explanation of the effects they estimated in Table 1 shows why they said what they did and why they did more then look at the graphs of logged visits. The Appendix Table they provide is also informative.How closely did you study their charts? Most states instituted stay-at-home orders, limited restaurants to take-out only, and so on the second week in March. So look at the data in their charts immediately preceding those orders - traffic was down a small fraction.
Also, traffic had rebounded 50% by the end of the chart, which was before any reopening.
Once again a group of people who publish something they want to believe instead of what the data shows them.
I’m always amazed how different the circles we run in are. My company has a reasonably large footprint in China. They’d never text, email or post anything on social media derogatory to the Chinese government, but man when they get back stateside Katie bar the door. They couldn’t hate the response & treatment any more than they do. Got three out of Chinese “jail” a little over a month ago & they’re resigning because we’ve got no place to put them other than China and the job nature makes it impossible to telecommute from here to there. Let’s see- massive cover ups, blatant lying, abusive controls, incompetent leadership, slow & incoherent responses, etc are the themes on the ground among the few willing to talk. Most people over there are reluctant to talk to the expats right now for fear of becoming enemies of the state.No, I meant that the people I have spoken to are generally on board with the way the government has handled this situation. For full disclosure, I have family and friends in China and I work with teams in China on a daily basis. They don't feel oppressed from my experience. They feel it is necessary. There is plenty of criticism for how they handled the start of the pandemic, especially with regards to Li Wenliang, but for the most part everyone has been pretty much on board with the response to the virus itself.
The actual sentence should read: "… i.e. that the bottom fell out of consumer demand in leisure and entertainment before any shutdown and continued falling until states began to take their foot off the pedal." My bad.Read pages 5 - 7 again. Goolsby and Syverson's explanation of the effects they estimated in Table 1 shows why they said what they did and why they did more then look at the graphs of logged visits. The Appendix Table they provide is also informative.
This has absolutely nothing to do with ignoring the data; indeed, it is their careful parsing of effects that reveals what the data are actually telling us; i.e. that the bottom fell out of consumer demand in leisure and entertainment before any re-opening and continued falling until states began to take their foot off the pedal. Even then demand (as measured by visits) only partially recovered.