Here's a COVID thread for you

[Deleted member 2897]

This is idiotic. The second sentence is fine. I've spent time in SC recently, so by my observations, this is true. Most people are still wearing masks most places. Most people are still socially distancing. Many people have been vaccinated.

Shutdowns and restrictions created an environment that inhibited the transmission of the virus. That's a good thing. Once it became apparent things were getting under control, restrictions loosen. That's the way it's supposed to work. A flat line isn't an indication the restrictions and shutdowns did nothing, it's an indication that they did what they were supposed to do, get people to the point where they did what needed to be done, and get them vaccinated.

I posit without the shutdowns and restrictions you lambast, most people would not have followed half of what you suggest in the second half of your comment.

You do realize we're not shutdown and have no restrictions in South Carolina don't you? We have a flat line without having done any of that.

 

[RonJohn]

This is idiotic. The second sentence is fine. I've spent time in SC recently, so by my observations, this is true. Most people are still wearing masks most places. Most people are still socially distancing. Many people have been vaccinated.

Shutdowns and restrictions created an environment that inhibited the transmission of the virus. That's a good thing. Once it became apparent things were getting under control, restrictions loosen. That's the way it's supposed to work. A flat line isn't an indication the restrictions and shutdowns did nothing, it's an indication that they did what they were supposed to do, get people to the point where they did what needed to be done, and get them vaccinated.

I posit without the shutdowns and restrictions you lambast, most people would not have followed half of what you suggest in the second half of your comment.

That depends on what "shutdowns" you are referring to. I have posted several times before that immediately shutting things down when the pandemic first started was probably appropriate. However, nobody looked at what was actually effective and what was not effective. In Michigan, it was against regulation to allow a person to enter a self-storage facility. The person would have to unlock an unattended keypad gate, then proceed to their own locked storage facility by themselves. But that was not allowed. In Illinois it was against regulation to go to a lake by yourself and fish. Neither of those activities carried any threat of spreading the virus. In California in December, they shut down distanced, outside restaurant seating. Did that slow down the virus? Such overreaching shutdowns actually had the opposite effect that you are referring to. There was an article in the LA Times, a normally left-leaning publication, that basically said that people in California were starting to ignore all of the shutdown orders specifically because there were so many that made no sense to people.

Florida was ridiculed for opening theme parks in May or June of 2020. California is just beginning to allow theme parks to reopen. If shutdowns have a reasonable effect, there should be significant differences in the death rates and infection rates between California and Florida. I have attached screenshots from the IHME site comparing California to Florida. The appear very similar to me. One of the least restrictive states and one of the most restrictive states look extremely similar in the results.

This is another case in which people are comparing only the extremes. Zero restrictions and free for alls would have been bad. Complete shutdowns would have been devastating and would have ended up killing more people than COVID has. In reality, there is no state that had zero restriction nor compliance. There are no states that had complete shutdowns. People are arguing about differences in scale, but using arguments for/against the absolute extremes.

 

[WreckinGT]

We dropped ours March 5th in South Carolina. The result:
View attachment 10357

We once again prove shutdowns and restrictions do nothing, and are frequently counter productive. Get vaccinated, practice safe behavior, and if you're vulnerable or worried, then just make your own decisions to protect yourself.

So if the mask mandate was dropped in November, that would have been proof that mask mandates were stopping outbreaks?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

So if the mask mandate was dropped in November, that would have been proof that mask mandates were stopping outbreaks?

Nope, just part of the continued process of people not understanding the data.

@RonJohn summarized it perfectly above. Most of us don't fault the government for shutting down last spring. We didn't know what we didn't know. We learned quickly that despite the government's best efforts, it was unable to even come close to making people whole when their businesses and jobs were shut down. And still, we had 30,000 new cases a day during arguably the best actual shutdown we had. And that was when testing was limited due to FDA constraints, so we probably had 50,000-75,000 new cases a day.

Since then we've learned its behaviors that matter. Arbitrary rules like not being allowed to walk in a park, not being allowed to buy paint to work on your house, and bars closing at certain hours do nothing. Wear masks, keep your distance, and practice good hygiene. If you do that, you can do almost anything you want. So shutdowns aren't necessary. Neither are mask mandates.

Back to your question, we had a state mask mandate for a very small sliver of time. We took a ton of slack for how long we didn't have one, but the truth was in South Carolina that 98% of our population was under local mask mandates. So all those peaks in June, January, and now are all despite the exact same ordinances and rules in our state. Sometimes we see a peak, sometimes we don't, but the rules have remained the same.

Florida has significantly more elderly people than California and a significantly higher population density than California. Yet they're wide open and with better covid numbers, while California spent much of last year shut down and under tight restrictions. While many open states have better covid numbers and 1/3rd the unemployment rate, California had the worst of all worlds. Why? You'd have to ask them. I would postulate that all the tight restrictions leads to people gathering in homes where they can get away with it than outdoors where its safe but not allowed. But that's all speculation. The main point is that looking at the data, shutdowns and tight restrictions have accomplished nothing here other than frustration and financial ruin.

 

[Dress2Jacket]

Florida has significantly more elderly people than California and a significantly higher population density than California. Yet they're wide open and with better covid numbers, while California spent much of last year shut down and under tight restrictions. While many open states have better covid numbers and 1/3rd the unemployment rate, California had the worst of all worlds. Why? You'd have to ask them. I would postulate that all the tight restrictions leads to people gathering in homes where they can get away with it than outdoors where its safe but not allowed. But that's all speculation. The main point is that looking at the data, shutdowns and tight restrictions have accomplished nothing here other than frustration and financial ruin.

California's problem is compounded by packed residential spaces, particularly in the immigrant population. Like an extended family of 15 staying in a 2-3 bedroom apartment. One person becomes infected, everyone becomes infected.

 

[ncjacket79]

You do realize we're not shutdown and have no restrictions in South Carolina don't you? We have a flat line without having done any of that.

You never really had shutdowns in reality. You had restrictions that early on many people ignored.

 

[WreckinGT]

Nope, just part of the continued process of people not understanding the data.

@RonJohn summarized it perfectly above. Most of us don't fault the government for shutting down last spring. We didn't know what we didn't know. We learned quickly that despite the government's best efforts, it was unable to even come close to making people whole when their businesses and jobs were shut down. And still, we had 30,000 new cases a day during arguably the best actual shutdown we had. And that was when testing was limited due to FDA constraints, so we probably had 50,000-75,000 new cases a day.

Since then we've learned its behaviors that matter. Arbitrary rules like not being allowed to walk in a park, not being allowed to buy paint to work on your house, and bars closing at certain hours do nothing. Wear masks, keep your distance, and practice good hygiene. If you do that, you can do almost anything you want. So shutdowns aren't necessary. Neither are mask mandates.

Back to your question, we had a state mask mandate for a very small sliver of time. We took a ton of slack for how long we didn't have one, but the truth was in South Carolina that 98% of our population was under local mask mandates. So all those peaks in June, January, and now are all despite the exact same ordinances and rules in our state. Sometimes we see a peak, sometimes we don't, but the rules have remained the same.

Florida has significantly more elderly people than California and a significantly higher population density than California. Yet they're wide open and with better covid numbers, while California spent much of last year shut down and under tight restrictions. While many open states have better covid numbers and 1/3rd the unemployment rate, California had the worst of all worlds. Why? You'd have to ask them. I would postulate that all the tight restrictions leads to people gathering in homes where they can get away with it than outdoors where its safe but not allowed. But that's all speculation. The main point is that looking at the data, shutdowns and tight restrictions have accomplished nothing here other than frustration and financial ruin.

I don't really care to get into the politics of red states vs blue states, im just saying that taking data points from a time when flu season is over and vaccinations are ramping up probably isn't going to tell the complete story. Mask mandates are obviously not the only factor in covid spread.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

California's problem is compounded by packed residential spaces, particularly in the immigrant population. Like an extended family of 15 staying in a 2-3 bedroom apartment. One person becomes infected, everyone becomes infected.

Floridas population density is nearly double that of California. They have many of the same environments...plus a significantly higher elderly population.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I don't really care to get into the politics of red states vs blue states, im just saying that taking data points from a time when flu season is over and vaccinations are ramping up probably isn't going to tell the complete story. Mask mandates are obviously not the only factor in covid spread.

Not sure why you feel the need to bring politics into a discussion given all the angst this site has with doing that.

 

[WreckinGT]

Not sure why you feel the need to bring politics into a discussion given all the angst this site has with doing that.

lol. Yes, im sure your desire to compare Florida and California does not stem from any political leanings at all.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

lol. Yes, im sure your desire to compare Florida and California does not stem from any political leanings at all.

Pick 2 other states where one is very restrictive and one is open. I don't give a **** which ones you pick. Choose South Carolina and New York. New Jersey and Mississippi. Be my guest. Just leave your own political bull**** out of it. We've had too many of these threads nuked from that.

 

[RonJohn]

lol. Yes, im sure your desire to compare Florida and California does not stem from any political leanings at all.

I chose California and Florida to compare large states that are more open and more closed. Florida has been ridiculed for how open they have been. California has been ridiculed for how closed they have been. I am not a resident of either state, and don't have any political support for or political angst against either governor. I was directly responding to a statement that restrictions had an impact.

 

[WreckinGT]

Pick 2 other states where one is very restrictive and one is open. I don't give a **** which ones you pick. Choose South Carolina and New York. New Jersey and Mississippi. Be my guest. Just leave your own political bull**** out of it. We've had too many of these threads nuked from that.

Sure, why not. To be fair, you might as well compare the state with the most restrictions (Virginia) to the state with the least restrictions (Iowa) according to an independent study.

Population Density
Iowa - 56 residents per sq/mi
Virginia - 115 residents per sq/mi

Deaths per 100k people
Iowa - 187
Virginia - 124

Cases per 100k people
Iowa - 11,339
Virginia - 7,485

Virginia also has to deal with the metro DC area (Alexandria, Arlington) that has a far higher population density than anywhere in Iowa.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Sure, why not. To be fair, you might as well compare the state with the most restrictions (Virginia) to the state with the least restrictions (Iowa) according to an independent study.

Population Density
Iowa - 56 residents per sq/mi
Virginia - 115 residents per sq/mi

Deaths per 100k people
Iowa - 187
Virginia - 124

Cases per 100k people
Iowa - 11,339
Virginia - 7,485

Virginia also has to deal with the metro DC area (Alexandria, Arlington) that has a far higher population density than anywhere in Iowa.

Sure, why not. Anything is fair game. I'll take your 12 million total population between those 2 states and argue that the 60 million people in California and Florida is more material.

Also, Iowa has twice as many elderly people per capita as Virginia. So there's that small point, which should lead you to expect the data you see there. Its inverted in Florida vs California in both elderly population, population density, and restrictions.

 

[forensicbuzz]

That depends on what "shutdowns" you are referring to. I have posted several times before that immediately shutting things down when the pandemic first started was probably appropriate. However, nobody looked at what was actually effective and what was not effective. In Michigan, it was against regulation to allow a person to enter a self-storage facility. The person would have to unlock an unattended keypad gate, then proceed to their own locked storage facility by themselves. But that was not allowed. In Illinois it was against regulation to go to a lake by yourself and fish. Neither of those activities carried any threat of spreading the virus. In California in December, they shut down distanced, outside restaurant seating. Did that slow down the virus? Such overreaching shutdowns actually had the opposite effect that you are referring to. There was an article in the LA Times, a normally left-leaning publication, that basically said that people in California were starting to ignore all of the shutdown orders specifically because there were so many that made no sense to people.

Florida was ridiculed for opening theme parks in May or June of 2020. California is just beginning to allow theme parks to reopen. If shutdowns have a reasonable effect, there should be significant differences in the death rates and infection rates between California and Florida. I have attached screenshots from the IHME site comparing California to Florida. The appear very similar to me. One of the least restrictive states and one of the most restrictive states look extremely similar in the results.


View attachment 10371


View attachment 10372


This is another case in which people are comparing only the extremes. Zero restrictions and free for alls would have been bad. Complete shutdowns would have been devastating and would have ended up killing more people than COVID has. In reality, there is no state that had zero restriction nor compliance. There are no states that had complete shutdowns. People are arguing about differences in scale, but using arguments for/against the absolute extremes.

I live in Illinois. I know what the restrictions were, what was allowed, and what wasn't. Never saw anyone not able to fish by themselves. Every restriction I saw regarding outdoors was that you needed to have a mask if you couldn't maintain 6' distance. That's it. Everyone I saw followed reasonable guidlines regarding mask-wearing and restrictions.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I live in Illinois. I know what the restrictions were, what was allowed, and what wasn't. Never saw anyone not able to fish by themselves. Every restriction I saw regarding outdoors was that you needed to have a mask if you couldn't maintain 6' distance. That's it. Everyone I saw followed reasonable guidlines regarding mask-wearing and restrictions.

That can vary by state. California was accosting people alone in parks, paddle boarding, etc. Hell, during the original shutdown state and local parks in South Carolina were shutdown. They put signs up and tied the gates closed - we weren't supposed to go hike on trails alone in a forest, LOLOLOLOLOL.

 

[forensicbuzz]

That can vary by state. California was accosting people alone in parks, paddle boarding, etc. Hell, during the original shutdown state and local parks in South Carolina were shutdown. They put signs up and tied the gates closed - we weren't supposed to go hike on trails alone in a forest, LOLOLOLOLOL.

In the Chicagoland area the forest preserves were open, the parks were open (the playgrounds were taped off, mostly due to contact transfer concerns), people went outside and talked to each other from across the street. No one went into anyone else's house, but they did social things with extreme separation. I thought the Governor did a good job here. Nothing was perfect, but everything seemed reasonable at the time it was done. Often the rules were left to individual villages.

 

[RonJohn]

I live in Illinois. I know what the restrictions were, what was allowed, and what wasn't. Never saw anyone not able to fish by themselves. Every restriction I saw regarding outdoors was that you needed to have a mask if you couldn't maintain 6' distance. That's it. Everyone I saw followed reasonable guidlines regarding mask-wearing and restrictions.

That restriction was for State owned fish and wildlife areas only. People could still fish on privately owned lakes.

News

www2.illinois.gov

I remembered that because when they opened back up it was something like two people from the same family could enter state fish areas to fish but had to maintain some large distance between themselves an others. My thought at the time was that preventing two people from the same family from fishing on the side of a state owned fishing area had an almost zero chance of spreading the virus to begin with. My thought at the time was that even if an immediate shutdown was necessary, that things that are very low risk should have been looked for and relaxed within a few days or weeks. In Michigan, they set up a regulation that didn't allow people to visit a vacation home if both homes were in Michigan. You could move between a house in Michigan and a house in another state, but if you owned a home and a vacation home both inside Michigan, you could not travel between them. I never heard of anyone being cited for violating that regulation, but simply having that regulation makes no sense. Having non-sensical restrictions doesn't prevent spread of disease and erodes public trust of the government. @SnidelyWhiplash has stated that people conforming to safe practices is the important thing. Political battles between governors imposing apparently nonsensical government restrictions and governors apparently deriding safe practices didn't help. I would say that neither of those positions helps get the public to follow safe practices.

 

[WreckinGT]

Sure, why not. Anything is fair game. I'll take your 12 million total population between those 2 states and argue that the 60 million people in California and Florida is more material.

Also, Iowa has twice as many elderly people per capita as Virginia. So there's that small point, which should lead you to expect the data you see there. Its inverted in Florida vs California in both elderly population, population density, and restrictions.

If total population is now your concern then im not sure why comparing Florida or any other state to California makes any sense. As far as Iowa goes, they have a 17.1 percent elderly population. Virginia has a 15.4 percent elderly population. Im not sure that 1.7 percent difference explains a 37% difference in deaths or a 34% difference in cases.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

If total population is now your concern then im not sure why comparing Florida or any other state to California makes any sense. As far as Iowa goes, they have a 17.1 percent elderly population. Virginia has a 15.4 percent elderly population. Im not sure that 1.7 percent difference explains a 37% difference in deaths or a 34% difference in cases.

Thats not even close to the elderly population I see when I look it up. I see 17% in Iowa and 12% in Virginia, which match the Covid death rates perfectly.

I said your argument was fair. The reason I pointed out population was because you picked 1 of the smallest most obscure states in the country. Yes it’s a datapoint, but there are several other data points much larger in size which disagree. For example, Florida has more than 10x more elderly people than Iowa.