Author Topic: Coronavirus  (Read 44937 times)

spork

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1305
  • CHE Posts: 18449
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #675 on: June 29, 2020, 04:37:06 AM »

RatGuy

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 158
  • Rats, Books, and Board Games
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #676 on: June 29, 2020, 05:25:42 AM »
This is relevant for students on campus, since every break between classes will tend to involve about 10 minutes of being within 6 feet of a whole bunch of people. So, once an outbreak starts, as more become (asymptomatically) infected, the halls will become more dangerous.

Still less dangerous than the taco place on Margarita Mondays or that one bar on Ladies Night or that other bar on Thirsty Thursday or that sports bar all weekend.

Students get mono, the flu, and all sorts of other stuff every year. It gets so bad every year that we just call it "the crud" and it starts knocking students out for the second half of October. I'm don't think my class will crack the top ten of the most contaminated places my students will encounter.

marshwiggle

  • Finally, a
  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Old Narnian
  • CHE Posts: 3299
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #677 on: June 29, 2020, 06:00:32 AM »
This is relevant for students on campus, since every break between classes will tend to involve about 10 minutes of being within 6 feet of a whole bunch of people. So, once an outbreak starts, as more become (asymptomatically) infected, the halls will become more dangerous.

Still less dangerous than the taco place on Margarita Mondays or that one bar on Ladies Night or that other bar on Thirsty Thursday or that sports bar all weekend.

Students get mono, the flu, and all sorts of other stuff every year. It gets so bad every year that we just call it "the crud" and it starts knocking students out for the second half of October. I'm don't think my class will crack the top ten of the most contaminated places my students will encounter.

I don't disagree. In fact, that's exactly the point. Outbreaks WILL occur once students get brought back on campus. No amount of rules about PPE, distancing, etc. are going to prevent that.
It takes so little to be above average.

Cheerful

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 566
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #678 on: June 29, 2020, 04:59:02 PM »

polly_mer

  • The Voice of Doom
  • Senior Moderator
  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3046
  • Have you hugged your family today?
  • CHE Posts: lots!
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #679 on: June 29, 2020, 05:21:06 PM »
I was just saying we want to be careful to distinguish between our own personal choices about risk and judgements of others.

That works when other people's carelessness doesn't have a direct effect on those of us who take the risks seriously because we're tracking the science instead of the press releases about the science.

Yes, I judge and I'm not sorry about judging harshly people who make bad choices that hurt other people.

This falls again into the category of why academics tend to have a bad reputation among the rest of us, when there's clearly correct and incorrect answers with severe consequences for being incorrect and somehow we're supposed to ignore that reality and not judge.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2020, 05:24:07 PM by polly_mer »
Do whatever you want--I'm just the background dancer in your show!

nebo113

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #680 on: June 30, 2020, 04:38:03 AM »
Almost 150 cases reported at University of Georgia, includes students and staff.

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/clarke-county/uga-confirms-nearly-150-cases-covid-19-among-students-staff/AMB36W6ENJBSHJPM7B2XL67T6Q/

Students were idiots.  Campus workers may have had inadequate protection.

Caracal

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #681 on: June 30, 2020, 05:10:53 AM »
I was just saying we want to be careful to distinguish between our own personal choices about risk and judgements of others.

That works when other people's carelessness doesn't have a direct effect on those of us who take the risks seriously because we're tracking the science instead of the press releases about the science.

Yes, I judge and I'm not sorry about judging harshly people who make bad choices that hurt other people.

This falls again into the category of why academics tend to have a bad reputation among the rest of us, when there's clearly correct and incorrect answers with severe consequences for being incorrect and somehow we're supposed to ignore that reality and not judge.

At this moment, I can't tell you how much this pisses me off. It is completely counterproductive. Don't choose self righteous bull-**** over actual useful messaging. Grocery stores are not extremely dangerous places for shoppers. I'd sooner avoid them, but they aren't driving spread. Those delivery and pick up services you and I use? They cost money, which not everyone has. Beaches, parks and outdoor places are the least dangerous places for people to socialize. Of course, people should be cautious, there and everywhere else, but if I see one more damn picture of people on a beach with a tag about "gatherings" I might lose it.

And no, there's no "science" that suggests anything else than this in broad strokes. The problem about the self righteous judgement is that it actively hurts. In fact, telling people that things that aren't that risky, are risky, is almost certainly going to backfire. It isn't reasonable to tell people not to socialize till sometime in the indeterminate future. Social contact is a basic human need. Avoiding it is hard. Of course, this takes empathy, not cheap judgement. You also have to offer options in terms of reduced risk. The safest thing is not having any contact. However, the next safest thing is contact outside and try to keep some distance.

The problem is that when you judge people for not particularly dangerous things, you actually encourage an attitude of "oh well, what can you do, I can't be a hermit for 6 months" rather than encouraging people to make sensible choices and balance risks. Of course, as you say, this all comes from a paternalistic attitude that only you are qualified to judge risks. It won't work, it won't help, we don't need it.

Before you start waving your hands about the real science, try this (from an epidemiologist) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/quarantine-fatigue-real-and-shaming-people-wont-help/61148

Or

https://twitter.com/AbraarKaran/status/1277741621384273920

Ok, rant over, I needed that.



apl68

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #682 on: June 30, 2020, 08:09:27 AM »
Grocery stores are not extremely dangerous places for shoppers. I'd sooner avoid them, but they aren't driving spread. Those delivery and pick up services you and I use? They cost money, which not everyone has. Beaches, parks and outdoor places are the least dangerous places for people to socialize. Of course, people should be cautious, there and everywhere else, but if I see one more damn picture of people on a beach with a tag about "gatherings" I might lose it.

And no, there's no "science" that suggests anything else than this in broad strokes. The problem about the self righteous judgement is that it actively hurts. In fact, telling people that things that aren't that risky, are risky, is almost certainly going to backfire. It isn't reasonable to tell people not to socialize till sometime in the indeterminate future. Social contact is a basic human need. Avoiding it is hard. Of course, this takes empathy, not cheap judgement. You also have to offer options in terms of reduced risk. The safest thing is not having any contact. However, the next safest thing is contact outside and try to keep some distance.

The problem is that when you judge people for not particularly dangerous things, you actually encourage an attitude of "oh well, what can you do, I can't be a hermit for 6 months" rather than encouraging people to make sensible choices and balance risks. Of course, as you say, this all comes from a paternalistic attitude that only you are qualified to judge risks. It won't work, it won't help, we don't need it.

Before you start waving your hands about the real science, try this (from an epidemiologist) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/quarantine-fatigue-real-and-shaming-people-wont-help/61148

Or

https://twitter.com/AbraarKaran/status/1277741621384273920

Ok, rant over, I needed that.

A lot of this seems to me to fall under not letting the best become the enemy of the good.  Yes, avoiding human contact almost entirely until a vaccine is developed is the surest way to avoid infection.  But it's becoming evident that one can engage in many activities outside the home with only limited risk to oneself and to others IF suitable precautions are taken.  A lot of us need to engage in these activities.  A lot of us have no choice. 

I have a locally important public service to run, and I can't do it from home.  We have staff members who need to work to make a living.  We have patrons who need our on-site services.  So we're here working, and using masks, social distancing, plexiglass barriers, careful cleaning after people, etc. to manage risks.  Yesterday we waited on dozens of people on-site.  But we never had more than a handful onsite at a time, we kept them socially distanced, minimized face-to-face contact, and cleaned up surfaces that received extended or repeated contact.  We quarantine returned library materials for at least two days and clean them before re-shelving.  All indications are that this regimen has reduced the chances of the disease being spread here to a very low level.  So my conscience is clear on this.  It's also clear when it comes to attending our recently reopened church where we practice masking and social distancing.

I have no patience for the childish attitudes of those who refuse to wear a mask or practice any precautions because they don't like anybody telling them what to do.  I also have no patience for the notion that the only intelligent or virtuous thing to do is to hunker down at home for a year or so.  Using our intelligence tells us that the world can't keep going unless there are people out there processing and delivering the wide array of essential goods and services needed by a modern society to exist.  The idea that if Congress would only borrow a few more trillion dollars we could pay everybody to stay at home for a year or so is a fantasy. 

As for virtue, it seems to me awfully smug for people who have jobs they can continue to do from home or other income they can depend upon to sit tight, pay others to take all the risks of going out and fetching their food and other goods for them, and then lecture everybody else on how they ought to be doing the same.  The stay-at-homes couldn't stay at home if some of us weren't out here in the world still working, running calculated risks to keep the world running.  The people I find admirable in this emergency are those who are out there taking their fair share of the chances in a risk-managed manner.

mamselle

  • Use your wit and intelligence to figure out how to be kinder
  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2979
  • Wondering, Wandering Sr. Member
  • CHE Posts: 4,618
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #683 on: June 30, 2020, 08:25:33 AM »
The distinction between "using good judgement" and "being judgemental" was once pointed out to me as an important one to observe.

I think that idea might underlie the discussion here: we need to use our own good judgement, as informed by reliable direction from those who have studied epidemiology and the social constructions of illness, as a basis for our choices.

That might include abstaining from interactions with those whose judgement seems to us to be poor, and if called on to comment, we will do well to contextualize our pronouncements with mercy (myself included).

What's become frustrating is the kind of behavior and attitudes that want to shrug off informed opinion and, metaphorically, drive down the wrong side of the road at 90 mph whether or not they risk others' lives in their exhilaration.

As my dad used to say, "Your right to swing your fist stops where the other guy's nose begins."

M.
Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.

Reprove not a scorner, lest they hate thee: rebuke the wise, and they will love thee.

Give instruction to the wise, and they will be yet wiser: teach the just, and they will increase in learning.

Caracal

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #684 on: June 30, 2020, 08:39:08 AM »
The distinction between "using good judgement" and "being judgemental" was once pointed out to me as an important one to observe.

I think that idea might underlie the discussion here: we need to use our own good judgement, as informed by reliable direction from those who have studied epidemiology and the social constructions of illness, as a basis for our choices.

That might include abstaining from interactions with those whose judgement seems to us to be poor, and if called on to comment, we will do well to contextualize our pronouncements with mercy (myself included).

What's become frustrating is the kind of behavior and attitudes that want to shrug off informed opinion and, metaphorically, drive down the wrong side of the road at 90 mph whether or not they risk others' lives in their exhilaration.

As my dad used to say, "Your right to swing your fist stops where the other guy's nose begins."

M.

Well put. I'm frustrated by irresponsible behavior too. Of course, we shouldn't let it distract us from the irresponsible choices of those in power. I don't think anyone should be going out to a bar right now, but then why the hell are bars open in so many places? Ditto for indoor dining.

clean

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • CHE Posts: 5416
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #685 on: June 30, 2020, 10:28:21 AM »
Quote
but then why the hell are bars open in so many places? Ditto for indoor dining.

I believe that it is summed up by The Golden Rule.... the one that relates to $$$.  something about the Gold drives the rules?

IF bars and dining rooms are open, then sales taxes are collected, rents are paid, employees  go to work (and off the unemployment roles), and the economy improves  (Just In Time for Elections? maybe??).

When governments are looking at huge funding deficit, anything that can be done to increase the money flowing in and decrease the money flowing out!

Remember the Texas Vice Governor (whatever he is called in Texas)?  He made national news noting that Grandparents are willing to DIE for the financial well being of their grandchildren!  Taken to the extreme, with fewer 'old' people, the less we pay in health care (Medicare) or pay out in social security, the faster houses become available for the 20something crowd...

However, IF the bar crowd had followed the social distancing rules (IF that is possible to do in a bar anyway), then there would be no need to shut them down now.  It does not speak well of us in society though, that we are not taking precautions for the whole and instead focusing on the pleasure of the few.

oh well....
"The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am"  Darth Vader

Anselm

  • Guardian against dark psychic forces
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 252
  • CHE Posts: 3500
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #686 on: June 30, 2020, 11:06:43 AM »

Well put. I'm frustrated by irresponsible behavior too. Of course, we shouldn't let it distract us from the irresponsible choices of those in power. I don't think anyone should be going out to a bar right now, but then why the hell are bars open in so many places? Ditto for indoor dining.

I went into a local bar and grill at the end of May to get some take out food.  They were the only place still serving near midnight. I walked in being the only person with a mask on.  There were 30 people close together with no masks.  The music was loud which forces people to raise their voices, another thing which increases the chances of virus transmission.    It was during the month of May that this county went from 20 cases to 600 positive tests out of a total population of 30,000 people. 
I am Dr. Thunderdome and I run Bartertown.

Caracal

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #687 on: June 30, 2020, 12:47:58 PM »
Quote
but then why the hell are bars open in so many places? Ditto for indoor dining.

I believe that it is summed up by The Golden Rule.... the one that relates to $$$.  something about the Gold drives the rules?

IF bars and dining rooms are open, then sales taxes are collected, rents are paid, employees  go to work (and off the unemployment roles), and the economy improves  (Just In Time for Elections? maybe??).

When governments are looking at huge funding deficit, anything that can be done to increase the money flowing in and decrease the money flowing out!

Remember the Texas Vice Governor (whatever he is called in Texas)?  He made national news noting that Grandparents are willing to DIE for the financial well being of their grandchildren!  Taken to the extreme, with fewer 'old' people, the less we pay in health care (Medicare) or pay out in social security, the faster houses become available for the 20something crowd...

However, IF the bar crowd had followed the social distancing rules (IF that is possible to do in a bar anyway), then there would be no need to shut them down now.  It does not speak well of us in society though, that we are not taking precautions for the whole and instead focusing on the pleasure of the few.

oh well....

Except that the economy is not going to improve in the midst of a raging pandemic.

clean

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
  • CHE Posts: 5416
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #688 on: June 30, 2020, 01:17:33 PM »
Quote
Except that the economy is not going to improve in the midst of a raging pandemic.

I would agree until this statement is wrong.
The economy was certainly improving while the bars and restaurants were full of unmasked, drinking, carousing folks.  they were certainly spending money!
The idea that people will avoid these places, as evidenced by the need to shut them back down, is that people did NOT avoid them.  Some people (myself included) avoided them, but others (see the news!!) did not! 

So assuming that an improving economy is dependent on the cure or effective, inexpensive treatment of CV19 does not seem to be what has been observed.  There are plenty that ARE willing to get back to spending money (even at the risk of their lives and certainly they were willing to risk the lives of others!)  on what others consider dangerous & selfish behavior.

Im certainly in favor of masks and I think that closing bars and many other places is a legitimate health precaution to follow.  However, given the number of people that were IN bars, getting their hair, nails, tans, workouts, barn burning picnics/bbqs/get together outings, then it seems that the economy CAN recover without a cure (virus spread be damned!)
It just can not recover AND protect the health and safety of the especially vulnerable.  Clearly, there are too many who dont care about anyone but themselves that have ruined it for the rest of us.  (IF bars were not full, and blame the owners if you want, ok by me!, then they would not be closed for helping to spread this!)
"The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am"  Darth Vader

Caracal

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Coronavirus
« Reply #689 on: June 30, 2020, 01:40:04 PM »
Quote
Except that the economy is not going to improve in the midst of a raging pandemic.

I would agree until this statement is wrong.
The economy was certainly improving while the bars and restaurants were full of unmasked, drinking, carousing folks.  they were certainly spending money!
The idea that people will avoid these places, as evidenced by the need to shut them back down, is that people did NOT avoid them.  Some people (myself included) avoided them, but others (see the news!!) did not! 

So assuming that an improving economy is dependent on the cure or effective, inexpensive treatment of CV19 does not seem to be what has been observed.  There are plenty that ARE willing to get back to spending money (even at the risk of their lives and certainly they were willing to risk the lives of others!)  on what others consider dangerous & selfish behavior.

Im certainly in favor of masks and I think that closing bars and many other places is a legitimate health precaution to follow.  However, given the number of people that were IN bars, getting their hair, nails, tans, workouts, barn burning picnics/bbqs/get together outings, then it seems that the economy CAN recover without a cure (virus spread be damned!)
It just can not recover AND protect the health and safety of the especially vulnerable.  Clearly, there are too many who dont care about anyone but themselves that have ruined it for the rest of us.  (IF bars were not full, and blame the owners if you want, ok by me!, then they would not be closed for helping to spread this!)

Well most bars are not full. In general, even in states where there are few restrictions, restaurant revenue is way down, at least 20 to thirty percent in many places. Perhaps, if you're catering to a particularly young crowd, you're feeling the effects less, but places that are not like that are hurting, or are running at reduced hours with reduced staff.