Jump to content

This Aint Packers Talk v69


Recommended Posts

I will say this on the side of loosening restrictions: in any health intervention, you have to account for fidelity. The ideal situation (purely from a transmission standpoint) would probably have been to say way back at the beginning, “everyone has one week to prepare, then go inside for three weeks and only leave if you work in a hospital or need urgent medical care”. Obviously that’s not actionable for too many reasons to count. But in liue of something like that, it’s better to have looser restrictions that are actually followed than stricter restrictions that are not followed. You could see from the mobility numbers that people were clearly starting to move around a bit more under the older conditions and fidelity was falling. My concern is that that is not what will happen with looser restrictions though. Instead people will see this as an invitation to go even further. 
 

Still would have liked to see us hit better milestones in terms of preparation before reaching this point. That’s a failure that goes all the way back to the beginning of this crisis. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leader said:

Thought came to me in re-reading your comment that I wanted to pass on in support of the above.

Home Depot

I'm a fairly frequent visitor of HD and Lowes. Well, about a month ago I ran over there for a quick pick me up - only to learn the store has implemented a new procedure (which they thought logical but was dumb as **** IMO) whereby EVERYBODY needed to enter the store via one door - so they could (supposedly.....) maintain (and not exceed) a customer count inside the store.

So - the result: a mass of people were all cramming together in a line to get in - then - once inside, I needed to navigate thru a MASS of people to get to where I needed to go. Social distancing? Yeah, sure. Like a crowded outdoor market in New Delhi - and this was pre "wear a mask" time.

Needless to say, I've not been back.

So - your "market forces" concept applied to a real life circumstance  -  STILL  - there was that jammed packed crowd in there........
So - I'm not so sure "the people" will (always....) collectively make prudent decisions....but hope springs eternal.  

The Home Depots here have X's that all people stand on that keep them 6 ft apart. Florida was still partying on beaches in April so who knows, but here it's fine to go to one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you tell people clearly what they should be doing (and why), the ball is mostly in the court of the public at large.

The more people comply with stuff like social distancing properly, the more it persuades the borderline-obedience and disobedient types to conform..........and the less the public has to be policed by shopping staff, real police etc, the better the measures will work. If people are mingling in crowds at this time just because they can, they are idiots. I would say just let Darwinism weed out the stupid, but unfortunately they will take down others who are trying to be more responsible.

I am not normally much of a conformist, never was. I don't automatically believe governments either (they don't have a good record) but if you have a brain you can see that measures like social distancing are long-term self-preservation and IN THIS CASE I observe those rules. It is a sign of how fast we can adapt to change, that for a while now I have automatically become uneasy if someone else gets inside my 6-8 foot zone.

Edited by OneTwoSixFive
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to note about the "anti-government" sentiment...Non-government (medical) associations and professionals largely encourage MORE safety than the governments are rolling out. This situation is anything BUT an example of government overreach when viewed through the lens of science. The various governments then take the medical science into account (some anyway) and other societal factors. The end results are measures weaker than science recommends. 

So, for those of you who are guilty of this, please spare us the "big brother overreach" rants. The opposite, if anything, is true.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

Another thing to note about the "anti-government" sentiment...Non-government (medical) associations and professionals largely encourage MORE safety than the governments are rolling out. This situation is anything BUT an example of government overreach when viewed through the lens of science. The various governments then take the medical science into account (some anyway) and other societal factors. The end results are measures weaker than science recommends. 

So, for those of you who are guilty of this, please spare us the "big brother overreach" rants. The opposite, if anything, is true.

This ^

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Another thing to note about the "anti-government" sentiment...Non-government (medical) associations and professionals largely encourage MORE safety than the governments are rolling out. This situation is anything BUT an example of government overreach when viewed through the lens of science. The various governments then take the medical science into account (some anyway) and other societal factors. The end results are measures weaker than science recommends. 

So, for those of you who are guilty of this, please spare us the "big brother overreach" rants. The opposite, if anything, is true.

FU**! I'm starting to agree with you too much...it hurts.  This is spot on though ^^^^!

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Another thing to note about the "anti-government" sentiment...Non-government (medical) associations and professionals largely encourage MORE safety than the governments are rolling out. This situation is anything BUT an example of government overreach when viewed through the lens of science. The various governments then take the medical science into account (some anyway) and other societal factors. The end results are measures weaker than science recommends. 

So, for those of you who are guilty of this, please spare us the "big brother overreach" rants. The opposite, if anything, is true.

That's because there is nothing at stake for them if they are overly cautious. There is no limiting principle. No one will get mad at them or sue them if they are overly restrictive even if that then causes a depression that *then* creates worse health outcomes. It's too many steps removed. All they care is protecting their own careers in the here and now. And acting like certain org's are the official face of "science(tm)" is naive and ignorant. There are many scientists with different opinions which can be conflicting and any one of them can be vested with biases that consciously or subconsciously slant their views. Some are political appointees now, or previously were, or hope to be in the future. There have been many things supposed "science" consensus was wrong about (remember the whole food pyramid from the 70's encouraging tons of carbs?). 

And just because a person knows something medically does not mean they have a clue about anything economically or psychologically or what the ramifications are in those directions. Just because someone has expertise in one specific area doesn't mean they have expertise in all areas. It's a massive complex equation, and it is unwise to blindly outsource 100% of the decision making to medical personnel that only see one part of the equation in their domain, and have only limited directions from which they could receive blowback from the decision. You have the elective government officials receive input from a variety of sources and then make their own decision using that information, so long as their actions fall within what the constitution allows them to do. 

And there are plenty of possible instances of government overreach right now. There is such a thing as state and local authorities. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rainmaker90 said:

He said he had a mask on. We don’t know the story, but to say he lied about he, his wife and kid having Corona isn’t right.

Is anybody saying he lied about having it?

He lied about his martyrdom and his entire spiel about "emerging from his basement after weeks of isolation and quarantine." He was hanging out in his mansion, very likely asymptomatic or barely showing symptoms based on his age bracket.

The entire thing was over-dramatised to hell. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

Another thing to note about the "anti-government" sentiment...Non-government (medical) associations and professionals largely encourage MORE safety than the governments are rolling out. This situation is anything BUT an example of government overreach when viewed through the lens of science. The various governments then take the medical science into account (some anyway) and other societal factors. The end results are measures weaker than science recommends. 

So, for those of you who are guilty of this, please spare us the "big brother overreach" rants. The opposite, if anything, is true.

If we take only the medical side of this into equitation, nobody's going to be working in 12 months. Looking at this in a vacuum, the medically prudent thing to do would be to have an actual lockdown for 40 days and to maintain quarantine until a vaccine can be developed.

Can't happen. 

The medical opinion has to be tempered.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rainmaker90 said:

 

Cumulative cases is a dumb representation of the situation for them to use. I'm sure that they do that because they know most of the public is lazy or just not very numerically literate or will just casually look that the chart, see it pointed "up" and assume the virus is still accelerating. 

They should be looking at a chart showing the number of *new* cases each day. And even that gets distorted by changing availability of testing.

The best way (besides widespread antibody testing) would be charts such as these https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-americahttps://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/wisconsin, which estimate a grey line in the "Daily infections and testing" section where they estimate daily illness at the onset of infection, probably by looking at the death chart and working backwards when those individuals were likely infected due to the 2wk+ lag in disease progression, combined with fatality %'s they know from other well-controlled studies (like the cruise ship). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Is anybody saying he lied about having it?

He lied about his martyrdom and his entire spiel about "emerging from his basement after weeks of isolation and quarantine." He was hanging out in his mansion, very likely asymptomatic or barely showing symptoms based on his age bracket.

The entire thing was over-dramatised to hell. 

Who Fredo? Yeah that whole thing was embarrassing as ****. His interactions with family when he "emerged" were the cringiest part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real issue if you (and the people) are reckless in terms of "how rapidly we get things back to normal" then the pain from this is going to last longer.

If everybody crowds bars and clubs and movie theaters and there's an explosion of cases then we're going to be back in "lockdown" for much sooner and for a lot longer than if we were cautious.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TransientTexan said:

That's because there is nothing at stake for them if they are overly cautious. There is no limiting principle. No one will get mad at them or sue them if they are overly restrictive even if that then causes a depression that *then* creates worse health outcomes. It's too many steps removed. All they care is protecting their own careers in the here and now. And acting like certain org's are the official face of "science(tm)" is naive and ignorant. There are many scientists with different opinions which can be conflicting and any one of them can be vested with biases that consciously or subconsciously slant their views. Some are political appointees now, or previously were, or hope to be in the future. There have been many things supposed "science" consensus was wrong about (remember the whole food pyramid from the 70's encouraging tons of carbs?). 

And just because a person knows something medically does not mean they have a clue about anything economically or psychologically or what the ramifications are in those directions. Just because someone has expertise in one specific area doesn't mean they have expertise in all areas. It's a massive complex equation, and it is unwise to blindly outsource 100% of the decision making to medical personnel that only see one part of the equation in their domain, and have only limited directions from which they could receive blowback from the decision. You have the elective government officials receive input from a variety of sources and then make their own decision using that information, so long as their actions fall within what the constitution allows them to do. 

And there are plenty of possible instances of government overreach right now. There is such a thing as state and local authorities. 

It's almost like I said governments are weighing the medical/science side against other considerations right in the post you quoted lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

If we take only the medical side of this into equitation, nobody's going to be working in 12 months. Looking at this in a vacuum, the medically prudent thing to do would be to have an actual lockdown for 40 days and to maintain quarantine until a vaccine can be developed.

Can't happen. 

The medical opinion has to be tempered.

I know. I said as much in my post. 

The point remains that, from a medical/science standpoint, there is no overreach occuring. It is all medically justifiable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...