Coronavirus

[Fat_Bulldog]

The reopening is fine depending on the area and the business but I don't get the reluctance to do basic stuff like wear masks and distance themselves. Restaurants are supposedly one of the least safe places.

If everyone's using healthcare capacity at least entertain the idea that your healthcare capacity wasn't taxed because things were shut down to some extent, and remember that you've got older and immune compromised people nearby too. The shoppers have a choice but the employees less so. Seems like the store manager really has to step in if it gets crowded like that and TJ Maxx corporate should step in too if necessary. Those places are so packed full of stuff they probably need to think about pulling some product out of the store to make more room. Beats being closed down.

So, I keep circling around because, really, I understand both sides of the arguments as I interpret them. On the one hand, covid is unknown, relatively speaking, wrt long term effects, mortality, etc. Even that CDC link is weighting the last 8 weeks which can, potentially, throw off the data (like probablyWest Virginia). There's an imperfect understanding of the effects an outbreak will have on a population. And, it's possible if not probable that those effects will vary across the country. For instance, does sunshine and the increased vitamin d help fight off respiratory diseases? Why are certain areas (like NY and Italy) getting overrun while other areas like Texas or LA aren't? Without knowing, how can a govt safely forecast what the hospital needs will be?

On the other hand, I get the argument that it's possible that this will last for a year or more. The economy can't withstand a prolonged shutdown. Under and unemployment are at what, like 25% already. Given the unknowns, especially long term effects, how can we ever hope to get back to a functioning society without some level of increased risk? And, if that's the goal, is it even possible to know the risks of long term effects?

In the end, hopefully we can all have meaningful conversations and come up with answers that are apolitical in nature, where half of society doesn't blame the other half for not being able to work or vice versa and feeling like they have to work in unsafe conditions.

I'm the same as you beerstrike.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

To speak to my experience, I've had to get on 8 flights in the last two weeks and social distancing, mask wearing, and other responsible behaviors started strong last week, but since many states have re-opened to a limited extent, people's responsible behavior is degrading rapidly. It's very fun and easy to get back to normal. Feels like a huge relief to be out in the world again. I try hard to maintain proper behavior per CDC guidelines, but it's just not very easy. The worst offenders are overwhelmingly white, by the way. It's uncanny.

I'm extremely skeptical about re-openings and our society's collective ability to be responsible, having experienced the initial re-opening in Florida and North Carolina.

I have two minds about this. On one hand, there's definitely people who are not being responsible about loosened restrictions, from people in charge of national and state governments to regular folks who flocked to bars the moment they were open. It'd be a lot better if there was a united message or ultimatum that promoted better decision making(e.g. wear masks inside or else).

The other part of me realizes that the way the virus impacts different areas and the level of restriction needed to contain it can vary a lot. I'm in St. Charles county, which has over half a million people, and we have 680 cases and 50 deaths, with half the deaths being a single nursing home I believe. It's been 2 weeks since there were 15+ cases in a single day. While you can't just declare victory and return things to January levels of public interaction and congregation, it's clear that responsible behavior looks different where I live compared to, say, Manhattan. That makes top down decision making harder and it definitely makes messaging responsible behavior harder.

I'd also add that the optics and nature of news/social media are going to give off the impression of less responsibility than there probably is. If 80% of people are being responsible we still get plenty(most?) of benefit in terms of curbing the spread, and 20% of people acting irresponsibly gives plenty of opportunity for viral(pun not intended) images of people cramming into a restaurant or having a face-licking party or whatever.

[Fat_Bulldog]

I really miss having face licking parties.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

it's like I always say, you can't spell 'Fat_Bulldog's Famous Face-Licking Parties' without Fat_Bulldog

[heyzeus]

I just want to spray some spray cheez on people again.

[mikechamp]

Here is the guidance being put forth by the Missouri School Boards' Association:

Alternating school days? No sports? Here are the recommendations for the 2020-2021 school year

The upcoming school year could look very different amid the coronavirus pandemic.

On Monday, the Missouri State Board of Education is expected to grant an exemption to the opening start date for the 2020-21 school year. The exemption would be valid for one academic year. The possible exemption comes as the Missouri School Boards' Association has published a series of guidelines for schools to consider when reopening buildings and allowing students and staff to return.

The 97-page document includes recommendations such as alternating school days for different grade levels, limiting extracurricular activities, alternating recess to limit students on the playground and canceling or revising sports that bring large groups of people together.

https://www.kmov.com/news/alternating-s ... d81c1.html

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

I just want to spray some spray cheez on people again.

Just do it from 6 feet away. May need a stronger cheese sprayer.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Just saw this article this morning, seemed apropos given the conversation earlier in the week. I'm not all that familiar with Foreign Affairs, but a cursory glance shows them to be a reliable organization.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... -be-worlds

Lockdowns are simply not sustainable for the amount of time that it will likely take to develop a vaccine. Letting up will reduce economic, social, and political pressures. It may also allow populations to build an immunity that will end up being the least bad way of fighting COVID-19 in the long run. Much about the disease remains poorly understood, but countries that are locked down now could very well face new and even more severe outbreaks down the road. If these countries follow the Swedish path to herd immunity, the total cost of the pandemic will decrease, and it will likely end sooner.

Sweden’s approach to COVID-19 reflects the country’s distinctive culture, and aspects of it may not be easy to replicate elsewhere. In particular, reliance on official recommendations and individual responsibility may not travel well beyond Scandinavia. Sweden is a special country characterized by high levels of trust—not just between people but between people and government institutions. Swedes were primed to take voluntary recommendations seriously in a way that citizens of other nations may not be.

Swedes are also generally healthier than citizens of many other countries, so additional precautions may be necessary to protect the infirm in other parts of the world. Countries lifting restrictions should also learn from Sweden’s missteps when it comes to the elderly and immigrants: masks and other protective equipment should be made immediately available in nursing homes, and greater emphasis should be placed on protecting service-sector workers who are at higher risk because of age or infirmity. But the emphasis must be on helping at-risk people stay safe and out of harm’s way, not locking entire societies down.

As scientists learn more about the virus and authorities develop new and better ways to work around the contagion—altering the parameters for calculating herd immunity to account for behavioral changes, for instance—the justification for general lockdowns grows weaker and weaker. Even in places like the United States and the United Kingdom, where the pool of at-risk people is much larger, the cost of protecting these people is much lower than forcing everyone to stay home. Managing the path to herd immunity means, above all, protecting the vulnerable.

Cursory glance at foreign affairs:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foreign-affairs/

Overall, we rate Foreign Affairs Least Biased based on balanced story selection and minimal editorial bias. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information as well as having a clean fact check record.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

The more I think about it, the more I can get behind a strategy that protects those at risk (which granted is going to be quite large/difficult), aims to not overload the hospitals, but allows children to remain in school, pools to open, restricting mass spreading events like sporting events with spectators but not sporting events in general, etc.

Maybe that's too optimistic of a view, I'm still not convinced. But, I'm also not convinced we can stay in a lockdown for a year or two without mass damage to the economy and society as a whole.

[ghostrunner]

Just saw this article this morning, seemed apropos given the conversation earlier in the week. I'm not all that familiar with Foreign Affairs, but a cursory glance shows them to be a reliable organization.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... -be-worlds

Lockdowns are simply not sustainable for the amount of time that it will likely take to develop a vaccine. Letting up will reduce economic, social, and political pressures. It may also allow populations to build an immunity that will end up being the least bad way of fighting COVID-19 in the long run. Much about the disease remains poorly understood, but countries that are locked down now could very well face new and even more severe outbreaks down the road. If these countries follow the Swedish path to herd immunity, the total cost of the pandemic will decrease, and it will likely end sooner.

Sweden’s approach to COVID-19 reflects the country’s distinctive culture, and aspects of it may not be easy to replicate elsewhere. In particular, reliance on official recommendations and individual responsibility may not travel well beyond Scandinavia. Sweden is a special country characterized by high levels of trust—not just between people but between people and government institutions. Swedes were primed to take voluntary recommendations seriously in a way that citizens of other nations may not be.

Swedes are also generally healthier than citizens of many other countries, so additional precautions may be necessary to protect the infirm in other parts of the world. Countries lifting restrictions should also learn from Sweden’s missteps when it comes to the elderly and immigrants: masks and other protective equipment should be made immediately available in nursing homes, and greater emphasis should be placed on protecting service-sector workers who are at higher risk because of age or infirmity. But the emphasis must be on helping at-risk people stay safe and out of harm’s way, not locking entire societies down.

As scientists learn more about the virus and authorities develop new and better ways to work around the contagion—altering the parameters for calculating herd immunity to account for behavioral changes, for instance—the justification for general lockdowns grows weaker and weaker. Even in places like the United States and the United Kingdom, where the pool of at-risk people is much larger, the cost of protecting these people is much lower than forcing everyone to stay home. Managing the path to herd immunity means, above all, protecting the vulnerable.

Cursory glance at foreign affairs:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foreign-affairs/

Overall, we rate Foreign Affairs Least Biased based on balanced story selection and minimal editorial bias. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information as well as having a clean fact check record.

I read that article a few days ago. Some valid points and some of which we've mentioned previously, but there's definitely a bias to it and I think it's more of an Op-Ed.

All the writers are members of The Ratio Institute

From wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, but it seems fair and accurate:

"The Ratio Institute is an independent Swedish research institute focusing on the conditions for enterprise, entrepreneurship and market economy and political change. The institute's infrastructure is financed by the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise...."

One of them is also a professor at George Mason's Mercatus Center, which is a very pro-business, pro-libertarian, anti-regulation think tank. The Kochs are funders.

So I'd argue there's a heavy pro-business, anti-government bias there.