Beer Virus V

[foszoe]

It does not matter. The virus will spread no matter what arrogant humans do...

Spread, yes. Same rate? No.

 

[Ingomike]

We don't actually know that.

For all we know, unmitigated spread would have killed millions AND shut down the economy because people would've avoided going to work because... death.

But, contrary to some opinion here and in public, it is not a binary choice. Neither the US nor Indiana really went into a shutdown. There were harsher restrictions, yes, but lots of people were considered "essential."

Since then, most policy people believe we understand how to target restrictions to minimize the effect on the economy and maximize the mitigation of the disease. (I'm not completely convinced and the numbers reveal that may not be true.) So, I don't hear anyone in Indiana talking about a March-like level of restrictions on everything. Even this odd blue-orange-red thing isn't as onerous as what was in place in the Spring.

I hope we can set aside the hyperbole and focus on striking the right balance. This is not an all or nothing proposition and never really was.

To believe that, one must believe that the mitigation efforts are actually doing something, they are not, the virus will spread throughout the population no matter what puny humans do. But, with a fervor of cult fanatics lockdown supporters we must make a sacrifice on the virus altar...

 

[Phase2]

With the mitigation in effect, yes.

You know that every demographic has suffered deaths, yes? And that was with mitigation in place.

We don't know what the death rate among the non-elderly would be with a lack of mitigation.

Oh, and lest it go without saying, sacrificing the elderly may be a heartlessly clinical logic, but it is not one that a majority in our society supports.

You seem to be the one making this a black-and-white thing. I certainly didn't say that no mitigation was the best strategy. I am saying that destroying the economy isn't the best strategy. We imported a CCP solution to a problem in America and too many are very happy to enforce it on each other.

And I certainly didn't say that I am in favor of sacrificing the elderly, but of recognizing that those that were most likely to die of pneumonia in any other year are also the ones most likely to die "with Covid" now.

 

[Ingomike]

Spread, yes. Same rate? No.

You have concrete proof of that? Mitigation, in open society, is a farce...

 

[T.Lex]

You seem to be the one making this a black-and-white thing.

Not following you. The only thing black/white about this is that we only know what happened in 1 course of action - the course we actually took. That's kinda fundamental reality.

I certainly didn't say that no mitigation was the best strategy. I am saying that destroying the economy isn't the best strategy.

I don't think anyone is arguing that destroying the economy is even a "good" strategy, let alone the best. So, I'm not sure what your point is on that. I also didn't accuse you of advocating for no mitigation.

Pointing out that the elderly have suffered the most deaths clearly suggests that those deaths are tolerable (from a societal perspective). If that was not your point, then I'm not sure I understand why you're pointing it out.

And I certainly didn't say that I am in favor of sacrificing the elderly, but of recognizing that those that were most likely to die of pneumonia in any other year are also the ones most likely to die "with Covid" now.

Ok. How is that not a willingness to sacrifice them? I mean, the travel restrictions - other than the visitor restrictions on visiting elderly care facilities, obviously - would not have changed that much. So, the mitigation in the Spring appears to have minimized the effects on the rest of the population.

Maybe we're talking around each other a bit on this? I feel like we're not really disagreeing.

 

[foszoe]

You have concrete proof of that? Mitigation, in open society, is a farce...

Yes. Years if medical science show that isolarion and quarantine limit spread rates. Do you have proof otherwise? If not, I am not gonna attempt to refute your position.

 

[foszoe]

You seem to be the one making this a black-and-white thing. I certainly didn't say that no mitigation was the best strategy. I am saying that destroying the economy isn't the best strategy. We imported a CCP solution to a problem in America and too many are very happy to enforce it on each other.

And I certainly didn't say that I am in favor of sacrificing the elderly, but of recognizing that those that were most likely to die of pneumonia in any other year are also the ones most likely to die "with Covid" now.

INGOMIKE appears to make a black and white claim that mitigation has no affect on spread. Do you agree with his position?

 

[bwframe]

Tighter coronavirus restrictions announced in new Hamilton County order

The Hamilton County Health Department said the following local restrictions will take effect at midnight on Wednesday, November 25.

If Hamilton County is under ORANGE (moderate to high transmission level):

The Hamilton County Health Department will not approve any safety plans for social gatherings of more than 250 people.

Organizers of social gatherings and events at venues with multiple, clearly separate areas, such as banquet rooms, conference rooms, or multiple sports fields, must submit a safety plan for each separate area up to a maximum of 250 individuals per gathering or event.

Attendance at community recreational sports leagues and tournaments will be restricted to 250 people (including participants, personnel, and spectators)
If Hamilton County is under RED (very high transmission level):

The Hamilton County Health Department will not approve any safety plans for social gatherings of more than 100 people.

Organizers of social gatherings and events at venues with multiple, clearly separate areas, such as banquet rooms, conference rooms, or multiple sports fields, must submit a safety plan for each separate area up to a maximum of 100 individuals per gathering or event. (In addition, the venue shall ensure attendees at separate social gatherings do not commingle and that attendees at each gathering have separate designated restroom facilities. The venue must also ensure six feet of social distancing between tables as well as between individuals or household units sitting at the same table.

The organizer or host of a social gathering must also maintain a list of event attendees and their phone numbers for up to 21 days following the social gathering for contact tracing purposes.)

Attendance at community recreational sports leagues and tournaments will be restricted to 100 people (including participants, personnel, and spectators). (In addition, the use of electronic ticketing methods is strongly recommended to aid in managing capacity, identifying patron seating location, and contact tracing. The organizer or host of a community recreational sports league or tournament must also maintain a list of event attendees and their phone numbers for up to 21 days following the social gathering for contact tracing purposes.)

Restaurants, bars, taverns, nightclubs and other establishments providing in-person food and drink service will only be allowed to seat customers at tables and bar seating will be closed, must limit capacity to 50% of indoor capacity, must be closed and cleared of customers between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. to perform enhanced cleaning and disinfecting protocols. (In addition, table seating must be limited to six people per table and tables must be spaced at least six feet away from one another. Also, self-service food stations [buffets, salad bars, etc.] will be banned unless a staff member serves patrons. Finally, outdoor tent seating will only be permitted if the tent has at least two open-air sides for ventilation.)

Gyms, exercise, and fitness centers (including yoga studios, dance studios, karate studios, martial arts studios, and other similar fitness centers) must limit capacity to 50%.

Cultural, entertainment, and tourism sites (including museums, music venues, auction venues, flea market, and parks) must limit capacity to 50%.

All other non-essential entertainment businesses (including movie theaters, bowling alleys, trampoline parks, boating and marina facilities, and rock wall climbing facilities) must limit capacity to 50%.

Personal service businesses (including salons, barber shops, nail salons, spas, microblading and tattoo parlors) may remain by appointment. Face coverings may be removed for beard trimming or as required to complete the service.

In addition, K-12 schools will be allowed to manage and implement their own plans for maintaining education services, so long as they utilize effective and appropriate measures to prevent the transmission of COVID-19.

The health department said residents of Hamilton County are also strongly encouraged to quarantine for 14 days after traveling to or from another country, state, or county.

All residents are asked to wear a mask outside of the home and to maintain at least six feet of social distance while out in public...

 

[nonobaddog]

It seems that all too often when people respond to a post they tend to distort what the original post actually said so they can make an argument about a point that was not even brought up.
Then the original poster has to say "I didn't say that."

This must be human nature because it happens over and over. No, I don't see it changing but it is pretty counterproductive.

 

[T.Lex]

It doesn't look like it explicitly addresses churches/religious activities. I think that's a mistake - it could lead to "gotcha" exercises.

Of course, the bulk of that appears to apply if Hamilton county goes "red." But, since they're broadcasting this, it means they probably expect us to go there.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Are they afraid people will get drunk and suck face? Are they trying to quarantine the ugly people that will now be going home alone on Wednesday night?

That is just too perfect!

 

[Ingomike]

INGOMIKE appears to make a black and white claim that mitigation has no affect on spread. Do you agree with his position?

You are NOT stating my position as clearly expressed, you conveniently left out the "open society" in my point. Mitigation works in small situations, generally for shorter time periods like an operating room for a surgery, less so at a more exposed nursing home but some gains can be made, but is very impotent in open society, and the efforts are making things worse on several fronts.

Fronts many here never acknowledge...

 

[IndyDave1776]

At this point it would be very easy for me to make some extremely acidic and highly insulting remarks, but I will limit myself to saying that at this point if we go down the path of accepting purported necessity as an acceptable justification for overriding or outright cancelling rights, it would be easier to justify suspending the 2A than it is to suspend freedom of movement or control over the state of your own face.

 

[Route 45]

You are NOT stating my position as clearly expressed, you conveniently left out the "open society" in my point. Mitigation works in small situations, generally for shorter time periods like an operating room for a surgery, less so at a more exposed nursing home but some gains can be made, but is very impotent in open society, and the efforts are making things worse on several fronts.

Fronts many here never acknowledge...

New Zealand is a pretty open society, and they seem to be faring well in regards to mitigation and downright elimination of spread.

 

[chipbennett]

What % of people transmitting Covid are showing signs of illness?

There are multiple categories for consideration:

1. Symptomatic, Contagious, Transmits
2. Symptomatic, Contagious, Doesn't Transmit
3. Symptomatic, Not Contagious, Doesn't Transmit
4. Pre-Symptomatic, Contagious, Transmits
5. Pre-Symptomatic, Contagious, Doesn't Transmit
6. Pre-Symptomatic, Not Contagious, Doesn't Transmit
7. Asymptomatic, Contagious, Transmits
8. Asymptomatic, Contagious, Doesn't Transmit
9. Asymptomatic, Not Contagious, Doesn't Transmit

Your question comes from the subset 1, 4, 7 - and further, within that subset, 4 and 7. I'm not sure we know the answer to that question. Subset 2, 5, 8 has some chance of moving into subset 1, 4, 7 - though, again, I'm not sure we know the answer to how many that might be, either.

More importantly, the real question is whether that subset should be the basis for public policy that affects everyone.

For subset 1 - 3, I think we are all in agreement that Symptomatic people should self-isolate (i.e. if you're sick, stay home). For subset 6 and 9, they pose no risk. So, we're left with 4, 5, 7, and 8.

For the subset 5 and 8, social distancing is more than enough. Heck, anything short of *ahem* intimate and/or sustained contact is enough. (This is the group that is contagious, but with insufficient viral load to be likely to transmit under normal circumstances.) Subset 4 might eventually become subset 1 - 3. Subset 7 will not. There is some likelihood of detection for subset 4.

So the real question becomes: how many might be in subset 7? And is it reasonable to set public policy that affects everyone, based on that subset?

 

[dusty88]

It seems that all too often when people respond to a post they tend to distort what the original post actually said so they can make an argument about a point that was not even brought up.
Then the original poster has to say "I didn't say that."

This must be human nature because it happens over and over. No, I don't see it changing but it is pretty counterproductive.

I agree, but I'm not sure it's always intentional. I think people interpret some assumption that isn't there.

 

[nonobaddog]

I agree, but I'm not sure it's always intentional. I think people interpret some assumption that isn't there.

Yes! They should just read the black part.

 

[dusty88]

There are multiple categories for consideration:

1. Symptomatic, Contagious, Transmits
2. Symptomatic, Contagious, Doesn't Transmit
3. Symptomatic, Not Contagious, Doesn't Transmit
4. Pre-Symptomatic, Contagious, Transmits
5. Pre-Symptomatic, Contagious, Doesn't Transmit
6. Pre-Symptomatic, Not Contagious, Doesn't Transmit
7. Asymptomatic, Contagious, Transmits
8. Asymptomatic, Contagious, Doesn't Transmit
9. Asymptomatic, Not Contagious, Doesn't Transmit

Your question comes from the subset 1, 4, 7 - and further, within that subset, 4 and 7. I'm not sure we know the answer to that question. Subset 2, 5, 8 has some chance of moving into subset 1, 4, 7 - though, again, I'm not sure we know the answer to how many that might be, either.

More importantly, the real question is whether that subset should be the basis for public policy that affects everyone.

For subset 1 - 3, I think we are all in agreement that Symptomatic people should self-isolate (i.e. if you're sick, stay home). For subset 6 and 9, they pose no risk. So, we're left with 4, 5, 7, and 8.

For the subset 5 and 8, social distancing is more than enough. Heck, anything short of *ahem* intimate and/or sustained contact is enough. (This is the group that is contagious, but with insufficient viral load to be likely to transmit under normal circumstances.) Subset 4 might eventually become subset 1 - 3. Subset 7 will not. There is some likelihood of detection for subset 4.

So the real question becomes: how many might be in subset 7? And is it reasonable to set public policy that affects everyone, based on that subset?

My statement was in response to a suggestion that I perceived to say that we only need to ask people to stay home when they are sick.

I think you need to have at least some estimate of whether people who aren't "sick" are driving the epidemic before you make such a statement.

Public policy, yes, would be the next step from that although I don't necessarily think the best public policy has to include force.

Still, it's impossible to have the "voluntary action" vs "force" discussion if a segment of society has just decided that only sick people should stay home (without having the key information about spread).


But to answer your question about (for example) should subset 4 drive decisions, well just as much as any subset because it's definitely a contributor. It has to be taken into account along with current case load, growth, etc. If it's driving 50% of the spread (CDC's current estimate) but you have very low case load in your area, you can possibly pick most of it up with tracing contacts and testing. If you have a near "bodies in the street" situation then even 5% presymptomatic spead is intolerable.

So "sick people stay home" just doesn't work by itself.

 

[nonobaddog]

Just what is the reality difference between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic?
And does this so-called difference matter?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Just what is the reality difference between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic?
And does this so-called difference matter?

Not showing symptoms yet versus never going to show symptoms.