notintheface
GOLD
Quoted for truth.
Surf Cup's Fate
- Thread starter oh canada
- Start date
Quoted for truth.
ITFC Blues
SILVER
This is on the surf cup site now:
Submitting an application does not guarantee acceptance; Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a governmental order cancels the event or prevents your team from traveling to the event, you will receive a full refund minus any credit card processing transaction fee
New Mexico and Hawaii also had quarantine restrictions on anyone arriving from out of state. it seemed to be a reasonable response to a bad situation. It also seemed to help.
I’m not convinced that better science would help. There is plenty of good science that shows that bars and restaurants spread covid. But people don’t want to believe it, so they cover their ears and say that there is no proof.
Compelling question and very easy to armchair quarterback. Since this is a soccer forum, he should have modeled what other states did to support youth sports. Plenty of models to follow. I'm sure some where enacted by friends of Gavi. NJ comes to come, playing tournaments in early summer. Places like Maryland, MA had procedures, systems in place that allowed for sports to continue. I bet you would have played with masks on, like they do in MA. A smart, regionally based approach to youth sports would have cut down drastically on travel to AZ to play soccer. Now, with that said, I don't think travelling to AZ has anything to do with current Covid trends, but that's another topic to discuss.
So, within our narrow view (soccer), the government of california should have been able to come up with a viable plan to support kids in the state.
Imagine all the time people wouldn't have spent on here talking about not playing soccer.
So yea, complete shutdown is dumb (like you stated).
The problem is that short of a full scale Australian lockdown, the limited lockdown, distancing, and mask interventions seem to help only minimally. In the most recent months, if you compare region over region in the US, the curves all follow the same pattern regardless of government policy. That means we are placing a huge cost (hurting kids, hurting small businesses, causing people to go unemployed) for not a whole lot of benefit. Such policies should have been reserved for the peaks of the initial wave and the current wave, instead of squandered over the summer when it did minimal good.
We were talking about Hawaii in the other thread. It seems to have helped but at the crippling cost of a 7 month lockdown that absolutely brought down the economy of the state. Then, when they could tolerate it no longer, the opened back up with policies that made no sense: a similar mess of education as Califoria, dining at 50% (you love that one don't you), and an airline policy that makes no sense because it means people can catch COVID on the airplane and then spread it at their hotels. In retrospect, Hawaii would have been better off targeting its lockdowns to respond to particular waves, including the current one. So as a result now they seem to be forced to give up a lot of the progress they had made.
Yes, there's plenty of evidence that bars and restaurants spread COVID. The question is how much they spread COVID. It's probably not enough to make a substantial difference.
if bars and restaurants were a weak source of covid spread, it would not have been so easy to prove the connection.
bars, restaurants, casinos, dinner parties. It’s not that hard to figure out. Anything with enclosed shared air space. Why make things worse by saying known major sources are minor? We have hound for that.
That’s because you’re looking at the shape of the curve and ignoring the scale.
San Francisco has had about 2% of people get infected. LA has had about 5%. Oregon has had 2.2%. North Dakota has had about 11.5%
They only look the same if you think 2=11.
You can't compare California/Oregon and North Dakota. You can compare North Dakota to South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa and even Illinois.
Because we're back to in Los Angeles between masks/restaurant dining closed, we shouldn't be in this place.
And as for "anything with enclosed shared air space" is an argument for grounding the air fleets.
This sounds more like the ‘bad news’ thread... but it’s off topic now so...
Can we drop casinos from this list as I believe they operate on sovereign land?
Likewise with ‘dinner parties’, unless ‘dinner parties’ is a reference to Thanksgiving and the Holiday Season, I don’t think either side of this discussion argue against transmission being prevalent within the home.
They line up nicely. Now take a look at the area under each of those curves:
11.5,
10.3
8.1
7.7
7.5
6.8
Not at all the same. Despite very similar demographics, economies, and climate, the worst state has almost 70% more cases than the best one.
Something is different. (This is what I meant by thinking in precalc versus thinking in differential equations.)
Your twitter source is clueless, by the way. North Dakota is in decline only because they ran out of new people to infect. He seems to think it is a badge of honor.
Why exclude casinos? Does the virus know when it is on sovereign land? Does it hop out of your body as you leave the parking lot?
Sorry. This one is a shared problem. Native Americans can do their part to share in the solution.
Or if you prefer the mid west
But that's exactly the point! Assuming there are no other variables and the difference between the largest/smallest areas were purely government policy (and it's not because the real opened up state in this model is South Dakota), best case scenario for the lost businesses, torturing children, forcing everyone to wear a mask, lost employment is this difference. The difference is NOT 11.5 and 0....it's NOT let's just close businesses/schools/sports and mask up and we won't have a disaster. The cost/benefit that needs to take place is what degree the government policy reduces the spread v. the cost from enacting such policy.
Your point about only North Dakota running out of people is also false on its face. They all inflected within a week of each other regardless of government policy or overall numbers confirmed.
The cost differential between MN and ND was 1.69 to 1. How do you ignore a 69% increase in cost when you are doing cost benefit analysis?
Your point is that the date of the peak doesn’t change much. But the height of the peak absolutely did change.
That’s part of what NPI does. Lowering the transmission rate lowers the height of your peak. You hit herd immunity at a lower level. It’s right there in the mathematical models you mock, and it is showing up in the morgues in the Dakotas.
Because we’re in the Surf Cup’s Fate thread and while it sounds like the ‘Bad News’ thread (guessing the armistice is tenuous at this point), the discussion was about policy relative to Surf Cup (hence the reclassification to ‘off-topic’). Since casinos on sovereign land can’t be dictated to by state policy, it seems reasonable to exclude them from the conversation.
If your commenting on poor decision making by the public, no argument.
The off topic zone is a no mans land of politics, crazy talk, covid, trolls and ad hominems. No one likes to go there.
there’s some but not a whole lot of correlation in the peaks either if you want to shift to peaks. California’s for example looks to be smaller than Arizona (and at enormous cost) both times but Minnesota’s is higher than Iowa (which until very recently was almost as bad of an actor as North Dakota); North Dakota > South Dakota; California > Florida; Rhode Island > New York among others.
Dad, they already shared all the land. Let them bee. They know what the truth is, trust me. They been dealing with liars for a very long time.....