Bad News Thread

dad4 said:
The key is understanding that "effective" is not boolean, or even uniform.

Masks seem to reduce your ability to receive covid by about 10%. They also reduce your ability to send covid by 50 to 70%.

So, should I go indoors because my mask protects me? No. 90% of the risk to me is still there.

Should I go indoors because I know others wear masks? Not really. 30 to 50% of the risk is still there.

If I am stuck being indoors, should I wear a mask? Yes, because the mask eliminates more than half of the risk from me to other people. (Even though the risk to me is still quite high.)
Click to expand...
What you repeatedly fail to understand is that those percentages assume you are in the presence of someone with actively contagious Covid. The odds of you being in extended contact with anyone with Covid are slim. If you figure in the span of over a year that less than 10% of the population has contracted Covid and the fact that those with Covid tend to stay home, the odds of being in proximity of someone with Covid at any point in time (likely an asymptomatic, which aren't reliable spreaders) are just miniscule. On a daily basis there is very, very small percentage of the population that have Covid.

Based on SD numbers on average during the pandemic there was (assuming a 10 day contagious period) only 0.19% (1 in 523) of the population that had Covid on a daily basis. At the peak you had a 1.02% (1 in 98) of the population and currently only .005% (1 and 2000). The odds are never that high that you would come in contact with someone with Covid. I understand that those odds are still likely too high for you.

Restaurants, bars and indoor spaces don't cause the virus to spread, only people with Covid do.
 
watfly said:
What you repeatedly fail to understand is that those percentages assume you are in the presence of someone with actively contagious Covid. The odds of you being in extended contact with anyone with Covid are slim. If you figure in the span of over a year that less than 10% of the population has contracted Covid and the fact that those with Covid tend to stay home, the odds of being in proximity of someone with Covid at any point in time (likely an asymptomatic, which aren't reliable spreaders) are just miniscule. On a daily basis there is very, very small percentage of the population that have Covid.

Based on SD numbers on average during the pandemic there was (assuming a 10 day contagious period) only 0.19% (1 in 523) of the population that had Covid on a daily basis. At the peak you had a 1.02% (1 in 98) of the population and currently only .005% (1 and 2000). The odds are never that high that you would come in contact with someone with Covid. I understand that those odds are still likely too high for you.

Restaurants, bars and indoor spaces don't cause the virus to spread, only people with Covid do.
Click to expand...

What about those with no symptoms and thus no reason to be tested?
 
watfly said:
What you repeatedly fail to understand is that those percentages assume you are in the presence of someone with actively contagious Covid. The odds of you being in extended contact with anyone with Covid are slim. If you figure in the span of over a year that less than 10% of the population has contracted Covid and the fact that those with Covid tend to stay home, the odds of being in proximity of someone with Covid at any point in time (likely an asymptomatic, which aren't reliable spreaders) are just miniscule. On a daily basis there is very, very small percentage of the population that have Covid.

Based on SD numbers on average during the pandemic there was (assuming a 10 day contagious period) only 0.19% (1 in 523) of the population that had Covid on a daily basis. At the peak you had a 1.02% (1 in 98) of the population and currently only .005% (1 and 2000). The odds are never that high that you would come in contact with someone with Covid. I understand that those odds are still likely too high for you.

Restaurants, bars and indoor spaces don't cause the virus to spread, only people with Covid do.
Click to expand...

If you actually want to run the numbers on probability of running into a covid contagious in person, Georgia Tech did the work on that for you.

covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu

COVID-19 Event Risk Assessment Planning Tool

covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu

The probability of meeting one contagious person at a 25 person soccer game or team dinner in LA is about 4%.

The indoor team dinner is, of course, considerably higher risk. Same probability that someone has it, but a much greater probability that you inhale enough to catch it.
 
dad4 said:
If you actually want to run the numbers on probability of running into a covid contagious in person, Georgia Tech did the work on that for you.

covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu

COVID-19 Event Risk Assessment Planning Tool

covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu

The probability of meeting one contagious person at a 25 person soccer game or team dinner in LA is about 4%.

The indoor team dinner is, of course, considerably higher risk. Same probability that someone has it, but a much greater probability that you inhale enough to catch it.
Click to expand...
You know you lost the war.

You are like Hitler in the bunker ordering non existent armies here and there to stop the Soviets from the East and the Brits and Americans from the West.

At some point wake up and realize the real world from the start of this has acted in very different ways vs your projections/preferred solutions.
 
dad4 said:
If you actually want to run the numbers on probability of running into a covid contagious in person, Georgia Tech did the work on that for you.

covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu

COVID-19 Event Risk Assessment Planning Tool

covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu

The probability of meeting one contagious person at a 25 person soccer game or team dinner in LA is about 4%.

The indoor team dinner is, of course, considerably higher risk. Same probability that someone has it, but a much greater probability that you inhale enough to catch it.
Click to expand...
Of course you set it for the higher ascertaiment bias

If you are fully vaccinated I’d go ahead and have that team dinner.
 
Grace T. said:
Of course you set it for the higher ascertaiment bias

If you are fully vaccinated I’d go ahead and have that team dinner.
Click to expand...
My kid is not 16 yet. Old enough to transmit, but too young to vaccinate. Open air for us.

I've been using 5 for a while. It used to be the low setting.

Looking now, a bias of 3 makes more sense for LA.

The most recent I have for LA is 4: 45% prevalence / 11% confirmed at time of study. But that's a long term average. Current would be lower.

So, set it for 3. But raise the person count to 50 to include the neighboring tables at your restaurant. But keep it at 25 if you're doing a picnic.
 
dad4 said:
My kid is not 16 yet. Old enough to transmit, but too young to vaccinate. Open air for us.

I've been using 5 for a while. It used to be the low setting.

Looking now, a bias of 3 makes more sense for LA.

The most recent I have for LA is 4: 45% prevalence / 11% confirmed at time of study. But that's a long term average. Current would be lower.

So, set it for 3. But raise the person count to 50 to include the neighboring tables at your restaurant. But keep it at 25 if you're doing a picnic.
Click to expand...
Didn’t they just approve 12-16 year olds for Pfizer?
 
Desert Hound said:
You know you lost the war.

You are like Hitler in the bunker ordering non existent armies here and there to stop the Soviets from the East and the Brits and Americans from the West.

At some point wake up and realize the real world from the start of this has acted in very different ways vs your projections/preferred solutions.
Click to expand...
Actually, most of the world put in far more effort than you did.

You've been very consistent. Your risk evaluation has always been about the risk to the person choosing an action. Never once did you ask about the probability that one person's choice would cause another person to be harmed.
 
dad4 said:
Actually, most of the world put in far more effort than you did.

You've been very consistent. Your risk evaluation has always been about the risk to the person choosing an action. N
ever once did you ask about the probability that one person's choice would cause another person to be harmed.
Click to expand...

That's where it gets messy. You said you wanted to go there. The person being harmed most likely has fewer years of life remaining. Meanwhile, the children were asked to sacrifice the most for them, despite being the least at risk, putting the old motto "women and children first" completely on its head.
 
Probably routine vaccine breakthrough which does happen in rare cases (the individual in question was very old with multiple conditions) but roh roh. It makes sense, though, as every indication from India is that their version is much more contagious than the first, is reinfecting individuals who had mild or asymptomatic cases first go around, broke through previous regional resistance to the coronavirus (perhaps from prior coronavirus infections), and has been hitting younger people more seriously. Frankly surprised Biden/Fauci didn't put a travel ban in earlier and that the travel ban isn't more robust.

www.globaltimes.cn

Death of fully vaccinated US expert in India sparks worry over Pfizer's efficacy against COVID-19 double mutant - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn
 
Grace T. said:
Probably routine vaccine breakthrough which does happen in rare cases (the individual in question was very old with multiple conditions) but roh roh. It makes sense, though, as every indication from India is that their version is much more contagious than the first, is reinfecting individuals who had mild or asymptomatic cases first go around, broke through previous regional resistance to the coronavirus (perhaps from prior coronavirus infections), and has been hitting younger people more seriously. Frankly surprised Biden/Fauci didn't put a travel ban in earlier and that the travel ban isn't more robust.

www.globaltimes.cn

Death of fully vaccinated US expert in India sparks worry over Pfizer's efficacy against COVID-19 double mutant - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn
Click to expand...

The ironic thing would be if the nonfunctional Chinese vaccine actually functions better against this variant than the mRNA vaccine. Unlikely. Probably CCP hopeful thinking. But life is messy and weird.
 
Grace T. said:
Probably routine vaccine breakthrough which does happen in rare cases (the individual in question was very old with multiple conditions) but roh roh. It makes sense, though, as every indication from India is that their version is much more contagious than the first, is reinfecting individuals who had mild or asymptomatic cases first go around, broke through previous regional resistance to the coronavirus (perhaps from prior coronavirus infections), and has been hitting younger people more seriously. Frankly surprised Biden/Fauci didn't put a travel ban in earlier and that the travel ban isn't more robust.

www.globaltimes.cn

Death of fully vaccinated US expert in India sparks worry over Pfizer's efficacy against COVID-19 double mutant - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn
Click to expand...
Actually, they're encouraging people to fly home. Stupid.

It would be far smarter to send plane loads of Pfizer shots to India. Better to vaccinate people there than spread the new variant here.
 
Grace T. said:
That's where it gets messy. You said you wanted to go there. The person being harmed most likely has fewer years of life remaining. Meanwhile, the children were asked to sacrifice the most for them, despite being the least at risk, putting the old motto "women and children first" completely on its head.
Click to expand...
Much of the pain for kids was the result of adults being super slow to open outdoor spaces and schools.

Masks for them were a complete non issue. They fidgeted for a bit, but after a month it became as exciting as a sock.

Even bars/restaurants/casinos/non essential air travel could have been closed if we had a smarter PPP.
 
dad4 said:
Actually, they're encouraging people to fly home. Stupid.

It would be far smarter to send plane loads of Pfizer shots to India. Better to vaccinate people there than spread the new variant here.
Click to expand...

the breakthrough cited IIRC was with the Pfizer vaccine.

You and I then actually agree on something for a change, which means they really must be doing something stupid.
 
dad4 said:
Actually, most of the world put in far more effort than you did.

You've been very consistent. Your risk evaluation has always been about the risk to the person choosing an action. Never once did you ask about the probability that one person's choice would cause another person to be harmed.
Click to expand...
Actually no.

Initially I was very cautious. I didn't go anywhere nor did I allow my kids.

I stocked up to avoid having to go shop.

However early on the data came in and said....

My kids had zero risk and I had minimal risk.

It was clear early on that a very small segment of our population had 75-80% of all deaths. Within that age group 40-45% were already in nursing homes (a one way stop).

So I adjusted based on actual data.

You didn't.
 
dad4 said:
Even bars/restaurants/casinos/non essential air travel could have been closed if we had a smarter PPP
Click to expand...
No...because a rather significant part of our population relies on those types of biz to......what is the word I am looking for?...oh yeah...to survive.

10s of millions of people derive their livelihoods on the biz you want to shut down. As watfly stated and I have as well...we lay money that if your income depended on restaurants or bars, you would not advocate for their closing.

You have a guaranteed paycheck so you advocate stuff that doesn't harm you. Yes I know you said you do take out once a week....let them eat cake....
 
dad4 said:
Actually, most of the world put in far more effort than you did.

You've been very consistent. Your risk evaluation has always been about the risk to the person choosing an action. Never once did you ask about the probability that one person's choice would cause another person to be harmed.
Click to expand...
There's that selection bias you despise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top