Bad News Thread

Desert Hound said:
Based on his pronouncement from up on high the past year I would say he wants to get cases and deaths down to zero first. Then wait another 6 months just to be sure.
Click to expand...

I'm genuinely curious at this point if it's just COVID or other viruses like the flu that give him the willies. Does he have a little hypochondriac streak? I actually had one but the current pandemic actually cured me of it for the most part.
 
Grace T. said:
The shutdown thing is just not historically accurate. It's never been a global shutdown....that's correct. But there were localized shutdowns in response to the 1918 flu epidemic, the 1775 small pox epidemics, various yellow fever epidemics, even as far back as the Plague of Justinian.
Click to expand...

You're feeding a troll.
 
Looks like Mumbai and New Delhi have hit some measure of herd immunity. They were hit particularly hard in the first wave and in the current wave. Other areas and cities, despite the mask and lockdown restrictions, are still rising.
 
Requiring vaccines at high risk places has nothing to do with changing anyone's behavior.

We have three options:
-Close high transmission areas entirely.
-Have outbreaks, and deaths, in the community.
-Limit attendence to those who do not cause outbreaks.

Those are the options. There is not some fourth choice where we all get to do exactly what we want with no consequences.
 
dad4 said:
Requiring vaccines at high risk places has nothing to do with changing anyone's behavior.

We have three options:
-Close high transmission areas entirely.
-Have outbreaks, and deaths, in the community.
-Limit attendence to those who do not cause outbreaks.

Those are the options. There is not some fourth choice where we all get to do exactly what we want with no consequences.
Click to expand...

There is a fourth choice: people have been offered the vaccine....if they refuse they've assumed the risk...yes there might be transmission but oh well, deaths will still be on the floor because the vast majority of old people have been vaccinated and the death rate will be on the floor.

There's a fifth option for those venues that are very high risk and still worried about liability: require a vaccine or a COVID test in the last 48 hours

There's a sixth option if they are really worried about liability (like a theme park) but still need to get bodies in the door require masks for the unvaccinated, and everyone else can go about mask free.

If you really need to placate there's a seventh option (which is where camps likely wind up): the vaccinated get to go about their business but the unvaccinated require a COVID test + masks (at least if indoors).

It's not as simple as Fantasyland math world.
 
dad4 said:
Requiring vaccines at high risk places has nothing to do with changing anyone's behavior.

We have three options:
-Close high transmission areas entirely.
-Have outbreaks, and deaths, in the community.
-Limit attendence to those who do not cause outbreaks.

Those are the options. There is not some fourth choice where we all get to do exactly what we want with no consequences.
Click to expand...
Padres game was a blast this past Wednesday.
 
Grace T. said:
There is a fourth choice: people have been offered the vaccine....if they refuse they've assumed the risk...yes there might be transmission but oh well, deaths will still be on the floor because the vast majority of old people have been vaccinated and the death rate will be on the floor.

There's a fifth option for those venues that are very high risk and still worried about liability: require a vaccine or a COVID test in the last 48 hours

There's a sixth option if they are really worried about liability (like a theme park) but still need to get bodies in the door require masks for the unvaccinated, and everyone else can go about mask free.

If you really need to placate there's a seventh option (which is where camps likely wind up): the vaccinated get to go about their business but the unvaccinated require a COVID test + masks (at least if indoors).

It's not as simple as Fantasyland math world.
Click to expand...
You think a mask requirement in a sports stadium environment can be effectively enforced on half the patrons but not the other half?

And you accuse me of living in Fantasyland.....
 
dad4 said:
You think a mask requirement in a sports stadium environment can be effectively enforced on half the patrons but not the other half?

And you accuse me of living in Fantasyland.....
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. People wear their masks improperly all the time in mask mandatory situations. Like we say about safety glasses, “they aren’t doing you any good hanging from your neck”.
 
dad4 said:
You think a mask requirement in a sports stadium environment can be effectively enforced on half the patrons but not the other half?

And you accuse me of living in Fantasyland.....
Click to expand...

Some are planning on doing it with mask free zones for the vaccinated...of course it couldn't totally be mask free....but then my preferred solution would be those that have assumed the risk by not getting vaccinated assume the risk....it's just security theater beyond that if the business is worried about liability and/or making patrons feel better about it.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Padres game was a blast this past Wednesday.
Click to expand...
I guess I should have listed “limp along with half empty stadiums” as an option.

It’s really just a compromse between options 1 and 2. Halfway between “close it all“ and “accept extra deaths”. You get some extra deaths, but fewer than with wide open. You impose some extra cost on the business, but less than in closure.

For Grace’s other “options”:

Option 4 is option 2 (accept extra deaths), but blame the deceased.

Option 5 is option 3 (vaccine requirements), renamed and with a test option. This one makes sense.

Option 6 is option 2, but overestimate how well masks work. (Weird that this one came from Grace.)

Option 7 is option 2, but overestimate how well masks work, and pretend that you can have enforce a rule on half the people in a stadium, but not the other half.

I’m still not seeing a way around the fact that if unvaccinated infected people gather, you get more cases and deaths.
 
dad4 said:
I guess I should have listed “limp along with half empty stadiums” as an option.

It’s really just a compromse between options 1 and 2. Halfway between “close it all“ and “accept extra deaths”. You get some extra deaths, but fewer than with wide open. You impose some extra cost on the business, but less than in closure.

For Grace’s other “options”:

Option 4 is option 2 (accept extra deaths), but blame the deceased.

Option 5 is option 3 (vaccine requirements), renamed and with a test option. This one makes sense.

Option 6 is option 2, but overestimate how well masks work. (Weird that this one came from Grace.)

Option 7 is option 2, but overestimate how well masks work, and pretend that you can have enforce a rule on half the people in a stadium, but not the other half.

I’m still not seeing a way around the fact that if unvaccinated infected people gather, you get more cases and deaths.
Click to expand...


Barring a breakthrough variant, the IFR is on the floor. Yes, you'd get cases but again they've assumed the risk so why do you care?

Option 7 isn't ideal for a stadium, but some are planning vaccinated sections without masks....we'll see if it works out....partially depends on how CDC requirements involved, but I thought camps, not stadiums were better candidates. The masks in any case are not to reduce cases....that's not their purpose....it's security theater to avoid liability and/or appease concerned customers.
 
Grace T. said:
Barring a breakthrough variant, the IFR is on the floor. Yes, you'd get cases but again they've assumed the risk so why do you care?

Option 7 isn't ideal for a stadium, but some are planning vaccinated sections without masks....we'll see if it works out....partially depends on how CDC requirements involved, but I thought camps, not stadiums were better candidates. The masks in any case are not to reduce cases....that's not their purpose....it's security theater to avoid liability and/or appease concerned customers.
Click to expand...

And hey Mr. Preach3r, why not blame the unvaccinated....they were offered their opportunity, don't they bear their consequences?
 
I guess it isn’t difficult to see who has truly prospered in this pandemic.

If the “social norm” needs to be wearing a mask wherever you go in public places for eternity, just give me the virus and kill me know…..oh wait….there is an over 90% survival rate….shit…that won’t work.
 
Grace T. said:
Yes, you'd get cases but again they've assumed the risk so why do you care?
Click to expand...
This is the thing that continually escapes dad.

If you don't want to get vaccinated you assume the risk. So why worry about them.

The at risk group...very old people...have gotten vaccinated at extremely high rates. That is where 80% of the deaths have occurred. The other 20%? It is almost exclusively people with serious health issues.

So as of now you have the oldest age group vaccinated at a very high rate. Presumably in the younger age groups anyone with a health issue has also gotten vaccinated.

Problem solved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top