Bad News Thread

[dad4]

What you argue is not feasible. You may as well sit and figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a needle.

What the lock downers don't realize is that in the real world we are not going to shut everything down, close the border, pretend masks work, etc.

We have a vaccine. Use it. We will get variations every year. What we are not going to do is social distance for years, wear masks for years, etc.

Like any other disease, etc., we are just going to learn how to deal with having it among us.

So, rules will fail when too many people refuse to obey them?

True.

Put it another way. We had a half million deaths because some people refused to follow basic health advice.

It means the same thing. The rule failed when too many people decided they didn't have to follow it.

Those same people are still making excuses about why they shouldn't have to follow the public health advice.

 

[Grace T.]

All of that sounds good.

Now make it numeric. How many daily new cases is the US, and how many are from border crossings?

Until border crossings are a sizable fraction of total cases, the seeds argument is bogus.

Travel should be limited, but until domestic cases are lower, there is nothing special about border crossings. It's bad idea for 1M of us to get on a plane each day. It doesn't really matter whether we fly to Detroit or Cabo. We should not be flying.

Again, you aren't understanding. You are still in Q1b which hasn't worked anywhere...you reduce it, it goes up against because 20 year old Dangie Bro can't go a year without getting some. OZ/NZ/China aim for zero seeds. Zero. And if 1 seed does get by to clamp down into a 1/2/3 line of defense (the 3rd being regional lockdowns) til you get it back down to as close to zero again as possible. It's a very different approach than anything being a "sizable fraction of total cases" which is Q1b, not Q1a. The other components of Q1a is hard lockdown until cases get to zero and test and trace so you have the mechanism to find the seeds. I agree, it's hard to see the US ever having gotten down there once the NY outbreak took place, and especially not once the protests (whether lockdown or BLM) started.

 

[Grace T.]

So, rules will fail when too many people refuse to obey them?

True.

Put it another way. We had a half million deaths because some people refused to follow basic health advice.

It means the same thing. The rule failed when too many people decided they didn't have to follow it.

Those same people are still making excuses about why they shouldn't have to follow the public health advice.

Another fallacy. Short of Q1a, with Q1b a portion of that 1/2 million was always going to be baked in. We are only arguing about the remainder (the benefit) v. the cost it would take down to lower that remainder. But without Q1a, it's not 0, which makes your statement just rhetoric.

 

[dad4]

Agree air and legal crossings a bigger problem. But this shows a lack of understanding of the q1a situation: the key approach in the China/oz/nz is to smother any seed before it becomes a problem. If you have a border that’s open (don’t care if it’s ground or air or legal or illegal) you can’t do the q1a approach. Too many new seeds since it only takes 1 to get away from you. The proof of that gone wrong is Hawaii which almost was able to do q1a but a few quaratine breaches and a few exemptions (for airline personnel) gone wrong and they got the worst of both worlds. To implement q1a, would have needed stronger border and air restrictions than even trump allowed

I won't argue against a domestic travel ban during a pandemic. We should do it next time, early. No more letting rich New Yorkers infect the whole country by fleeing to their vacation homes.

A little late, now. Might be only 2-4 months left.

 

[Grace T.]

I won't argue against a domestic travel ban during a pandemic. We should do it next time, early. No more letting rich New Yorkers infect the whole country by fleeing to their vacation homes.

A little late, now. Might be only 2-4 months left.

Again you are misunderstanding. OZ/NZ worked because of the system taken as a whole. Less severe than China (e.g. welding people in their homes/forced testing up your butt...yeah I know I'm exaggerating just a little), but you can't take a whole lot more out of the system without having it not work. If it doesn't work, you become Hawaii. You are then in Q1b which the best case scenario (if you have a population as conscientious as them and willing to go along with it), is S Korea flat at 500 cases per day. You can't just take 1 thing and say "oh it worked in Australia"....Australia worked because of the entire system (a system which here violates both D and R sacred cows, as well as the US Constitution in at least 1 and probably a lot more instances)

 

[Grace T.]

Here's a question. Not sure how I feel about this myself. Probably not politically feasible due to the 1/4 of the country which is severely panicked and would want to put America first But they announced today that 12-16 years olds likely to be vaccinated in summer by some vaccines. Given how low the death rate is for that group, is that morally justifiable when there are countries (including those leading to the current immigration situation at the border) where 80+ year olds have not been vaccinated.

 

[dad4]

Another fallacy. Short of Q1a, with Q1b a portion of that 1/2 million was always going to be baked in. We are only arguing about the remainder (the benefit) v. the cost it would take down to lower that remainder. But without Q1a, it's not 0, which makes your statement just rhetoric.

All words. No numbers.

There is a non-linearity in a logistics curve. A 10% change in transmissibility does not mean a 10% change in cases/deaths.

For R0= 3, a 50% reduction to transmission still leaves you with 110M expected cases. A 70% reduction leaves you with less than 1 million.

This is why it's so frustrating to watch all these half measures. We repeatedly go through 70% of the pain to reap 20% of the benefit. Then we relax, suffer a wave, and do it all over again.

 

[Desert Hound]

Put it another way. We had a half million deaths because some people refused to follow basic health advice.

No we would have had a ton of deaths no matter what. That is the part you keep missing.

The overwhelming majority of the spread happened in households per what the research says. . People have to work to live, so they are out and about mingling.

We were never going to stop the spread.

I know you like to pretend otherwise and also pretend any failure is due to people not following the rules.

Take mask compliance. It has been very high everywhere. However watch people with masks on. The vast majority move them around, lower them to talk, touch them, re use them, etc, etc. They are not getting any benefit from wearing them other than virtual signaling to you and others that hey at least I am wearing a mask.

We have people traveling around their state/country. We have people traveling internationally. Etc etc.

We were/are not stopping the virus. Look around the world. It is everywhere.

 

[watfly]

Here's a question. Not sure how I feel about this myself. Probably not politically feasible due to the 1/4 of the country which is severely panicked and would want to put America first But they announced today that 12-16 years olds likely to be vaccinated in summer by some vaccines. Given how low the death rate is for that group, is that morally justifiable when there are countries (including those leading to the current immigration situation at the border) where 80+ year olds have not been vaccinated.

I think it would be a noble gesture and I would have no problem even though I lean America first. I certainly would reserve a portion for those U16's that may be more vulnerable due to health conditions. Were providing in-person education in SD to non-citizens that have only been in our country a few days before providing the same to our life long citizen children. It wouldn't be such a stretch to share our vaccines with those that are more in need.

 

[dad4]

No we would have had a ton of deaths no matter what. That is the part you keep missing.

The overwhelming majority of the spread happened in households per what the research says. . People have to work to live, so they are out and about mingling.

We were never going to stop the spread.

I know you like to pretend otherwise and also pretend any failure is due to people not following the rules.

Take mask compliance. It has been very high everywhere. However watch people with masks on. The vast majority move them around, lower them to talk, touch them, re use them, etc, etc. They are not getting any benefit from wearing them other than virtual signaling to you and others that hey at least I am wearing a mask.

We have people traveling around their state/country. We have people traveling internationally. Etc etc.

We were/are not stopping the virus. Look around the world. It is everywhere.

If you can't accept the CDC data on masks, restaurants, bars, and so on, then it is impossible to have a rational discussion.

It's as though you are insisting that 2+2=5, and getting mad at me when I suggest it is 4.

 

[Glitterhater]

I think it would be a noble gesture and I would have no problem even though I lean America first. I certainly would reserve a portion for those U16's that may be more vulnerable due to health conditions. Were providing in-person education in SD to non-citizens that have only been in our country a few days before providing the same to our life long citizen children. It wouldn't be such a stretch to share our vaccines with those that are more in need.

Oh Watfly, get out of here with that commonsense!

 

[Grace T.]

All words. No numbers.

There is a non-linearity in a logistics curve. A 10% change in transmissibility does not mean a 10% change in cases/deaths.

For R0= 3, a 50% reduction to transmission still leaves you with 110M expected cases. A 70% reduction leaves you with less than 1 million.

This is why it's so frustrating to watch all these half measures. We repeatedly go through 70% of the pain to reap 20% of the benefit. Then we relax, suffer a wave, and do it all over again.

No ones done it via q1b. No one. Not even South Korea Germany or Japan. Only q1a.

it’s because the measures you want are only sustainable for a few weeks. So they only work in a q1a situation.

 

[dad4]

No ones done it via q1b. No one. Not even South Korea Germany or Japan. Only q1a.

it’s because the measures you want are only sustainable for a few weeks. So they only work in a q1a situation.

You’re telling me it is unsustainable when I’ve been doing most of it for 12 months and counting.....

Not sure what your distinction is between Q1a and Q1b. I reread your definitions and they still don’t make sense.

My thought is similar to the original Merkel approach. Keep R below 1. As you get better data, change your rules to refocus on what works. But keep R below 1. I think I originally called it Q2 if you go back a page.

For most of the country, I think this means masks, indoor dining, bars, theaters, churches, casinos, and zoom for office jobs.

Add some restrictions if it is winter or you are in a major city like LA. Subtract some restrictions to the extent you are vaccinated. But keep R below 1.

 

[Desert Hound]

You’re telling me it is unsustainable when I’ve been doing most of it for 12 months and counting

For starters you have a job that allows you to work remotely.

Most don't/can't.

Second.. based on your posts over the past yr sitting at home seems right in your wheelhouse.

For most of the country, I think this means masks, indoor dining, bars,

On this you are consistent. Screw these businesses and their employees.

I can pretty much guarantee that if you had spent your life and money building a bar biz...you wouldn't be sitting here saying...hey I can close for a yr. It wouldn't be sustainable for you.

And that gets back to your problem. You don't understand real world data very well. Cost / benefit seems beyond you.

Try staying at home for a yr if you own a bar, restaurant, or whatever else you want to see closed. Please.

 

[dad4]

For starters you have a job that allows you to work remotely.

Most don't/can't.

Second.. based on your posts over the past yr sitting at home seems right in your wheelhouse.



On this you are consistent. Screw these businesses and their employees.

I can pretty much guarantee that if you had spent your life and money building a bar biz...you wouldn't be sitting here saying...hey I can close for a yr. It wouldn't be sustainable for you.

And that gets back to your problem. You don't understand real world data very well. Cost / benefit seems beyond you.

Try staying at home for a yr if you own a bar, restaurant, or whatever else you want to see closed. Please.

That, at least, is the beginning of an honest discussion.

If you do not close the bars, people die.

If you do close the bars, even more people are out of work and can't pay for food or rent.

So what do you do?

Have the feds borrow money to pay waitress salaries for as long as this goes on? Build public works projects like FDR? Open it all and let a million older people die? Close it all and watch 10 million people go bankrupt?

A list of bad options.

But it is the right question. And far better than lying to ourselves about what the options are.

 

[Grace T.]

You’re telling me it is unsustainable when I’ve been doing most of it for 12 months and counting.....

Not sure what your distinction is between Q1a and Q1b. I reread your definitions and they still don’t make sense.

My thought is similar to the original Merkel approach. Keep R below 1. As you get better data, change your rules to refocus on what works. But keep R below 1. I think I originally called it Q2 if you go back a page.

For most of the country, I think this means masks, indoor dining, bars, theaters, churches, casinos, and zoom for office jobs.

Add some restrictions if it is winter or you are in a major city like LA. Subtract some restrictions to the extent you are vaccinated. But keep R below 1.

1. You are working from home
2. You are a self confessed introvert that can’t comprehend the damage this does to the es
3. You are mid age with an established family (presumably with a lower libido and/or a person to share with)
4. You are very risk adverse. Not everyone is
5 You are a freak (not a slam...I am too). Not even my vulnerable folks were as regimented as you
6. You work in education so why aren’t you vaccinated? Or are you and still keeping it up in which case you aren’t just freaky but super human freaky

 

[Grace T.]

That, at least, is the beginning of an honest discussion.

If you do not close the bars, people die.

If you do close the bars, even more people are out of work and can't pay for food or rent.

So what do you do?

Have the feds borrow money to pay waitress salaries for as long as this goes on? Build public works projects like FDR? Open it all and let a million older people die? Close it all and watch 10 million people go bankrupt?

A list of bad options.

But it is the right question. And far better than lying to ourselves about what the options are.

You’ve been lying to yourself that short of q1a you can control the thing. What’s worse is you don’t have a comprehension of the difference between q1a and q2b which is why you fail

 

[Grace T.]

1. You are working from home
2. You are a self confessed introvert that can’t comprehend the damage this does to the es
3. You are mid age with an established family (presumably with a lower libido and/or a person to share with)
4. You are very risk adverse. Not everyone is
5 You are a freak (not a slam...I am too). Not even my vulnerable folks were as regimented as you
6. You work in education so why aren’t you vaccinated? Or are you and still keeping it up in which case you aren’t just freaky but super human freaky

7. I forgot about the tournament thing to. So but for circumstance even you did not live up to this standard for a year

 

[dad4]

You’ve been lying to yourself that short of q1a you can control the thing. What’s worse is you don’t have a comprehension of the difference between q1a and q2b which is why you fail

You blame *me* when *you* fail to define your terms clearly?

I advocate for R<1. If you want to define some other standard, it's up to *you* to define it clearly.

 

[Grace T.]

You blame *me* when *you* fail to define your terms clearly?

I advocate for R<1. If you want to define some other standard, it's up to *you* to define it clearly.

I did several times. Its not a standard. It’s 2 different approaches. One is to drive r near 0, prevent any seeds from seeding, but if they do drive it down again before there’s a problem. The other is to drive down r<1 (but without the comprehensive no tolerance approach of oz nz). That approach has failed everywhere and the best result is South Korea plateaued at 500 cases per day. Your approach is fantasyland because it can’t be sustained by normal people more than a few weeks

 

[dad4]

I did several times. Its not a standard. It’s 2 different approaches. One is to drive r near 0, prevent any seeds from seeding, but if they do drive it down again before there’s a problem. The other is to drive down r<1 (but without the comprehensive no tolerance approach of oz nz). That approach has failed everywhere and the best result is South Korea plateaued at 500 cases per day. Your approach is fantasyland because it can’t be sustained by normal people more than a few weeks

No one is actually driving R near zero.

R=0.5 would imply that domestic transmission equals total imported cases. For example, you had 100 cases in the fall. 50 got it at home, 50 got it overseas.

R=0.1 would imply that you have only one domestic case for every ten imported cases.

You are saying near zero. So, the vast majority of cases are known to have gotten sick overseas. Does anywhere have that kind of profile?