Yolo County – The numbers are creeping up here in Yolo County, although 252 cases may not seem like a ton. But consider that for a several week period we were getting two new cases a day or less, and now we have 25 cases in the last three days, 41 in the last two weeks.
The numbers reflect a trend we have seen across the country—we got complacent and impatient and we re-opened too soon. We might have been able to manage this if people would take the care to socially distance and wear their masks. But so many aren’t.
With huge amounts of vulnerable populations, this is a real dangerous time. The COVID numbers could soar. The death rate could start spiking upwards.
As a parent of three school-age children, the two youngest in elementary school, this was a very trying time. Maybe distance learning can work for older students who can work independently. Maybe it can work if you don’t have two parents still trying to work demanding jobs. For us it was not good.
This was a lost year—or at least a lost final three and half months of the year. The amount of learning that actually took place was minimal at best.
So what does the fall bring for DJUSD and schools across the nation? That’s the problem. Do you re-open with all sort of precaution—social distancing, smaller classrooms, open ventilation, masks? Do you monitor the kids, many of whom do not seem to understand the concept of distancing? Or do you consign yourself to another year of subpar learning?
The LA Times Editorial captures the dilemma remarkably well this morning.
We have the story of Israel. Low COVID-19 cases within its borders. So they decide to re-open schools in mid-May. Bad call. By the end of the month, 130 students tested positive for the virus, which meant a flurry of quarantines and closure of dozens of schools.
Writes the LA Times Editorial Board: “This is the kind of outcome American parents dread as they contemplate sending their children back to school sometime this summer or fall.”
But the flip side is bad: “It’s a troubling scenario, but so is the remote-learning experience of the past three months. The reality is, more kids will do better if schools reopen than if they continue online-only classes.”
One of the key questions is can we do better with a summer and several months to prepare, as well as the experience of the last few months?
The Times points out: “With little direction or help from federal and state governments, online K-12 instruction was spotty. Some school districts, such as Los Angeles Unified, geared up practically overnight and started feeding their communities as well. Others, including Chicago Public Schools, spent weeks getting ready yet were still woefully underprepared when they finally got going.”
And it showed. Locally in DJUSD the amount of class time was reduced. My fourth grader had around 45 minutes or so of class time a day—and it was mostly a check-in rather than any kind of lesson or lecture.
My tenth grader had a check in with his classes once a week in each class. The two older kids both had coursework that they had to do independently. And it seemed like the teachers spent most of their time trying to herd their students and get the work turned in.
The experience my kids had seemed typical.
Teachers taught reduced numbers of hours to finish the school year. Live lessons were optional.
As the Times writes: “Some teachers sweated bullets to conduct engaging classes and make sure students understood the material. Others handed out online assignments with barely any student contact. Parents took on new roles as teachers or found themselves as overwhelmed as their kids. Some students simply disappeared from view, never logging in.”
Yes to all of that. What the Times fails to note here is that if we had the ability to sit down with our kids and make sure they attended class, did the work, and such, it might have just been subpar. 
But my wife was trying to work remotely from home and, during the part of the time, she had labor negotiations. The Vanguard’s work throughout was overwhelming and demanding.
A family with a stay-at-home parent or one whose job was curtailed might have survived this okay, but anyone with parents having to work was going to be challenged.
It turns out our experience was not unique.
The Times reports: “Two recent studies found that students made little to no progress in their studies from the point when schools closed.”
But it’s worse than that. It also exacerbated the educational divide between the haves and have nots. Affluent districts can afford to give out working laptops—DJUSD loaned its students Chromebooks. Poorer families not only had parents less able to help because of work and educational levels, but often lacked the resources for students to distance learn—working computers and internet.
The result: “Affluent students were the most likely to have made significant gains in learning, low-income students the least. Energetic teachers could make a difference, but they couldn’t magically surmount the hurdles faced by disadvantaged Black and Latino students, such as severe financial stresses, language barriers and parents who weren’t available to help them. Despite the efforts of many school districts, too many students still lacked access to computers and broadband connections. Softening of traditional school grades might have made learning seem less urgent.”
But the alternative is not necessarily going to be good.
As the Times points out: “[B]ringing students back to campus will multiply both the effort required and the disruption.”
Not only do we risk more transmissions which will lead to quarantines, prolonged absences and threats to families with high risk members, but the structure itself will be a challenge.
Writes the Times, “Under new California and federal guidelines, the schools of 2020-21 would look something like this: classrooms with half as many students or even less, all desks facing forward, no shared supplies, marks on the floor for lining up at safe distances, cloth masks on staff and students, lunches eaten at desks instead of in lunchrooms.”
Gone will be field trips. Gone will be sporting events. Gone will be assemblies.
In-person classes might occur only a few times a week and alternate and be supplemented by online learning.
Temperature checks will become a new norm. Bus rides, not a factor in Davis, will become more challenging.
The reality is probably worse than we think. Many teachers have already reported that they will quit rather than return to campuses. And they are not alone; parents don’t want the schools to reopen until safety is certain.
I am among those. My belief is that we should not return to campuses until and unless a vaccine is possible. There is talk that could be by the end of the year. If that is the case, I would rather gut out another three months, than put my life, and that of my family at risk.
But even there the problems will be exacerbated.
The Times points out: “[L]et’s not fool ourselves: Children whose parents have the resources to home-school them are going to continue forging ahead; those attending schools where their teachers wear face shields and mingling and interaction are limited will have a less-than-optimal learning environment. The disparities between rich and poor, and the gaps between white, black and brown students, are going to grow after years spent trying to narrow them.”
For those who somehow argued that COVID would be a great equalizer—they are 100 percent wrong. The disease impacts the vulnerable far more than the affluent, who have the resources to avoid contact and the resources to overcome hardships.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Is the Davis school district prepared for significant enrollment and staffing changes?
“In an exclusive USA TODAY/Ipsos poll, 1 in 5 teachers say they are unlikely to go back to school if their classrooms reopen in the fall, a potential massive wave of resignations. Though most teachers report working more than usual, nearly two-thirds say they haven’t been able to properly do their jobs in an educational system upended by the coronavirus.
A separate poll of parents with at least one child in grades K-12 finds that 6in 10 say they would be likely to pursue at-home learning options instead of sending back their children this fall. Nearly a third of parents, 30%, say they are “very likely” to do that.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2020/05/26/coronavirus-schools-teachers-poll-ipsos-parents-fall-online/5254729002/
This is good news. Time to restructure the education system to something that works for more students instead of being a factory to advance those families with academic genes while indoctrinating all of them with a collectivist worldview.
This is the example for much of where we need to go and what we need to do.
https://online-learning.harvard.edu/course/cs50-introduction-computer-science
What Boone means by “while indoctrinating all of them with a collectivist worldview.” translate in English as “teaching that all people and cultures are valuable contributors to America’s inclusive society.” He of course believes that celebrating Cinco de Mayo is an affront to his vision of a monolithic and monochrome America.
Not sure if it’s too soon to determine if the massive protests are already resulting in a spike, or how much death and suffering that will ultimately cause.
“The disparities between rich and poor, and the gaps between white, black and brown students, are going to grow after years spent trying to narrow them.”
Have we had much success narrowing them? So perhaps the gaps will persist or get worse. For some they may improve however. Individuals results may vary from statistical averages.
I think we should provide options and give people choice. I think DJUSD won’t have any other choice. Many, who have the resources and support, will go with online learning. If DJUSD doesn’t provide it there are charter options that can claim money that DJUSD will lose. Others, who must work or who prefer in person classes, will go with a traditional model. Still others will choose a hybrid like an independent study program where the teacher and student meet periodically.
I think the best solution and the one DJUSD will choose is all of the above. That will provide people with the flexibility that best suits their individual needs.
We could just start a new program: Every Child Left Behind
Calm down people. The increase in numbers is from one family get together in Woodland. No need to shut down the economy as it is clear that most of the infections are happening within homes and not businesses. New York stats prove the same.
That explains Yolo County. It doesn’t explain away the increase in California, Florida and Texas over the last 14 days or the 23 states where cases are rising. Or the lax attitude that people have toward social distancing and masks.
Gee, Jeff… are you saying almost all Yolo county cases from one family gathering and one retirement/convels. center means there is no reason to panic/whine?
If you’re not, I am…
The asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 is extremely rare per the WHO.
The stats today indicate that this is a threat to old people and people with health problems… but has mortality rates below the seasonal flu for people under 65 in good health.
So I call BS on the continued administrative state and media fear promulgation. Instead we need to be ageist and also biased against people with a list of specific health problems as needed to continue to shelter in place and have much more strict protocols for care providers coming and going.
We can blame the riots and looting on the shutdown orders. This is the point…
“The asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 is extremely rare per the WHO.”
But unfortunately, that ignores the difference between asymptomatic versus pre-symptomatic spread. You seem to have caught the first, but not the second release on this.
I actually don’t disagree with this; not sure that agree with Sweden’s approach either, but there is merit to the point. Sweden isn’t doing nothing, as many think, but they are being too lax in many ways IMO. But on the point that it may be more sane to have long-term consistent policies over ‘lockdown, then open-up, to what?’ — that aspect may be more sane. I doubt it’s even possible in the U.S. due to our insanely divisive politics, where we have two polar opposite physical realities as to how the virus is spread, about as stark as the difference in beliefs regarding evolution at the Scopes Trial.
Alan… you 12:05 point,
sure makes sense to me… what Gov. Cuomo at at least once called, “a metered response”… valve not completely closed, valve not turned wide open… I believe we need to open the valve, slowly, watch for ‘spills’, then keep slowly opening to a point where we need to pause (not re-close), then keep going with opening, as it seems prudent… joy will be had when the valve is full open, but am thinking that will take an effective vaccine, and getting tough with anti-vaxxers… and, of course, time…
WM, except . . . as I said, we are so divided over the things that would make such a policy work, that it wouldn’t work here in the US. We seriously are diseased mentally and thus this Covid-19 will spread regardless.
On June 14 Jeff says: “The asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 is extremely rare per the WHO.”
On June 9 WHO clarified their previous confusing communications re. asymptomatic patients. See https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/09/who-comments-asymptomatic-spread-covid-19/
Thanks, JB. I forgot the virus doesn’t spread in businesses. Such a nice virus, being kind to the businesses and the economy.
Thanks Gov. Newsom. I forgot the virus doesn’t spread at protests that are left-leaning. Such a nice virus, being kind to the rights of people of color.
The recent upswing in cases in many places is not a second wave. As reported on NPR, it’s the first wave growing as shelter-in-place orders are lifted. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/12/876224115/coronavirus-second-wave-nope-were-still-stuck-in-the-first-one?fbclid=IwAR1JjSd6AuFBBJrvCNx5lNq89tBmEIhDZSo2YIjI9vwi2a8eTr0DnjOhIPA
Inaccurate data leads to inadequate conclusions… early on there was a paucity of testing… hospitalizations and deaths were the only variables reasonably tracked… there is still the matter of what defines a “case”… just a detect of exposure, even if no symptoms of illness present (asymptomatic), or actual illness?
https://www.bing.com/search?q=covid+deaths+in+us+today&cvid=3156007565824b28857c78d69602dd31&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=LCTS
Yolo County population… ~ 220,000… confirmed ‘cases’… ~ 225 (~ 0.1%)… deaths… ~24 (~0.01%)
CA population… ~ 39,900,000… confirmed ‘cases’… ~ 146,000 (~ 0.4%)… deaths… 5,000 (~0.01%)
US population… ~ 327,000,000… confirmed ‘cases’… ~2,120,000 (~ 0.65%)… deaths… 118,000 (~0.04%)
Yeah, definite panic time!
Small %-ages of big numbers result in apparently big numbers… corollary… big %-age increase in small rates, can appear to be large rates…
If you get a splinter in your finger, would not recommend amputation of the finger just because it might become septic, and might cause gangrene… but, I’m not a medical professional… I’d try to remove, and wash, (and if real conservative, rinse with alcohol or H2O2).
I’ll be prudent, and ‘play the game’, but I do not feel threatened by covid…
Thank you for playing the game.
No prob.
Glad to help minimize the fear and paranoia…
You’re not. But thanks for playing the game.
Bill, are you saying that you do not trust either (1) the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University, or (2) the data tat Center has gathered, or (3) both, or (4) neither.
Are you saying you don’t trust my cited source(s)? Or, my math? [used an HP 33s scientific calculator, to be transparent]
Until you answer that, I feel no obligation to agree or dispute the 4 sources you reference…
Are they using different data? I believe my cite is credible…
You have not met my challenge of graphing population, positive tests, hospitalizations, deaths on the same chart… nor my challenge of what defines “a case”… feel no need to “raise” unless you “show your hand”… so, I just “call”… show your hand, under my terms…
Your cite/site … CNN … is using meta data. John’s Hopkins is using primary data. Big difference.
Bill, that is interesting math. I get the following:
Yolo County population… ~ 220,000… confirmed ‘cases’… ~ 225 (~ 0.1%)… deaths… ~24 (~10.7%)
CA population… ~ 39,900,000… confirmed ‘cases’… ~ 146,000 (~ 0.4%)… deaths… 5,000 (~3.4%)
US population… ~ 327,000,000… confirmed ‘cases’… ~2,120,000 (~ 0.65%)… deaths… 118,000 (~5.6%)
I think WM was doing % of population dead so far, whereas you did the % of those who have tested positive who have died so far. As usual, people choosing the statistics that suit their politics/agenda, without fully explaining what they are doing. The world would be a better place if people didn’t do this.
Yes, Matt figures don’t lie, but… “some folk can figure”
Your #’s are for deaths vs. “confirmed cases”… to date cases were not confirmed until there was a hospitalization (acute) or deaths… oranges and giraffes, compared to likelihood of an an individual being ‘confirmed positive’, being ill, or dying… still, today, you are not tested unless very symptomatic or dead, and in the latter case, Covid is convenient to call a ‘primary cause of death’… or ‘significantly contributory’…
“Confirmed cases” is still a squishy term, and some have made it more ‘squishy’ by differentiating between ‘asymptomatic’ and ‘those not yet symptomatic’ … like maybe they were not exposed, or their body dealt with the virus…
C’mon you spent much of your career in the HC field… suggest you re-think your #’s and conclusions… neither of us are epidemeologists (sp?)… yeah, if you get “full-blown” covid, and are hospitalized, that sux for you… particularly if incubated… similar to being diagnosed as Tay-Sachs, Sickle cell anemia, Cystic Fibrosis, complications from HIV, etc.
But, the numbers clearly show any given individual’s risk is low…
That’s not the conclusion at all. What it shows is that any given individual has a high probability that ‘they haven’t gotten it yet’. Doesn’t predict the future at all. Considering that some people have their lungs destroyed even if they survive, and we don’t know if anti-bodies last to prevent re-infection, you are seriously minimizing this.
A couple of facts and then a point.
The mortality rate is much higher than the official count based on several studies. This is just one summary: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/coronavirus-deaths/?fbclid=IwAR1O9s0WHdkwyYX-b_x9-WL-iOKngHxzxYdFm3wH8BuTyoceiH-RSixW9jc
Regardless the mortality rate for COVID-19 appears to be 20 times higher than for a typical influenza. https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-deaths-vs-flu-deaths.html
If we told people that the mortality rate for driving would increase 20 fold for reasons beyond anyone’s control, do you think that people would continue to drive as much, if at all? We make comparisons against our personal risk experience and we are willing to take some of those risks, but a big shift will lead to a big response.
Sigh.
So we are to bow down to the CDC numbers, and then ignore them when they are political inconvenient?
https://i.ibb.co/DbCvP0n/CDCDATA.jpg
The death rate per population is not directly relevant because we’ve kept down the infection rate. It’s the mortality per case this is the important factor in determining lethality. So again you’ve misread the statistics, which is your most common mistake.
On a per capita basis, is looking more and more like a big ripple, rather than a tsunami-type wave… yet, we need more data, more testing, and a better characterization of the virus… particularly my ‘biggest’ concern, whether exposure creates anti-bodies that will be long-acting, and effective… if not, vaccines are a pipe-dream… and, even if effective vaccines are developed, we’ll still have the issue of the anti-vaxxers…
I would add that even if effective vaccines are developed, experience over the past 10+ years tells us that next year’s virus will be sufficiently different than this year’s virus that the vaccine developed for this year’s virus will not be effective against next year’s virus.
Evidence of that is very readily at hand, because COVID-19 is the result of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and the vaccine’s that were created for the SARS-CoV-1 virus back in 2002-2003 are not effective … otherwise we would be using them.
Stats don’t tell the whole story, and the effects of this virus seems especially difficult to generalize.
Case in point, which I’ve mentioned before: my cousin’s husband. They live in Berkeley in a 600 s.f. 1-bedroom cottage. He’s an otherwise healthy and robust man in his mid-60s, until a couple of months ago played squash a couple times a week. In March he became ill, high fever (102°F+), dry cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, body aches. The fever persisted for 70 days, dying down during the day and ramping up every evening. He test negative twice, but his docs say that he has COVID-19. Shortness of breath never got bad enough to require hospitalization, home care got him through. His wife (my cousin) never showed any signs of illness despite caring for him the whole time in close quarters. The fever has abated now, his breathing is mostly normal, though fatigue remains a problem.
This virus is a crapshoot. Maybe you had it and didn’t even notice, maybe it’ll kill you, more likely something in between. Pernicious long-term effects are only now beginning to show up in measurable numbers. It’s not something to mess with.
Unless you’re a stupid Republican. Then you want it because that is your patriotic choice as an American*, and d@mn everyone else. Note that I am not saying all Republicans are stupid — I’m only referring to the stupid ones.
From what I saw there were a lot of stupid democrats out protesting and spreading germs the last few weeks. I’m also only referring to the stupid ones.
Maybe.
This article is interesting because it shows even with a known infection, the use of masks works: link
And this shows that at least in Minneapolis, the protesters by and large weren’t spreading the disease: link
I have been out this weekend more than normal, but most people have been good about wearing masks. A few don’t seem to understand though that they have to wear over their nose and mouth, not under their chin.
That Minneapolis study is kind of a joke, how many of the looters and rioters were tested that were seen going into and out of the stores with stolen goods?
Of course the reported numbers are down from the average because a high percentage of people who get tested in the first place are showing signs of COVID so that’s why they pursue the test.
Still, going by this weak study of those who got tested Minneapolis still had a 1.4% surge in new cases.
I have no idea Keith. I would say that the first test is whether you see a wave of new infections in areas with protests. When people test positive, you can track them. So I suspect we will have a good idea within a month or two.
AMEN to that! It’s amazing the knots protestors and their enablers will twist themselves into to explain why in-person protesting by those on the left is OK, because 1. It’s such an important cause; 2. It’s outside; 3. “Whatever, dude”.
Total BS. I think it can be done safely if people took the threat seriously, but too many don’t. They could car caravan, stay in groups, do ‘virtual hugs’. But many get lax, hug friends, get too close, pull their masks down, think they are invincible, don’t really care about others, etc . . . I’m speaking both right and left out protesting who think that while protesting, the virus has different rules and will not harm you because Your God is on the righteous side — that applies to you if you believe in “God” or not. You all s&ck.
Alan and Keith… sad to say, “stupidity” like covid, does not distinguish between Dems, Reps, NPPS, Greens, etc. Both your points fail, based on ‘stupid’… ‘stupid’, like Covid, is equal opportunity… actually, stupid is more ubiquitous than Covid…
My reply was meant to be facetious but you’re right BM, “‘stupid’, like Covid, is equal opportunity” as proved with your response.
“Stupid is as stupid does” — Forrest Gump
Too soon? Was it too soon to allow protesters not social distancing and many not wearing masks? Are the protesters much of the problem causing the spike.
People aren’t going to shut down so easily this time after seeing the protesters being allowed to protest all over the country unfettered. Good luck with that.
And if they aren’t prudent, we’ll likely see confirmation of Darwin’s theories… being prudent, am content to watch from the prudent social-distancing, mask in public, bleachers. (accidental pun… not intended, but it works… just don’t drink or gargle bleach!!!)..
I probably saw 2000 people the last two days, 90 percent were wearing masks, close to 100 percent in Davis.
They sure weren’t social distancing and many weren’t wearing masks in most of the protests I’ve seen the last two weeks. So don’t even try to say the protests are COVID safe while at the same time saying we need to shut down.
I don’t think they’re COVID safe (notice I didn’t say that they were – I said that most people were wearing masks at the ones I attended), but you do have to look at them on a case by case basis, as I explained, ones that I have attended to have been more safe. Yesterday for example, everyone wore a mask and most people were distancing which is why if you look at the photos everyone is really spread out.
Keith, I was at yesterday’s protest at Central Park, and social distancing was very actively and diligently being practiced. It was clear that significant others were sitting or standing closer than six feet, as were children and their parents. There did appear to also be a few small clusters of UCD apartment mates and/or housemates.
Whether it was one of those living-in-the-same-family-unit clusters or an individual like myself, the spacing was almost always six feet. Everyone had on a mask. During the three hours I was there, I saw exactly two people not wearing a mask, and they appeared to simply be walking up C Street along side the protest, rather than participating in the protest.
That was my perception as well. Even on a hot day (yesterday was only warm), usually you have a mass of people and yesterday people were spread across the park. There was no mass.
If you read my post again I was referring to many/most of the protests I’ve seen the last two weeks, not specifically the one held in Davis.
I know there are people who are trying to downplay the effects of COVID spread at the protests because they support the cause.
But just a month or so ago the open the economy protesters were widely chastised for spreading COVID and doing many of the same things the protesters are doing now.
You can’t have it both ways.
I believe that for the protests you cite — BUT were they social distancing? Were they resisting mingling up close, crossing social bubbles, hugging? That is more important than masks. You have to treat this like it’s a deadly, highly contagious virus. Oh, yeah, it is.
I believe it for the Davis rally, masks and distancing more prevalent. I wish people were that careful at the Farmer’s Market, but that hasn’t been my experience there visiting twice, sad to say.
No, you can’t. Unless one believes Your God protects you because you are righteous. Zip zowie — My God kills Covid-19!
It’s probably too soon to tell. The real numbers come from hospitalizations and deaths, and those are going to take longer, and there is a delay before those become stats. There is also the ‘pass on’ effect from protestors — many are young, and will take it home to mom, dad, grandma & grandpa, so many of the young won’t be hospitalized and die, but their relatives will, and that will be another delay in stats as it is passed on. So 4-8 weeks may be when we start to see the real numbers from areas hit hard by protestors not taking precautions. And I’m sure #sarcasm# looters are taking all the Covid-19 precautions. #lootingwithmasks
Yeah, that’s a concern I’ve had. This is making many people feel like either “It’s over”, or “If they are out gathering, I can too”. The psychological spread followed by the physical spread will go far beyond the protestors themselves.
We’re going to see a lot more of this as the country sees the hypocrisy of politicians allowing mass gatherings at protests and riots while at the same time trying to shut down others. Orthodox Jews cut open fence to playground that Mayor DeBlasio had welded shut on Monday.
https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-brooklyn-bolt-cutters-park-20200616-lhkwai2nevbhbjshtqps7sytcq-story.html
Per Don Saylor via Facebook. Emphasis added.
“… 10 more COVID-19 cases in Yolo County. All the new cases are community based and not in a senior care facility or jail. That brings us to 265 total. As importantly, it is nearing the limit for our “attestation metric” of 55 new cases in past 14 days. Tomorrow will be a key day. If we exceed the threshold of 55, we will need to reconsider the actions we took to reopen various activities. The new cases are primarily tracked to family events over Memorial Day weekend. Dramatic uptick in Woodland and additional cases in Winters.”
I see the New York tracers aren’t allowed to ask the COVID question of ‘did you participate in the Floyd/BLM protests?’
Really?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/oregon-county-imposes-face-mask-requirement-targeting-only-white-people-minorities-exempt-over-racism-fears
You have a real source?
What, only the Washington Post or NY Times are good enough for you. They always post real news, never biased? So only left leaning news links are real?
Here you go, is this good enough for you? There are several more, just ask.
https://localnews8.com/news/2020/06/24/people-of-color-wont-be-required-to-wear-masks-in-an-oregon-county/
Yeah, I don’t trust the Washington Examiner.
“Lincoln County, Oregon, requires most residents to wear face coverings in public settings, indoors or outdoors. The overwhelmingly White county will not require non-White residents to wear them if they fear harassment, the county said this month.
It’s one of the first counties in the US to exempt people of color from wearing masks to prevent racial profiling.”
Yes but when “everyone” is required to wear masks it no longer is suspicious when any race is wearing them.
As many people don’t trust the NY Times, Wash Post, Huff Post and several other left leaning news orgs. But that doesn’t stop you from citing them.
Some of the best journalists in the world work at publications like the NY Times and Washington Post (I don’t normally cite the Huffington Post). The same cannot be said for the Washington Examiner.
You don’t agree that the NY Times and Huff Post is totally left biased?
I meant NY Times and the Wash Post.
I yelled “F— You!” at a guy at Rite Aid who wasn’t wearing a mask. Now that I think about it, he was white. If he was a person of color, I also would have have yelled “F— You!”.
We are hearing a lot from the dishonest and untrustworthy fake news media (FNM) lead by CNN that the US is exploding in new COVID cases.
Here is what you need to know.
1. The US has ramped up testing over the last several weeks and that explains most, if not all, of the increase… not that there is a big spike in people catching the bug.
2. The US is the third-highest populated country in the world. When you hear COVID-19 infection numbers from the FNM make sure you look for the percentage of population measures before adopting the FNM narrative.
3. Hospitals across the country have significant bed capacity. No shortage of equipment.
4. The hospitalization rate and the death rate per age group is the primary measure to accurately evaluate the actual risk and harm to the population… NOT the infection rate. Because the virus has little to no symptoms for 80+ % of those that contract it, and people under 65 and in good health are less likely to die from it than they are with the common influenza.
5. The FNM and the Democrats are desperate to damage Trump’s re-election prospects. One of the most harmful situations to the Democrat’s prospects is a thriving economy where voters are more economically secure. There is a motive to consider for the promotion of a news narrative of fear to support the continued shut-down of the economy.
6. The FNM and the Dems supported and promoted all the protests. And there is a FNM narrative that this has not contributed to any material increase in COVID-19 infection. Consider the blatant intellectual dishonesty of this when considering #5 above.
How do we know based on those sources that it’s fake news? My last comment for awhile.
Jeff, are you starting to see the pattern here regarding news sources and links?
Keith – note that there is practically no reporting on the number of deaths per infection rate. The reason is that this reporting would be inconvenient to those that are benefiting with the continued fear-based shutdown orders… including the media.
Note that the media has been one of the positive economic benefactors of the riots and the pandemic.
I totally agree with you Jeff. My point is David scoffs at news sources and links he deems as fake news while presenting news sources and links that are often times fake news themselves and at the very least totally left wing biased.
Ok, one example: Miami-Dade. As you know, Florida is reporting a big surge in COVID-19. Is it just testing data, or is it an actual spike in cases?
Source: https://rwilli5.github.io/MiamiCovidProject/Trajectory/#hospital-covid-19-census
https://rwilli5.github.io/MiamiCovidProject/about_us/
Worth noting hospitalizations and deaths are going to be lagging not leading indicators. Deaths occur at the end of the infection process.
Florida is an outlier in that data. It is weird. I think there needs to be more analysis because it frankly is so far out of the norm that there is something fishy. Possibly a lot of people coming from New York? Data being manipulated by political forces?
Here is a very good resource to look at this state by state. Most of the states show an easy correlation with testing and infection rates.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states/usa
Perhaps, while the amount of testing was ramping up, but not anymore. The recent increases in the rate of positive tests in various locations show that there is currently “a big spike in people catching the bug.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2020/06/23/the-health-202-trump-claims-an-increase-in-coronavirus-cases-is-due-to-more-testing-that-isn-t-true-anymore/5ef0efa3602ff12947e91e90/?itid=lk_inline_manual_8
Not true even though the fabulously unbiased WaPo says so.
https://i.ibb.co/zJjryDr/TESTING.png
If one reads the article I posted, they might see the discussion about the recent increased rates of positive tests (in the face of steady test counts) found in Florida, Texas, Arizona and other places. This increase is also shown in the graph Jeff posted above, where the percent of positive tests nationally has roughly doubled during June (Right Y Axis) with a constant number of daily tests (500K per day). This positivity rate increase is not explained by a greater number of tests, but rather by an increase in infections. The increase is even greater in the specific regions discussed in the article I posted. The situation with this epidemic is quite fluid and what we ‘knew’ last month may no longer be true. That is why scientists look at data and reevaluate regularly, and not simply follow the preferred political ‘talking points’ as some here clearly prefer.
Responding to Jeff Boone’s points:
1. It’s not just the amount of testing, it’s the test-positive rate that is important. And the rate of positive tests in the U.S. is going up. See: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?yScale=log&zoomToSelection=true&positiveTestRate=true&dailyFreq=true&aligned=true&smoothing=7&country=USA~CAN~BRA~DEU~FRA~DZA~SWE&pickerMetric=location&pickerSort=asc
2. Let’s look at cases per million. U.S. is rising and is getting up there with Brazil and (hold your breath) Sweden. See: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?yScale=log&zoomToSelection=true&casesMetric=true&dailyFreq=true&aligned=true&perCapita=true&smoothing=7&country=USA~CAN~BRA~DEU~FRA~SWE~EuropeanUnion~Europe&pickerMetric=location&pickerSort=asc
3. Hospitals overall may have capacity but in places where the cases are rising quickly they do not. Houston for instance. See: https://www.tmc.edu/news/2020/06/coronavirus-connection-a-texas-medical-center-continuing-update/
and
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-ICU-capacity-could-be-exceeded-Thursday-15363724.php
4. Can you provide a reference for your assertion that those under 65 “are less likely to die from it than they are with the common influenza.” There is significant mortality risk for those under 65. See e.g. https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-rate-us-compared-to-flu-by-age-2020-6
The CDC’s mortality rate has been widely questioned and should not be taken seriously. See: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/05/fact-check-cdc-estimates-covid-19-death-rate-0-26/5269331002/
Prof. Ioannidis should n0t be believed. He was one of the backers of the debunked study in Santa Clara County that had so many problems they had to rewrite some of it. See: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/how-not-to-do-an-antibody-survey-for-sars-cov-2-67488
Ioannidis was also the author of a paper in March that estimated COVID deaths at around 10,000 (we are now at 120,000). He had to increase his estimate within weeks and then in a third article failed to mention that he was mistaken in his first estimate.
And another example. Hospitalization rates in Texas.
Hospital capacity issues in Texas? Some regional problems developing now.
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/06/23/texas-coronavirus-hospitalizations-icu-houston/
Cite please. This does not square with the other data.
https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2020/texas-coronavirus-cases-map/
Don – the question still remains. We are trading the harm of catching a virus with the harm of economic destruction. Hospitalizations are certainly worth tracking, but it is the mortality rate that we should be focused on as justification for killing the economy.
Jeff Boone:
9:27 a.m.:
Hospitalization data provided.
10:52 a.m.:
Would you like mortality rate data as well now?
You only provided the hospitalization rate from one source for one state. And that state was not CA and not Yolo County.
Another thing I know… the medical procedures for treating people has improved a great deal. They are having patients lie on their stomach instead of their back and treating them with drugs known to help prevent them from having to go into the ICU and on a ventilator.
https://calmatters.org/health/coronavirus/2020/04/california-coronavirus-covid-patient-hospitalization-data-icu/
All of this is an exercise in denial by Jeff and Keith. All of this to avoid the obvious conclusion – COVID is out of control And there is a simple answer, in the voice of Ronald Reagan, “Donald Trump put on that mask.” That simple.
Sorry David, but you and your friends on the left lost all credibility when you cried that the open the economy protesters were spreading COVID then denied that the 100’s of thousands to millions of BLM protesters weren’t.
Evidence
I agree Keith. This select moral grandstanding is beyond old. The blatant hypocrisy has destroyed all their credibility. And for David, his credibility as an objective statistician are also in shreds.
When is the last time you have heard one of them concede any point outside of their strongly held political views regarding COVID? You would think they would at least acknowledge the need for balance.
Pretty sure we are just discussing data and policy here, so I’m not sure who this is directed to.
More data: On Wednesday, California reported 190,222 positive cases, about a 7,000 jump from the previous day. It also tallied 52 new deaths, bringing the total to 5,632. Meanwhile, 4,095 people were in the hospital and 1,268 were in intensive care — a record high for ICU numbers.
Jeff and Keith
Please provide a single example from your recent posts that show that you yourself have done this. Please post a single example where you have conceded that you were wrong in a previous post on this issue. Your ideology has so blinded you that I’m pretty sure that you will not find a single example of the “intellectual curiosity” that you laud but fail to demonstrate.
Richard: How about if you provide one, first?
That’s easy Richard, just this morning I posted:
So Richard, likewise back at you, please provide a single example from your recent posts that show that you yourself have conceded a point.
Also Richard, are you willing to admit that the BLM protests are spreading COVID?
Notice that Richard hasn’t answered my questions.
Richard, still waiting…….
Jeff
I’ve pointed you several times to the research on mortality from recessions vs. the death rate from this pandemic. Have you bothered to go read that research? I also pointed out that you confused the number of global deaths from the Great Recession with the nationwide death rate from the pandemic. (And you’re ignoring the morbidity impacts from the disease which are substantial and debilitating.) Simply put, the economic consequences are small compared to the impacts of the pandemic. Note also that a depression in 1920-21 followed the 1918-19 Spanish flu pandemic in which the lack of controls led a worsening of the illness.
Here’s a good discussion of the tradeoffs: https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2020/06/02/the-political-economy-of-covid-19/
“All of this is an exercise in denial by Jeff and Keith.”
You get what you and Don encourage.
When did your critical thinking skills and intellectual curiosity disappear to be replaced with pure ideological defensiveness and invective?
Maybe that’s David and Don’s fault too.
Have you looked in the mirror and asked this question? Your lack of self reflection on your analyses is readily apparent to everyone else here, save one. But of course, you’re smarter than everyone else–you HAVE to be.
Something about “glass houses” and “throwing stones” . . .
Ron O
What’s my ideology? I can clearly identify Jeff’s and Keith’s in general, and I know what your’s is on local issues. (Not so clear on national ones.)
I didn’t ask you about “ideology”, regarding this issue. I’m suggesting that you tone down your remarks to others.
Something I’ve noticed more than once, and to more than one commenter.
Looks like the state’s COVID case rates per county track with the Latinx population per county. Not sure what to make of that.
https://i.ibb.co/JKzzvqt/COVIDHISPANIC.png
(Just a ‘sampler’)
Yeah, just data and policy… right… not!
It is what it is… and ‘language’ the same…
Figure that this post has a 92.4% chance of deletion and/or moderation, as it is “off-topic”, and might be considered as questioning ‘moderation’…
I am not sure what a “strongly held political view regarding COVID“ would be but… for me, I have changed a number of views on this virus since it first appeared on my radar in January. A few examples:
1. I was initially opposed to people wearing masks/face coverings. I now understand that clinical settings are NOT community settings and that wearing a mask might not protect me as much as it protects other people.
2. I now understand that fomite transmission is less of a concern than I had thought. I still wash my hands and use sanitizer when soap is not available, but I do not obsess about every surface. It is clear that fomite transmission is not a primary means of transmission.
3. I was previously concerned about transient interactions in public (short interactions in the open or enclosed spaces). Now I am not concerned about those but AM concerned about longer periods of contact (10+ minutes) in enclosed spaces, with close contact, OR long duration (>1 hour) in larger venues.
4. Previously I thought 80-90% of cases needed to be traced and encouraged to quarantine. Now, I think it is probably more like 60%. That is a big difference. We do not need to get everyone just a majority.
5. For a while I was very concerned about inflammatory disease in children who had had COVID-19 but, while I am still concerned about it, I no longer worry about my grandchildren.
6. I was previously concerned about aerosol or even airborne transmission, and while there is evidence from carefully controlled laboratory settings that these could be problems, I don’t think they are the main means of transmission out in the environment.
7. I had initially thought that we would see an IFR of around 2%. It appears now that the IFR (depending on a number of factors) lies somewhere between 0.5 and 1.1%. That is a big difference but still speaks to a pretty deadly virus (very deadly in that there is no vaccine or prophylaxis to mitigate its effects anywhere on the planet).
There may be some others but these are the main ones. I have changed my view because I try to keep up on the most recent studies and evidence and I adjust my behavior and understandings based on them. The bottom line remains: this virus has been on earth for 7-8 months and we have known about its human transmission for about 6. It is still novel however compressed our timelines are in this modern age. There is still much we do not know about it. It requires humility.
What has not changed in my views is that older ages are at much greater risk. IFRs over 65 boggle the mind. What has not changed is the near impossibility of isolating this population from pre- or asymptomatic cases in younger age groups and the need to figure out a way to reduce spread in all age groups that results from this fact.
Another thing that has not changed is that mortality is a lagging indicator and when we see hospitalization spikes, death is very likely to follow (even IF treatments in hospital are improving).
Another thing that has not changed is that people who are required by our economy to work in tight spaces, for prolonged periods, or those in prison, are much more likely to get sick. And, because it is a novel virus we do not know what the long-term effects of this disease will be. But we should not minimize the risks of serious sequelae simply because we do not (cannot) know yet.
And, what has not changed is my understanding that THE BEST way to move the economy back into some sense of normalcy is by having information about spread. Test, trace, contact, isolate, and quarantine—even at high levels of transmission—is the best way forward. This is a well known intervention that has worked to stem even Ebola in the poorest, most destitute places on the planet. It can work here if we have the will.
Shelter in place took relatively little political capital—Republican or Democrat— because it was for a short period of time. Enforcing mask use, and committing to test, trace, isolate, and quarantine are hard and politically costly. I can only hope our leaders—on both sides of the spectrum have the ability to insist on them. Then we can move forward.
This is some good journalism and work to show the spread of the disease and how the response was late: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-spread.htm
RD, thanks for the post. What you say tracks with most of what I have conclude – for those I understood, as some of your stuff got wonky.
But the most important message was: you changed you mind as you learned more. And that’s what I don’t understand about those who’s opinions are politically-based. I started out rebellious and independent-minded about this – until I read up on it. This is a place where the more conservative side of my personality had no place. It’s time for selfless acts like mask wearing and staying home. Oh, so hard, my whiny, puddle-soft American brethren! I don’t wanna! Whaaa!
Oh, and since the issue of protests came up…
Looking at the protestors against closure, those who marched for BLM, or, for that matter, people who joined the Trump rallies in Tulsa, or yesterday in Phoenix… I can say that I had the same terrible feeling in the pit of my stomach about all of them. I feared that people were going to die. I feared that a lot of people were going to die.
And though my personal political proclivities might have been more with the BLM protestors and the ends they were and are trying to achieve, in my heart I wished there was another way. And in my heart I wished Trump had cancelled his rallies.
But these are things beyond my control.
I can only hope that people involved in any of these will get tested, and will isolate if they are sick.
Good posts. Thank you.
I see a lot of economic carnage we have caused by expecting the worst. It is a topic for another time, but why were we so damn unprepared having spent billions on the CDC and WHO and…?
Along that line, we had it bass-ackward… the right approach is “prepare for the worst, expect the best”… basic tenet in survival training. We follow that in being prudent (masks and distancing, and avoiding crowds), but given that, not worrying…
So of course we should just abolish the CDC and WHO and have no preparations at all instead since this disease isn’t so threatening to most of us anyway….
Thank you for saying this! And for not making it political based on sides . . . almost no one who is willing to speak out is being honest about this – as if ‘Their God’ will protect them if they are out protesting, because they are right Their God will not let the virus spread. Right! :-\
But there is. I don’t side with either the conservative anti-lockdown protestors nor the BLM protestors – I think they’ve all lost their minds, in thinking that gathering in huge groups is a good idea. Protesting is mostly a ‘feel good’ narcissistic sport and a social gathering place. Real change takes hard work. And if you must protest, just see the pre-George-Floyd rallies that the Vanguard praised as safe – the automobile protests around the Capitol that still got publicity but could keep people apart physically.
People don’t like to admit it, but it’s really hard for people not to automatically stand too close, hug your friends, shake hands – and it’s seen as an insult to move away. And kids are almost impossible to keep apart. So best to avoid organizing public gathering events, whatever the cause. Every case we avoid/prevent could be the contact that didn’t happen, that saves a life or a saves weeks of suffering.
Alan –
I have a few issues with your comment.
I don’t know how wise the rallies are, the ones I have been at however, most everyone has a mask and there were efforts to distance. Were they all like that? I can’t say. But the data so far does not seem to indicate a large amount of spread due to the rallies. That’s been my point all along. If the data start to show another picture, we will have to re-think it.
I do disagree on your “feel-good narcissistic” point. It is VERY clear that the rallies and protests have led to huge amounts of changes. It has completely changed the political dynamic over what existed in May. What that ultimately looks like I cannot say obviously, but to merely write these off is to ignore what the political landscape now looks like.
I meant that for both sides: Anti-lockdown rallies, BLM rallies. I’m sure as you said that because of all the people showing up “stuff has happened”. Could this have been accomplished in another way? Maybe political change happened for good – maybe it will lead to a backlash (probably both). Other “stuff that happened” is people got a chance to rub up against other people, kids got a chance to play together physically as kids will do, people got a chance to shake hands and hug friends, young people met other young people and hooked up, people sang together in groups and got tiny droplets of spit on other people nearby.
All of this is quite human and quite normal. And great in normal times. These are not normal times. Say the F— home.
As the Utah health director said, and I am not quoting but paraphrasing her meaning: ‘People think that opening up means the threat has passed. In fact, when we are opening up is when we are most at threat, and when people need to be the most careful. Our leaders need to tell people that’.
LOL, did you watch the rallies/riots on TV? Not much social distancing was going on from most of the rallies I saw.
I can admit the Trump rallies are not a good practice at this time, can you David admit the same regarding the BLM protests?
I don’t the data on the COVID issue to back up that conclusion. If the data show significant spread from the protests then I will acknowledge that from the standpoint of COVID, the protests were not a good idea.
I don’t have data either on the Trump rallies but I’m willing to acknowledge that they most certainly helped spread the virus.
Why can’t you admit the same with the protests?
Progressive God protects the Righteous.
I’m pretty sure that you “can” say – based upon vast numbers of videos (and have expressed concern in the past), but that you are (now) reluctant to do so here.
This is kind of like arguing over the color of the sky. The data will be there or it won’t at the end of the day.
If the data “isn’t there”, then that would mean that the science-based guidance regarding social distancing (outdoors, at least) is perhaps overly-cautious.
Another assumption is that a direct connection can (and will) be made between the protests and the rising number of cases. This would assume that testing is (actually) done, and that no other causes can be attributed to a spike.
Not when tracers aren’t allowed to ask if someone who got COVID if they participated in the BLM protests. And why is that question being excluded? We all know why don’t we David. So the left can deny that the protests spread COVID.
I’ve seen several pretty good but preliminary articles that have been able to track the cases. It’s not that hard for a good journalist to get that kind of data.
The only credible sources I could find on this topic indicate it was a specific instruction in New York City only, and that contact tracers did ask general questions that would elicit information about public activities.
It is not a general prohibition anywhere else.
Ref: https://www.thecity.nyc/coronavirus/2020/6/14/21290963/nyc-covid-19-trackers-skipping-floyd-protest-questions-even-amid-fears-of-new-wave
Because they considered it intrusively personal and were concerned that it might discourage participation.
I believe that the “criticism” of you (here) is based upon your failure to acknowledge the OBVIOUS and MASSIVE disregard of science-based advice – regardless of outcome.
Articles that you cherrypicked no doubt.
Unless it’s peer reviewed evidence it’s useless, as you once told me.
Apparently you missed the word “preliminary”
Find me a data analysis that shows COVID is running rampant through protesters, I’ll look at it. I suspect you would have already if one existed.
Keith: I’m curious as to whether or not the “mainstream” media will explore this, and whether or not it would even be able to do so.
What if they’re not being tested, or are not experiencing symptoms? (But, are nevertheless spreading the disease?)
And if they are tested, are they then asked if they attended a protest?
Most protesters are young people, who aren’t as vulnerable to the disease.
We can only deal with the information we have in evaluating this. The bottom line – young people get the disease they just don’t have the same fatality rate.
Ron, it’s really head scratching that anyone citing the recent jump in the COVID numbers would have the audacity to say that the protests aren’t contributing to that when they initially cried about the open the economy protests spreading COVID.
Do they hear themselves?
It’s audacious that you are trying to circumvent data to try to claim that protests are contributing to COVID numbers.
I agree, Keith.
Previously, David did acknowledge that he was concerned about the protests. But, I suspect that he (and perhaps even the mainstream media) would be more “interested” in the results, if those were massive “Trump rallies”, instead.
Robb Davis had a good response/comment a couple of days ago.
Ron – I did say that I was concerned. Then we started getting data. This is a week old now, but it’s in the Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/recent-protests-may-not-be-covid-19-transmission-hotspots-11592498020 – now we’ll see if more evidence emerges. But you seem to be making the same mistake as Keith – assuming you know what’s going to happen and willing to circumvent data to reach your conclusion. My position is the data isn’t there to support your conclusion.
We all know that, but as we’ve been being told they’re spreaders.
They also get sick, they just don’t die very frequently.
My only “conclusion” is that vast numbers of protesters were disregarding the best science available. And as a result, were risking the health of others.
Do you agree? It’s really a pretty simple question.
The failure to respond (directly) to this type of question is a perfect example of the political bias of the Vanguard, itself. (Well, David’s at least.)
It’s ultimately a political blog, which also explains the type/nature of comments that it generates.
My failure to answer your question in the 19 minutes between your initial post as I covered the AG’s talk on policing in NY and took a call is indicative of nothing other than the fact that I am multitasking and have a lot going on.
The bottom on your question is that best practice is masks when in public, six feet more of separation, avoid large crowds. What I’ve seen is pretty consistent use of masks which by itself would reduce spread greatly. Sporadic social distancing. And of course most of these are large crowds. The biggest difference between the left protests and the right ones is the use of masks.
My apologies, though I was anticipating that you’d continue to not respond directly. And, my prediction has come true, regarding lack of a direct response:
So, do you agree that vast numbers of protesters were disregarding this advice, and risking the health of others?
Are you referring to the protests in Davis? Because I’m sure that you’ve seen videos where this isn’t the case – on a VERY large scale.
So again, how about answering the question?
Seems to me that it depends upon the location of the protest (e.g., in Davis – maybe so). Unlike other communities, Davis has “polite” protests – due to the nature of the town, itself. (So far, at least. Maybe the community itself will become more divisive and somewhat dysfunctional in some ways, over time.)
But, I would agree that (some) on the “right” seems to be making a political statement by not wearing masks. Starting with Trump.
But again, how about answering my question? Is it really that difficult to do so?
I’m leaving the conversation at this point but point out to anyone still reading this the following.
He asked a question: “My only “conclusion” is that vast numbers of protesters were disregarding the best science available. And as a result, were risking the health of others. Do you agree? It’s really a pretty simple question.”
My answer: “on your question is that best practice is masks when in public, six feet more of separation, avoid large crowds. What I’ve seen is pretty consistent use of masks which by itself would reduce spread greatly. Sporadic social distancing. And of course most of these are large crowds. The biggest difference between the left protests and the right ones is the use of masks.”
I guess he wanted a yes or no, but there are three components to the answer. So if he wants one word: it’s mixed. (Oh that’s two or three). And then I broke down each part. And then I get accused of dodging somehow. This is why I find it maddening to have a discussion with Ron. He puts a lot of demands on my time and nitpicks the answers. I’m done here.
It’s so hypocritical Ron, I remember a commenter on here, I won’t mention her name, who said an open the economy protester should be charged with assault for yelling in a cop’s face without a mask on. I’ve seen hundreds of BLM protesters screaming in cop’s faces while not wearing masks. It’s ludicrous to say the the hundred’s of thousands of protesters aren’t spreading COVID. The sky is blue.
I agree, Keith.
Though what I was referring to is that vast numbers of protesters were willing to risk the health of themselves and others, even if (for some reason) that risk doesn’t manifest itself (on a mass scale).
Many of those protests directly conflicted with prevailing medical knowledge, on a vast scale. (Leaving aside the purposeful destruction and violence by some, which is another issue.)
This is what David seems “reluctant” to acknowledge.
I’m not sure if we’ll ever know how much impact it ultimately will have, e.g., due to some of the reasons that you cited.
Uh, huh. Only “difficult” for someone trying to avoid responding to a question which “inconveniently” conflicts with his political advocacy.
This is an example of the reason that this blog lacks credibility – regardless of the topic. And, it’s also a reason that these conversations go on for extended periods.
Isn’t it a lot more simple to be direct and honest?
A simple, honest answer (such as the one recently provided by Robb Davis) would have sufficed. Something along the lines of supporting the underlying goal, while being quite concerned about the risk.
Some people consider contact tracing itself to be intrusively personal, so where do you draw the line? I find it very hard to believe that there are not other questions that are not more personal that ‘did you attend a mass gathering?’
The real reason may be, in a mass of people, it’s impossible to know who you exposed to the virus or who exposed you to the virus. Which is I’m sure why protests are now OK . . . thumbs up everybody! #sarcasm#
A good site to get good info on the virus and where it/we are heading is: https://covid19-projections.com/maps/
No political axes to grind on the site. Just data and good science.
Re: Oregon county imposes face mask requirement targeting only white people, minorities exempt over racism fears
Do you trust CNN?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/us/oregon-county-people-of-color-mask-trnd/index.html
Jeff early point you made: “The US has ramped up testing over the last several weeks and that explains most, if not all, of the increase… not that there is a big spike in people catching the bug.”
When people cited data on hospitalization, you shifted the argument.
“Hospitalizations are certainly worth tracking, but it is the mortality rate that we should be focused on as justification for killing the economy.”
But your initial argument was that cases were not increasing – but hospitalization increases are data that show cases actually are increasing. You never acknowledged that you were wrong on that point, you just shifted the argument to deaths.
He did do that . . . quite shifty.
“You never acknowledged that you were wrong on that point, you just shifted the argument to deaths.”
And he never will because the lies support his ilk’s nefarious goals. More testing means both more positive and more negative results. The fact that the positive numbers are climbing at a high rate is disturbing and as we see in parts of Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Southern California, the increasing demand for icu, intubation and ventilators is taxing the capacities of hospitals and healthcare workers.
Boone might want to ponder what the cost to the economy of losing 200,000 consumers, taxpayers, mortgage holders and investors THIS CALENDAR YEAR will be. If we don’t change the course of this pandemic the death toll will be far greater and we may be dealing with the virus and its mutations for years to come.
This not your standard flu. It’s impacts are much more long lasting. This is more like polio in effects on lives. We have to look beyond just mortality to morbidity. Here’s one article describing individuals’ problems. I saw another listing accounts from Twitter, but can’t find it easily.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/editorspicks/article/What-they-don-t-tell-you-about-surviving-15347792.php
And another on the last effects: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/covid-19-coronavirus-longterm-symptoms-months/612679/
I read somewhere that those that recover from COVID-19 tend to become more conservative and vote Republican… a clear justification that the liberal ruling class should consider this is a terrible virus indeed. I will look for that article. I am sure I can find several that report these facts.
Yep, reply with sarcasm when you have nothing of substance to respond with. Of course your smarter than all the rest of us.
Richard: Suggest that you (and a few others) find a way to participate without engaging in attacks.
Let’s see… Covid-19 showed up Jan/Feb this year… 14+ days incubation… those who contract the virus, to the degree they become ill, take 2-6 weeks to recover… yet, you say,
That is a foolish, idiotic, unsubstantiated position… I read that somewhere…
Sarcasm…
Yes Jeff, most of us realized that. Cough, cough…..
Understand that the two individuals here objecting the measures taken to control the pandemic are reactionaries. Reactionaries hold two key principles: that we have no responsibilities to other people (except when other people have responsibilities to the reactionaries), and their authority cannot be challenged. Their responses to being shown to be erroneous violates both of these principles.
Here’s an article on how reactionaries have responded to being told to where masks:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/dudes-who-wont-wear-masks/613375/
Those “reactionaries” (or malignant narcissists as I suspect) have driven me to endorse unmasked and close public gatherings and rallies in the hope that a sufficient number of them will die or become incapacitated, making for a more intelligent US populace and electorate.
Does your endorsement include BLM rallies?
Some of the measures taken/required were knee-jerk, “reactionary” as it were… we follow the protocols, even tho’ we’re not convinced they are necessary or effective… am I a “reactionary”?
Sure sounds like “profiling” to me…
Having a bad day, Richard?
Here’s a measure, that Richard and others can do… participate in a daily survey…
https://med.stanford.edu/covid19/covid-counter.html
That actually might be a positive thing to do… unless you are a ‘reactionary’ [whatever that really means… if you touch your hand on a hot stove, and quickly pull it away, are you a ‘reactionary’?]
For those who keep referring to risk calculations and ignore the more complex issue of creating safety:
https://issues.org/post-normal-science-for-pandemic-recovery/?fbclid=IwAR3zEJ-kvTfJsJXG2rze3ewoA-SwbIYk16ve9Rlf1L1xC0_3KtQGwlvTMGk
“Safety” tends to be an ‘absolute’… may I suggest “minimization of risk”?
No one can rely on being “safe”… we cannot ‘create safety‘… it would be a fool’s errand to try… IMNSHO…
I would say that I hope that those seeking medical or policy advice are not relying upon this blog, one way or another.
Will you stop making these kinds of comments, they are not helpful. And do not add to the conversation. I have asked this before.
Ron O
Actually there have been some quite useful posts made. There are posts by a particular individual that attempts to misinterpret data to serve is own personal ends. The rest have been quite informative. And it highlights an important debate happening across the country where a small group is trying to undermine the political will required to control this pandemic.
I understand the point, but I think you’re over-estimating the “reliance” upon information and views presented on here as “fact”.
No information is being presented here, that isn’t presented elsewhere. Including the political aspect.
Yes, there is a political aspect to this, which is really the only reason it’s being discussed on here.
I also wouldn’t necessarily conclude that the following is true:
I’m not seeing that. What I see is a political divide, regarding how to respond to the issue.
The only thing “political” about this is that the “reactionaries” reject fact based (scientific) data in favor of imposing their dogma upon the rest of us to further their theocratic and plutocratic ambitions at the cost of other’s lives.
It’s a good thing all scientists agree with other, or we’d really be in a Mr. Pickles.
Just talked to a friend in Santa Cruz that says the beaches are all closed 11 am – 5 pm.
But he is able to protest and go to the grocery store and squeeze fruit with all the other shoppers.
Looks to me that the irrational reactionaries are actually in charge and are making the rules to unnecessarily cost the livelihoods of millions.
How about you telling others their comments aren’t “thoughtful”? How helpful is that?
There are several comments on here that haven’t added to the conversation, so why point out Ron’s only?
Political bias
Yup, that would be my “thoughtfull” response.
You did not ask me but I do not agree because the issue of people engaging in this behavior outdoors is not well understood. I noted my personal concerns but they are not informed by science because there is not clarity in the scientific community about risks to people being in large groups out of doors. I simply can’t find anything.
Where there IS agreement is: indoors, in confined spaces, with large groups, close together, for long periods IS a major source of superspreader events.
Robb, serious question as I’ve had this conversation a few times. If people outdoors, sweaty on a hot day for example, see a friend outside their home Covid-19 pod, give them a big hug, but otherwise social distance, is there a high risk due to skin-to-skin contact? I know surfaces have been downplayed as a major transmission method, but is skin on a live person just a ‘surface’, or is the sweaty skin of an infected person crawling with the virus? Is there data on this method of transmission? I have witnessed men shaking hands and people hugging simply because that’s what human beings are conditioned to do, and they sometimes just forget themselves, or maybe feel it would be an insult to the other person not to do what were social norms of greeting, back in the early 20’s. Remember the early 20’s everyone?
So the virus has to enter the respiratory tract in sufficient dosage to infect. A hug without masks is risky because just being that close and breathing could provide a significant dose. With a mask, less so, but if the person has shed virus onto themselves by breathing or coughing and you hug and then touch mouth or eyes, again, you could get a large dose.
That is why contact tracers generally have three ways of assessing a risky contact: 1) direct physical contact (no matter duration); < 6 foot distance no mask for 10 minutes; or more than six feet, no mask for long period (hour). The closer the unprotected contact is the higher the risk (all other things equal).
I am not hugging anyone these days.
Hey David, do you know who wrote this?
Yes and the difference again was masks. Why is this difficult?
LOL, masks were worn and not worn at both the open up protests and the BLM protests/riots.
Do you want me to post pics?
You know I can….
Posting pictures is useless. You know full well that the right events has a far lower percentage of people wearing masks than at the left events. THat’s the big difference between the two.
With the reports today, it is clear to me now that the media and the political establishment, including many of the leaders in the healthcare industry, are working together to destroy the country in advance of the election as they know that depressed and angry people will vote for change and they can point to be big mean daddy man in the white house as the boogieman (again, relying on their media plants).
I think it is time to start the REAL rebellion. I don’t think the leaders can be trusted.
If this many people are infected, then why the h_ _ _ did we shutdown the economy to try to flatten the curve? And if this many people are infected, it means that the virus was here many months if not years before they announced a pandemic? And if this many people are infected, why the h_ _ _ did they support the protests and riots?
If 90% don’t have it and they are expected to get it, then it is COMPLETELY asinine to keep the economy hobbled while waiting for that to happen. It is lunacy… freaking insanity. We locked it down and spent trillions and destroyed the financial health of millions… and now we are back to talking about it as if the sky will fall again and we need to all curl up into a ball and wait it out. We already did like we were told and apparently it did not help. And it caused a bunch of under-employed and unemployed young people to explode and riot and loot.
And lastly, if this many people are infected… then the mortality rate is nada… zilch. And the hospitalization rate is also de minimis.
It is time to put and end to this madness and open the damn economy. The nation is not going to suffer like this while the political establishment plays politics with the livelihoods of millions.
Those that are old and in poor health should continue to quarantine. Those that are afraid should continue to lock themselves up. Otherwise all business (except the large venue entertainment events like protests) should open just like the damn grocery stores.
“I think it is time to start the REAL rebellion. I don’t think the leaders can be trusted.”
Jeff, go take a time out.
I don’t think Jeff is the problem, the leftist activists and BLM are the ones who need to take a time out.
His comment is troubling
This discussion went somewhat off the rails a while ago, but this comment is over-the-top outrageous. I urge all participants on the Vanguard to be more temperate in their comments and try to be civil.
This thread is done.
I agree. Pull anything further on this.
Am I missing something here? 20 million may have been infected according to the CDC. 126,000 dead. What is the IFR implied by those numbers? Isn’t it 0.63% (see my prior post on IFR). Six to seven times as deadly as the worst strains of flu. No vaccine to mitigate that yet.
So if the remaining 90 percent of the population gets infected (approximately 300 million people) then that implies 1.9 million deaths.
Is my math off?
I don’t call 1.9 million deaths minimal (personally).
And who is hobbling the economy? Aren’t people voting with their feet and their money at this point? I can’t think of a single activity of my pre-COVID life that I am now NOT permitted to do (I did not attend religious services). I can, with limited restrictions go to a restaurant, to a bar (beer shoppe), fly, take the train, drive anywhere, shop online or in-person. I will go to the dentist next week. I am not choosing to do many of these things because I live with an at-risk person whom I love but I do not see any limits on my economic freedom.
Start the rebellion without me I guess.
Sorry folks, this thread is closed to comments.