All week commenters on the Vanguard have been pressing me to acknowledge that protests during the time of COVID are inadvisable and against the advice of science.
I get the point they are making. The advice we are getting from public health officials are to avoid large gatherings, to socially distance—and for that last part, wear a mask.
The protests definitely present a dilemma because, on the one hand they have clearly driven social change in a way we really haven’t seen in decades. On the other hand, we are facing what is now an unprecedented public health crisis, perhaps going back a century. So how do we weigh the two?
It turns out that data is probably the soundest approach and the remarkable evidence emerging may point the way toward being able to have a relatively open economy while addressing the COVID-19 outbreak—wear a mask.
In yet another story in NPR this week, they once again found that the cause of the new spike in cases is not protests but parties.
“We did have a rally in Bellingham, which is our county seat, and there was also a protest, and we have not been able to connect a single case to that rally or to the protest, and what we’re 
finding is in large part that’s due to the use of masks,” Erika Lautenbach, the director of the Whatcom County Health Department in Washington State, tells NPR’s All Things Considered.
She continued: “Almost everyone at the rally was wearing a mask, and it’s really a testament to how effective masks are in preventing the spread of this disease.”
This is why contact tracing is so important even if it is intrusive, because it allows us to, as they discovered in Washington, see that a large number of the cases are due to large parties where people weren’t wearing masks.
Since the beginning of June I have covered six protest-type events. My observation has been that, at all of them, 95-percent plus of the people there were wearing masks. In fact, at the march last Sunday, there were 750 to 1000 people and the only people without masks were little kids who were holding them in their hands.
Distancing may not have been perfect, but at the rally in the park two weeks ago, the huge crowd was spread across Central Park with little pockets of families together and gaps to allow for distancing.
So why are social events spreading the disease but not the protests?
“We’re finding that the social events and gatherings, these parties where people aren’t wearing masks, are our primary source of infection,” Lautenbach says.
The secondary place for infection—workplace settings.
Lautenbach explained: “And then the secondary source of infection is workplace settings. There were 31 related employers just associated with that one party because of the number of people that brought that to their workplace. So for us, for a community our size, that’s a pretty massive spread.”
Deaths are a lagging indicator of disease spread. Nevertheless, it would appear that the death rate for what is occurring in June will be lower.
That is because, in April, the big struggle was with long-term and elder-care facilities. Now the people getting the virus tend to be younger.
“We have seen almost a near flip in the cases that we’re experiencing,” Lautenbach says. “So in April of this year, we were really struggling with long-term-care outbreaks. And so about 3 out of 4 people were over the age of 30 and really pretty heavily skewed to 60-plus. And by contrast, in June, we’re seeing that now 2 out of 3 people that have contracted this disease are under 29.”
I would be cautious about the death rate though—deaths present themselves at the end of the process and could be 6 to 8 weeks after infections. What we have seen is a rise in both hospitalizations and ICUs, and it would be folly not to expect deaths to tick up. But the change in demographics may mitigate against it going too high. Still, the disease can be serious for the young and lead to permanent health disorders.
For those pushing for more opening of the economy, the key to doing that safely appears to be getting people to wear masks. And that has proven very difficult.
There are those who believe we should fully open the economy, as this commenter advocated last week: “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.”
But I think Robb Davis hit the nail on the head: in actuality, the economy is for the most part open. What is holding it back is not government regulation but rather the fact that the people are voting with their feet.
Polling shows that only about one-third of the public feels the way of the cited commenter, about the same percentage currently supporting the president for re-election. Most believe that the economy was opened far too soon and are concerned about the resurgence of COVID-19.
To a large extent, people are voting with their feet right now. COVID itself is what is preventing the economy from going full tilt.
One problem is trust in the economy and uncertainty about what the near term future will bring. The second problem is concern about personal safety. I will illustrate both problems with personal anecdotes.
When the economy shut down, there was a lot of concern on my part about the short-term ability of the Vanguard to pay the bills. Under the best of circumstances, we have for most of our existence lived right on the edge of viability, sometimes living month to month or even week to week.
The goal set in March was to raise enough money to survive until September when we hoped things would be better.
We have largely met that initial goal and probably even exceeded it. At this point, we are viable until the end of the year, which is of great comfort. And, in fact, with the explosion of our coverage (in case you haven’t noticed we have gone from four to six articles a day to seven to 10), we could probably stand to hire more help.
If I knew we could continue to bring in funds like we have been, I would probably take the plunge. But the uncertainty of the economy forces us to take a cautious approach.
On the other hand, a few weeks ago my thinking was about going away for a long weekend. We were thinking about a trip to Humboldt with the kids. But because of the resurgence of COVID, those plans are on hold.
Once again, instead of putting money into the economy, the concerns about COVID have led to a more cautious approach.
This is the problem—you have more people around town. You have people working. You have people coming to stores. But they are in no way functioning at capacity. A lot of that is because of concerns about the virus.
We are in this weird halfway point. Businesses are open, people are having to put themselves at risk going to work, but the economy is really not functional. There are just enough people going to large functions, spreading the virus, but not enough everyday activity to really restart the economy.
In a way it is the worst of both worlds. But the bottom line is, until people have confidence that COVID is under control, the economy is going to sputter. And so those worried about the economy need to address those concerns. One way to do is to convince people to wear masks. Masks work well in slowing the spread.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Your personal observations of protests in Davis are meaningless, beyond Davis. Pretty sure that you’ve seen videos where large numbers of protesters weren’t wearing masks OR social distancing.
That’s because you’ve been resisting it, apparently based upon political (rather than scientific) views.
Knowledge is evolving, but officials had actually closed-off large outdoor spaces (e.g., beaches, national parks and recreation areas) to discourage outdoor contact.
Vast numbers of protesters ignored the best science at the time, most of which still applies. And, you’re attempting to downplay that, based upon political considerations.
This is why many don’t like the Vanguard, to begin with. Comes down to a lack of honesty. Repeatedly, across more than one issue.
Had those been “pro-Trump” protesters, you and some of your commenters would have been “up in arms”. (And, we’re not even discussing the purposeful damage and violence, by some.)
“Your personal observations of protests in Davis are meaningless, beyond Davis.”
Four of the six were outside of Davis. Care to re-phrase?
No.
Remember “stay-at-home”?
I believe that there are STILL outdoor areas that haven’t re-opened, due to coronavirus. Some have only recently re-opened.
Again, I’m not referring to possible results (that are determined weeks after-the-fact).
Are you going to acknowledge that vast numbers of protesters (across the country) purposefully ignored the best guidance available, at the time?
“No.”
Then you are wrong.
So, here’s the first article that popped up (dated June 1st):
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/protests-pandemic/612460/
Now, whether or not it did is a different point.
Ron, the Atlantic’s dire predictions did not seem to come true. Take a look at cases in Minnesota. The ups-and-downs in the month since the protests look like the ups-and-downs in the two months previous. Washington, DC, a site with significant protests, has seen declining numbers. Seattle has seen increased numbers but it’s unclear if the increase is related to the demonstrations.
In the meantime, Texas, Florida, and Arizona have large increases due to opening of bars, restaurants, etc. And those same states have had beaches and other outdoor venues open for a while without much of a bump in cases.
Robert:
I’ll ask you the question that I asked David (who apparently doesn’t want to acknowledge it):
If you disagree, why do you think that vast parks and beaches were shut down, some of which still may not be open? And, why did officials call it a “stay-at-home” order? (With no “exception” for outdoor spaces?)
The entire GGNRA (and Pt. Reyes) were shut down, for example.
Ron
I would argue that the fact of what actually occurred is the most important point of all. Hypotheses, models, and projections are important in science, but nothing is stronger evidence than the actual outcomes. The current evidence is that large outdoor venues with ample space for distancing with masking is by far the safest for large groups, whether seeking to preserve monuments or seeking social justice. Small, packed indoor venues with no distancing or masking are most dangerous, whether a church setting or a packed bar.
I would argue that some are (now) purposefully attempting to downplay the choices that vast numbers of protesters made, at the time. And only because they agree with the political goal.
I find this disgusting. Especially when it comes from the side that consistently claims that they are guided by science.
Truth be told, I don’t fully trust the results, either (depending upon the source). But again, that’s a different issue. (The focus on “results” at this point is also driven by political considerations.)
Again, they’ve only recently started re-opening vast numbers of very large parks and beaches, and some may still be closed.
I agree with Tia the evidence must fit the hypothesis for the prediction to have value not the other way around.
It may be too early to know, but thankfully, the spread hasn’t been as bad as expected, so far anyway.
Ron O
In this case you remind me of the economist’s joke (I’m an economist), “Sure it works in practice, but does it work in theory?”
This isn’t surprising coming from you since every time someone presents results that differ from your preconceived idea, you reject that evidence–every single time. You’re becoming like “the boy who cried wolf.” At some point you may be correct in your prognostication, but you’re losing credibility by be unwilling to back off of your original assertion.
David… the anti-vaxxers (and many folk considering themselves “conservatives”) are against: masks, social distancing, contact tracing… and, of course vaccines… all intrusions on their “liberty”… I 5% agree, as I believe the risk is much less than portrayed…
But I understand the fears of them (95% greatly unfounded), and those who want to insist on everyone doing masking, social distancing, no indoor or outdoor events (and am struck with many actually want to ensure there are no religious observances, no matter how much preventative measures are in place… masks, distancing, temp taking)… those folk who consider themselves liberal/progressive… go figure… the conservatives want things ‘liberal’, the liberals want things ‘conservative’… “it is a puzzlement” (Yul Brenner, ‘King and I’)
Much paranoia and fraud on both ‘outliers on the bell curve’… rational thinking seems to be nearly absent in the public discourse…
Bill
I could be wrong, but it seems as though you consider yourself to be a rational thinker. That’s ok. I think most of us do think of ourselves that way. But as such, what are the specific steps in pandemic management that you would recommend?
Bear in mind, I am not asking you to do anything I would not do myself. I wrote several articles on Covid-19 and was not in the least embarrassed to contradict myself as the information changed week to week and sometimes day to day.
Bill, I suspect the anti-vaxxers have not read Charles Dickens or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. When it comes to death … FDR’s words “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” lead very nicely into Dickens’ words, “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.”
That and a torturous death.
A great long rest — after weeks on a ventilator in an induced coma.
The thing is Alan, we don’t know if it is a long rest. It could be an immediate rebirth or any one of a number of alternatives. Phillip Jose Farmer had a very interesting take on death in his 1971 novel “To Your Scattered Bodies Go.”
No one has been there and come back to tell the tale.
The socialists in Venezuela would agree with that.
The issue is really quite simple: Either you care about possibly infecting others or you don’t.
Self-entitled jerks don’t care and now I see no reason to care about them. Being fairly certain that I was ill with CV 19 in Decenber, 2019, I always mask-up before going out in public. Yesterday I had to go inside a grocery store with signs clearly posted requiring the wearing of masks. When I got to the door, just inside was a video worthy Karen, unmasked yelling loudly a the clerk about her constitutional rights not to wear a mask. I stepped in between her and the clerk, pulled my mask down and in my best Daffy Duck voice declared, “Asth a CV 19 carrier, I abstholutely agree. Why ssshould I give a raths behind about infecting anyone elsthe?” She literally turned and ran out the door. I re-masked and did my shopping. When I checked out, the clerk put a Snickers bar in my bag, winked and said, “Have a very nice day, sir.
That is hilarious (but hope you didn’t infect anyone else, by doing that).
“Daffy’s lisp” could have caused plenty of infections. And somehow, I think he would have cared less about it, than Bugs would have. Bugs was actually a nicer guy.
” Bugs was actually a nicer guy.”
I used to be, but you have to be a little more Yosemite Sam to get the jackasses’ attention in Trumpistan.
I think you’re smart enough to garner attention without it.
Yosemite Sam was a self professed “Bad Hombre.”
That was actually his repetitive “downfall”, compared to nicer-guy Bugs. Bugs often had to be pushed pretty hard, to “respond” (e.g., “Of course you know, this means war.”)
It’s not difficult to see “lessons”, in (supposedly-childish) cartoons.
And yet, Yosemite Sam was likeable in his own way, as well.
If there’s ever an article on cartoons, I’m in! (Probably says something about me.)
I think this is the third time that this commenter has told an unmasked shopper story like this. It’s always a Trumpster, Trumpian or whatever screaming about their constitutional rights. You can all believe him if you like, but in my opinion some or maybe all of these stories are fake.
You know, I suspect that there’s some on the left who might refuse to wear masks, as well. (Some protesters, for example.) Maybe some of the “anti-vaxers”, as well?
The real question is, was Bugs on the left, or right? (Daffy probably isn’t worth analyzing, though I can’t get that image out of my mind.)
For that matter, who would Bugs vote for?
Regardless, I’m pretty sure that Bugs would wear a mask. And, that someone might harass him because of it. Someone might pull it, and let it snap back onto him in some exaggerated, cartoon-type manner?
And continuing with the Warner Brother’s cartoon theme, I wouldn’t trust any mask made by “ACME”. (Wile E. Coyote was sort of a pioneer regarding mail order, though.)
On the other hand, were those primarily “user” errors? Is it generally advisable to strap a freezer/ice maker on your back, with a meat grinder to instantly make “snow” to ski on, in the desert?
Also, where was the electrical outlet?
I so love those cartoons.
Keith
On what are you basing that supposition besides your desire for it not to be true? My son who currently lives in Sacramento was making a drop off at my house here in Davis. He commented on the comparatively great compliance with distancing/masking here as opposed to in Sacramento. He specifically mentioned that he and his girlfriend had been hassled several times in Sacramento for wearing masks. I suspect there is an under rather than over-reporting of these incidents since not everyone has their phone at the ready or cares to record.
That’s disgusting. At least when I tell people in stores to f— themselves for not wearing masks, I’m on the right side of both best contagion practice and the law of the land 😉
John… forgetting the current contagion… please put that aside for the moment…
Hasn’t that applied to colds, flu, plague, dogmas/anti-dogmas, politics, etc., like, forever?
I agree, to the extent of intent… problem is the word “possibly”… it is ephemeral, very open as to meaning… extreme example… could the next breath you take, “possibly” mean that someone else is deprived of oxygen? If you have a cold, self-isolate, or just take precautions? In respect for others…
I agree with social responsibility… the ‘do unto your neighbor’ thingy… no argument, there…
But, reality is that currently, we are dealing with extreme opinions/behaviors… ’nuff said…
I couldn’t agree more.
Your dramatic anti-Karen public display gets a full 9.9 rating. That is something I would do. Your respect rating in my book just went up several points. Well done, Mr. H.
Los Angeles is shutting down bars and restaurants again after many thousands protested, rioted and looted.
The issue is really simple. Either you are not-impacted financially by the continued shutdowns and nonsensical rules and have taken up a simpleton’s view that everyone is entitled to not be infected as they are also entitled to go shopping when they want to no matter what other societal damage is caused by their demands that they not be infected, or you have an intelligent, balanced and practical view that the economy cannot continued to impaired.
I suggest that we just open everything up like the grocery stores have been open from day one.
And we open up all the beaches and parks.
People should be encouraged to wear a mask. Private businesses can demand it (no shirt, no shoes, no mask, no service). People that are afraid can shop at those places and stay away from the other places and stay away from the beaches and parks. Everyone else can do their thing. And if they get sick, it was their choice.
New York is not seeing the spike at this point. Either that is because the left media wants to protect themselves from supporting the protesters, or it is herd immunity. If herd immunity then the draconian shutdowns were a mistake.
And after this is all over, I think Fauci needs to face a Senate hearing for why, with all the billions we spend to be prepared… why people like him failed so drastically.
As I pointed out in my article, your approach doesn’t work without addressing the viral spread
Well then close down the grocery stores and protests!
Jeff B
You’re being naive. You’re also being a black and white extremist. It’s not a choice between “shut everything” and “open everything.” We are trying to steer the middle course that leaves the businesses open we absolutely need (e.g., groceries) and closing the ones that are truly discretionary (e.g., bars). And as pointed out by others, large open air demonstrations (vs. indoor political rallies) appear to be relatively safe. (That’s versus beaches were people INTERACT in close proximity.) And so far we’ve kept people from falling off the financial cliff, which is really what jobs are about, by setting up a large wealth transfer in the future. The wealthy doing just fine right now, thank you, so what’s your concern? We’re going to have to reconsider our economic framework and relationships soon anyway.
Wait, what? People at large open air demonstrations don’t INTERACT in close proximity?
Keith
On what are you basing that supposition besides your desire for it not to be true? My son who currently lives in Sacramento was making a drop off at my house here in Davis. He commented on the comparatively great compliance with distancing/masking here as opposed to in Sacramento. He specifically mentioned that he and his girlfriend had been hassled several times in Sacramento for wearing masks. I suspect there is an under rather than over-reporting of these incidents since not everyone has their phone at the ready or cares to record.
For me, how one treats a pandemic should be completely apolitical. Equal actions should generate equal responses. Indoor venues should be masked and distanced. Yet in the Michigan rotunda & at multiple public comment sessions both were defied and not enforced. Here in Davis, in Marin and in Berkeley, compliance at BLM events has been very good, while it has not been uniformly in Sacramento where my son lives. What I do not understand is the position of many who traditionally argue for law and order, and then refuse to follow or enforce legally enacted laws designed on the best current, if rapidly changing information to stop this pandemic.
” What I do not understand is the position of many who traditionally argue for law and order, and then refuse to follow or enforce legally enacted laws designed on the best current, if rapidly changing information to stop this pandemic.”
Because they are hypocrites in all things. They have no real code of ethics or morals. They opportunistically apply “morality” to support their purely self-serving goals. How many times have we seen the usual self-righteous and self-serving right-wingers talk about supporting the police and DA but encourage breaking laws regarding decent treatment of those they deem less righteous?
None? Zero?
Actually, I’m not sure who you’re referring to. I haven’t seen anyone on here who advocates for that.
You have Boone and Keith on ignore?
No. I don’t think they’re supportive of unnecessary/illegal violence by police.
They make other points.
Thanks Ron, I was unable to comment earlier as I’m out of town and on my phone. This guy posts a lot of bull excrement. Just like when I asked David to show proof that Trump was racist against blacks and he couldn’t, Hobbs can show no proof ever of anything that I’ve written that supports breaking laws against any class of people.
Thank Ron. Hobbs practices an awful lot of moral projecting of facts that don’t exist.
I don’t know what the heck he is talking about.
Bill
I could be wrong, but it seems as though you consider yourself to be a rational thinker. That’s ok. I think most of us do think of ourselves that way. But as such, what are the specific steps in pandemic management that you would recommend?
Bear in mind, I am not asking you to do anything I would not do myself. I wrote several articles on Covid-19 and was not in the least embarrassed to contradict myself as the information changed week to week and sometimes day to day.
I am (and household) following the recommended protocols… even if I believe they are “over the top”… pollen is more of a threat to my health, and many others…
As to pandemic management, am cool as to what has been proposed, but am a bit ticked off with those demanding masks AND social distancing (with CDC it’s either/or), and no religious congregations, where masks, distancing, and temp checks are required) [yes, I believe some want to find excuses to forbid religious/spiritual behavior]…
When the vaccine becomes available am willing to be a ‘beta’ test… are you? [our daughter may be ‘forced’ to, as a condition of employment, as she works NICU… am willing to risk what she will risk]…
When the vaccine becomes available am willing to require it of all, unless medically counter-indicated… legitimately… are you?
Bill, I encourage you to read the article in today’s New York times “How the World Missed COVID-19’s Silent Spread” which tells the story of how Dr. Camilla Rothe’s team was among the first to warn about asymptomatic transmission of the virus. You may find yourself rethinking how ticked off you are. Arguably the decision each of us make is a Pascal’s Wager … either the risk exists, or it doesn’t exist.
Bill
I am baffled why exercising a little extra caution by both distancing & masking, neither of which is a significant burden, angers you. Can you explain?
I don’t understand you on this matter :-\
Bill
I am on board with both of your questions. I am also part of two studies and have taken the course required to be a case investigator/tracer for the county/state should more be required. I am all in on stopping this virus the harm of which has not been exaggerated.
Well, maybe a quick reference, at least. Second time it’s been vandalized, I understand. (That’s o.k. – the city has plenty of money.)
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/davis-police-station-vandalized/
I wonder what the dollar figure is (nationwide), for all of the damage and police “overtime”. (In that way, the protesters are actually “supporting” the police.)
I find it really interesting what people have chosen to focus on here.
Ron has fixated on this small point about whether the protesters should have protested.
To me the bigger issue is actually Jeff’s issue from earlier this week about the need to open the economy. And my point here is that unless we fix COVID – we won’t have an open economy. And the key to fixing COVID and stil lhave an open economy is masks and the evidence of that is the protests.
Ron has really truncated that more important discussion by focusing so tightly on whether protesters should have protested. I don’t understand why that matters at this point – they did. We learned something from it in addition to the social change.
That is not correct.
My comment was more closely related to “hypocrisy”, as noted throughout my comments.
Regardless, I am attempting to steer the conversation away from this and towards the core issue.
In that regard, “failure”…
Checklist of activities to rank by risk.
Attending a public event (such as a political rally, concert, or play) outdoors
Attending a public event (such as a political rally, concert, or play) indoors
Attending a sports activity
Attending church
Attending school
Going to a bar or nightclub
Going to a family party or event
Going to a restaurant
Going to a retail store
Participating in team sports activities
Checklist of behaviors that promote public safety to rank by efficacy:
Avoiding physical contact with others
Avoiding prolonged exposure in crowded situations
Cleaning surfaces
Maintaining social distancing
Washing hands
Wearing a face covering
I’m sure our resident physician can add to this list. Seems that we have many activities that are worth discussing. In particular, “attending school” seems like a seriously timely concern.
Are you actually saying, Don, that those attending a religious service, where all are checked for masks/face coverings, required to use hand sanitizers, checked for temps, using social distancing are a threat to you, yours, society? [Yes, St James does all of those]
Scary… smells of bigotry… maybe anti-Catholic… maybe just anti-religion.. maybe just paranoid… or, scared…
You ranked religious services high in “risk”… whatever… you may have another agenda (?)… don’t know, don’t care… your words are your words…
But, you’re entitled to your beliefs… right , left, and/or wrong…
Bill, does spirituality require the collectivism of attending a church service? Isn’t an individual’s personal relationship to their god more important than their social relationship to the other members of their church?
There is a marvelous quote from Shakespeare’s play Troilus and Cressida that I believe applies very well to the current situation … ’tis mad idolatry to make the service greater than the god”
SO well put, MW. This is true, but of course organized religion can’t say this, or they would vanish in a puff of smoke.
This also applies to protests of all stripes. Plenty can be done activisty without the narcissistic act of the group protest, just as plenty can be done spiritually without the narcissistic act of religious gatherings. [Now I’ve pˆssed off both the bookends :-)]
Alan M
If that was only true. Please provide a clear example of how millions of people were motivated to change their minds in a matter of months on an issue WITHOUT public protest.
motivated to change their minds ?
I don’t know, Bill, am I saying that? I said “to rank by risk” and “to rank by efficacy”. It’s a risk to attend a religious service, yes. It seems that the risk is proportional to the amount of time spent in closed quarters with other people, and probably reduced somewhat by taking the measures you’ve outlined.
Or maybe none of the above, since I didn’t actually rank them. They’re sorted alphabetically by the first word.
Can I ask you a simple question? What the hell is your problem? I don’t get your reply at all here. I posted a list of activities that might convey some risk, suggested that people rank them, and you turn it into a weird diatribe against me. Suggest you calm down and stop personalizing stuff this way.
I suggest you rank those activities by risk. I suggest others do so. There are some I wouldn’t do, period. I’d also add flying and using mass transit. My kids, if they were that age, wouldn’t play in sports this fall for sure. Whether they’d attend school would be an open question, depending probably on my confidence in the DJUSD administration.
K.
There’s paranoia in these thread, but it isn’t coming from DS.
K.
Interesting. Protests not on the list.
So Trump’s political rallies are top of the list danger and protest are not even on the list.
Got it.
I love it how blatant political hypocrisy is so woke now from all my friends on the left.
Masks
I intentionally phrased it this way to be neutral in that regard, Jeff:
—-
I am sick of your insults. Take them elsewhere.
So the protests are now relabeled as outdoor political rallies. Got it. I have a hard time keeping up with the sensitivity language changes. Sorry about the dig now that I know.
Jeff B
If they aren’t “political rallies” which is what all participants understand them to be since they are asking for action from political bodies, what could they possibly be? Are you implying that all of these events are actually mob actions?
Why is it so hard for you to say “I was wrong” or at least “I missed that”? This is why you get such a strong reaction on this site.
Don
I think you made a good start. I owe you guys at least one article. But I broke three fingers on my right-hand last week and am able to keep this up only for short entries with my left only.
I will leave these bits of advice which I always gave my patients. 1. Prevention is always more efficient and cost-effective than remediation. 2. No one is invulnerable no matter how safe they may feel. 3. Your health is not just about you, but about everyone you come in contact with when infectious diseases are the issue. 4. Weigh the pros & cons before making a decision. Is that beer with your buds really worth the life of someone’s grandmother or a preterm delivery for your pregnant hostess?
TW, those is some great four advices. Worth the left effort.
Today’s New York Times has a very interesting (and very long) article on “How the World Missed COVID-19’s Silent Spread” which tells the story of how Dr. Camilla Rothe’s team was among the first to warn about asymptomatic transmission of the virus.
.
After reading the article, I’m inclined to believe that even with 100% of the participants wearing masks, the lack of social distancing that is inherent in protest marches makes marches significantly riskier vis-a-vis the spread of the virus. So, my bottom-line is that if a march can be accomplished with all the participants remaining socially distant as well as wearing masks, the risk is effectively mitigated (but not eliminated).
Matt… I respectfully disagree…
More likely that the pre/post demonstration events/conclaves, where masks/distancing are not observed…
Again, recommend to all:
https://med.stanford.edu/covid19/covid-counter.html
We need data, not supposition… [damn engineer…]
Masks good, distancing good… fear, not so much… fear reduces immunity, increases likelihood of illness… established facts… going back to the plagues…
You aren’t disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the scientific findings of Dr. Camilla Rothe and Dr. Michael Hoelscher and Dr. Merle Böhmer and the Bavarian health authority and Germany’s national health agency, known as the Robert Koch Institute.
WM (and I am very tempted to not use the respectful initials on this one), you know what isn’t going to protect you from exposure to the virus?: A lack of fear.
Actually, intelligence, knowledge, and prudence are stronger motivators, than fear, for me… to each, their own… if you want folk to do the fear thing, fine… not my choice… enjoy the fear thingy… fear paralyzes… knowledge empowers…
Go ahead and use the other initials… I care not… I couldn’t give a …
Not what I said.
I resemble that remark.
How about this for another example from the WSJ – Hong Kong
Link
This is why I badgered the City Council and County Supervisors about universal masking back in April. I have a friend who is literally a rocket scientist who has been tracking this virus and warning about it since early in the year; he’s even advising the health advisors in another county. This has been clear for some time to — well, all of Asia. I am very proud of Yolo County for their early stance on mandatory masking, and for being the only small county that did it on their own.
I have my one leg firmly planted on the left and one on the right on the political spectrum (what’s odd is my left leg is conservative, not sure why that is). I’d love to hear from more conservatives that believe in mandatory masking, because I hear they are in the majority — but the loud ones are anti-maskers, who in my book are far more insane than anti-vaxxers. These loud, stupid, anti-mask conservatives are making me think conservatives are stupid, and unless some of you pro-mandatory-mask conservatives speak up, I may be turning me into a Liberal!
Alan
Most of what were “conservatives” (or at least the most vocal) have split off into “reactionaries.” Conservatives currently have no home in partisan politics thanks to the final reactionary takeover of the GOP (which really began to accelerate with the Gringrich insurgency.)
I’m not sure liberals have a home either, thanks to the progressive takeover of the Donkey.
Thank you Alan, somehow I knew you’d approve. And to anyone named Karen who’s offended, “Sorry, Karen.”
“we are dealing with extremely ignorant and dangerous opinions/behaviors”
Fixed it for ya, Bill.
Polls consistently show that Americans — left and right — prefer that the federal government prioritize stopping the virus over reopening the economy.
Sure Jim. They have been paralyzed with over-reported irrational fear by the political-media apparatus that has clearly telegraphed the political-media agenda with its tacit and explicit defense and support of protests.
Your point is EXACTLY why we have a representative democracy and not a policy-by-polling system. The adults in charge are supposed to implement sensible, logical and practical policy to keep the people as safe and secure as practical today and for the long-term.
Again New York isn’t seeing a surge. That is evidence of herd immunity.
I think our infectious disease leadership has unnecessarily destroyed the economy and the livelihoods of millions. Unfortunately for the citizens the Democrats learned that a failed economy benefits them politically, so the conspiracy theory of political motivation has legs.
“Again New York isn’t seeing a surge. That is evidence of herd immunity.”
That’s false. Herd immunity requires a far higher percentage of people with immunity than currently exists in NY. It is worth noting that NY also opened far later than other states. And there is a lag between opening and increase in cases which probably explains it.
As I point out in my piece that you have apparently not read, until you address COVID spread, the economy will remain in shambles.
That is the problem. We don’t KNOW how many are infected. The number keeps rising with every test. Looks like the Stanford study so poo pooed by liberals is proving true. the latest estimates of New York infected are +20%. It it is possibly a lot higher. It is already being reported as near 40% in some communities. And this is only the people tested… which is over-represented in people with symptoms.
Frankly, given the surprise uptick when were were told by the medical science experts that the disease dies in hot weather, we should probably consider getting to herd immunity as the actual solution.
I did read today that there is a lot of positive progress on a vaccine.
Jeff… do you participate in the Stanford daily study? You’d call me a “liberal”, but I’ve participated daily for 2 + months… if you haven’t, and say,
Then shut the F up!
https://med.stanford.edu/covid19/covid-counter.html
Ah, yes… the only one I’ve heard say that was “the Donald”… whatever… didn’t realize he was a medical science expert… person of many talents…
And from Fox news…
President Donald Trump yesterday retweeted a video of a supporter saying “white power ” while confronting anti-Trump protesters in Florida, then deleted it four hours later. In that time, it drew widespread condemnation, notably from South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the only Black Republican senator, who called it “indefensible.” The White House said Trump missed the racist utterance in the video, and saw only the “tremendous enthusiasm from his many supporters.” The president’s Democratic challenger, Joe Biden, tweeted that his rival had “picked a side” in “a battle for the soul of the nation.”
Not really. The percentage of positive cases are fising faster than the increase in testing. That suggests that the positive cases are increasing and is not an artifact of increased testing.
You’ve also completely ignored the critical point that NY re-opened later than other states both in fact and in my response to you.
“Frankly, given the surprise uptick when were were told by the medical science experts that the disease dies in hot weather, we should probably consider getting to herd immunity as the actual solution.”
I would suggest wider reading by you – medical experts for the most part have always doubted that a disease this contageious would be impacted by weather conditions. I don’t feel that you are well read on a lot of these matters.
LOL. No David. It is the opposite. You only seem to get your news from sources that agree with your worldview. That is more clear now that it has ever been. Maybe you don’t have time, but it is YOU that are lacking in a broad reading list, not me.
Here is just one example of many that were analyzing the data and predicting that the virus would diminish in the summer. Remember the “science” reporting that the virus would live on door handles for days?
Here you go Bill.
Now shut the F up! 🙂
“when were were told by the medical science experts that the disease dies in hot weather”
Please show me the precise and entire quote from any medical expert saying that this particular viral disease would end with hot weather. I saw statements from experts saying similar viruses had behaved that way. But none claiming this one would behave the same. Many said we could not predict its behavior and many politicians spun that possibility to their perceived advantage.
Jeff B
Such an ironic statement. What do you think the rest of us have been pointing out about the failure by the national administration on this point?
Exactly, and precisely what the Trump Administration has so far failed to do.
No, that is evidence that the control efforts are working. Infections in New York are estimated to be about 20% of the population of NYC and 14% of the population of the State. Herd Immunity will only have an impact when 60-80% of the population is immune to the disease, so even if the current estimates are off by 100%, you still won’t have anything approaching herd immunity. Complicating the matter further, we still do not have confirmation that those who recover from this disease are immune to subsequent infections, or for how long such immunity might last. This has been explained before, yet you continue with your false narratives.
Here again you appear to be wrong. The best evidence I have seen so far for why the economy tanked is because wealthy consumers stopped their normal spending in their local community (over concerns for their health), leading to massive job losses among the lower income workers who provided services to that wealthy cohort. The drop in spending predated the government closure mandates.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/tracker_paper.pdf?utm_source=npr_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20200622&utm_term=4631356&utm_campaign=money&utm_id=1017805&orgid=680
Okay, there are a number of inaccurate statements in what Jeff has written. Mark and Tia have addressed several of them.
I will add something about the serology studies. The John Ioannidies Stanford study was immediately and roundly criticized by nearly all epidemiologists. It purported to have results generalizable to the entire population but its recruitment sampling led to unstated but easily predictable biases. It was also criticized for they way it weighted results. Epidemiologists pointed out that it would be a future case study on how NOT to survey and write up results.
In contrast, the CDC serology analysis came from routinely-collected blood samples in institutions. Truly random serology samples are essentially impossible to carry out in the US but this approach is reasonable. Please read this entire thread to understand the results: https://twitter.com/threadreaderapp/status/1277223553453219840?s=21
The bottom line is that the results are consistent with what has been found elsewhere and imply an IFR of… wait for it > 0.5% (see my now multiple posts on this).
As far as critiques of the CDC and NIH—we absolutely must do this and do it now. I believe that criticizing government institutions is necessary and we have to identify what went wrong. I feel the same way about the criminal justice system and institutions. (FWIW, President Trump has sought to cut the CDC budget in each of his budgets. Congress has funded them at prior levels plust inflation and Trump has signed them.)
On public health recommendations and, specifically, masks… I have noticed over the past week a LOT of criticism of public health officials for a whole host of issues (mask recommendations among them). Here’s the thing: we have a widely dispersed decision making structure for public health requirements meaning that each county in the US is responsible for setting guidelines. States have begun to step in and override local jurisdictions but that has been, itself, quite variable. Is there ANY surprise that people in different parts of the country are hearing different messages?
On masks themselves, I will only defend PH officials on one point: early on the focus was on the role of masks in protecting wearers and that was mostly discussed in the context of health care workers. There was a generalized concern that if people sought to acquire masks the health care providers would do without. That was why public health officials warned against their use.
But over time, studies came to show that masks were designed to reduce spread and thus, did not primarily benefit the wearer. Once concensus was established on that point many states and local jurisdictions changed course. It is only shocking, at this point, that some states seem so slow to require them.
The foregoing also illustrates and important point about evolving scientific evidence in the time of crisis. It shocks me that people believe they can have definitive answers right away when that is not how scientific knowledge works and the evolution of understanding SHOULD lead to updated recommendations as more is learned. The accusations that have been leveled at scientists who are working so hard to deepen our understanding of this NOVEL coronavirus are risable.
And finally… one of the earliest consensuses I saw evolving was the acceptance of the then-Japanese approach to educating the public about the virus—the so-called “3 Cs to Avoid”: Closed spaces, Crowded places, and Close Contact Settings. This is why outdoor protests do not cause spread the same way that indoor gatherings do. Most epidemiologist I follow feel this is now THE BEST way to describe what we must do (in addition to wearing masks).
I am going to suggest that people get on Twitter and follow reputable virologists, epidemiologists and disease modelers. I will send Don some screenshots to post. The value of Twitter is that these folks usually link to original research, talk about where disagreements lie, and translate their thoughts into clear policy guidelines.
I am going to assume that this is just sarcasm, because I know you know better.
Sure, we needed the PPP loan program and all the unemployment benefits because people CHOSE to not shop based on their freedom to chose and not the state orders to shutdown business… including the recent state orders to shut down bars and restaurant AGAIN.
If you are not being sarcastic, then pass me that joint.
This sentence is well documented:
Illustrated here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/upshot/pandemic-economy-government-orders.html
Sample below.
The salient point is that resurgence of the virus will likely suppress consumer spending again.
You either didn’t read the paper I cited, or you are demonstrating that you are incapable of comprehending information that doesn’t conform to your preconceived notions. It really doesn’t matter how much information you consume if you only comprehend that which you already believe.
Sorry boys. You are not going to pull that political stunt on my watch. The orders killed the economy. The VIRUS would have harmed the economy in any case. But the orders killed it. And the orders keep coming.
All you have managed to pull out of your taking points farm is proof that the political and media reporting of the virus frightened people into staying home. But the virus did not close…
– Restaurants
– Hotels
– Concerts
– Airports and airlines
– Sporting events
– Bars
– Salons
– Conferences
– Beaches
– Parks
– Schools
– Offices
Except for those businesses deemed essential like grocery stores where people walk around touching things that other people touch and pass each other with less than 6 ft distance… especially in Davis WHERE WE FORCE ALL THE STORES TO BE SMALL TO FIT BEHIND THE NIMBY FARMLAND MOAT, and they were not required to wear masks until well into the viral rule making of the administrator.
Ignoring the NYT post (because it isn’t reliable as anything but left political bias), the Harvard paper is non peer-reviewed and full of qualifiers that also make it unreliable for drawing any conclusions.
But this…
Well of course, because the government shut down all these services.
For example, I had a board retreat schedule for April and the state and local government went from 100 people gatherings to 25 and we canceled. The CA resort is economically destroyed now. Probably never to recover. The owners told us that they will likely file bankruptcy. All those employees out of work. Stories like this exploding all over the state. Yippe Skippee we sure saved people!
Ya know… if you would at least acknowledge this economic devastation from our approach, you would have more credibility to discuss it. Attempting to say it is just a natural thing… well that is just too weird to warrant another response. I will just let others consider it.
Make the point that you think it is warranted. That is a respectable position to take even though I would disagree with the extent. However, to claim that all the economic destruction is just the natural response of people being risk-averse… that is so blatantly intellectually dishonest from you two big brains, that it can only be labeled as politically motivated.
You made and argument – they showed a graph. You don’t win that battle.
The economy is open now – except for places like grocery stores and essential businesses, places are less than half capacity. People are staying away. Voting with their feet.
I’m just following the data. Your troubled because that data doesn’t conform with your political agenda.
Jim
I continue to see stopping the virus vs helping the economy as a false dichotomy. Our government had another option in the form of a UBI for those in need that would have allowed them to pay most of their bills and in many cases allowed them some discretionary spending with which to help keep businesses afloat. Other countries chose this route. We did not, in my opinion, due to an irrational fear of the word “socialism”. We could still do that keeping many from ultimately losing their job, being evicted or defaulting on payments, or being unable to afford meds.
Would you please purchase a calculator that has enough spaces to calculate trillions and take some class on how to use it. Also, you should purchase the books iPencil and Economics in One Lesson. They are short books but good for understanding how there is a need to actually work to make things of value that can then be sold and the earnings from those sales taxed so that money can flow to government and then to people that don’t actually work to make things. You certainly can tax other things, but they all derive from this working to make of things of value…. it is called production. As an MD you probably never worried much about the source of money. You might think it is just farmed in the mansion gardens of CEOs.
Trying to get back on track…
Masks good…
Social distancing good..
[note that CDC still has it as either/or, but both are better]
Fear, not good.
Being as ‘normal’ as possible, while respecting others and their concerns, however based (even those who fear or are paranoid, are “concerned”, and I respect that, even if I don’t share the concerns) , very good.
Here, we should be ‘conservative’… and go with caution and prudence… but not fear… fear reduces immunity/resistance responses… demonstrated over time. Caution, prudence, respect helps immunity/resistance responses… demonstrated over time…
Carry a mask, have a spare in my car… not so much for me, but for others… whole household uses them, out and about… we do the hand sanitizer thingy… but we intend to ‘live’ our lives… while respecting others…
Here’s one that’s not fake. I walked into Rite Aid last Sunday (after Statewide Mask Order) and two employees were behind the counter without masks. I rounded the corner and there was a guy reading a magazine without a mask, even around his neck. I dumped the stuff I was going to buy and on the way out the guy without the mask was now at the counter.
I shouted, “What’s with this place? Why isn’t anyone wearing masks? F— Rite Aid, and F— You, sir!”
Meant friendly, Alan… covid is a real threat, but manageable (lots of room as to how to ‘manage’ [personally, am cool with masking and distancing, and when there is a vaccine, believe it should be mandatory, unless valid medical contra-indications, and failing that, no insurance/medical care for those who refuse, if they fall ill from covid])… your anger appears to be disproportionate… meant as friendly (I acknowledge you may not perceive it so)… examine where your anger comes from (no need to share)… I don’t care, except it appears it is consuming you… you’ve pretty much always seemed to be a good person… even when we disagree… even strongly.
Anger and fear reduces resistance to illness… be well… seriously…
And, if where you’re coming from you ‘need’ to refer to me as BM… that’s OK… please be well… whatever it takes…
I will continue to refer to you as WM, regardless
Not at all. I look at someone not wearing a mask as a random stranger who, through their own narcissistic selfishness, may cause death or great suffering to me or others. So I tell them “F— You!”
This is similar to how I would respond if I were outside a bar and saw a drunk get into a car headed south on Route 35, knowing I had love ones coming north on Route 35 who would pass him. The odds of him swerving and killing my relatives may be more or less than the odds of the unmasked guy giving us the CV, but the consequences IF they do is so great that, yes, I will yell “F— You!” at the drunk driver as well.
Here is just one example of many that were analyzing the data and predicting that the virus would diminish in the summer.”
You will need to do much better than this.
1. The first statement from the researcher himself regarding the effects of heat & humidity was “seems like it.” Not ‘strong effect noted”, not “high probability”, not even ” a good chance”. He said, “seems like it.”
2. This was a pre-peer review article.
3. The author noted other mitigating factors including population density, travel patterns, and compliance with medical recommendations as confounding factors.
Would you like to try again?
Give me a break. There were many reports of this. And almost NOTHING has been sufficiently peer reviewed given the time-frames.
Here is another one. Don’t keep asking for them because there are hundreds of examples… even from the trusted news sources for your side of politics.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/03/24/warm-humid-weather-coronavirus/
Jeff, I am not clear the point you are trying to make. There has been a LOT of speculation about this but virologists who study coronaviruses for a living have cautioned from the beginning that there was no reason to believe it would diminish in warm weather. At the end of the day it is an empirical question and we are in the very first summer of this novel coronavirus.
Can you help me understand the point you are trying to make. I have not read a coronavirus specialist who felt this would happen. I am genuninely confused here.
I was responding to David’s snarky challenge about my lack of reading on the subject.
I said:
That was worded poorly, but not enough to justify the weird defense of a point that is indefensible. Yes, there were a number of experts claiming that this was only a theory for explaining the otherwise inexplicable different infection rates in different global locations. There is also still an insufficient explanation for those differences… especially in Asian countries where the exposures should be been very high based on contact tracing, etc.
But this just deflects from my main challenge that herd immunity needs to be considered as an actual solution…. getting us to 60% to 70% infection in a controlled enough way. It was discussed early on by many professional epidemiologists and still is today. Sweden -Anders Tegnell – is still standing by their approach. In many ways Sweden is behaving like the US used to be known for until the US Administrative State grew so large and powerful. As I read, their target is to keep the COVID growth factor to 1.00 or less because there they can control it. If Sweden had locked down their senior centers early on, their numbers would be much more in line with the other Nordic countries that have done more damage to their economies.
The epitaph will be written months from now, and I expect any honest assessment to read that we got overly frightened by the media, overly shutdown by the government, and we all caused MUCH more human harm that we should have… especially if this continues more than another few weeks. That is the thing not being considered. How long do you think we can hobble the economy over fears of catching a virus? For example, Sutter Health just reported potential bankruptcy in their future. Wouldn’t that be nice to have our local hospital out of business because of this?
Throw in some science on your herd immunity theory – btw, I find it interesting that discussion of herd immunity seems to have stopped before June began – https://www.uchealth.org/today/is-herd-immunity-the-answer-to-the-covid-19-problem/
I don’t see any epidemiologists, including the Swedish one who has led the Swedish approach and is now questioning it appropriateness, who believe that “herd immunity” can happen without a vaccine. I don’t even think that is currently up for debate given the high level of mortality it would take to “get there.” The Swedish Parliament has called for a full review of their policy approach. Their economy is in no better shape than any other European nation.
Here are some of the Twitter screen captures Robb Davis sent along:
Thanks Don. Just to be clear, these are the folks I follow. One that is missing is Peter Bergstrom. Follow him if you can. Really clear communicator. They will open up a world of original publications and apt critiques of studies underway.
Do you mean Carl Bergstrom?
And thanks Robb for your hard work clearing up confusions and misunderstandings about masks, infection rates, etc. Lots of confusing terms and info out there.
Carl yes. Thanks Robert. I like that guy.
That’s apparently not what Fauci said (earlier), though:
https://gizmodo.com/dr-fauci-made-the-coronavirus-pandemic-worse-by-lying-1844050358
I recently saw something about this on Colbert’s late-night TV show, as well.
Was referring to others, not Fauci. I had not remembered him speaking on it. But I would bet he was focusing on personal protection and inappropriate use. Protecting others was not on his or others’ radar.
I’m gathering that he didn’t want to tell the public the real reason that he discouraged the use of masks. (That is, to save the limited supply for those on the front lines.)
If told “the truth”, then those masks would have been in even shorter-supply, for those on the front lines.
(Witness the hoarding of toilet paper, and the “heck with others” attitude that this represents.) And that wasn’t even a “life or death” issue.
But in the long run, this type of thing breeds mistrust of government officials. I think it was George Carlin who said that he never believes anything that the government tells him. The more I watch those old routines, the more accurate, timely and insightful he seemed to be.
The limited supply was not face coverings it was the N95 ventilator masks.
I believe that’s a difference without distinction, regarding what occurred with Fauci.
I have no idea on Fauci, I simply stated an accurate account of the facts with regards to limited to supply.
Perhaps (as you said to another commenter, above), you’re (also) not particularly well-read regarding the topic. Which is expected, given your lack of a medical background (and in the face of changing official guidance).
Nor do I profess any expertise.
Then again, I wouldn’t recommend that anyone rely upon medical advice from the Vanguard’s articles or comment section.
Ron is correct that people should not get their medical advice from a blog or it commenters. However, what I can say for myself is that 1) I try to refrain from giving personal advice (Alan Miller has tested my resolve several times); 2) I will not offer general advice that goes against state or local guidelines or requirements; and 3) I will use my posts to try to clarify areas of confusion or correct clear errors. In those senses, while I do not place myself in any position of authority, I do hope to create some clarity around sometimes complex issues. I don’t see any problem with that.
Neither do I, for what that’s worth. For the most part, your comments have not been political in nature.
For the most part, the Vanguard’s articles (and subsequent comments) are political in nature (and/or, are driven by that).
Tested your resolve on giving personal advice? What does that even mean? On the Covid-19, I pretty much agree with and respect your opinion.
Why would you do this if you were to find these guidelines or requirements to be wrong or dangerous? Wouldn’t you want to correct the state or local guidelines? I hope in answering you won’t find the need to give me personal advice.
Until we have a vaccine. A great economy doesn’t do you much good if you’re dead.
H Y P E R B O L E
Your statement of hyperbole is hyperbole.
Your statement of hyperbole of my statement of hyperbole of Jim’s statement is hyperbole.
I have a question. Should we pass a rule that requires all automobiles to wear big rubber bumper car masks since a great economy does not do you much good if you are dead from a car accident?
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
“Rubber” ?
hyperbole – exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
How is Jim’s comment hyperbole? Are you saying that the need for a vaccine to rejuvenate the economy is an exaggerated claim that was not intended to be taken literally? Seemed pretty literal to me and it is not exaggerated from my perspective. You need to be more specific about how the economy can resume full functionality that allows ALL people to participate without a vaccine.
It’s not hyperbole, it’s my operational plan: I don’t intent to resume my pre-Covid social activities until I can get vaccinated. If that happens by December, great! If it takes another year, that’s just the way it is. I miss having lunch at Crepeville every day, and going out to dinner a couple of nights a week, and movies once or twice a week. But I don’t want this disease, so resumption of all that is waiting on a vaccine, or at least an effective treatment.
CV-19 isn’t influenza. Aside from the death rate — and I’m technically in the high- (or at least higher-) risk age group, even though I don’t *feel* particularly vulnerable — the effect of the illness is a crapshoot. Some people don’t even know they have it, some go down with a fever, fatigue and shortness of breath for 10 weeks or more, and there’s mounting evidence of long-term effects like lung scarring and vascular damage in some people. I’m taking reasonable precautions to avoid all that.
That sounds like a plan Jim … and I agree that it is definitely not hyperbole, but rather precaution.
I am SO sorry . . .
Covid-19 may be the best thing that’s happened to you lately.