All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (15 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[Taurus]

Basically a million a week.

Confirmed, reported cases.

Add in the mild/asymptomatic and those too poor to seek treatment and we're closer to 5 million a week.

 

[RobF]

I don't get the family gathering thing. We're not going anywhere and not inviting anyone for Thanksgiving or Christmas. I guess people are willing to risk it. Meh.

Looks like it. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/5...on-having-thanksgiving-dinner-with-10-or-more

About 40 percent of U.S. residents say they plan to gather in groups of 10 or more people this holiday season, according to a recent survey from Ohio State University (OSU) Wexner Medical Center.​

​

Nearly 33 percent of respondents said they would not require friends or family to wear masks at Thanksgiving gatherings, and 25 percent said they would not practice social distancing, according to the poll.​

​

That's... not going to go well.

 

[DaveXA]

Looks like it. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/5...on-having-thanksgiving-dinner-with-10-or-more

About 40 percent of U.S. residents say they plan to gather in groups of 10 or more people this holiday season, according to a recent survey from Ohio State University (OSU) Wexner Medical Center.​

​

Nearly 33 percent of respondents said they would not require friends or family to wear masks at Thanksgiving gatherings, and 25 percent said they would not practice social distancing, according to the poll.​

​

That's... not going to go well.

I thought the numbers would be closer to 50%. But even 40% during a pandemic is ridiculous. Terrible.

 

[brandon]

Basically a million a week.

Dang. When you put it like that...

 

[MT15]

Guess which 40% of the country is going to ignore the science and have their big Thanksgiving anyway?

I know families that are all Republicans but half still believe in science instead of what Trump and Pence are saying. They are not having a big Thanksgiving, much to the chagrin of the half that buys the Trump BS. Of course I also know families that are ignoring the virus completely. They are .... not smart.

 

[FullMonte]

Dang. When you put it like that...

I'll put it a different way. Assume there are 150 passengers on a commercial airliner. Now, imagine how this country would react if there was a rash of problems with airline travel, and in one week there were 50 crashes. Out of those 50 crashes, 5 killed everyone on board. Got a picture in your mind of how the country would respond to something like that?

Now...imagine if 1805 planes crashed, and 40 of those crashes killed everyone on board......and that happened every single week....for 41 weeks.

 

[wardorican]

Looks like it. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/5...on-having-thanksgiving-dinner-with-10-or-more

About 40 percent of U.S. residents say they plan to gather in groups of 10 or more people this holiday season, according to a recent survey from Ohio State University (OSU) Wexner Medical Center.​

​

Nearly 33 percent of respondents said they would not require friends or family to wear masks at Thanksgiving gatherings, and 25 percent said they would not practice social distancing, according to the poll.​

​

That's... not going to go well.

My wife and the kids are going to AZ for Christmas to visit some family. I've been in here ear daily about how I don't like how her sister is still socializing. Most of the parties are pretty small groups and partially outdoors, but in other cases, they're too close indoors.

I guess I'm getting through (it helps that she's as picky about covid as I am), because she told me that her sister was going to do a 2 week quarantine before they go visit. So, that's a first step.

Her parents have pretty much been in isolation for months, so I'm not worried there. The kid's dad's side though... bunch of hillbillys (literally live in the mountains), who think it's just the flu. Yeah... not so sure about that bit. But, they do live in the middle of no where.

Regarding Thanksgiving... it will just be us with the boy (who's in college) coming home. That's it.

 

[wardorican]

Consumer reports put out a pretty thorough article in their magazine about how to have a safe gathering. Keeping folks in 'pods', bring your own food, outdoors, well ventilated, etc.

 

[wardorican]

Oh, and Moderna announced that their vaccine was 95% effective. The markets will rally on that, thinking long term vs short.

Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate Meets its Primary Efficacy Endpoint in the First Interim Analysis of the Phase 3 COVE Study | Moderna, Inc.

First interim analysis included 95 participants with confirmed cases of COVID-19 Phase 3 study met statistical criteria with a vaccine efficacy of 94.5% (p

investors.modernatx.com

 

[Eeyore]

These people

Billionaire megadoners who fought Wisconsin's plans to contain pandemic get infected at White House | Milwaukee Independent

www.milwaukeeindependent.com

"“If you, or family members, are under the weather with cold/allergies — or anything aside from COVID-19,” it read, “please do NOT tell your peers about the symptoms & your assumptions. By doing so, you are causing unnecessary panic in the office,” the New York Times reported."

"The email also laid out the company’s pandemic absentee policy. “Employees who test positive will be allowed to return to work 10 days from the date their test was collected, if you don’t have any symptoms. If you don’t have any symptoms, you are expected to continue working.”"

 

[DaveXA]

These people

Billionaire megadoners who fought Wisconsin's plans to contain pandemic get infected at White House | Milwaukee Independent

www.milwaukeeindependent.com

"“If you, or family members, are under the weather with cold/allergies — or anything aside from COVID-19,” it read, “please do NOT tell your peers about the symptoms & your assumptions. By doing so, you are causing unnecessary panic in the office,” the New York Times reported."

"The email also laid out the company’s pandemic absentee policy. “Employees who test positive will be allowed to return to work 10 days from the date their test was collected, if you don’t have any symptoms. If you don’t have any symptoms, you are expected to continue working.”"

Lol, what the hell...

 

[wardorican]

 

[superchuck500]

 

[superchuck500]

Consumer reports put out a pretty thorough article in their magazine about how to have a safe gathering. Keeping folks in 'pods', bring your own food, outdoors, well ventilated, etc.

Every family is different. A family that has very low exposure risk getting together with other family members who are also at very low risk doesn’t increase the risk. It just depends on who’s in your family group and what they do in their daily lives that exposes them to Covid risk.

 

[RobF]

Every family is different. A family that has very low exposure risk getting together with other family members who are also at very low risk doesn’t increase the risk. It just depends on who’s in your family group and what they do in their daily lives that exposes them to Covid risk.

Going to disagree with you a little there. If everyone involved has had zero risk of exposure, then it wouldn't increase the risk. But if they're at low risk, then getting together does still increase the risk. If each individual you meet has a small non-zero chance of being a carrier, the more individuals you meet, the higher the risk. But that's relative, and it is of course true that it may not be a significant increase in risk depending on the group, and on an individual basis, it may be completely rational to meet up given how low the perceived risk is.

But the problem there is, determining whether that is actually the case or not on an individual basis can be difficult and people will get it wrong. So if the decision - whether to get together at Thanksgiving for example - is determined on an individual basis, there will be individuals who are very low risk, hosting other individuals who are also very low risk, and that will be fine in the vast majority of situations.

But there will also be individuals think they're in that group because they still think the whole thing is nothing and there is no risk for anyone. Then there'll be individuals who, for example, say they're low risk, but really they've been going out to the bar every night, but that doesn't count because they feel fine and they've been wearing a mask some of the time and heck, Covid is just a bad cold anyway, but they're not going to say that and have an argument, they'll just say they haven't been out and it's fine, see you at the table. And someone who thinks they're being careful will host them and oh no.

And that will very likely spread the virus around in a big way increasing the risk, directly and indirectly, for everyone. So ideally, at this stage in a pandemic, everyone would agree through state or national measures to not meet up, which would reduce the risk for everyone.

But in the absence of state or national measures, it remains rational for people to make their own decisions. There's no point avoiding your own genuinely low risk family to help reduce the overall risk if everyone else is out there whooping it up regardless.

Which is why state/national measures are needed to control a pandemic.

 

[superchuck500]

Going to disagree with you a little there. If everyone involved has had zero risk of exposure, then it wouldn't increase the risk. But if they're at low risk, then getting together does still increase the risk. If each individual you meet has a small non-zero chance of being a carrier, the more individuals you meet, the higher the risk. But that's relative, and it is of course true that it may not be a significant increase in risk depending on the group, and on an individual basis, it may be completely rational to meet up given how low the perceived risk is.

But the problem there is, determining whether that is actually the case or not on an individual basis can be difficult and people will get it wrong. So if the decision - whether to get together at Thanksgiving for example - is determined on an individual basis, there will be individuals who are very low risk, hosting other individuals who are also very low risk, and that will be fine in the vast majority of situations.

But there will also be individuals think they're in that group because they still think the whole thing is nothing and there is no risk for anyone. Then there'll be individuals who, for example, say they're low risk, but really they've been going out to the bar every night, but that doesn't count because they feel fine and they've been wearing a mask some of the time and heck, Covid is just a bad cold anyway, but they're not going to say that and have an argument, they'll just say they haven't been out and it's fine, see you at the table. And someone who thinks they're being careful will host them and oh no.

And that will very likely spread the virus around in a big way increasing the risk, directly and indirectly, for everyone. So ideally, at this stage in a pandemic, everyone would agree through state or national measures to not meet up, which would reduce the risk for everyone.

But in the absence of state or national measures, it remains rational for people to make their own decisions. There's no point avoiding your own genuinely low risk family to help reduce the overall risk if everyone else is out there whooping it up regardless.

Which is why state/national measures are needed to control a pandemic.

Yeah, I had second-thoughts later about my language choice. Certainly there's increased risk as a function of the mathematics - the risk becomes combined, by a factor of the number of people.

But within a degree of meaningfulness, I think the point is still relevant. A family of four with two parents working from home and kids remote schooling, who only go into public for shopping or outdoor recreation, with masks, are going to be about as low risk as you can reasonably be without withdrawing completely.

If that family joins parents (i.e. grandparents) or another unit of the same family, who are also doing those same things, overall risk remains low. It is increased, but the likelihood of introduction of the virus into the unit is still low. That's the whole "cohort" idea.

But like you said, the problem is when the risk isn't really low - it is only being presented that way. If the kids are older and are out and about, for example, it's a fallacy for the family to believe they have been "being safe." Or if one of the parents plays in a weeknight soccer club. Or goes the gym regularly. Those kinds of behaviors are risk boosters.

And then when you multiply it with the family gathering, everyone is getting each other's risk factors. That said, the original premise is still true that two disciplined units of the same family getting together for a holiday meal remains low risk.

Of course, it's all the context of the prevalence of virus in the relevant community. If a locality is suffering a high spread, that factors into it and raises risk for everyone. Where virus is not especially prevalent, that factors in.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

But in the absence of state or national measures, it remains rational for people to make their own decisions. There's no point avoiding your own genuinely low risk family to help reduce the overall risk if everyone else is out there whooping it up regardless.

Which is why state/national measures are needed to control a pandemic.

Yep, it's basic game theory. If each individuals risk is low, and the probability that they will spread COVID is also relatively low, and they don't believe everyone else is going to restrict themselves, then the rational thing for them to do is to keep socializing. After all, as an individual, their total effect on the spread is miniscule, and if they refrain while everyone else has fun, they aren't meaningfully stopping the spread of COVID, while also missing out on fun - ie, they do no real good, while incurring a cost on themselves.

However, if all 330 million Americans behave in this way, then even if every individual is contributing a very, very miniscule amount to the spread, and that spread is exponential in growth -- then it goes everywhere.

 

[wardorican]

Yeah, I had second-thoughts later about my language choice. Certainly there's increased risk as a function of the mathematics - the risk becomes combined, by a factor of the number of people.

But within a degree of meaningfulness, I think the point is still relevant. A family of four with two parents working from home and kids remote schooling, who only go into public for shopping or outdoor recreation, with masks, are going to be about as low risk as you can reasonably be without withdrawing completely.

If that family joins parents (i.e. grandparents) or another unit of the same family, who are also doing those same things, overall risk remains low. It is increased, but the likelihood of introduction of the virus into the unit is still low. That's the whole "cohort" idea.

But like you said, the problem is when the risk isn't really low - it is only being presented that way. If the kids are older and are out and about, for example, it's a fallacy for the family to believe they have been "being safe." Or if one of the parents plays in a weeknight soccer club. Or goes the gym regularly. Those kinds of behaviors are risk boosters.

And then when you multiply it with the family gathering, everyone is getting each other's risk factors. That said, the original premise is still true that two disciplined units of the same family getting together for a holiday meal remains low risk.

Of course, it's all the context of the prevalence of virus in the relevant community. If a locality is suffering a high spread, that factors into it and raises risk for everyone. Where virus is not especially prevalent, that factors in.

I agree with all of this and my very short comment about Consumer Reports' article doesn't really go against this. It was more for people who haven't been as isolated, or when groups get larger, it gave possible strategies. Not that you have to do it, but ideas.

One was suggesting everyone do a 2 week isolation (or near isolation). One was instead of making it a potluck, have everyone make their own meals, even encouraging a video conference cooking session to teach family recipes.

Another was instead of eating at one big table, have it set up more like a bistro with smaller tables for each cluster.

As the family starts to get bigger, and more groups show up, the level of control and 'questioning' you can do with people starts to diminish.

I'll be looking to possibly spend christmas day with my best friend's family, depending on where I or they have been. Even if I have to mostly stay in their screened in patio or wear a mask indoors. I've had him over, with the air filter near by, keeping distance.

Side story:

My wife and I got pizza at this place on Sunday before the Saints game. It was near their 50% full, doors wide open, very airy. We sat at the big table (that's similar to bar seating), near the middle away from everyone. Then, as we were eating, they sat a large group next to us. Maybe, 6 feet away, but I think closer to 4. It was a couple adults and then like 3-4 teens who just got done playing soccer. My wife tensed up and decided to take our food to go. I agreed with her. It's a somewhat low risk environment with the ventilation, but, those kids just got done playing a game against other kids, likely with no masks on. The 3rd girl that comes in is like "oh, I forgot my mask" as she's walking through the restaurant. Just enough information there to say this lower risk lunch date was turning moderate to high.

It would have been nice if the workers/manager noticed how her body language completely changed and just asked us if we wanted to move down. I felt like they put us a little too close, but I also felt like we picked a spot that was doomed for this kind of issue.