COVID-19/Coronavirus thread

[soxfan49]

1 minute ago, The Beast said:

The potential size of the crowds? Money? If you don’t like her vote her out.

Exactly, which is what I said: "money." The city receives the tax money on food and drinks.

I don't live in Chicago. If I did I'd try. She's a jackass

[The Beast]

1 minute ago, soxfan49 said:

Exactly, which is what I said: "money." The city receives the tax money on food and drinks.

I don't live in Chicago. If I did I'd try. She's a jackass

The lakefront has been closed for some time and the restaurants have been open for some time. This isn’t new news.

She was a better choice than the alternative and even if you don’t live there and if you’d rather see a republican, you’ll be waiting for a long time. It just doesn’t happen.

[Soxbadger]

5 hours ago, soxfan49 said:

Lori Lightfoot continues to show that she's a dumbass. She hates that people are crowded on the lake front but has no issue opening bars & folks crowding in them. Hmm, wonder if it has to do with tax income.

Bars are closed in Chicago unless they serve food. I guess she could have obliterated the entire restaurant industry and closed that too. 

Beach is closed, it sucks. I cant even take my kids there because Im worried  that other people cant be bothered to show the slightest respect and not be all up on top of us. 

Ironically there is parks worth of space around the cricket hill area and down Lake Shore Drive. If people were responsible we could have all had an enjoyable summer.

[Balta1701]

11 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

 

 

School shut down for 2 days to allow tracing and testing due to outbreak. Kid should get a medal for trying to save them. 

 

  

[soxfan49]

9 hours ago, The Beast said:

The lakefront has been closed for some time and the restaurants have been open for some time. This isn’t new news.

She was a better choice than the alternative and even if you don’t live there and if you’d rather see a republican, you’ll be waiting for a long time. It just doesn’t happen.

I'm aware of that. My point was, what an odd time to bash people who go to the beach and hang out but when they go to a patio, it's fine because of her rules.

I don't really care about Rep, Dem, etc. Hell she can be apart of the Green Party for all I care. She is just such a hypocrite and has been throughout every stage of this. End of February- "go out and have a good time!" Now- "stay home save lives." Random day in July- "Trump isn't bringing his backup here!" Next day- "Trump's backup is here." Get a grip, beetlejuice.

[Harry Chappas]

My main current COVID issue is how people cannot grasp the concept of risk mitigation.

All any practice is trying to do is limit the spread.  Closing a beach because there are 500 people on top of one another is vastly different than a restaurant that is asked to try their best to be socially distant. 

 

 

 

 

[bmags]

1 hour ago, Harry Chappas said:

My main current COVID issue is how people cannot grasp the concept of risk mitigation.

All any practice is trying to do is limit the spread.  Closing a beach because there are 500 people on top of one another is vastly different than a restaurant that is asked to try their best to be socially distant. 

 

 

 

 

This is true, but the problem is how just unbelievably awful the communication on different types of risk has been.

For an individual trying to avoid getting covid but committed to either 

a) going to the beach where there is a large gathering of unmasked people 

or 

b) going to an enclosed restaurant with 6 ft apart tables

and they asked which is better to avoid getting COVID, I would tell them a so long as they themselves committed to keeping at a 6 ft distance and wore a mask themselves.

The benefit to the city is if there is a super spread event at a restaurant now it is just a small number of people with reservations to track, vs 500 people that will be incredibly different to track.

But they aren't tracking for shit anyways right now, they have not done anything to communicate the benefits of open air flow and just act like if you wash your hands and are 6 feet apart you will be safe. 

We are 6 months in, test and trace is only implemented in a handful of states. The benefit of open airflow is mostly well known in the general populace but the political leaders don't explicitly state it probably because it would affect businesses who are operating "safely" by their guidelines, so why should they then say "hey don't go out to restaurants".

There is hope around this saliva testing in large samples. But everything is so slow to roll-out, and no guidelines ever get updated. We are now at daily case levels that make it impossible to contain and track, and our solution is just double down on saying "please wear a mask"?

gmafb. The politicians obsess over the beach stuff because it is so photogenic and embarrassing, but go inside any restaurant right now and see something just as dangerous and sanctioned.

[Soxbadger]

13 minutes ago, bmags said:

This is true, but the problem is how just unbelievably awful the communication on different types of risk has been.

For an individual trying to avoid getting covid but committed to either 

a) going to the beach where there is a large gathering of unmasked people 

or 

b) going to an enclosed restaurant with 6 ft apart tables

and they asked which is better to avoid getting COVID, I would tell them a so long as they themselves committed to keeping at a 6 ft distance and wore a mask themselves.

The benefit to the city is if there is a super spread event at a restaurant now it is just a small number of people with reservations to track, vs 500 people that will be incredibly different to track.

But they aren't tracking for shit anyways right now, they have not done anything to communicate the benefits of open air flow and just act like if you wash your hands and are 6 feet apart you will be safe. 

We are 6 months in, test and trace is only implemented in a handful of states. The benefit of open airflow is mostly well known in the general populace but the political leaders don't explicitly state it probably because it would affect businesses who are operating "safely" by their guidelines, so why should they then say "hey don't go out to restaurants".

There is hope around this saliva testing in large samples. But everything is so slow to roll-out, and no guidelines ever get updated. We are now at daily case levels that make it impossible to contain and track, and our solution is just double down on saying "please wear a mask"?

gmafb. The politicians obsess over the beach stuff because it is so photogenic and embarrassing, but go inside any restaurant right now and see something just as dangerous and sanctioned.

That is the problem. Go to any beach and even if 90% of people are respectful, its the other 10% who ruin it for everyone. We went to a beach earlier in the summer. We got there early and it was pretty crowded, but you could still set up a spot and keep distance. At around 12-1 a ton of people started showing up. Groups were setting up within 1 foot of our area, none of them wore masks at all.

The difference at a restaurant is that if I feel uncomfortable about the actions of someone else, I can request a change. At the beach we just had to pack up and leave. 

As I said before the people who did this, did not care at all about social distancing. I am familiar with the area. There is a ton of open space from Foster beach down to Montrose. The parks there are empty every day. But these people were specifically going to the area where it was crowded.

 

[bmags]

4 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

That is the problem. Go to any beach and even if 90% of people are respectful, its the other 10% who ruin it for everyone. We went to a beach earlier in the summer. We got there early and it was pretty crowded, but you could still set up a spot and keep distance. At around 12-1 a ton of people started showing up. Groups were setting up within 1 foot of our area, none of them wore masks at all.

The difference at a restaurant is that if I feel uncomfortable about the actions of someone else, I can request a change. At the beach we just had to pack up and leave. 

As I said before the people who did this, did not care at all about social distancing. I am familiar with the area. There is a ton of open space from Foster beach down to Montrose. The parks there are empty every day. But these people were specifically going to the area where it was crowded.

 

What change will you get at a restaurant? When people are sitting down and eating their masks are off. If you request to move farther away, there is no guarantee you are that much safer without knowing how the air is filtered and moves about the restaurant. The best thing you can do is remove yourself from the restaurant.

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, bmags said:

What change will you get at a restaurant? When people are sitting down and eating their masks are off. If you request to move farther away, there is no guarantee you are that much safer without knowing how the air is filtered and moves about the restaurant. The best thing you can do is remove yourself from the restaurant.

This is exactly why we haven't had a meal at a sitdown restaurant in about 5 months and counting now.  We have also avoided extremely crowded outdoor settings like beaches at peak times as well.

[Soxbadger]

12 minutes ago, bmags said:

What change will you get at a restaurant? When people are sitting down and eating their masks are off. If you request to move farther away, there is no guarantee you are that much safer without knowing how the air is filtered and moves about the restaurant. The best thing you can do is remove yourself from the restaurant.

Its more regulated than a beach. And when you go to a restaurant you can decide for yourself whether their practices seem safe or not. 

At a beach there is nothing that anyone can do. That is the problem.

Ive been to beaches and restaurants, by the afternoon the beach was so uncomfortable that we had to leave. 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Soxbadger

[caulfield12]

WHO OFFICIAL: "We can outsmart the virus"    Or not...?

 

Covid-19 is brutal in its simplicity and its cruelty, but there are things that can be done to outsmart it, according to World Health Organization officials.

“When we talk about what is the virus trying to do and the virus being an enemy, the virus doesn’t have a brain. We’re the ones with the brains,” said Dr. Mike Ryan, director of WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, during a news conference in Geneva on Monday.

Ryan described the virus as a simple biologic entity that can enter a human cell and instruct that cell to make more viruses, which can at minimum infect someone else; or in the worst case, kill the person.

“It’s brutal in its simplicity. It’s brutal in its cruelty,” Ryan said. “But it doesn’t have a brain. We have the brains. And I think Maria may outline how we can outsmart something that doesn’t have a brain, but we’re not doing such a great job right now.” 

Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO’s technical lead for coronavirus, elaborated on how this can be done, saying that the goal of the virus is to reproduce, find individuals to pass between but not kill too many, as it Is unable to pass to another person if it kills its host.

“There’s many, many things that we can do right now with the tools that we have right now, to outsmart this virus,” she said.

While work on therapeutics and vaccines will continue, at this point chains of transmission can be broken, she said.

These include social distancing, contact tracing, quarantining infected individuals, the use of masks when physical distancing isn’t possible, and hand washing.

“If we do all of these things, we can outsmart the virus, and we can prevent this virus from passing from one individual to another,” she said, adding that everyone on the planet needs to understand that they have a role to play in breaking chain of transmission.

www.cnn.com

 

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by caulfield12

[whitesoxfan99]

11 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

This is exactly why we haven't had a meal at a sitdown restaurant in about 5 months and counting now.  We have also avoided extremely crowded outdoor settings like beaches at peak times as well.

I've been once to a restaurant where we ate outdoors and tables were all more than 6 feet apart but I wouldn't even remotely consider eating indoors. 

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, whitesoxfan99 said:

I've been once to a restaurant where we ate outdoors and tables were all more than 6 feet apart but I wouldn't even remotely consider eating indoors. 

We haven't even considered it either.  We will get some take out, mostly from places that offer curbside, but carryout from places  we know and trust.

[StrangeSox]

4 hours ago, soxfan49 said:

I'm aware of that. My point was, what an odd time to bash people who go to the beach and hang out but when they go to a patio, it's fine because of her rules.

I don't really care about Rep, Dem, etc. Hell she can be apart of the Green Party for all I care. She is just such a hypocrite and has been throughout every stage of this. End of February- "go out and have a good time!" Now- "stay home save lives." Random day in July- "Trump isn't bringing his backup here!" Next day- "Trump's backup is here." Get a grip, beetlejuice.

Yep, that's been the message from political leadership across the board since late may or late june, depending on the state. Reopen indoor activities and then yell at people for going out.

[caulfield12]

Gates, here, is SPOT ON

Not sure how ANYONE could argue with the cogency of the points that he's made...but I'm sure some will try

 

Bill Gates continued his unbridled criticism of the United States’ response to the coronavirus pandemic on Sunday, calling America’s testing system “insanity” and stressing that the country was now facing “a pretty dramatic price” both in human death and wasted money.

Speaking with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Gates said it takes far too long to receive coronavirus test results in the U.S.

“You can’t get the federal government to improve the testing because they just want to say how great it is,” the Microsoft co-founder-turned-philanthropist said. “I’ve said to them, look, have a CDC website that prioritizes who gets tested. That’s trivial to do. They won’t pay attention to that. I’ve said don’t reimburse any tests where the result goes back after three days. You’re paying billions of dollars in this very inequitable way to get the most worthless test results of any country in the world.”

On the topic of America’s lockdowns, Gates pointed to countries in the European Union that faced the coronavirus outbreak earlier than the U.S. and instituted more coordinated lockdowns.

“What’s impressive is that Italy, France, Spain ― who had a wave before us ― managed as they fell off to keep even the parts of the country that hadn’t had the intense epidemic from creating a second wave,” Gates said.

”In the case of the United States, they opened up their bars. They didn’t do much in the way of wearing masks. And so those areas became this second wave,” he added.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/bill-gates-coronavirus-tests-060944939.html

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/coronavirus-eat-out-to-help-out-scheme-restaurants-increase-111844379.html

Or you have this "EAT OUT TO HELP OUT" scheme in the UK, which clearly has noble goals, we can probably all (or mostly) agree it's certainly a worthy goal to keep restaurants and small business owners from going bankrupt....BUT it's leading to a 14% in people eating out.   End result, they probably go right back in the direction of the US in September/Oct/November.

[bmags]

32 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Its more regulated than a beach. And when you go to a restaurant you can decide for yourself whether their practices seem safe or not. 

At a beach there is nothing that anyone can do. That is the problem.

Ive been to beaches and restaurants, by the afternoon the beach was so uncomfortable that we had to leave. 

It has nothing to do with practices, indoor dining is not safe. There are some restaurants that have immense windows that open up and those may be the best shot, but that beach is going to be safer.

Go into a restaurant and spray a bunch of spray-on sunscreen. Now do that outside. The dilution is immense outside. Restaurants should be required to have medical grade air filters to be open indoors, but there is no requirement that they even advertise that or let people know. There is no way to judge risk right now. But outdoors is not just greater it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>

The tracing results just do not find many outdoor super spread events.

[Soxbadger]

10 minutes ago, bmags said:

It has nothing to do with practices, indoor dining is not safe. There are some restaurants that have immense windows that open up and those may be the best shot, but that beach is going to be safer.

Go into a restaurant and spray a bunch of spray-on sunscreen. Now do that outside. The dilution is immense outside. Restaurants should be required to have medical grade air filters to be open indoors, but there is no requirement that they even advertise that or let people know. There is no way to judge risk right now. But outdoors is not just greater it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>

The tracing results just do not find many outdoor super spread events.

Can I ask what your science background is that you can definitively state that eating in a restaurant with 5 other people spread out over 100 feet is more dangerous than being at a beach when 20-50 people are within 2 feet?

 

[caulfield12]

23 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Can I ask what your science background is that you can definitively state that eating in a restaurant with 5 other people spread out over 100 feet is more dangerous than being at a beach when 20-50 people are within 2 feet?

 

He once stayed at a Holiday Inn Express ?

[bmags]

32 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Can I ask what your science background is that you can definitively state that eating in a restaurant with 5 other people spread out over 100 feet is more dangerous than being at a beach when 20-50 people are within 2 feet?

 

You got me, did not realize you were 100 feet away, eating with 5 other people independently and not talking. 

Yes, perhaps we can convert all of our malls to a single restaurant where each seated party gets its own storefront, I agree that will be safer than Montrose.

Now back to reality.

[Soxbadger]

4 minutes ago, bmags said:

You got me, did not realize you were 100 feet away, eating with 5 other people independently and not talking. 

Yes, perhaps we can convert all of our malls to a single restaurant where each seated party gets its own storefront, I agree that will be safer than Montrose.

Now back to reality.

You havent seen any restaurants that are only allowing 1-2 tables inside and the rest outside? Because they exist. Which goes back to the original point.

Im not sure why protecting the people at Montrose Harbor is the hill you want to die on about outside safety. The people that went there literally had to walk past plenty of open space. From Montrose to Wilson on the East side of LSD is empty every day. I guess I dont see why we are defending their right to be 50 feet closer to the water and put everyone in danger.

[bmags]

40 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

You havent seen any restaurants that are only allowing 1-2 tables inside and the rest outside? Because they exist. Which goes back to the original point.

Im not sure why protecting the people at Montrose Harbor is the hill you want to die on about outside safety. The people that went there literally had to walk past plenty of open space. From Montrose to Wilson on the East side of LSD is empty every day. I guess I dont see why we are defending their right to be 50 feet closer to the water and put everyone in danger.

It's not about protecting the people about Montrose Harbor, as much as countering the point that indoor dining is safe.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/8/20-1274_article

I'm not a scientist, but in South Korea there was an outbreak in an office/residential building. 97% of those infected were on the same floor, with the infections mostly occurring on one side. Depending on how the air flows through an indoor setting, in a situation where you will be there for roughly an hour, unmasked and conversing, you are at high risk if you happen to be dining in the same restaurant as an infected individual.

Now,  your odds are lower to be dining with one, because there are less people, but if you are at a beach with infected people vs in a restaurant with one, I'd rather be at the beach.

I wish to God that restaurants were given financial assistance to survive and I understand their plight, but the only safety as a community we are getting from the current standards is if there is an outbreak in a restaurant it only affects a small amount of people, which isn't that helpful from an individual risk assessment point of view.

[Soxbadger]

12 minutes ago, bmags said:

It's not about protecting the people about Montrose Harbor, as much as countering the point that indoor dining is safe.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/8/20-1274_article

I'm not a scientist, but in South Korea there was an outbreak in an office/residential building. 97% of those infected were on the same floor, with the infections mostly occurring on one side. Depending on how the air flows through an indoor setting, in a situation where you will be there for roughly an hour, unmasked and conversing, you are at high risk if you happen to be dining in the same restaurant as an infected individual.

Now,  your odds are lower to be dining with one, because there are less people, but if you are at a beach with infected people vs in a restaurant with one, I'd rather be at the beach.

I wish to God that restaurants were given financial assistance to survive and I understand their plight, but the only safety as a community we are getting from the current standards is if there is an outbreak in a restaurant it only affects a small amount of people, which isn't that helpful from an individual risk assessment point of view.

If the argument is what is "safe", isnt the answer "nothing." Going to a crowded beach and eating indoors both have risk. I guess if I have to pick id rather support a business and help people pay their bills than go to a beach where there is a completely unregulated crowd of people who likely havent been following social distancing etc.

 

 

[illinilaw08]

27 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

If the argument is what is "safe", isnt the answer "nothing." Going to a crowded beach and eating indoors both have risk. I guess if I have to pick id rather support a business and help people pay their bills than go to a beach where there is a completely unregulated crowd of people who likely havent been following social distancing etc.

 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/deciding-to-go-out.html

CDC says inside is riskier than out.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/health/virus-aerosols-who.html

WHO on how long the virus can linger inside.

I think there's a false equivalence in your post - that if nothing is safe then everything is equally risky.  Everything I have read recently is that inside is riskier than out - that doesn't mean outside + crowds isn't risky, but the virus spread is worse inside.