Jump to content
caulfield12

COVID-19/Coronavirus thread

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

  • Haha 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

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.  

All things being equal, outside is safer than inside.

But all things arent equal and that is why you compare facts. There isnt going to be a way of testing "100 people at beach no social distancing"  vs "10 people in restaurant in 2 groups of 5 seated 10 feet apart."

I personally feel the latter is safer, but that doesnt mean you cant feel the former is. Ultimately we have to make our own decisions, but I absolutely understand why in this specific situation, Montrose Harbor, why people were legitimately upset about a large crowd gathering in a small space. Especially given that there was plenty of other space very nearby that was completely unused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, illinilaw08 said:

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.  

If everything else is equal it's riskier inside than out that's absolutely for certain, because the virus lingers there for longer, the air is less turbulent, and it is sheltered from UV radiation and things like that. That's why nearly all super-spreader events are inside. 

The trick is that everything isn't always equal. If the population density outside is 3x what it is inside, then there's more likely to be an infected person nearby. If people inside are wearing masks more consistently than a group outside, then there's less likely to be substantial virus in the air. 

So, there are places where outside could be an issue. If you're in a crowd of 60,000 college football fans, you're probably going to get some spreading. Each infected individual may not infect 100, but it won't be 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which lobby is bigger? The restaurant lobby or the beach lobby? Which one donates more to political campaigns? Which one generates more tax revenue?

As Deep Throat famously said "follow the money". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Texsox said:

Which lobby is bigger? The restaurant lobby or the beach lobby? Which one donates more to political campaigns? Which one generates more tax revenue?

As Deep Throat famously said "follow the money". 

 

And when restaurants aren't lobbying for those things themselves, their trade associations are doing it: The National Restaurant Association, an industry advocacy group, spent more than $4.2 million last year lobbying on the restaurant industry's behalf. Lobbying has been successful in some cases.    2016年3月17日

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Georgia school district reports 826 students in quarantine since opening

From CNN’s Jamiel Lynch and Jennifer Henderson 

The Cherokee County School District in Georgia reported Monday that 826 students are in quarantine due to possible exposure to Covid-19.

The school returned to in-person learning on Aug. 3.

According to a chart from the district, 42 staff members are in quarantine.

Thirty-eight students and 12 staff members have been tested positive for the virus, according to the district's website.

The district said it has approximately 42,500 students.

 

 

Expert says children may be able to spread coronavirus like they spread the common cold

From CNN Health’s Lauren Mascarenhas

Children may be able to spread Covid-19 just as easily as they spread another type of coronavirus -- the common cold, said William Haseltine, a former professor at Harvard Medical School.

“There’s every reason to suspect that this virus, even though it can kill you, behaves pretty much like a cold virus, in terms of transmission. Who drives colds? Children drive colds,” Haseltine told CNN’s Anderson Cooper Monday.
“And that's true of almost all respiratory diseases, including the colds that are caused by coronaviruses. And this is one of those cousins,” he added. “It even uses the same receptor in the nasal passages as one of the cold viruses. It just happens to be a cold virus that also kills.”

 

 

 

The President's claims that it is safe for every kid to go back to class are being challenged by a new report published by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children's Hospital Association that found that more than 97,000 children tested positive for the coronavirus in the last two weeks of July. The study showed a 40% increase in child coronavirus cases in states and cities during those two weeks. While children are far less likely to suffer complications from the virus, some have died. And the report will fuel fears that children could make teachers sick, will carry the virus home from school and infect their parents and other relatives and that schools could turn into super spreader locations.

Asked about the study, Trump again insisted that since most children didn't get seriously ill it was fine to open schools and without evidence said children do not transmit the virus to other people.

"It's a tiny fraction of death, a tiny fraction and they get better quickly," Trump said in the White House Briefing Room.

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Texsox said:

Which lobby is bigger? The restaurant lobby or the beach lobby? Which one donates more to political campaigns? Which one generates more tax revenue?

As Deep Throat famously said "follow the money". 

Really not that malicious to advocate that your businesses not be forced to shut down without compensation. I don't have a problem with restaurants following the rules to try and survive, I have a problem with our officials trying to make public health messaging solve economic and supply problems.

Them telling people not to wear masks in March was using a public health justification to solve a supply chain and production issue.

Refusing to provide accurate risk assessment on different settings is using public health messaging to solve an economic issue, where we are refusing to step up to the plate and compensate businesses who have been forced to shut down and so we act like their modified openings are safe.

The public health depts should say what need to be done, and the other govt functions should align to make that possible. It should not be other depts saying what's possible to public health, and then public health making up messaging to make that seem safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bmags said:

Really not that malicious to advocate that your businesses not be forced to shut down without compensation. I don't have a problem with restaurants following the rules to try and survive, I have a problem with our officials trying to make public health messaging solve economic and supply problems.

Them telling people not to wear masks in March was using a public health justification to solve a supply chain and production issue.

Refusing to provide accurate risk assessment on different settings is using public health messaging to solve an economic issue, where we are refusing to step up to the plate and compensate businesses who have been forced to shut down and so we act like their modified openings are safe.

The public health depts should say what need to be done, and the other govt functions should align to make that possible. It should not be other depts saying what's possible to public health, and then public health making up messaging to make that seem safe.

And why would we expect ANY of those things to change?

The ONLY way it happens is if one of his advisors convinces Trump that doing so is the key to winning re-election...that's just not happening, certainly not on a sustained basis.  For today's purposes, Priority #1 involves going back and forth between utilizing the WHITE HOUSE or GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK as the setting for his RNC speech on the 27th of AUG.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good breakdown on TWiV this week of all the possible 'morbidities' that COVID can cause--it's not just a binary live/die disease. Hair loss, rashes, "covid toes," neurological impacts (confused, delusion, GBS), long-term concentration and attention span issues, acute and long-term myocardial issues, pulmonary issues and others.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bmags said:

Really not that malicious to advocate that your businesses not be forced to shut down without compensation. I don't have a problem with restaurants following the rules to try and survive, I have a problem with our officials trying to make public health messaging solve economic and supply problems.

Them telling people not to wear masks in March was using a public health justification to solve a supply chain and production issue.

Refusing to provide accurate risk assessment on different settings is using public health messaging to solve an economic issue, where we are refusing to step up to the plate and compensate businesses who have been forced to shut down and so we act like their modified openings are safe.

The public health depts should say what need to be done, and the other govt functions should align to make that possible. It should not be other depts saying what's possible to public health, and then public health making up messaging to make that seem safe.

This.  Restaurants, bars, breweries, etc. need a bailout badly.  State and local governments need a bailout badly (because the pandemic is crushing tax revenues).  Without either of those things, state and local governments are going to continue to operate as if dining indoors is safe, and the hospitality industry is going to continue to operate indoors with distancing.

The reason the US can't get on top of this thing is because on policy, the party in power is more concerned with getting people back to work than they are with providing the resources for industries that are not safe to operate - and the people employed by those industries - to stay home until it is safe to reopen.

This issue is only going to get worse when winter hits.  Nothing in the last 6-months gives me any hope that we won't see major flare ups this winter.  And I don't see many people wanting to eat and drink outside in December in Chicago.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, illinilaw08 said:

This.  Restaurants, bars, breweries, etc. need a bailout badly.  State and local governments need a bailout badly (because the pandemic is crushing tax revenues).  Without either of those things, state and local governments are going to continue to operate as if dining indoors is safe, and the hospitality industry is going to continue to operate indoors with distancing.

The reason the US can't get on top of this thing is because on policy, the party in power is more concerned with getting people back to work than they are with providing the resources for industries that are not safe to operate - and the people employed by those industries - to stay home until it is safe to reopen.

This issue is only going to get worse when winter hits.  Nothing in the last 6-months gives me any hope that we won't see major flare ups this winter.  And I don't see many people wanting to eat and drink outside in December in Chicago.  

Unless Putin comes to the rescue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×