@Shop-et-al wrote:

I can tolerate a mask for about three seconds.

I guarantee you can tolerate a mask better than you can tolerate Covid. And those people that have a "medical condition" that makes them unable to wear a mask are also in the highest risk groups. Again, Covid for them is worse than wearing a mask.

Lots of folks this past week were making "persuasive" arguments to our local political idiots against a mask mandate because, "I don't like to wear them," "They smudge my makeup," "I get a rash from a mask," "They don't work," "I can't breathe," "It is unconstitutional to make me," "They obviously don't work because I see people wearing them touching their face," etc. etc. etc. With three tools at our disposal to assist with our safety in public--distancing, hand washing and masks--it is insane that ignorance and selfishness expand the severity and tenure of the virus as the predominant shaper of 2020 health and economy.

Well, I think in the end it is not going to matter because we all die. A famous philosopher once said that man is only good for turning food into crap.

I have yet to figure out why someone would not be able to wear a mask because of 'a condition'. What kind of condition could that be? If it is a lung-related condition which makes breathing more difficult that I can think of several solutions:

- if using oxygen then continue to do so and
a) put the mask on over top or
b) get a solid mask which has a tube connector to allow the oxygen to be still used.

- if not using oxygen then, in order to not get out of breath,
a) walk slower
b) make shorter and more frequent trips
c) use a walker so you can sit and rest frequently
d) if those don't work, have someone else do for you. I think just about everywhere will have volunteers/agencies for those who have no friends/relatives to help out.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2020 02:30AM by Bena.

@Shop-et-al wrote:

Wear a mask because you wear clothes is not gonna' fly.

What about the safety of others, though, Shopetal?

What if doctors, nurses, and medical first-responders refused to treat/help you if you didn't wear a mask, b/c it may harm them?

Is it fair to ask a doctor/nurse to treat you with COVID or anything else if you're not wearing a mask?

The solution is not for anyone to force me to wear a mask. Rather, it is for me to choose ativities of short duration so that my mask-wearing is for short periods of time.

This is covid-era compromise.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2020 10:21AM by Shop-et-al.

Wait. When did you start thinking that I do not or refuse to wear a mask? I only said that I can only tolerate wearing a mask for a short time.

@shoptastic wrote:

@Shop-et-al wrote:

Wear a mask because you wear clothes is not gonna' fly.

What about the safety of others, though, Shopetal?

What if doctors, nurses, and medical first-responders refused to treat/help you if you didn't wear a mask, b/c it may harm them?

Is it fair to ask a doctor/nurse to treat you with COVID or anything else if you're not wearing a mask?

@Shop-et-al wrote:

Wait. When did you start thinking that I do not or refuse to wear a mask? I only said that I can only tolerate wearing a mask for a short time.

Not that. I thought you were against mask requirements...but still wore one, b/c you had to.

In other words, if it were up to you, you'd not have a mandate on them.

Recently, I posted somewhere that it might be a good idea to institute manatory masks....

... And it generally is. Some people cannot wear them and they absolutely should not be penalized for their situations.

Please know that I wear a mask when I must do so. Choosing short-lived activities for myself (such as merch gigs) does not negate my belief that mandstory masks might make some workplaces safer.

Oh, I see. Yeah, I think I might have been confused on your stance.

Thanks for clarifying!

THIS!

Wearing a mask for me is very annoying. I break out on my nose and my glasses fog. However, I wear my mask because I do not want to catch a superflu. I will consistently do my part to protect myself.

A few months ago, I had a job interview with a panel. At the end of the interview, I gave everyone a virtual handshake. One dude was out of sorts. I asked him to consider the worst-case alternative.

@bgriffin wrote:

I guarantee you can tolerate a mask better than you can tolerate Covid.

We went out into nature for awhile. No masks required! I listened to birds and watched insects in their flight patterns. No control towers needed! I gazed into distant, dense trees and wondered where the bears were. No cattle, sheep, or antelope showed up today. I did a puzzle and made a task list. This was lovely!

If I had a gig in the woods, it would be perfect.

I watched three videos, all interviews with epidemiologists. Then have watched interviews with Alex Borenson, a former NYT reporter who has written the untold truths about COVID-19. Just watched part of a video interview with Dr. Kim, of South Korea. Didn't wear mask with Asian Boss interviewer as he was screened.

I take reasonable precautions. It can be a nasty bug. I pay attention to hospitalizations only, as that is most likely the most accurate account of COVID-19 diagnosis. The Swedish epidemiologist has said that in the end, all countries numbers will be similar. The South Korea doc said it would be with us for a few years.

Too many times in the past I have left home only to come back minutes later because I forgot to put my fake front tooth in and didn't want to scare anyone with a gaping hole in my face. With masking, I could go without it. No one will ever know! In fact, if I mask for the rest of my life, which I think will be the new norm going forward, I can save big bucks on future fake teeth that I would have needed. Double-silver lining!

Too funny


I am finding ways not to need my PPE. I do not need additional expense for this. The current challenge? Make the masks allotted to car A last until the end of August and make the masks allotted to Car B last until the end of the year. The glove issue is more or less messily solved by using a supply of cheap mittens in the cold months for one daily job (if there really are no more of the gloves that I can easily use).

I can see the tax man pulling his hair out next yeat because we claim the PPE as a business expense on this year's taxes.

In the end, it is likely that most countries will have similar stats. I've paid attention to hospitalizations, as that category has the most reliable diagnosis of COVID. The downside of shutting down is a certain deep recession and possibly a depression, which means the destruction of the economy. The upside of slowing cases is that now their are different and more treatment options. Ventilators can be destructive in COVIDS.

Bad comparisons to Canada and Japan, due to significant population differences.

@whosear wrote:

The downside of shutting down is a certain deep recession and possibly a depression, which means the destruction of the economy.

Actually that's simply not true. New Zealand shut down everything in order to get rid of the virus and now they're over 100 days Covid Free and back to normal life, and economy. S&P Global, which is a government debt rating agency, said New Zealand will like fare much better than most countries economically. They expect New Zealand's economy to shrink 2.9% this year whereas the global economy is expected to shrink about 5%. So not only are they faring better from the virus but also economically as well. This whole shut down will wreck the economy line is short sighted. Not shutting down when it would have worked would have been better long term. Unfortunately we are likely too far gone for that now.

Comparing NZ to US is not valid. My nephew, the ER doc, practiced there for a year along with his wife. Both were there when the outbreak started (attending extreme outdoors games). They're not protected completely. They have a mysterious outbreak in one city and travelers coming into the country have tested positive. They're quarantined. NZ is hoping that either a cure, vaccine or that it runs its course before it hits the fertile grounds its population is due to a lack of herd immunity.

A second quarter of negative growth for 2020 will officially mark the US as being in a recession. The worst one since the depression. The third quarter will tell.

Sweden, which did not shut down, is now moving up the ranks of European countries. In the US, our problem, as shared with me by my nephew, was a narrow excess capacity in intensive and critical care, primarily fueled by corporate medicine (When I left the business side of medical research financing in the 90's, this transition was occurring).

@whosear wrote:

Comparing NZ to US is not valid.

I'm not sure why it is not valid. You stated that a shutdown would be an economic disaster. I showed that it was not. In what way is a shutdown in New Zealand economically different than a @#$%& down in the US?

Funny that you mentioned Sweden btw. They shut absolutely notht down in order to save their economy and their economy shrink at almost as badly as the other Nordic countries, but with 10x the deaths per capita.

As far as Covid is concerned though, your talk about herd immunity and New Zealand's lack of it is laughable. First of all, the US currently has 5.26M confirmed cases. That's roughly 1.5% of Americans. For herd immunity you have to have 60+%. New Zealand has like .03%. Sure that's a bigger number but compared to the 60% you need it's statistically irrelevant. For all practical purposes we barely have a jump start on them.

The fatal flaw in your claim is that you assume the COVID numbers are valid. The only reliable data are hospitalizations, as there is a better likelihood that the diagnosis are accurate. Like most people, you're not very good at making valid comparisons. Deaths due to COVID will be revised downward by as much as 30% in the next few years, much like the flu.

Regarding herd immunity, just think for a minute what that means. If you've read Dr. James Hamblin's article on herd immunity in The Atlantic, you'd know that it can be as low as 20%. Again, you state a figure as if it is solid gold, and it is not. Herd immunity could be as low as 20%, but might need 60%. And the most susceptible have already caught it, generally speaking.

I have no clue where you're getting your economic data. Mostly likely 1st quarter 2020, which doesn't really reflect the effects due to SARS-CoV-2. Europe was in a recession at that time, and still is in an economic crisis since 2008. All of the countries have not reported 2nd quarter GDP (Volume), but of the countries reported so far, Sweden is 2nd behind only Lithuania. The others are in double digits (France, Germany, Spain, United Kingdom, Italy,) I never argued that Sweden's economy was booming. But I suspect its GNP is better than other countries.

By the way, possibly cause a depression, does not translate to "would cause economic disaster. "Could cause a depression" would be accurate. You mis-characterized my statement.

So believe what you want to believe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2020 06:34AM by whosear.

@whosear wrote:

The only reliable data are hospitalizations, as there is a better likelihood that the diagnosis are accurate.

Excess mortality is a pretty decent figure for deducing COVID deaths too.

I agree we have bonkers figures. People who die in a motorcycle accident with COVID are counted as a COVID death sometimes. People who die at home from COVID and never make it to a hospital to get tested/treated aren't counted oftentimes. Hospitals have an incentive to count deaths from multiple causes as COVID deaths (even if the main cause was probably not COVID...say, you got shot 10x by someone in a drug altercation). They can get federal reimbursements for virus deaths. Some people who have/had COVID symptoms aren't even tested when they ask for it. Testing criteria are strigent. ....Then, there is double-counting certain patients.....and under-countering certain people (a la my state, Virginia's, intentionally misleading technique that was only recently changed due to public backlash)...

IT's A MESS. BUT, excess mortality seems one of the better techniques we have for estimating the true COVID infection fatality number, as it's hard to explain away a significant number of higher deaths in a given period.

Currently, the excess mortality rate for the U.S. would put real COVID deaths at ~200,000. That makes sense, as many early cases in January, February, and March were likely not counted. It's not crazily higher than the officially tally, which is 165,000 right now, but still decently higher.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2020 07:12AM by shoptastic.

The problem with the morality rate and death count, is that there are co-moridities such as pneumonia, flu, etc. And there is that a sizable number of deaths were people who were going to die soon if not by the end of the year anyway. They counted deaths at hospice care in Indiana. And the criteria for deaths was not uniform. While they strove to be as accurate as circumstances permitted, it seems like the co-morbidities, which can range from 30%-54% of the deaths, complicate matters.

Sounds like a good case for the ACLU and the NAACP and the AARP, and any other organizations to try and hold somebody accountable.

Protests/Riots (Jacob Blake, Daniel Prude, etc.) recently + Labor Day fun = rising COVID cases and deaths I'm going to guess.

It almost feels like a pattern. Big holiday (Memorial Day/July 4th) + protests (George Floyd) + reopening (businesses first and now schools). That mix feels bad. (eta: throw in wild fires and Cat 4 hurricanes)

We'll likely have 200K official deaths by September 15th.

Fauci warns of seven states at high risk of a surge:

@ wrote:

“There are several states that are at risk for surging, namely North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Arkansas, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois,” Fauci, the director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told Bloomberg in an interview published Thursday.

[nypost.com]

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2020 12:25AM by shoptastic.

Add derecho wind to that list. My daughter in Cedar Rapids experienced an 11 day power outage with a one year old baby. To find a hotel room, she would have had to travel over an hour away. Over 90% of the structures there sustained damage, affecting over 20 counties. A tornado would have been better as it would have been much more localized.

I do not see how this relates to the shut down because of the pandemic. I feel bad for the people that had to go thru this but it does not have anything to do with the shutdown. And besides that, the shutdown is over.

@Threemom wrote:

Add derecho wind to that list. My daughter in Cedar Rapids experienced an 11 day power outage with a one year old baby. To find a hotel room, she would have had to travel over an hour away. Over 90% of the structures there sustained damage, affecting over 20 counties. A tornado would have been better as it would have been much more localized.

We may need to shutdown again.

It could cause a 2020 Civil War in America. We'll see after this latest round of protests, natural disasters, Labor Day fun, and school reopenings. I expect a surge in cases and deaths, but we'll have to see how bad it is.

As long as wealthier people are scared to go out and spend, the economy will be on life support for a long time. And the Federal Reserve will have to keep printing money that will need to be inflated away in the future to pay down our debts.

It's a horrendous situation.

True. But it's yet another economic strain that will have to be paid for somehow. It has been a year of unusually bad and expensive circumstances.