3 ms·

It seems to me that the mass gatherings are ongoing -- not just in the past, but in the present and in the future. I know I read an article as the protests wen

It seems to me that the mass gatherings are ongoing -- not just in the past, but in the present and in the future. I know I read an article as the protests went on that said, "if we don't see an uptick in cases a couple of weeks from now, we need to re-evaluate what we know about the virus" and, more recently, I see articles that say, "there haven't been upticks in the virus due to the mass protests." Which leads me to conclude: 1) there is something we don't understand about the virus, 2) there is something we don't understand about the protests or protesters, or 3) the articles are not congruent with the real situation. Explanations might include: the virus doesn't transmit well outdoors; the protesters were in a demographic that didn't get or didn't notice getting the disease; the protesters have not been tested for the disease; the disease was not present at the protests; the reporter didn't have the facts; or, the reporter did not report facts because of some countering (most likely political) belief. I'm still perplexed about this. Wouldn't mind flexing some data science muscles but I don't have the time and my skills aren't up to snuff. If anyone has some clarity, please share!

zaroth 6y ago
I posted this link down-thread but wanted to be sure you saw it; https://img.apmcdn.org/6b486323329122674a9b5fbfdcf2e51f9ad83f8d/uncropped/8e1875-20200626-covid-cases-age.png https://img.apmcdn.org/6b486323329122674a9b5fbfdcf2e51f9ad83... IMO it’s unquestionable that mass protests contributed to the spread of COVID, it’s just apparently uncouth to say so. It may be true that during daylight hours outside, being outside on a sunny day the UV dampens the virus. But we know that the virus mostly doesn’t transmit on surfaces it transmits in suspended droplets. It also can be absorbed through the eyes not just nasal passages. Certainly evening mass protests with people in close proximity absolutely spreads COVID. I don’t think anyone can seriously argue otherwise. All else being equal, having everyone wear a mask versus not probably reduces the R value at least somewhat, but this is assuming wearing masks doesn’t also lead to an increase in risky behavior. If people wearing a mask feel they are less likely to get or spread COVID and therefore alter their behavior, then that new behavior works to some extent to either partially nullify, or even completely nullify any benefit or conceivably makes matters worse. But frankly this mask discussion misses the forest for the trees. Somehow we went from “flatten the curve” to “minimize all cases” to “shutdown everything until it’s gone”. We cannot continue to shutdown everything, we’ve already paid about $10 trillion trying to do that for just a few months and now have 40 million unemployed. People who feel they are vulnerable should be provided the support and services they need to protect themselves and avoid exposure. Stricter policies should reinforce these protections for the most vulnerable populations, like nursing home visitation and screening employees in contact with the elderly. The IFR is so massively skewed to the elderly, we need to be 100% focused on protecting that population. For those under 70 the quarantine “cure” is worse than the disease.
- armagon 6y ago
  Thank you for your reply, Zaroth. I wish that graph showed absolute numbers instead of percents, but it is very nice as it is. Interesting points to ponder.

zaroth 6y ago

I posted this link down-thread but wanted to be sure you saw it; https://img.apmcdn.org/6b486323329122674a9b5fbfdcf2e51f9ad83f8d/uncropped/8e1875-20200626-covid-cases-age.png https://img.apmcdn.org/6b486323329122674a9b5fbfdcf2e51f9ad83... IMO it’s unquestionable that mass protests contributed to the spread of COVID, it’s just apparently uncouth to say so. It may be true that during daylight hours outside, being outside on a sunny day the UV dampens the virus. But we know that the virus mostly doesn’t transmit on surfaces it transmits in suspended droplets. It also can be absorbed through the eyes not just nasal passages. Certainly evening mass protests with people in close proximity absolutely spreads COVID. I don’t think anyone can seriously argue otherwise. All else being equal, having everyone wear a mask versus not probably reduces the R value at least somewhat, but this is assuming wearing masks doesn’t also lead to an increase in risky behavior. If people wearing a mask feel they are less likely to get or spread COVID and therefore alter their behavior, then that new behavior works to some extent to either partially nullify, or even completely nullify any benefit or conceivably makes matters worse. But frankly this mask discussion misses the forest for the trees. Somehow we went from “flatten the curve” to “minimize all cases” to “shutdown everything until it’s gone”. We cannot continue to shutdown everything, we’ve already paid about $10 trillion trying to do that for just a few months and now have 40 million unemployed. People who feel they are vulnerable should be provided the support and services they need to protect themselves and avoid exposure. Stricter policies should reinforce these protections for the most vulnerable populations, like nursing home visitation and screening employees in contact with the elderly. The IFR is so massively skewed to the elderly, we need to be 100% focused on protecting that population. For those under 70 the quarantine “cure” is worse than the disease.

armagon 6y ago
Thank you for your reply, Zaroth. I wish that graph showed absolute numbers instead of percents, but it is very nice as it is. Interesting points to ponder.