5 ms·

NYC seems fine after Memorial Day and weeks of widespread protesting. You'd expect places that weren't hit before to still be vulnerable to spread. Seems to ind

NYC seems fine after Memorial Day and weeks of widespread protesting. You'd expect places that weren't hit before to still be vulnerable to spread. Seems to indicate that perhaps herd immunity is much lower than whatever's been suggested (~80% or so) if NYC is any indication.

bsder 6y ago
The problem is that a bunch of entitled dipshits (encouraged by the idiots in the GOP--but being a dipshit, especially in Southern California, has more than its share of Democratic members) in California find it "Oh so inconvenient" to wear masks and stay home. California is the land of "Karen", after all. Well, this is what you get. Had California actually followed the model of New York, it would have been mostly back to normal by September.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  Quarantine is a luxury of the rich.
  - bsder 6y ago
    The rich were among the most vocal of the anti-quarantine charge. Once the disease starts running rampant, people are going to self-quarantine anyway. So, we can either quarantine in a coordinated fashion that will help reduce the disease and get us back to semi-normal with some precautions. Or, we can self-quarantine in an ad-hoc fashion that allows the disease to run rampant basically indefinitely and kills off our health-care workers.
    - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      In global terms, only very wealthy societies can afford to lock themselves in their houses indefinitely - and even then there's obvious limits.
      - bsder 6y ago
        Who said indefinitely? Don't make straw men. New York shows that even with a massive outbreak, you can contain it in about 9 weeks. This is data and fact (and the wonder of exponential growth and decay). But, yeah, during that 9 weeks you have to be SERIOUS about it. After that, you can start opening some things up with precautions.
        gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
        > This is data and fact (and the wonder of exponential growth and decay). The data seems to fit up to a Gompertz curve. The rate of growth was declining exponentially from the beginning. Since this corresponds to so many locations around the world, there must be something going on that most people aren't recognizing. If it were due to lockdown we'd see some variation between locations cause they can't all enact lockdown in exactly the same way, with same timing, etc.
- bleah1000 6y ago
  What are you talking about? Thousands of people died in New York, way more than California. Are you saying that California should have made sure thousands died in the first pass so that not as many die in the second? You do realize New York did not shut down the subway, so it's likely a large portion of the population was able to transmit the virus that way. I looked at the California data, and while there are a lot of cases in the hospital/icu, it appears that most are coming from only a few places. In fact, almost all of the California deaths are coming from LA, which is not a GOP stronghold, but a Dem one. Rather than try and fit the narrative to my tribe good, your tribe bad, let's look at the data objectively. I'm not sure that the cases are out of control yet (maybe they are). It seems like this could just be what happens when you start to reopen, and that you need to monitor to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.
elindbe2 6y ago
I feel like there has been a concurrent pandemic of post hoc ergo propter hoc logic since the COVID-19 pandemic started. I can empathize with the desire for certainty but I feel like alot of the time it might be better just to say we don't know and still do whatever we think will help (e.g. masks, lockdowns).
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  I'd agree with lockdown if it didn't mean draconian measures for uncertain rewards. Precisely because we don't have any clue about it's effectiveness and now know quite a bit about the effects and prevalence of the disease - I think something so drastic should be less accepted. At some point flattening the curve avoiding any death or infection. And that's frankly nonsense and unsustainable. The current world is primed to be fearful.
  - bsder 6y ago
    > I'd agree with lockdown if it didn't mean draconian measures for uncertain rewards. Erm, you have a quite concrete reward. New York (and the areas around it) is going to be mostly back to normal with some extra precautions by September. The areas that didn't take this quite so seriously? Well, they're not going to have football season. Congratulations, folks.
    - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      I think they're back to normal because they were hit so hard that most vulnerable people died and the rest have considerable immunity. This happened across Europe and elsewhere.
      - woodandsteel 6y ago
        No, testing shows none of the countries are anywhere near herd immunity. They beat the disease back with the standard program of testing, contact tracing, quarantine, social isolation, masks, and so on. The standard program works, and when a region or country doesn't follow it, sooner or later the disease runs wild. If we let that happen in the US, over a million would be dead before the disease was done. Oh, and I bet you think Trump has been correct for months when he says over and over again there is no shortage of tests. But actually we need twice as many as at present for holding steady, and 8 times as many to beat the disease back.

bsder 6y ago

The problem is that a bunch of entitled dipshits (encouraged by the idiots in the GOP--but being a dipshit, especially in Southern California, has more than its share of Democratic members) in California find it "Oh so inconvenient" to wear masks and stay home. California is the land of "Karen", after all. Well, this is what you get. Had California actually followed the model of New York, it would have been mostly back to normal by September.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
Quarantine is a luxury of the rich.
- bsder 6y ago
  The rich were among the most vocal of the anti-quarantine charge. Once the disease starts running rampant, people are going to self-quarantine anyway. So, we can either quarantine in a coordinated fashion that will help reduce the disease and get us back to semi-normal with some precautions. Or, we can self-quarantine in an ad-hoc fashion that allows the disease to run rampant basically indefinitely and kills off our health-care workers.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    In global terms, only very wealthy societies can afford to lock themselves in their houses indefinitely - and even then there's obvious limits.
    - bsder 6y ago
      Who said indefinitely? Don't make straw men. New York shows that even with a massive outbreak, you can contain it in about 9 weeks. This is data and fact (and the wonder of exponential growth and decay). But, yeah, during that 9 weeks you have to be SERIOUS about it. After that, you can start opening some things up with precautions.
      - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
        > This is data and fact (and the wonder of exponential growth and decay). The data seems to fit up to a Gompertz curve. The rate of growth was declining exponentially from the beginning. Since this corresponds to so many locations around the world, there must be something going on that most people aren't recognizing. If it were due to lockdown we'd see some variation between locations cause they can't all enact lockdown in exactly the same way, with same timing, etc.
bleah1000 6y ago
What are you talking about? Thousands of people died in New York, way more than California. Are you saying that California should have made sure thousands died in the first pass so that not as many die in the second? You do realize New York did not shut down the subway, so it's likely a large portion of the population was able to transmit the virus that way. I looked at the California data, and while there are a lot of cases in the hospital/icu, it appears that most are coming from only a few places. In fact, almost all of the California deaths are coming from LA, which is not a GOP stronghold, but a Dem one. Rather than try and fit the narrative to my tribe good, your tribe bad, let's look at the data objectively. I'm not sure that the cases are out of control yet (maybe they are). It seems like this could just be what happens when you start to reopen, and that you need to monitor to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.

elindbe2 6y ago

I feel like there has been a concurrent pandemic of post hoc ergo propter hoc logic since the COVID-19 pandemic started. I can empathize with the desire for certainty but I feel like alot of the time it might be better just to say we don't know and still do whatever we think will help (e.g. masks, lockdowns).

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
I'd agree with lockdown if it didn't mean draconian measures for uncertain rewards. Precisely because we don't have any clue about it's effectiveness and now know quite a bit about the effects and prevalence of the disease - I think something so drastic should be less accepted. At some point flattening the curve avoiding any death or infection. And that's frankly nonsense and unsustainable. The current world is primed to be fearful.
- bsder 6y ago
  > I'd agree with lockdown if it didn't mean draconian measures for uncertain rewards. Erm, you have a quite concrete reward. New York (and the areas around it) is going to be mostly back to normal with some extra precautions by September. The areas that didn't take this quite so seriously? Well, they're not going to have football season. Congratulations, folks.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    I think they're back to normal because they were hit so hard that most vulnerable people died and the rest have considerable immunity. This happened across Europe and elsewhere.
    - woodandsteel 6y ago
      No, testing shows none of the countries are anywhere near herd immunity. They beat the disease back with the standard program of testing, contact tracing, quarantine, social isolation, masks, and so on. The standard program works, and when a region or country doesn't follow it, sooner or later the disease runs wild. If we let that happen in the US, over a million would be dead before the disease was done. Oh, and I bet you think Trump has been correct for months when he says over and over again there is no shortage of tests. But actually we need twice as many as at present for holding steady, and 8 times as many to beat the disease back.