7 ms·

CA is going to allow indoor concerts starting on April 15... which is the first day that everyone is eligible: https://ktla.com/news/california/starting-april-1

CA is going to allow indoor concerts starting on April 15... which is the first day that everyone is eligible: https://ktla.com/news/california/starting-april-15-california-will-allow-indoor-concerts-theater-performances-and-other-private-gatherings/ https://ktla.com/news/california/starting-april-15-californi... Why on Earth can they not hold off for another month or two? Does this seem like a good idea to anyone?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The general consensus is that there's not enough time for a big new wave to start before vaccination finishes tamping it down. Note that "everyone is eligible" isn't expected to be a huge change in practice: most urban counties in California already have over 50% of the adult population vaccinated, rising about a percentage point each day.
ceejayoz 6y ago
NY will be using a vaccine/test pass for large events. CA may plan the same?
- pmiller2 6y ago
  That's a terrible idea: > Using Covid-19 vaccine passports to tailor restrictions, however, has drawn staunch opposition based on several weighty concerns.1 First, while vaccine supply remains limited, privileging people who are fortunate enough to have gained early access is morally questionable. Second, even after supply constraints ease, rates of vaccination among racial minorities and low-income populations seem likely to remain disproportionately low; relatedly, if history is a guide, programs that confer social privilege on the basis of “fitness” can lead to invidious discrimination. Third, the extent of protection conferred by vaccination, particularly against new variants, is not yet well understood, nor is the potential for viral transmission by people who have been vaccinated. Fourth, privileging the vaccinated will penalize people with religious or philosophical objections to vaccination. Finally, we lack a consensus approach to accurately certifying vaccination. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2104289 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2104289
  - sharken 6y ago
    Hopefully a low number of new cases and deaths will make the vaccine passport idea go away.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      That's only likely to be the case if enough people get vaccinated, which is somewhat in question.
      - loonster 6y ago
        Herd immunity will be reached eventually. Either through vaccinations or infections.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Alright. s/get vaccinated/get vaccinated or the anti-tax death cult has its way/g, then.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    This might read like the "masks are not advised and could be dangerous" stuff in a year.
sharken 6y ago
Maybe because daily cases and daily deaths are down considerably and more than one third of California have begun vaccination. Then you have Texas who is at the same point with just about 30% that have begun vaccination. And hosting outdoor events for 40.000 people. Given that more and more people will be vaccinated from now on, it doesn't seem reckless to open up now. The experts do recommend 85% vaccinated which is probably a good number, but it does seem that reopening fully can happen a lot sooner. Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/covid-19-vaccines-distribution/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-case... https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-12-26/covid-19-vaccines-herd-immunity-challenges https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-12-26/covid-...
spfzero 6y ago
Its a trade-off, of course. When the potential probability for causing deaths goes below a certain point, then the benefit of the activity (economic, human happiness etc.) outweighs and it goes ahead. If that were not the case, we'd all have already been locking ourselves away due to the many occasionally fatal things that we expose ourselves to. Take the flu, driving, attending a party, going out in any public place, etc. Plus, the venues are going to operate at greatly reduced capacities with space between parties, which has shown to lower the chances of infection. All of that adds up to a really low probability of causing death (even indirectly), making it relatively safe. When something passes our standard of "relatively safe", and we want to do it, we do. Since a counter-argument is: "You're not just risking your own life", to that, I'd say that that is true for most of the risks we take routinely, as well. An example would be driving. When someone gets in an accident, other people can die, say a bystander on the sidewalk. But there is a very low chance of that, so we go ahead and do it, even when the trip is not necessary. When the benefit outweighs the risk, we do things. Your reaction indicates you think the risk is still significant of people dying from going to these future concerts, so I would encourage you to look into some of the current numbers. Different people have a different sense of this though, and to answer your question, yes, for myself, I think it is a good idea. They are still being very careful and restrictive.
- dataflow 6y ago
  Doesn't this drastically increase the potential for dangerous mutations? All that analysis regarding the current strains doesn't capture the full picture to me.
  - spfzero 6y ago
    Each new case gives the virus a few dozen or hundred or thousand generations to mutate, depending on how large and long the infection goes. We're in a period where the severity and number of infections has lowered, so mutation is less likely. A dangerous mutation is extremely rare, fortunately.
    - dataflow 6y ago
officialjunk 6y ago
because the decision is not based purely on safety, but all the other things politicians need to consider and balance, such as the local economy. but i agree with you that i prefer safety to be the top priority and wait a few more months to get the immunity high enough for the virus's r0 factor to go below 1.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

The general consensus is that there's not enough time for a big new wave to start before vaccination finishes tamping it down. Note that "everyone is eligible" isn't expected to be a huge change in practice: most urban counties in California already have over 50% of the adult population vaccinated, rising about a percentage point each day.

ceejayoz 6y ago

NY will be using a vaccine/test pass for large events. CA may plan the same?

pmiller2 6y ago
That's a terrible idea: > Using Covid-19 vaccine passports to tailor restrictions, however, has drawn staunch opposition based on several weighty concerns.1 First, while vaccine supply remains limited, privileging people who are fortunate enough to have gained early access is morally questionable. Second, even after supply constraints ease, rates of vaccination among racial minorities and low-income populations seem likely to remain disproportionately low; relatedly, if history is a guide, programs that confer social privilege on the basis of “fitness” can lead to invidious discrimination. Third, the extent of protection conferred by vaccination, particularly against new variants, is not yet well understood, nor is the potential for viral transmission by people who have been vaccinated. Fourth, privileging the vaccinated will penalize people with religious or philosophical objections to vaccination. Finally, we lack a consensus approach to accurately certifying vaccination. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2104289 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2104289
- sharken 6y ago
  Hopefully a low number of new cases and deaths will make the vaccine passport idea go away.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    That's only likely to be the case if enough people get vaccinated, which is somewhat in question.
    - loonster 6y ago
      Herd immunity will be reached eventually. Either through vaccinations or infections.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Alright. s/get vaccinated/get vaccinated or the anti-tax death cult has its way/g, then.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  This might read like the "masks are not advised and could be dangerous" stuff in a year.

sharken 6y ago

Maybe because daily cases and daily deaths are down considerably and more than one third of California have begun vaccination. Then you have Texas who is at the same point with just about 30% that have begun vaccination. And hosting outdoor events for 40.000 people. Given that more and more people will be vaccinated from now on, it doesn't seem reckless to open up now. The experts do recommend 85% vaccinated which is probably a good number, but it does seem that reopening fully can happen a lot sooner. Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/california/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/covid-19-vaccines-distribution/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-case... https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-12-26/covid-19-vaccines-herd-immunity-challenges https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-12-26/covid-...

spfzero 6y ago

Its a trade-off, of course. When the potential probability for causing deaths goes below a certain point, then the benefit of the activity (economic, human happiness etc.) outweighs and it goes ahead. If that were not the case, we'd all have already been locking ourselves away due to the many occasionally fatal things that we expose ourselves to. Take the flu, driving, attending a party, going out in any public place, etc. Plus, the venues are going to operate at greatly reduced capacities with space between parties, which has shown to lower the chances of infection. All of that adds up to a really low probability of causing death (even indirectly), making it relatively safe. When something passes our standard of "relatively safe", and we want to do it, we do. Since a counter-argument is: "You're not just risking your own life", to that, I'd say that that is true for most of the risks we take routinely, as well. An example would be driving. When someone gets in an accident, other people can die, say a bystander on the sidewalk. But there is a very low chance of that, so we go ahead and do it, even when the trip is not necessary. When the benefit outweighs the risk, we do things. Your reaction indicates you think the risk is still significant of people dying from going to these future concerts, so I would encourage you to look into some of the current numbers. Different people have a different sense of this though, and to answer your question, yes, for myself, I think it is a good idea. They are still being very careful and restrictive.

dataflow 6y ago
Doesn't this drastically increase the potential for dangerous mutations? All that analysis regarding the current strains doesn't capture the full picture to me.
- spfzero 6y ago
  Each new case gives the virus a few dozen or hundred or thousand generations to mutate, depending on how large and long the infection goes. We're in a period where the severity and number of infections has lowered, so mutation is less likely. A dangerous mutation is extremely rare, fortunately.
  - dataflow 6y ago

officialjunk 6y ago

because the decision is not based purely on safety, but all the other things politicians need to consider and balance, such as the local economy. but i agree with you that i prefer safety to be the top priority and wait a few more months to get the immunity high enough for the virus's r0 factor to go below 1.