U.S. to close..

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

............


So I don't know what we learn from any of this. We certainly do NOT know that the measures employed in Victoria were optimal, that ALL of them were necessary. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Every country is different. And there is huge randomness and externalities in the outcomes also, so neither very good outcomes or very bad outcomes are proof that measures taken in the respective countries were either good or bad. The pandemic is a very complex phenomenon. We should not overestimate our knowledge.

IMO, this is 100% correct.

We simply don't know what works and what doesn't. So is it right to throw everything at the 'virus' or is better to try different measures to try to determine the effects of different approaches?????

Clearly throwing everything including the kitchen sink has a better chance at being effective but it does cloud the process of determining a targeted approach.

Bringing this back to the OP, will the marina's be part of a targeted approach or not......(?)

[GordMay]

“How to stop restaurants from driving COVID infections”
US mobile data suggests restaurants, gyms and cafes can be COVID hotspots — and reveals strategies for limiting spread.
Now, a new model using mobile-phone data, to map people’s movements, suggests that these venues could account for most COVID-19 infections in US cities.
The model, published in Nature , also reveals how reducing occupancy in venues can significantly cut the number of infections.
They found that opening restaurants at full capacity led to the largest increase in infections, followed by gyms, cafes and hotels and motels.

If Chicago had reopened restaurants on 1 May, there would have been nearly 600,000 additional infections that month, while Opening gyms would have produced 149,000 extra infections. If all venues were open, the model predicts that there would have been 3.3 million additional cases.
But capping occupancy for all venues at 30%, would reduce the number of additional infections to 1.1 million, the model estimated.
If occupancy was capped at 20%, new infections would be reduced by more than 80% to about 650,000 cases.
More ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03140-4

“Mobility network models of COVID-19 explain inequities and inform reopening” ~ by Serina Chang et al
➥ https://static-content.springer.com/...MOESM1_ESM.pdf

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Maybe your opinion is 100% correct but conversely it might be 100% wrong. It is possible the Dr Osterholm has learnt more about Coronavirus (and possible responses) in the past 7 months and has a better understanding of what is needed now.

I reckon Dockhead is 100% spot on

Well that is obviously a possibility, but with a LOT of great Scientific minds NOW saying that Full Lock Downs are not the way, it seems a tad strange that a proponent against lock downs at the beginning when most scientists supported it would now go the opposite way when so much more data is available moving other scientists (apart from most of those in positions of power advising Governments) to turn against lock downs.


In the murky world of politics, nothing is truly as it seems.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by UFO

It Hilarious because it just shows what a joke and manipulation the whole thing is - When no whiff of power is around then as you stated he made a great case for the Barrington Declaration, yet as soon as he's in a position of power he does a total 180 on his earlier views and plays the game - more than likely the puppet master told him to flip - Better to laugh than cry about it.

You assume that he didn't actually change his mind. I would not assume that.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

. . . Clearly throwing everything including the kitchen sink has a better chance at being effective but it does cloud the process of determining a targeted approach.

Throwing the kitchen sink at it not only clouds the approach, but causes immense damage. How many deaths will result just from the 30 million unemployed in the U.S.? No doubt more than COVID deaths. Now not all of the unemployment comes from the measures, but surely the overwhelming majority of it.

Originally Posted by Wotname

Bringing this back to the OP, will the marina's be part of a targeted approach or not......(?)

Let's hope not. Boating has got to be one of the most pandemic-innocent activities there is. It seems like nothing but viciousness to me, to supress it, causing a lot of harm without doing any good -- it seems to me.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

“How to stop restaurants from driving COVID infections”
US mobile data suggests restaurants, gyms and cafes can be COVID hotspots — and reveals strategies for limiting spread.
Now, a new model using mobile-phone data, to map people’s movements, suggests that these venues could account for most COVID-19 infections in US cities.
The model, published in Nature , also reveals how reducing occupancy in venues can significantly cut the number of infections.
They found that opening restaurants at full capacity led to the largest increase in infections, followed by gyms, cafes and hotels and motels.

If Chicago had reopened restaurants on 1 May, there would have been nearly 600,000 additional infections that month, while Opening gyms would have produced 149,000 extra infections. If all venues were open, the model predicts that there would have been 3.3 million additional cases.
But capping occupancy for all venues at 30%, would reduce the number of additional infections to 1.1 million, the model estimated.
If occupancy was capped at 20%, new infections would be reduced by more than 80% to about 650,000 cases.
More ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03140-4

“Mobility network models of COVID-19 explain inequities and inform reopening” ~ by Serina Chang et al
➥ https://static-content.springer.com/...MOESM1_ESM.pdf

It is exceedingly frustrating to me that in a crisis which is costing trillions of dollars and potentially millions of lives, we have done so little science along these lines to determine exactly WHAT we need to be doing, to keep this under control

Surely the most fertile source of data will be contact tracing. Where is the data? Where is the analysis of it?

Finland is now catching fully 60% of all new infections through contact tracing. Don't know how other countries are doing, maybe some others are doing as well, but that is bloody good!! Surely they are starting to understand where infections come from, through this process.

I have read random assertions by different health authorities that neither primary schools, nor restaurants, are big vectors of spread, but that large events, religious services, night clubs, are super spreaders.

If that's true, then Sweden got the measures closer to right than any other country -- they closed high schools and unis, but left primary schools open. They closed night clubs, but left restaurants open, however restricting to table service only and requiring social distancing.

That's more or less what we have everywhere in the Nordic countries now, except that as far as I know, no schools are closed anywhere.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You assume that he didn't actually change his mind. I would not assume that.

So equally are you assuming that this is NOT a politically motivated change of heart?


Scientist are bought and paid for all the time, sometimes directly and other times through funding. If you have the $$$ you can dig up a scientist to say whatever you want - Just look at the climate change fiasco.


So I know you have done a massive amount of research on this topic and have read a lot of information by a lot of genuine and very clever "Scientists" most of whom are against lock downs now that we have the massive amount of data that we do - Do you really think its feasible that someone with his access to such data would go back on his initial views when the data does not point that way?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by UFO

So equally are you assuming that this is NOT a politically motivated change of heart?


Scientist are bought and paid for all the time, sometimes directly and other times through funding. If you have the $$$ you can dig up a scientist to say whatever you want - Just look at the climate change fiasco.


So I know you have done a massive amount of research on this topic and have read a lot of information by a lot of genuine and very clever "Scientists" most of whom are against lock downs now that we have the massive amount of data that we do - Do you really think its feasible that someone with his access to such data would go back on his initial views when the data does not point that way?

I'm not assuming anything. I don't know. I wouldn't jump to conclusions. I don't think it's common for highly respected scientists like this to sell out just like that, to a position they don't believe in. Which does not mean it's impossible. I'd like to know more. It's a very strange case - swimming against the tide in March, and swimming against the tide again - in the opposite direction. There must be a story.

[Island Time O25]

If the presumptive media driven election results stand we will see plenty of "scientific" data which will say that the full lockdowns are not the solution.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yikes

I don't see the US standing for a total lockdown much less covering lost wages. It's not feasible. The solution would cause more damage than the virus. The election is far from over anyway.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by UFO

So equally are you assuming that this is NOT a politically motivated change of heart?

Scientist are bought and paid for all the time, sometimes directly and other times through funding. If you have the $$$ you can dig up a scientist to say whatever you want - Just look at the climate change fiasco.

Do you really think its feasible that someone with his access to such data would go back on his initial views when the data does not point that way?

Ignorance is a greater threat than COVID-19.

There are a number of differences between Mar 21 and now. The biggest difference is that vaccines seem to be close to rollout in 3 to 6 months, which is the light at the end of the tunnel that we didn't have in March. So, a short, sharp lockdown followed by a couple months of good behaviour would theoretically put the lid on it.

If the people of the US wanted to put the brakes on their runaway infection rate, and avoid healthcare being overwhelmed this winter... a short but serious lockdown is the only option at this point. And it IS affordable.

But that's a pretty big if. Given the overall US "meh" about the current death rate, and the howls of rage from the US well-off about sharing ANY of the burden of getting through COVID-19 ... and #45's long goodbye... any credible action can't happen before Jan 20. And is probably unlikely after, as well.

Thoughts and prayers, then.

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

The election is far from over anyway.

Votes have been cast, the actual election is well and truly done. Parting is such sweet sorrow...

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I'm not assuming anything. I don't know. I wouldn't jump to conclusions. I don't think it's common for highly respected scientists like this to sell out just like that, to a position they don't believe in. Which does not mean it's impossible. I'd like to know more. It's a very strange case - swimming against the tide in March, and swimming against the tide again - in the opposite direction. There must be a story.

No assumptions here, but the logical reason would be that something has changed since March
... Possibilities:

1.... This virus has acted outside the box of their standard thinking and early assumptions proved wrong

2.... That has caused a general lack of confidence in their ability to analyze.

3..... Maybe they have found a few cases where the virus has mutated into something more sinister and deadly. That terrifies them!

I am afraid we may see more desperate social rules with new closures, as leaders try to micromanage unknowns

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

No assumptions here, but the logical reason would be that something has changed since March
... Possibilities:

1.... This virus has acted outside the box of their standard thinking and early assumptions proved wrong

2.... That has caused a general lack of confidence in their ability to analyze.

3..... Maybe they have found a few cases where the virus has mutated into something more sinister and deadly. That terrifies them!

I am afraid we may see more desperate social rules with new closures, as leaders try to micromanage unknowns

We shall see I guess. God help us.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by aqfishing

Not so sure about the 90% figure, I feel there may well be more resistance than we think. As for the dude driving alone in his car with a mask on?....I guess he also sleeps alone at night wearing a condom!

On serious note... if you have had the vaccine, does that mean you cannot transmit the virus?

The exact percentage may change a bit but as with most extremist positions, the hard core anti-vac make up a small percentage of the population. Vast majority of kids heading off to school are vaccinated as evidence they aren't the majority of the population.

In the short term, of course, people are concerned that corners have been cut to get a vaccine out fast but as I indicated 6 months after the vaccine is out and these nervous folks get to the head of the line, unless there are lots of major side effects, I expect most of them to get over it. (If there are major side effects, it's not an issue as the vaccine will be pulled anyway).

Assuming the 90% effectiveness holds up, in large part, you won't be transmitting the virus. Of course, it's more nuanced than a simple yes or no.

It's possible you are in the 10% where it's not effective and you do catch it. But if 90% of the population has been vaccinated or had the disease prior, 81% of the population won't be transmitting the virus (because they are immune). That means you have (in simplistic terms) an 81% lower chance of being exposed. If you aren't exposed, you can't transmit it. This is the basic idea behind herd immunity. At some point, so few at risk individuals are being exposed to it, the virus can't find enough new hosts to survive in the population. Of course, we do need to consider the long term immunity but by the time that becomes an issue (if it becomes an issue), we will likely have things back under control and annual vaccines (similar to the flu) will be in the works, so it becomes a lower level issue similar to the flu.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

No assumptions here, but the logical reason would be that something has changed since March...

>2,300 years ago it was recorded that someone said "there's nothing new under the sun." Invariably this was a reference to scale-invariant patterns in nature. This concept is mirrored in multiple belief systems in unattached cultures, having apparently been independently recognized. So if we can agree that logic itself is the relationship of elements of a pattern to other elements of a pattern, then, to say
"something has changed since March"
is to say, "um, we neglected to recognize logic in the first place. We failed to recognize a pattern."

The persistent 'call for more evidence' is no less than an admission that "um, we don't see the pattern, we don't see the logic of this thing." Indeed, what is the difference between someone who can see the patterns and someone who is a BS artist/sophist. On this I give many "science deniers" credit--not for their ultimate behavior--but at least for their capacity to recognize a BSr.

I started typing out an example of how the immune system functions that will end up taking up an entire screen here...that I can post if interested. But the immune system is organized with elements essentially the same as how societies are organized to respond to a pandemic. Simply put, Eastern-minded countries have responded similar to how the immune system functions. Western-minded countries have responded as though they are following the advice of either people ignorant of basic patterns of nature, or, are classical sociopaths (even if increasingly normalized in modern society).

So here's the thing about your pandemic-is-war metaphor, which easily gains traction. I don't think many people here would like a reality where a doctor gets to decide if a person ought/ought not receive excessive societal resources to keep them alive. Plainly, there are many younger people whose existence in the society is akin to a parasitic load on the system...drawing more communal resources on a good day than is justifiable for the health of the society (based on modern metrics buttressed by cross-cultural historical experience)...which is how parasites and cancers act against the body. In simple terms, at times we'd resuscitate 200yo grandma 15 times before we'd so much as book an appointment for a lot of young lawyers, stock brokers, etc. In other words, people who say that they want the law of the jungle probably would not survive it. <---itself an ancient pattern...get it?