BAD NEWS THREAD

watfly

PREMIER
Not a smear. I think tournaments should be closed and league should be open.

That option is not open to me.

So I am stuck with something I dont like. I would rather do league play and no tournaments.
Aren't you in NorCal, or did I get that wrong? How long is your drive going to be? Mine is between 5 and 5 1/2.
 

Grace T.

PREMIER
I’m seeing chatter San Diego about to fall back in the purple. Anyone got dets? If the rumors are true about new sports guidance being tiered in addition to schools it might be bad news for sports.
 

watfly

PREMIER
I’m seeing chatter San Diego about to fall back in the purple. Anyone got dets? If the rumors are true about new sports guidance being tiered in addition to schools it might be bad news for sports.
Apparently were at 7.8 for last week and need to be below 7. Not looking good for us from Gav's standpoint. Meanwhile hospitalizations continue to plunge and SD has never been in danger of overwhelmingly hospitals, but that metric was "so yesterday".
Screenshot_20201017-152157_Chrome.jpg
 

outside!

PREMIER
Interesting paper. Math is a little beyond me. Take away is that govt policies have some effect but the impact isn't very high. Voluntary social distancing seems to have more of an impact. Climate, density and population have the largest impact in geographical variations.

This is a research study done by economists. None of the authors are doctors or scientists with expertise in the study of infectious disease. This research study is not about the effect of the pandemic on the economy. It is basically a bunch of statistical analysis of COVID infection and death data. This study would have been much more valuable if the authors would have stepped outside the economics departments and included actual experts on infectious disease to check if the assumptions made were reasonable. Having said that, they did conclude something that I have been saying for a while " the most important predictors of which cities were hardest hit by the pandemic are exogenous characteristics such as population and density."
 

Mad Hatter

BRONZE
This is a research study done by economists. None of the authors are doctors or scientists with expertise in the study of infectious disease. This research study is not about the effect of the pandemic on the economy. It is basically a bunch of statistical analysis of COVID infection and death data. This study would have been much more valuable if the authors would have stepped outside the economics departments and included actual experts on infectious disease to check if the assumptions made were reasonable. Having said that, they did conclude something that I have been saying for a while " the most important predictors of which cities were hardest hit by the pandemic are exogenous characteristics such as population and density."
One doesn't need to be an doctor, etc to look at the data available and make a study based on that data.

Do we discount reports on lets say the what the military does because the person or group doing the research isn't a soldier?

Do we discount studies on the cost/benefit of various policies because the group doing the study isn't part of the group that created the policy?

Etc., etc.

I do agree with your last sentence however.
 

Grace T.

PREMIER
Also still no news about the Danish mask study. It was completed 2 months ago and is the only RCT on the subject but has yet to be taken up for publication. The lead investigator said it would be published "as soon as a journal is brave enough to accept the paper" but it also hasn't been released as a preliminary online. Given the immediate urgency, that's puzzling.

 

watfly

PREMIER
One doesn't need to be an doctor, etc to look at the data available and make a study based on that data.

Do we discount reports on lets say the what the military does because the person or group doing the research isn't a soldier?

Do we discount studies on the cost/benefit of various policies because the group doing the study isn't part of the group that created the policy?

Etc., etc.

I do agree with your last sentence however.
And that's part of the problem, we've relied on medical "professionals" and epidemiologists that aren't really on the front lines, but looking at this in the comfort and protection of their labs or academic office who are going to have their own bias prejudiced to safety without accounting for the odds of risk. We need stakeholders from all expertises to guide us. It's abundantly clear that there has been no cost benefit analysis and that we've failed to look at the non-covid impacts of the lockdown. Compounding the problem is the fact that politicians are cherry picking the science to follow. Prime example is in person education where the medical community overwhelming supports kids being back in school. Regardless, medical professionals have been consistently wrong and have been sending mixed messages. You know why? Like I said from the beginning, no one, not even the most educated and experienced, can predict the future.

When this all started the majority of us agreed with the goal of not overwhelming the healthcare system and that we needed to flatten the curve. Now the goal posts have been changed repeatedly right underneath our noses in the state of California and we've accepted it as good sheep should. As I said before, the burden of proof should be on the closures ("the exception') and not on reopening ("the rule").

We know very little about the virus, but what we do know is the distinct population that is vulnerable to serious health complications from the virus. The actual evidence is unequivocal in that regard. Let's go out of our way to protect the vulnerable and let everyone else go back to normal...and F off to any "new normal".
 

dad4

PREMIER
And that's part of the problem, we've relied on medical "professionals" and epidemiologists that aren't really on the front lines, but looking at this in the comfort and protection of their labs or academic office who are going to have their own bias prejudiced to safety without accounting for the odds of risk. We need stakeholders from all expertises to guide us. It's abundantly clear that there has been no cost benefit analysis and that we've failed to look at the non-covid impacts of the lockdown. Compounding the problem is the fact that politicians are cherry picking the science to follow. Prime example is in person education where the medical community overwhelming supports kids being back in school. Regardless, medical professionals have been consistently wrong and have been sending mixed messages. You know why? Like I said from the beginning, no one, not even the most educated and experienced, can predict the future.

When this all started the majority of us agreed with the goal of not overwhelming the healthcare system and that we needed to flatten the curve. Now the goal posts have been changed repeatedly right underneath our noses in the state of California and we've accepted it as good sheep should. As I said before, the burden of proof should be on the closures ("the exception') and not on reopening ("the rule").

We know very little about the virus, but what we do know is the distinct population that is vulnerable to serious health complications from the virus. The actual evidence is unequivocal in that regard. Let's go out of our way to protect the vulnerable and let everyone else go back to normal...and F off to any "new normal".
Some parts of current policy are easy to deal with. You can force me to wear an N95 mask every time I go shopping and it doesn’t really change my life much. Same goes for walks with friends instead of dinner parties. Not a big deal. Why do we need to go back to the moronic anti-mask protests we had in April?

Just wear the mask, eat some take out, and worry about the big things like school closures.
 

Grace T.

PREMIER
Some parts of current policy are easy to deal with. You can force me to wear an N95 mask every time I go shopping and it doesn’t really change my life much. Same goes for walks with friends instead of dinner parties. Not a big deal. Why do we need to go back to the moronic anti-mask protests we had in April?

Just wear the mask, eat some take out, and worry about the big things like school closures.
Part of the issue with these policies as well, as Watfly alludes to, is that it's made by a certain class of people in their ivory towers, who are shielded from many of the ramifications to their policies.

Dr. Fauci gets to go to baseball games and cheat on his mask usage, but it's a pretty big deal to say an autistic 10 year old, or the 2 year old and baby kicked off the airline for refusing to wear a mask or from someone struggling with anxiety or claustrophic issues. Not having a dinner party is a pretty big deal if it's someone's 21st birthday party, or if that dinner party is a wedding reception or a wake. My kid is getting a great online education (almost comparable to in person) but some of our friends in poorer neighborhoods are barely getting an education. So it's not true that it's "not a big deal". Something is a big deal to someone out there whether it be a religious service, protest, funeral, wedding, mental health vacation, seeing a friend you haven't seen in months.

I'm not saying the sacrifice for a particular policy isn't worth it. But that's why the experts should be doing cost/benefit analysis for every policy (and I don't think it is, but if the answer to a mask policy is zero, well then that policy should go away because it is harming some people, or those people should be exempt). At the very minimum we should have empathy to those less fortunate than us.
 

watfly

PREMIER
I don't have a problem (other then they annoy the crap out of me) wearing a mask indoors in public places, or outdoors where required, like the swap meet. I respectfully wear a mask on those occasions. It's perfectly lawful to eat in a restaurant, so I do eat out on occasion. Like I said before, if food servers are comfortable providing service, I'm comfortable supporting them. It's our family's token gesture to get our economy restarted. But 100% I would trade the other reopenings for kids being back in school. It is going reasonably smoothly, but not educationally effective, for my kids. Online education is a complete nightmare for other parents. The daily battle to logon and dealing with the multitude of different platforms that teachers are using is shortening the lives of many parents.

Where I draw the line is when our government tells us who we can host in the privacy of our own homes or workspaces. Sorry, but mind your own f'ing business.
 
I don't have a problem (other then they annoy the crap out of me) wearing a mask indoors in public places, or outdoors where required, like the swap meet. I respectfully wear a mask on those occasions. It's perfectly lawful to eat in a restaurant, so I do eat out on occasion. Like I said before, if food servers are comfortable providing service, I'm comfortable supporting them. It's our family's token gesture to get our economy restarted. But 100% I would trade the other reopenings for kids being back in school. It is going reasonably smoothly, but not educationally effective, for my kids. Online education is a complete nightmare for other parents. The daily battle to logon and dealing with the multitude of different platforms that teachers are using is shortening the lives of many parents.

Where I draw the line is when our government tells us who we can host in the privacy of our own homes or workspaces. Sorry, but mind your own f'ing business.
Do you maintain full contract tracing on your guests and make the data available to health authorities if needed? Do you accept full legal and financial responsibility for any covid spread from your party?
 

outside!

PREMIER
One doesn't need to be an doctor, etc to look at the data available and make a study based on that data.

Do we discount reports on lets say the what the military does because the person or group doing the research isn't a soldier?

Do we discount studies on the cost/benefit of various policies because the group doing the study isn't part of the group that created the policy?

Etc., etc.

I do agree with your last sentence however.
I did not say to discount the study, but I do think it is worth looking at who did the study. I am saying it would have been a good idea for one of the authors to walk across campus and talk to someone outside the economics department. The fact that they did not makes me wonder if the Harvard and Standford economists who did the study thought of including someone with expertise in public health or infectious diseases to at least review their work. If that thought did not occur to them, why not?

Masks work when used correctly. If they didn't, more front line health care workers would have been infected/died. The fact that mask mandates do not work as well is due to some people not wearing them and some not wearing them correctly.

It really comes down to what death rate is acceptable? We are on track for 1/4 million Americans dying from this disease. For some, that is acceptable, for others that is too many. What does the number need to be before it is not acceptable to more people? 1 million? 2 million? What level of death would make this pandemic real?
 

Grace T.

PREMIER
It really comes down to what death rate is acceptable? We are on track for 1/4 million Americans dying from this disease. For some, that is acceptable, for others that is too many. What does the number need to be before it is not acceptable to more people? 1 million? 2 million? What level of death would make this pandemic real?
This fundamentally misunderstands the way public policy works. The number is not how many deaths is acceptable. We know from Australia that if we lockdown hard, suspend all civil liberties, and stay that way notwithstanding whatever economic ruin may come until a vaccine that the deaths could be kept very low. The question for each individual policy which must be asked is for policy x, what is the cost y. Infectious disease health experts can answer how many lives can policy x save. They can't answer (well, actually other health experts could, for instance, answer questions about excess suicide, child education, ODs or delayed treatment) the cost. The big flaw in our public policy this time around, and why some of us are very angry about it, is that they didn't do that this time around....they assumed zero costs or chose to ignore some costs.

Added to that is the complication that some groups who are not being threatened by the virus very much or hardly at all are being asked to bear the costs for another vulnerable group of people.
 
Top