[RationalExpectations]

Originally Posted by equid0x

Then wear one. What's stopping you?

In economics, there are the concepts of "private goods" and "public goods." Private goods are the things most of us purchase - food, clothing, electricity, etc etc. "Public goods" are fundamentally different - sunsets, air, freedom of speech, etc - where your consuming a sunset, air, or freedom of speech does not impact my ability to consume the same items (leaving out corner cases).

With the coronavirus, we have an intellectually interesting scenario (at least, interesting to me).

Prior to the pandemic, your ability to walk through a retailer breathing air was not impacted by my walking in front of you. With the pandemic, that's no longer clear. I can walk in front of you shedding virus via breath & dry cough, thereby polluting the air through which you walk and thereby infecting you, but I bear no cost of having polluted the air in front of you with virus. We can protect one another by simply wearing a mass when walking down the aisles of a grocery store.

But you already know this. And you have zero interest in protecting anyone else based on principle.

Economics also has the concept of a "free rider" - someone who benefits from a form of activity without having paid for the benefit. If everyone else is in the store wearing a mask, and you do not wear one, you are a "free rider" consuming (relatively) near virus-free air because of the actions of others in front of you.

And you also already know this.

The rest of us wish you would wear a mask while inside a grocery store so as to help protect the rest of us -- that is, we wish you would reciprocate. And you refuse.

You don't find the above compelling to alter your behaviour. And the rest of us know that already.

[Frank Purlin]

Zero chance I go to Vegas if required to wear a mask.

NO.FREAKING.WAY.

[CD2017]

Originally Posted by Frank Purlin

Zero chance I go to Vegas if required to wear a mask.

NO.FREAKING.WAY.

Excellent.

[Mike from back east]

Thread closed for cleanup. It may reopen, TBD.

[Mike from back east]

Cleanup complete. Thread re-opened.

Please keep on topic of reopening LV.

General discussion of the virus can be pursued in virus threads found in the Current Events and P&OC forums. The Politics & Other Controversies forum allows for much more leeway in topics and argument or as we Army employees used to call our planning sessions ... "violent discussion."

[Teacher Terry]

When the casinos reopen the workers will be wearing masks. Casinos are working on a plan to reopen safely. My DIL has been told everyone initially will only be scheduled for 3 days a week.

[equid0x]

Originally Posted by RationalExpectations

Two thoughts:

1) Ordering a full-scale reopening is a bit like pushing on a string.
2) At least here in Las Vegas, there is widespread civil disobedience of Sisolak's "orders." People have not been sheltering in place; the roads are full of cars and shoppers have saturated Costco, Sam's Club, Walmart, Target, Von's, Smith's, Albertson's, Home Depot, etc. There is every reason to believe people would ignore a reopen order just as they have ignored the close order. After all, we are paying people not to work.



That's a fair point, especially for small businesses. Larger businesses and governmental entities typically are not that nimble. Much of each state's framework for the shutdown is based on the Federal Government's purse, and that might not be open in the future.

Nevertheless, if people had *really* taken the shutdown seriously, the virus would have burned itself out by now. That we are still in the throws of a pandemic is proof positive that people ignored the shutdown.

If the money flow stops they will go back to work. For that matter, anyone who gets recalled from layoff and refuses to go back to work will lose their unemployment benefits.

I agree that there is a widespread disobedience of the orders. We still haven't hit 300 deaths. We're at roughly half 2017 flu season deaths. Doesn't this in itself demonstrate that this thing is not as big of a deal as has been portrayed by the media?

I disagree that the virus would have burned out. The goal of the shutdowns was never to eradicate the virus nor is that likely even possible.

[equid0x]

Originally Posted by RationalExpectations

In economics, there are the concepts of "private goods" and "public goods." Private goods are the things most of us purchase - food, clothing, electricity, etc etc. "Public goods" are fundamentally different - sunsets, air, freedom of speech, etc - where your consuming a sunset, air, or freedom of speech does not impact my ability to consume the same items (leaving out corner cases).

With the coronavirus, we have an intellectually interesting scenario (at least, interesting to me).

Prior to the pandemic, your ability to walk through a retailer breathing air was not impacted by my walking in front of you. With the pandemic, that's no longer clear. I can walk in front of you shedding virus via breath & dry cough, thereby polluting the air through which you walk and thereby infecting you, but I bear no cost of having polluted the air in front of you with virus. We can protect one another by simply wearing a mass when walking down the aisles of a grocery store.

But you already know this. And you have zero interest in protecting anyone else based on principle.

Economics also has the concept of a "free rider" - someone who benefits from a form of activity without having paid for the benefit. If everyone else is in the store wearing a mask, and you do not wear one, you are a "free rider" consuming (relatively) near virus-free air because of the actions of others in front of you.

And you also already know this.

The rest of us wish you would wear a mask while inside a grocery store so as to help protect the rest of us -- that is, we wish you would reciprocate. And you refuse.

You don't find the above compelling to alter your behaviour. And the rest of us know that already.

Well, that's an interesting viewpoint. I don't really agree that there was no risk breathing the air in front of you at the store prior to the pandemic. People have been walking around in public places while sick pretty much forever. There have been asymptomatic carriers of viruses forever. The data we have just doesn't show this thing to be high enough a risk to warrant compulsory mask wearing. Not do I feel that it is the place of a private establishment or the government to make medical decisions on my behalf.

Furthermore, there is an absence of scientific data showing that the masks actually work for prophylaxis of viruses. People continue to get sick regardless of whether they're wearing the mask and even the CDC has stated that masks won't prevent you from getting the virus. The only way to guarantee yourself sterile air is going to be to bring it in a tank with you. There is, however, evidence that wearing a mask when actually sick is effective in preventing infection of others.

The way I look at it, the possibility of contracting an illness from going out in public has always been there. I, personally, won't stop living my life under threat of an invisible boogeyman. If one believes that masks that don't filter below .3 microns magically stop a virus that measures .12 microns then more power to them and they are certainly welcome to wear a mask if it makes them feel better.

[OmegaSupreme]

Originally Posted by equid0x

..If one believes that masks that don't filter below .3 microns magically stop a virus that measures .12 microns then more power to them and they are certainly welcome to wear a mask if it makes them feel better.

Droplets are usually bigger than that and the masks catch them, even plain surgical masks.. masks have been proven effective in at least 2 decent studies that I won't repost again and again, and there is also evidence were countries adopted masks early, their cases are much lower and are beating the virus(Austria, Czech republic).

There could be a reason why meat packing plants (not just in the US) and cruise ships spread the virus really effectively, perhaps being close together, poor hygiene and recirculated AC are to blame, that being the case, casinos would be no different.

I think something needs to drastically change inside casinos, more cleaning and hand sanitizer etc, but also perhaps their AC systems. Maybe they are fine already, but I'm sure they could be improved to catch virus particles, that alone should instill some confidence in the public.

No one will visit casinos if there is no confidence in them being a safe place, free of the virus. Except maybe a handful of redneck hillbillies that either don't care or don't believe in science.

[RationalExpectations]

Originally Posted by equid0x

If the money flow stops they will go back to work.

I agree completely. Some will be paralyzed in fear, unable to get out of bed, but that will be a tiny minority. Most will go back to work.

Originally Posted by equid0x

For that matter, anyone who gets recalled from layoff and refuses to go back to work will lose their unemployment benefits.

As well they should.

Originally Posted by equid0x

I agree that there is a widespread disobedience of the orders. We still haven't hit 300 deaths. We're at roughly half 2017 flu season deaths. Doesn't this in itself demonstrate that this thing is not as big of a deal as has been portrayed by the media?

This is one form of the probability/risk/reward argument. Personally, I think this argument doesn't succeed in the long run for the following reasons.

1) It begs the question, "OK, how severe does the pandemic need to be in order to justify governmental action?"

2) It is unneeded given your principle argument is one of principles: The government does not have the power to order XXXX (shutdowns, masks, shelter-in-place, taking people's temperature, testing people for antibodies, testing people for active infection, etc etc). If the government does not have the power, it does not have the power, and the question of probability/risk/reward is irrelevant. Of course, what if The States pass a constitutional amendment granting such power to the Federal Government? Such a hypothetical probably doesn't belong here in this thread, and at any rate, I'm no constitutional scholar.

Originally Posted by equid0x

I disagree that the virus would have burned out. The goal of the shutdowns was never to eradicate the virus nor is that likely even possible.

Fair point. It was never the goal. In my dreams, a complete shutdown where via magic wand every door was locked so everyone was in a forced true lockdown/quarantine, would have achieved the non-objective of the virus burning out. Just my dreams, of course.