Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Boston, Great Barrington, Washington: homes, university, live)

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by massnative71

OK then tell us what "evidence" would have us do.

In other words you want someone to prove a negative to you. This depends on what particular problem you are trying to address. It also comes with the (obvious) given that evidence-based solutions simply do not exist for all problems, nor can all risk be avoided. Some risk needs to be accepted. In this case mankind has no capability to control viruses. The initial plan was to try and slow the spread. Okay, we've done that in a number if different ways. It appears we may have had some success but we really don't know what the natural course of the virus would have been. What does not make sense is to simply arbitrarily impose economically disastrous restrictions without having any idea of how it will impact, or more likely, not impact the virus.

[western mass and love it]

Originally Posted by massnative71

It's childish because any half informed person realizes that these leaders are caught between a rock and a hard place and in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type situation. Most of them are trying to walk the fine line between heeding the experts' advice and not destroying livelihoods and the economy. Any decision made, is going to hurt some. The key is hurting the least amount feasible, and deal with the push back and uproar. Anybody with the ludicrous idea that officials "enjoy" closing businesses, has clearly never been in any kind of position of leadership themselves or ever been faced with making any difficult and unpopular decisions.

Did I ever say they enjoyed it? They may not enjoy it, but it doesn’t stop them from making these terrible restrictions. My wife lost a lot of income from March through June. She continued to pay her employees because it’s the right thing to do. I picked up her loss of income by working my day job and picked up a couple clients looking to sell their homes(I am a realtor on the side). But at this point she will not be adhering to the new restrictions. It will be business as usual for her and her employees. So far her clientele has been very receptive to the idea.


The saying Don’t tread on me has never been more poignant than now.

[bostongymjunkie]

I will add to my previous post that risk-based alternatives have been proposed by many learned scholars of public health. Some include sheltering-in-place the most at risk and deploying state resources to address their needs, while letting those who need and desire to keep the world running, continue to do so with standard protocols we know probably have some effect, such as social distancing, handwashing, and masks where appropriate.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

In other words you want someone to prove a negative to you. This depends on what particular problem you are trying to address. It also comes with the (obvious) given that evidence-based solutions simply do not exist for all problems, nor can all risk be avoided. Some risk needs to be accepted. In this case mankind has no capability to control viruses. The initial plan was to try and slow the spread. Okay, we've done that in a number if different ways. It appears we may have had some success but we really don't know what the natural course of the virus would have been. What does not make sense is to simply arbitrarily impose economically disastrous restrictions without having any idea of how it will impact, or more likely, not impact the virus.

That's not accurate at all, as based on 9+ months of data now we have have clear examples of what "to do" and what "not to do". Compare Vermont and North Dakota, two rural states that should have been able to maintain very low caseloads compared to more urban states that got hit with the virus first. Both states have among the lowest unemployment numbers, yet one (the state that let the "virus run its course" like you seem to be suggesting) has a cumulative infection rate a dozen times the other.

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

I will add to my previous post that risk-based alternatives have been proposed by many learned scholars of public health. Some include sheltering-in-place the most at risk and deploying state resources to address their needs, while letting those who need and desire to keep the world running, continue to do so with standard protocols we know probably have some effect, such as social distancing, handwashing, and masks where appropriate.

Do we have any examples of a place where this has worked?

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by western mass and love it

Did I ever say they enjoyed it? They may not enjoy it, but it doesn’t stop them from making these terrible restrictions. My wife lost a lot of income from March through June. She continued to pay her employees because it’s the right thing to do. I picked up her loss of income by working my day job and picked up a couple clients looking to sell their homes(I am a realtor on the side). But at this point she will not be adhering to the new restrictions. It will be business as usual for her and her employees. So far her clientele has been very receptive to the idea.


The saying Don’t tread on me has never been more poignant than now.

Did your wife not apply for the loans back then? I say that because I know several small business owners who admit to making more money closed down this past spring (between the "free money" and still selling gift certificates), than during a normal equal time span. Either way, the government should be providing support to any businesses affected by a forced shut down (as opposed to dishing out billions to foreign countries and stimulus payments to people who suffered absolutely zero income loss). And whether the governor's policy is effective or not, you need to remember that it's not all about you and your wife if her being open is at cost to public health and the economy at large (again not saying that's necessarily the case).

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by massnative71

That's not accurate at all, as based on 9+ months of data now we have have clear examples of what "to do" and what "not to do". Compare Vermont and North Dakota, two rural states that should have been able to maintain very low caseloads compared to more urban states that got hit with the virus first. Both states have among the lowest unemployment numbers, yet one (the state that let the "virus run its course" like you seem to be suggesting) has a cumulative infection rate a dozen times the other.

Do we have any examples of a place where this has worked?

I never suggested "letting the virus run its course." I suggested that there is no evidence to date that the additional restrictions being proposed would impact the virus spread one iota. What seems to be clear is that those who are engaging in gatherings in homes, appears to be leading to additional spread. It is also of note that countries and states that have imposed the most restrictions have also been amongst those who have fared the worst. Several countries with minimal restrictions have fared quite well including Taiwan, Japan, and Korea. I would argue that the over health of the populace in any given area probably affects the overall impact the virus has had. How many lives have been lost to depression/suicide, increased addiction, lack of access to medical care et al?

What seems to have effect across the board are increased hospital capacity, flexibility of policies, solid information networks, testing, targeted quarantines. I don't believe there are examples of a risk-based approach being deployed, but true leadership may look to elements of that approach targeted within specific contexts. I don't think of true leadership as playing the same card over and over, hoping it will work, while driving your economy into the ground and eliminating paths to wellness for people.


By the way what data do we have about what to do and not do to? Lockdown data across the world is so inconsistent it's almost useless.

[msRB311]

This article is about a month old but it was an interesting read:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/h...atherings.html

I looked through the comments and saw someone said this, 'Dining in restaurants is permitted but only with members of your same household.' How the heck can a restaurant tell who is living in the same household? Or is it just an honor code thing? You only should go out to eat with people in your household? This is stupid. Just close the restaurants or keep them open. Dont tell people who they can or can't go in with.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by msRB311

This article is about a month old but it was an interesting read:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/h...atherings.html

I looked through the comments and saw someone said this, 'Dining in restaurants is permitted but only with members of your same household.' How the heck can a restaurant tell who is living in the same household? Or is it just an honor code thing? You only should go out to eat with people in your household? This is stupid. Just close the restaurants or keep them open. Dont tell people who they can or can't go in with.

More stupidity. There does seem to be a correlation between eateries and infection, however it amounts to ~1.4% of infections, and is based primarily on self-reporting data. I think it's obvious that if you are sitting in a space with others you will increase your risk. The question is, does this data warrant closing eateries? I don't think so. That said, if you're in a higher risk group you do so at your own risk. And if you gather at home with people who take this risk, you also assume the risk.

[msRB311]

I think a good point was made when someone also said not all household gatherings are the same. And that’s simply true. It’s ignorant to think you’re incapable of getting corona or spreading it but some people simply will not get it. Some people assume everyone has corona and that’s one way to live life but not for everyone. We had a national grid guy come to our house a few weeks ago and my husband went outside to talk to him. The guy was like I’m glad you’re normal. The last house I went to the lady was wearing a hazmat suit and stuck a note on a stick out the window to me.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by msRB311

I think a good point was made when someone also said not all household gatherings are the same. And that’s simply true. It’s ignorant to think you’re incapable of getting corona or spreading it but some people simply will not get it. Some people assume everyone has corona and that’s one way to live life but not for everyone. We had a national grid guy come to our house a few weeks ago and my husband went outside to talk to him. The guy was like I’m glad you’re normal. The last house I went to the lady was wearing a hazmat suit and stuck a note on a stick out the window to me.

Hey, if that is what she thinks she needs to do, I say go for it. Anyone with any immune-compromising underlying issue or other known higher risk group should steer clear of any possible sources, and that could be her situation. But that's not the majority.