Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Imagine it was tough for the Texas Governor to publicly express regret for reopening too fast, when he reordered bars closed again and limited capacity in restaurants.
Same deal in Florida. Counties are closing beaches once again, just in time for the 3 day holiday weekend.
Imagine the surge of cases that's going to come out of the BLM protests as well. Oh well. Everyone that went out to bars or to protest or get their tan on....will have to live with themselves if they bring it home to the family and grandma's chair is empty at Christmas dinner.
I was kind of surprised to see bars had even opened in MI yet. I remember the angry protestors with their guns at the state Capitol screaming about their Dem governor taking away their rights.
Bars certainly do seem to be the source of several superspreader events around the country.
That may be the case. It would make sense. But frankly, I'm fed up with the way this whole thing is covered. There are just too many narratives they want to spin to trust the reporting. Suddenly all the news stories are about the 'bars.' At exactly the time we would expect to see spikes from the protests, riots, and large block parties many had afterward. I wouldn't put it past them to tell the contact tracer they went to a bar when they were really at a protest. Or for someone to tell the contact tracers they were at a protest, when they were really at a Trump rally. And many cities aren't even having the contact tracers ask about protests. It's all just too polarized to have the expectation of good faith reporting...or good faith anything.
...
Well....based upon what is known about the way the virus spreads, it would make sense that bars opening would produce more infections than protest. Protesters mostly wore masks and they were outdoors being exposed to ultraviolet light in warm temperatures. Contrast that with bars, which are enclosed, have loud music that forces people to talk loudly to be heard (talking loudly projects out more particles), getting closer to be heard, taking off their mask (people mostly don't wear them to bars) to eat or drink, not social distancing, ect, etc.
I would say bars are much more of super spreaders than are protest outdoors where people are wearing mask in the UV light.
That may be the case. It would make sense. But frankly, I'm fed up with the way this whole thing is covered. There are just too many narratives they want to spin to trust the reporting. Suddenly all the news stories are about the 'bars.' At exactly the time we would expect to see spikes from the protests, riots, and large block parties many had afterward. I wouldn't put it past them to tell the contact tracer they went to a bar when they were really at a protest. Or for someone to tell the contact tracers they were at a protest, when they were really at a Trump rally. And many cities aren't even having the contact tracers ask about protests. It's all just too polarized to have the expectation of good faith reporting...or good faith anything.
Cell phone tracing data is used as a source. It’s not completely spin.
No matter what they try to restrict, we have all witnessed the weeks and weeks of protestors and rioters out there, NOT socially distancing, NOT wearing masks, etc..
The protestors and rioters have set a precedent and so they wont ever be able to restrict any particular group without them showing they are hypocrites, and also it is illegal to discriminate.
that may be the ONLY good thing out of the protests. they set that precedent.
I really don't believe you and even it that is true, it is very, very rare. Not something to make national policy over. Wake up.
Certainly lesser chance the younger you are.. but certainly not rare. My town has lost a paramedic who wasn't old and certainly in good condition. We also currently have a firefighter in the hospital whose condition is declining.
The age boundary used in statistics with increased mortality is 44. 44 isn't that "old". Certainly not too old to be at a bar or other public area of socialization.
It also ignores transmission to others around them. From the article 80 people were transmitted to and an additional 5 were secondary transmissions.
He can know that from the available data and doing even rudimentary calculation.
99.8% of the people who get covid will survive. At this point, even the CDC antibody studies are showing an IFR of 0.2%. Essentially, this is a really contagious version of the flu, with a roughly equivalent IFR.
He said "nobody will die". It is impossible for that to be knowable. In fact, your stats speak to that...
Once you account for 2nd, 3rd.. etc transmissions, you certainly cannot know that nobody will die. For example, the 1st positive case in the US didn't die. However, that first case could have been the direct result of 100s of other deaths due to subsequent transmissions.
Super-spreaders exist, and can pass along the disease to multiple victims. That is believed to be what set off the explosion of cases in New York. It only takes one.
We have seen this over and over, it spreads so rapidly and many owners are being negligent. I didn’t realize they had opened bars. Those protesters back in April must feel very foolish.
Why. Should bars, social gatherings, churches etc be closed forever or until there is a vacinne?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.