posted by jmog

I think you are painting a Rosie picture of sports when really only the NBA did well with low/zero cases. The NFL and MLB has had serious changes to the schedule and moving things around. 

I'm talking actual cases/spread with team activities.  The NBA had a bubble.  The NFL has moved several games because of only a handful of cases, almost all of which originated outside team activities.

So, yes, absolutely I think sports makes a strong case that following protocols works.  Now how much of that is because of daily testing is a different argument.  But we have seen many cases among sporting teams, and because of distancing and masks the spreads have been contained.

Early on, it did seem like the lockdowns weren't having much effect.  But it clearly now looks like they did, and bars/restaurants have pretty clearly been a major source of spread.

The thing with lockdowns now vs back in March was there were hardly any known cases. It was breaking news when a county had its first case. Now we’re well over 6K a day. So I think it was easy to lock down then and prevent what was hardly occurring. 

People were also more motivated to lock down then than they are now. 

Lockdowns do nothing, but delay the inevitable.  Italy and most of Europe went on hard China like lockdowns, and here we are in the same position as the US.  I hate using this word, but anyone who is supportive of a lockdown at this point normally falls into the "privileged" category, where they can still get a paycheck while working from home.   Either that or they are introverted home bodies, that don't give a fuck either way. 

A lot of people in the US don't realize how restrictive these lockdowns really are/were.  All of these "lockdown" measures in the US were very mild in comparison. If the US tried to the same shit, I would hope our gun owners would fight it.  

Edit: I would also like to add that a mask mandate is not going to do what you all think it’s going to do.

I'm in a 14 day quarantine.  I have to stay indoors b/c that is what my county says.  Had close proximity contact with an asymptomatic person.  Wearing our masks, bus seat between us, but we were within that magical "6 feet."  I coach, and I have to miss my first game.  This is all so stupid. 

posted by gut

I'm talking actual cases/spread with team activities.  The NBA had a bubble.  The NFL has moved several games because of only a handful of cases, almost all of which originated outside team activities.

So, yes, absolutely I think sports makes a strong case that following protocols works.  Now how much of that is because of daily testing is a different argument.  But we have seen many cases among sporting teams, and because of distancing and masks the spreads have been contained.

Early on, it did seem like the lockdowns weren't having much effect.  But it clearly now looks like they did, and bars/restaurants have pretty clearly been a major source of spread.

1. So why lock down if as soon as you open up it is going to spread again anyway? The lockdown kills the economy yet the same number of people will get infected either way. 

2. Lockdowns just delay the inevitable which is exactly what all the evidence is showing, you even admitted it yourself even if accidentally.  You said that the lockdowns “worked” until we opened back up bars and restaurants. Unless the plan is to close everything forever then lockdowns in fact do not work as people either get infected now or in a few months when we open up.

posted by ernest_t_bass

I'm in a 14 day quarantine.  I have to stay indoors b/c that is what my county says.  Had close proximity contact with an asymptomatic person.  Wearing our masks, bus seat between us, but we were within that magical "6 feet."  I coach, and I have to miss my first game.  This is all so stupid. 

Yep...idiotic.

Anything within 6 ft regardless of masks, dividers whatever....14 days

It feels like he’s going to do something, whether or not a lockdown who knows. He’s been doing these useless pressers a couple times a week at 2pm. So to cancel yesterday and reschedule for 5:30pm today has a bad feeling to it. 

posted by jmog

1. So why lock down if as soon as you open up it is going to spread again anyway? The lockdown kills the economy yet the same number of people will get infected either way. 

2. Lockdowns just delay the inevitable which is exactly what all the evidence is showing, you even admitted it yourself even if accidentally.  You said that the lockdowns “worked” until we opened back up bars and restaurants. Unless the plan is to close everything forever then lockdowns in fact do not work as people either get infected now or in a few months when we open up.

Is it delaying the inevitable or delaying a lesser spread due to there being vaccines coming available?

posted by queencitybuckeye

Is it delaying the inevitable or delaying a lesser spread due there being vaccines coming available?

posted by like_that
If this is the case, then they should at least admit it.  I am still old enough to remember "2 weeks to flatten the curve."

They also should not have told us not to wear masks due to reasons that weren't true.

posted by queencitybuckeye

They also should not have told us not to wear masks due to reasons that weren't true.

I am old enough to remember this as well, but I don't remember it.  Can you refresh my memory?  

Regardless, near 100% mask compliance is not going to be the fix that some people believe it would be.  Especially when those same people put on masks and then go into crowds. 

posted by like_that

I am old enough to remember this as well, but I don't remember it.  Can you refresh my memory?  

Regardless, near 100% mask compliance is not going to be the fix that some people believe it would be.  Especially when those same people put on masks and then go into crowds. 

Early on, the CDC's expressed opinion was that masks weren't helpful. A big part of the reason was a fear of a run on masks creating a shortage in hospitals. IOW, they told a lie mostly with good intentions, but dullards hang on to that lie like it's an absolute truth. Most of them know better, but use it to support their anti-mask position.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Early on, the CDC's expressed opinion was that masks weren't helpful. A big part of the reason was a fear of a run on masks creating a shortage in hospitals. IOW, they told a lie mostly with good intentions, but dullards hang on to that lie like it's an absolute truth. Most of them know better, but use it to support their anti-mask position.

So whether it was masks don’t work or flatten the curve for “just 2 weeks” the CDC and government has been lying to us from the beginning?

Even more reason to say fuck anymore lockdowns. 

posted by jmog

So whether it was masks don’t work or flatten the curve for “just 2 weeks” the CDC and government has been lying to us from the beginning?

Even more reason to say fuck anymore lockdowns. 

Perhaps, but when it comes to masks, it's certainly no reason to hang onto the lie instead of the truth.

Plenty of inaccurate information to go around, the government is only one player. The public likes to pick and choose their facts and definitions as well.

Here is what is going on in my opinion:

1.  Masks dont work as well as people think.  

2.  Kids are basically super spreading this around at school even though they are wearing masks.  KIDS DONT GET SICK FROM THIS.

3.  THey are bringing it home and giving it to parents and adults.  that is the surge in cases.

posted by Spock

Here is what is going on in my opinion:

1.  Masks dont work as well as people think.  

Seems like a lot of people believe that they don't work if not 100% effective. I know the number is far less than 100 and more than zero. The latter is why I choose to wear one. Even a few points make it worth the inconvenience IMO.

posted by jmog

1. So why lock down if as soon as you open up it is going to spread again anyway? The lockdown kills the economy yet the same number of people will get infected either way.

2. Lockdowns just delay the inevitable which is exactly what all the evidence is showing, you even admitted it yourself even if accidentally.  You said that the lockdowns “worked” until we opened back up bars and restaurants. Unless the plan is to close everything forever then lockdowns in fact do not work as people either get infected now or in a few months when we open up.

LMAO.  You're a big fan of the intellectually dishonest argument.  It's not an "accidental admission" lockdowns don't work when you're talking about not being locked down.  Not to mention, there's a huge difference in transmission rates when wearing masks, distancing and being outdoors vs. doing none of those thing.

Lockdowns DO WORK to slow the spread, which is kind of relevant when hospitals are becoming overburdened.  And I'm not recommending it, but a severe and long enough lockdown would eventually knock it down to manageable levels where you could eventually win.  Quarantines/isolation in hospitals work, that's why they do it, which based on your line of reasoning here you don't seem to believe.

Why lock down?  You might have heard about the a vaccine?  And, again, there's other ways to help mitigate in addition to lockdowns.  Also, if you're committed to doing it right and get the virus down to levels where testing and contact tracing can isolate clusters, again it works. 

The problem is not that lockdowns don't work, the problem has been commitment, compliance (and enforcement).  You're smart enough to know this - don't be the guy that ignores facts and common sense to win an internet argument.

posted by like_that

Lockdowns do nothing, but delay the inevitable.

Edit: I would also like to add that a mask mandate is not going to do what you all think it’s going to do.

Lockdowns buy time, which absolutely has value to help manage your healthcare system, and also with a vaccine around the corner.

And the fact that there isn't a silver bullet doesn't mean you give up and do nothing.  Multiple protocols, together, make a big difference.  We've seen plenty of evidence of this - South Korea and New Zealand, while perhaps lucky never to have gotten overwhelmed, nevertheless continue to be successful because their case rates are low enough to manage with testing and tracing.  Even Australia had to institute a severe lockdown when things started surging, but if you were to compare to the US and Europe they re-locked much earlier when cases started to rise.

Let's call it for what it is: lockdowns work, masks work, distancing works but people are selfish assholes.

posted by friendfromlowry

It feels like he’s going to do something, whether or not a lockdown who knows. He’s been doing these useless pressers a couple times a week at 2pm. So to cancel yesterday and reschedule for 5:30pm today has a bad feeling to it. 

I’d say it’s about a 10% chance he does a couple very targeted things (no elective surgeries again, schools remote, tightens it down on bars more), and a 90% chance it’s another scolding from a disappointed grandpa with nothing behind it.

posted by ts1227

I’d say it’s about a 10% chance he does a couple very targeted things (no elective surgeries again, schools remote, tightens it down on bars more), and a 90% chance it’s another scolding from a disappointed grandpa with nothing behind it.

The interesting thing is, while he's Republican, he has been arguably as aggressive and unapologetic as any governor in the US.  And it seems like he's simply not going to enforce severe mandates.  At this point, with what we know about mortality and treatments, the only metric that seems relevant is the hospital capacity.

So what exactly is the POTUS, current or future, supposed to do when governors have always had the power to do their own things and, obviously, weighed the options and made their choices?

Of course a large part of that argument has been political.  I don't know if the media can downplay or walkback the reality that POTUS has always been about the supply chain and the governors are the ones who administer shutdowns and restrictions.

posted by gut

Lockdowns buy time, which absolutely has value to help manage your healthcare system, and also with a vaccine around the corner.

And the fact that there isn't a silver bullet doesn't mean you give up and do nothing.  Multiple protocols, together, make a big difference.  We've seen plenty of evidence of this - South Korea and New Zealand, while perhaps lucky never to have gotten overwhelmed, nevertheless continue to be successful because their case rates are low enough to manage with testing and tracing.  Even Australia had to institute a severe lockdown when things started surging, but if you were to compare to the US and Europe they re-locked much earlier when cases started to rise.

Let's call it for what it is: lockdowns work, masks work, distancing works but people are selfish assholes.

Are you implying people are selfish assholes if they don't support lockdowns?  I highly disagree.  If you're not wearing a mask or social distancing just to be an asshole, I can see that argument.  For lockdowns, I could see the argument to lessen the burden for hospitals for the FIRST lockdown, but after 9 months it's inexcusable.  Again, Europe was just a notch below China's lockdown and they are back to having overburdened hospitals.  What were they buying time for between May and September?  Just enough for healthcare professionals to go on vacation and be overburdened in the fall, while they ruin their economy? Europe and the US got from the same point A to the same point B.  The only difference is the route they took to get to point B.  Sure, if you want to go full communist china lockdown, they definitely work really well.  Any lockdown approaches outside of the China model are half assed and only delay the inevitable.  As for masks, they help, but not as helpful as some would like to think.  We have a pretty large sample size of European countries with national mask mandates and look where they are now.  I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but the mass majority of Italians complied with the mask laws.

Let's call it for what it is: people who support lockdowns live in a privileged position to support them and don't understand the true struggle for people that cannot afford another real lockdown.  It's really that simple. I.e.  I don't see many small business owners supporting any lockdowns. 

1. Man, and I was hearing for months about how this whole thing would go away after the election and, yet, the numbers have gotten way higher than they were beforehand. WHAT GIVES?!?!?

2. I don't know what locations in the states you've gone for work you've visited, Jmog, but living in rural Ohio, I've definitely noticed that mask compliance isn't exactly all that. Overall, a decent amount of people wear them, but it's not some "most everyone" or even "a definite majority" kind of number. To me, it generally feels like peoples' interest in the whole thing has just gradually dwindled in one of those "something's been around long enough that it's not special anymore, and therefore it's, if not forgotten, been surpassed by other things" sort of ways.

posted by Heretic

1. Man, and I was hearing for months about how this whole thing would go away after the election and, yet, the numbers have gotten way higher than they were beforehand. WHAT GIVES?!?!?

2. I don't know what locations in the states you've gone for work you've visited, Jmog, but living in rural Ohio, I've definitely noticed that mask compliance isn't exactly all that. Overall, a decent amount of people wear them, but it's not some "most everyone" or even "a definite majority" kind of number. To me, it generally feels like peoples' interest in the whole thing has just gradually dwindled in one of those "something's been around long enough that it's not special anymore, and therefore it's, if not forgotten, been surpassed by other things" sort of ways.

I can't blame those people for having this attitude considering what they were told back in March.  

Damn Biden and the Dems dont know what they are doing.  Time for impeachment.

posted by like_that

Are you implying people are selfish assholes if they don't support lockdowns?  I highly disagree.  If you're not wearing a mask or social distancing just to be an asshole, I can see that argument.  For lockdowns, I could see the argument to lessen the burden for hospitals for the FIRST lockdown, but after 9 months it's inexcusable.  Again, Europe was just a notch below China's lockdown and they are back to having overburdened hospitals.  What were they buying time for between May and September?  Just enough for healthcare professionals to go on vacation and be overburdened in the fall, while they ruin their economy? Europe and the US got from the same point A to the same point B.  The only difference is the route they took to get to point B.  Sure, if you want to go full communist china lockdown, they definitely work really well.  Any lockdown approaches outside of the China model are half assed and only delay the inevitable.  As for masks, they help, but not as helpful as some would like to think.  We have a pretty large sample size of European countries with national mask mandates and look where they are now.  I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but the mass majority of Italians complied with the mask laws.

Let's call it for what it is: people who support lockdowns live in a privileged position to support them and don't understand the true struggle for people that cannot afford another real lockdown.  It's really that simple. I.e.  I don't see many small business owners supporting any lockdowns.

Yes, all these people failing to distance and wear masks are indeed selfish assholes.  It's not some grand inconvenience, and it DOES make a big difference in the spread.  Probably most people who aren't at risk truly don't care and have mostly resumed their normal social activities.  And they're selfish assholes because they're still going to spread it and, occasionally, even take-up a hospital bed themselves.  I've said from the beginning selfish behavior would obviously make this much worse than it had to be.

I'm not supporting lockdowns as I've always talked about the hardships.  But let's not also pretend that those hardships haven't always been there, either.  That's a different argument - lockdowns DO work, it's not revolutionary "quarantines" have long been a frontline & firstline response to disease outbreaks. 

Masks also work, quite well.  But not if you ignore all the other protocols - you still have to distance and limit exposures, especially indoors.  That was also part of the "masks don't work" reasoning from officials early in the pandemic - people wouldn't wear them properly, or they'd get a false sense of security.