Coronavirus!

[AHF]

As we are talking about testing availability on the other thread on the NBA re-opening, it is worth noting that the Trump Administration has made the decision to shut down at least 13 testing sites (including in states dealing with massive spikes like Texas).  Testing demand is over testing capacity in a number of states even with these sites still running.  We can't lose focus on this.  Testing is hugely important.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/24/trump-after-slow-the-testing-down-remark-will-end-federal-funding-for-testing-sites/#c2b7da35fac2

Quote

[T]he White House is planning to end federal funding for 13 coronavirus testing sites across five states on June 30.

The sites, down from 41 originally put in place to speed up testing at the local level, include seven in hard-hit Texas, where cases are currently surging, as well as two in Illinois and New Jersey and one in Colorado and Pennsylvania each.

Testing is already a serious issue in Texas, as people have had to wait in long lines for over two hours to receive tests.

 

[bleachkit]

14 hours ago, lethalweapon3 said:

The 'truthiness' of the scheme is what the schemers are banking on: that businesses will capitulate and play along with every "but *I'm( protected by Federal law!", in effect exploiting the legal protections for those with legitimate disabilities. 

In fact, the 'truth' is the businesses are protected themselves with what's known in ADA law as 'reasonable accommodation'. As long as your enterprise makes a reasonable attempt to accommodate, say, the customer with the service dog or breathing apparatus, you're operating within the letter and spirit of the law, regardless as to whether the customer's needs can be fully met. The folks cobbling this scheme together, even if legitimately disabled, if they were caught using DOJ logos and snatched up, the Feds will make "reasonable accommodations" in the pen for both them and Fido The Trusty Service Dog.

ADA, thankfully, doesn't need an amendment to deal with the wrath of The Rona, or any pandemic or public health emergency that comes down the pike. Under "General Requirements", here is the "Direct Threat" rule regarding the extent of responsibility for agencies and businesses (I believe minimum 15+ employees? I forget the applicability.) providing public accommodations. It offers businesses reasonable latitude to determine how best to accommodate persons with disabilities, if at all, to the extent needed for the business to protect the health and safety of others (including fellow employees and other patrons).

~lw3

 

 

Like most things, if businesses and their patrons are honest and acting in good faith, there shouldn't be any problem. But you will inevitably have bad apples on both sides occasionally.

[thecampster]

1 hour ago, High5 said:

So because there are people who use masks improperly you shouldn't wear one? Because they don't make you completely immune you shouldn't wear one? Because people are going to die anyway you shouldn't wear one? I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

Notice throughout this thread I've pointed out how people with opposing views feel. Its because I take the time to understand it from their point of view.  Its why I understand the point their trying to make when they make it.

Theater of Security means its all a show, an act made to make us feel as though something good has been done.  If a Surgical mask is only 60-80% effective, all you've done is engage in risk reduction, not mitigation. Your point, most everyone's point here is I should always wear a mask when I leave my house and there is any chance of interacting with another human being. My answer is simple, in places I'm not required to, I just really don't want to. Part of my don't want to is because if 40% of potential virus penetrates my mask (low end of surgical) or 70% of a bandanna/cloth mask, I've lowered my exposure by 30-60%. Only takes 1 germ to infect and every cough of an infected person has thousands of virus cells. I'm not stopping anything. 40% of 3 thousand is still 1200. Although I agree there is value, I don't see that value being enough to feel forced to mask up to avoid becoming a social pariah. 

Now admit it, you probably didn't know the reduction rates of masks before I told you and probably didn't know that cloth masks are less than 50% effective. But the very important people told you that if we all just masked up this would go away and you bought it.  There is really only 1 way to make this go away. Everyone stocks up on food/toilet paper, supplies enough to last 2 months. Everyone stays indoors and there are no essential services. We 100% distance ourselves from everyone and this thing will die out. All you are doing with masks is extending shutdowns and making people feel its okay to hug/shake hands/grab a bag of food at the McDonalds if you just wear a mask. Only one doctor I know of on the board and you all pretty much call him crazy at every turn.

 

[AHF]

I will also say that the notion that it "only takes 1 germ to infect" is a misnomer.  To transmit Covid-19, the most current science tells us it takes transmitting a threshold amount of the virus.  Mitigating a % of exposure can materially influence the chance of transmission to yourself and others.  1 germ is not enough.  This is why factors that impact the number of particles matter (i.e., masks, distance, etc.), time matters, and the viral load of the person(s) matter.  This is why our behavior especially in indoor spaces really matters.

Wearing a mask in public spaces where being around others is well within the range of expected outcomes (such as stores, etc.) is a minor inconvenience for the person wearing it but it can be the difference between life and death for the people who are exposed directly or indirectly.  I get it if you are going for a walk around your neighborhood where you can easily identify potential proximity and safely social distance (such as crossing the street when you and another walker are on the same side).  But in places like stores people predictably will not always have that flexibility.  

None of us can control what businesses the government chooses to let operate.  None of us can declare things shut down.  We can only deal with the current state of our local. 

But we each can control our own choices.  We have to acknowledge that our choices directly affect the risk for not just ourselves but for others.  I won't speak for anyone else here but I feel a personal obligation to take steps to mitigate that risk for the most vulnerable in our communities and I personally hope my fellow squawkers will take that same attitude.  That isn't just about whether to wear a mask or not.  Wearing a mask is one of a number of different things we can influence with our personal choices.  If everyone in the US committed to watching out for each other with simple choices that amount to nothing more than minor inconvenience, it would save a lot of lives.

[JayBirdHawk]

Airlines follow through on threat to ban passengers who don't wear masks

Quote

New York (CNN Business)Airlines are making good on their threat to ban passengers from future flights for refusing to wear masks.

Delta (DAL) is the latest to announce bans for an undisclosed number of passengers who would not comply with industry policy requiring passengers to wear masks.

"So far, there have thankfully only been a handful of cases, but we have already banned some passengers from future travel on Delta for refusing to wear masks on board," wrote CEO Ed Bastian in an memo to Delta employees Thursday.

Industry leader American Airlines (AAL) has already taken steps to ban at least one passenger, Brandon Straka, who was asked to get off a New York to Dallas flight for refusing to wear a mask. American said Straka would be allowed to fly American again only once the policy requiring masks is lifted.

United (UAL), which last week announced a policy to ban passengers from future flights who fail to comply with the mask requirement, confirmed Thursday that it had also taken such action.

The airlines say they are not sharing information with one another about the passengers they have banned. So, for example, a passenger banned on Delta can still book a flight on American and vice versa.

Bastian, the Delta CEO, defended the get-tough policy as important to protect the health and safety of both passengers and crew members.

"Parts of the country have seen a resurgence of Covid-19, and this week new cases nationwide grew at their highest level since April," he wrote. "That's why it is more important than ever to adhere to the safety and health guidelines we have put in place to keep you safe. One of the most effective measures we have is wearing a mask, which numerous studies have shown can slow the spread of the virus. We take the requirement to wear a mask very seriously."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/25/business/airline-passenger-ban-not-wearing-masks/index.html

 

[Thomas]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

As we are talking about testing availability on the other thread on the NBA re-opening, it is worth noting that the Trump Administration has made the decision to shut down at least 13 testing sites (including in states dealing with massive spikes like Texas).  Testing demand is over testing capacity in a number of states even with these sites still running.  We can't lose focus on this.  Testing is hugely important.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/24/trump-after-slow-the-testing-down-remark-will-end-federal-funding-for-testing-sites/#c2b7da35fac2

 

More tests means more stats. Someone thinks that is somehow just evil math.

[Thomas]

Here is a bit of a surprise, at least to me. As big, bad and red as the state of Texas is the Governor is reigning in the rate of reopening at the moment.

The governor of Texas hit the brakes on reopening his state Thursday as hospitals were inundated with “an explosion” of new COVID-19 cases and officials warned there might not be enough beds available.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-pauses-reopening-as-hospitals-inundated-with-explosion-of-covid-19-cases/ar-BB15Y74c?OCID=ansmsnnews11  

[High5]

4 hours ago, thecampster said:

Notice throughout this thread I've pointed out how people with opposing views feel. Its because I take the time to understand it from their point of view.  Its why I understand the point their trying to make when they make it.

Theater of Security means its all a show, an act made to make us feel as though something good has been done.  If a Surgical mask is only 60-80% effective, all you've done is engage in risk reduction, not mitigation. Your point, most everyone's point here is I should always wear a mask when I leave my house and there is any chance of interacting with another human being. My answer is simple, in places I'm not required to, I just really don't want to. Part of my don't want to is because if 40% of potential virus penetrates my mask (low end of surgical) or 70% of a bandanna/cloth mask, I've lowered my exposure by 30-60%. Only takes 1 germ to infect and every cough of an infected person has thousands of virus cells. I'm not stopping anything. 40% of 3 thousand is still 1200. Although I agree there is value, I don't see that value being enough to feel forced to mask up to avoid becoming a social pariah. 

Now admit it, you probably didn't know the reduction rates of masks before I told you and probably didn't know that cloth masks are less than 50% effective. But the very important people told you that if we all just masked up this would go away and you bought it.  There is really only 1 way to make this go away. Everyone stocks up on food/toilet paper, supplies enough to last 2 months. Everyone stays indoors and there are no essential services. We 100% distance ourselves from everyone and this thing will die out. All you are doing with masks is extending shutdowns and making people feel its okay to hug/shake hands/grab a bag of food at the McDonalds if you just wear a mask. Only one doctor I know of on the board and you all pretty much call him crazy at every turn.

 

You type a lot of words in an attempt to sound smarter than everyone else, but this is the only relevant bit: "Wearing a mask has value, but I just really don't want to wear one." That's the attitude that's keeping our country in the sad state that it's in. I don't have anything left to say about it. Good luck. To both you and anyone who crosses your path. 

[bleachkit]

10 hours ago, AHF said:

I will also say that the notion that it "only takes 1 germ to infect" is a misnomer.  To transmit Covid-19, the most current science tells us it takes transmitting a threshold amount of the virus.  Mitigating a % of exposure can materially influence the chance of transmission to yourself and others.  1 germ is not enough.  This is why factors that impact the number of particles matter (i.e., masks, distance, etc.), time matters, and the viral load of the person(s) matter.  This is why our behavior especially in indoor spaces really matters.

Wearing a mask in public spaces where being around others is well within the range of expected outcomes (such as stores, etc.) is a minor inconvenience for the person wearing it but it can be the difference between life and death for the people who are exposed directly or indirectly.  I get it if you are going for a walk around your neighborhood where you can easily identify potential proximity and safely social distance (such as crossing the street when you and another walker are on the same side).  But in places like stores people predictably will not always have that flexibility.  

None of us can control what businesses the government chooses to let operate.  None of us can declare things shut down.  We can only deal with the current state of our local. 

But we each can control our own choices.  We have to acknowledge that our choices directly affect the risk for not just ourselves but for others.  I won't speak for anyone else here but I feel a personal obligation to take steps to mitigate that risk for the most vulnerable in our communities and I personally hope my fellow squawkers will take that same attitude.  That isn't just about whether to wear a mask or not.  Wearing a mask is one of a number of different things we can influence with our personal choices.  If everyone in the US committed to watching out for each other with simple choices that amount to nothing more than minor inconvenience, it would save a lot of lives.

It is true that in virology, the amount of the virus you are exposed to makes a big difference. It's like a poison, the more you take, the more likely you'll get sick. It's not an either/or type thing.

Edited June 26, 2020 by bleachkit

[thecampster]

2 hours ago, bleachkit said:

It is true that in virology, the amount of the virus you are exposed to makes a big difference. It's like a poison, the more you take, the more likely you'll get sick. It's not an either/or type thing.

No, its simple risk management. What level of risk are you willing to accept against what cost.

[JayBirdHawk]

12 hours ago, High5 said:

You type a lot of words in an attempt to sound smarter than everyone else, but this is the only relevant bit: "Wearing a mask has value, but I just really don't want to wear one." That's the attitude that's keeping our country in the sad state that it's in. I don't have anything left to say about it. Good luck. To both you and anyone who crosses your path. 

I liken this to seatbelt wearing or wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle.

Here's the thing: We are learning this as we go, we don't have long term studies, things keep changing - why not err on the side of caution and taking care of OTHERS. 

We sometimes see the worse side of ourselves when people want to be right as opposed to doing what is 'right'.

Here's a simple question: Are you more concerned about getting it or more concerned about giving it?

[bleachkit]

2 hours ago, thecampster said:

No, its simple risk management. What level of risk are you willing to accept against what cost.

I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the science of viral exposure. Some might not be aware that how much of the virus you are exposed to makes an enormous difference. I am not weighing in on policy or mask wearing per se. Here's an article that explains it better. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/health/coronavirus-transmission-dose.html

[Spud2nique]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

Here's a simple question: Are you more concerned about getting it or more concerned about giving it?

Excellent. Love it. Damn Bird you deep.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, JayBirdHawk said:

I liken this to seatbelt wearing or wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle.

Here's the thing: We are learning this as we go, we don't have long term studies, things keep changing - why not err on the side of caution and taking care of OTHERS. 

We sometimes see the worse side of ourselves when people want to be right as opposed to doing what is 'right'.

Here's a simple question: Are you more concerned about getting it or more concerned about giving it?

I wish it was akin to wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle.  It would be much simpler to say that each person can choose to assume their own personal level of risk.  But when you don't wear a mask, you are making that decision for other people because the behavior of not wearing a mask when you can't be certain you aren't an asymptomatic carrier will result in people getting exposed who otherwise would not.   As discussed earlier, this is best viewed in the aggregate because for every 1000 people who believe they don't have it, some will be right and some will be wrong.

I am pretty sure that Rudy Gobert now recognizes that he wasn't simply assuming personal risk but put those reporters and others at risk by choosing not to abide by the CDC recommended precautions.  It is the fact that people who don't socially distance, who don't wear a mask, etc. are putting others at risk which makes this so problematic when people choose not to follow best practices.

[lethalweapon3]

~lw3

[JayBirdHawk]

18 minutes ago, lethalweapon3 said:

~lw3

5% Positive rate.

[JayBirdHawk]

Coronavirus: 18 family members test positive for COVID-19 after surprise birthday party

Quote

CARROLLTON, Texas — A surprise birthday party held by a family in North Texas late last month has been linked to 18 cases of COVID-19 in the family, according to WFAA.

Ron Barbosa, a volunteer EMT who is married to a doctor, told WFAA that he and his wife refused to go when his family threw a party May 30 for his daughter-in-law, who turned 30.

“When people started getting sick, we really let everyone have it,” Barbosa told WFAA. “We knew this was going to happen, I mean this whole time this has been going on we’ve been terrified.”

Barbosa said his nephew, who hosted the party, had a slight cough that he thought he’d gotten from working construction. Later, the family learned he had COVID-19, WFAA reported.

“(The party) wasn’t that long. It was only a couple of hours. But during that brief time, somehow the other 18 family members are now infected with COVID,” Barbosa told WFAA.

Among those who fell ill are Barbosa’s parents, who are in their 80s, and his sister, who is battling breast cancer, according to WFAA. Barbosa’s mother, Carole, has been hospitalized since June 13 while his father, Frank, was hospitalized June 17 and has since been placed on life support.

Barbosa said his relatives were horrified to know that they spread the nov

 

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/trending/coronavirus-18-family-members-test-positive-covid-19-after-surprise-birthday-party/YRPCJKVT3ZHWREDCT72NIYGADQ/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

 

[lethalweapon3]

24 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

5% Positive rate.

Mark that number! Hopefully teams and players (NBA, WNBA, MLS) are taking the quarantining seriously.

~lw3

[JayBirdHawk]

4 minutes ago, lethalweapon3 said:

Mark that number! Hopefully teams and players (NBA, WNBA, MLS) are taking the quarantining seriously.

~lw3

Indeed. It'll be interesting to see what the first batch of results look like when they report to the bubble and receive testing again.

[bleachkit]

2 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

5% Positive rate.

All things considered, the NBA should be relieved by that number. Could have easily been 15 to 20%