Author Topic: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts  (Read 6992 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts
« Reply #105 on: April 18, 2020, 03:45:51 pm »
I posted that exact article an hour ago you hapless goof. Don't you read anything?

 -k

It will very likely be hapless goofs who will cause a more deadly second surge of Covid just as they did with the Spanish flu.
Agree Agree x 2 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts
« Reply #106 on: April 18, 2020, 07:57:09 pm »
Darwinism at play:  adapt or die.

So what are they going to do, go out with their guns and force people back to work and businesses to open? Morons.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts
« Reply #107 on: April 18, 2020, 08:45:01 pm »
So what are they going to do, go out with their guns and force people back to work and businesses to open? Morons.

"Morons" is appropriate for sure although somewhat less scathing than required. I'm searching for the harsher word and I'll get back.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10186
Re: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts
« Reply #108 on: April 18, 2020, 10:26:31 pm »
So what are they going to do, go out with their guns and force people back to work and businesses to open? Morons.

I'm thinking they themselves don't want government to impose tyrannical laws on them forcing them to stay home.  I get why people don't want that, but they aren't thinking of the bigger picture, an international emergency with many lives at stake.  The lockdown is only being done to save lives.  The other choice is freedom but mass death.

Alexander Hamilton said:  "Why was government instituted at all?  Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates or reason and justice without restraint".
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Online wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
Re: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts
« Reply #109 on: April 18, 2020, 10:35:57 pm »
I'm thinking they themselves don't want government to impose tyrannical laws on them forcing them to stay home.  I get why people don't want that, but they aren't thinking of the bigger picture, an international emergency with many lives at stake.  The lockdown is only being done to save lives.  The other choice is freedom but mass death.

Alexander Hamilton said:  "Why was government instituted at all?  Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates or reason and justice without restraint".

To quote the Stones, "You can't always get what you want". Even with most of the country locked down, this thing has killed more Americans in a month than traffic accidents do in a year.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts
« Reply #110 on: April 19, 2020, 01:27:58 am »
Do you really think it's realistic to just maintain a ban on gatherings of over 10 people until 2022?

clarification: the waldo stands to be corrected; however, my crack research team has found the original notice that banned gatherings of over 250 people... and the update notice that, given worsening circumstance, banned gatherings of over 50 people - however, the team says they haven't (yet) found the notice that reduces the gathering ban even further. In your want to get the bars/pubs back open, are you sure you're not confusing the reason they're closed; i.e., not an essential service versus a gathering ban count restriction?

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts
« Reply #111 on: April 19, 2020, 01:41:50 am »
clarification: the waldo stands to be corrected; however, my crack research team has found the original notice that banned gatherings of over 250 people... and the update notice that, given worsening circumstance, banned gatherings of over 50 people - however, the team says they haven't (yet) found the notice that reduces the gathering ban even further. In your want to get the bars/pubs back open, are you sure you're not confusing the reason they're closed; i.e., not an essential service versus a gathering ban count restriction?

I say let's go down the donald trump approach and open up everything, beaches, golf courses, skating rinks (for us Canadians), etc. That way the people who are dumb enough to ignore the threat will congregate, infect each other and sadly die. I guess that's sort of how that "survival of the fittest" thing works. C'mon Donny, lets have you and Pence tee off tomorrow morning.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2020, 02:05:58 am by Omni »
Informative Informative x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts
« Reply #112 on: April 19, 2020, 01:44:30 am »
Before I get to conditions/requirements, I want to talk about what restrictions and shutdowns might be eliminated.

To me the most exasperating thing about the shutdowns are the one-size-fits-all nature of the shutdown.

It seems ridiculous to me that a venue that seats 20 people is treated the same as a venue that seats 2000 people or 20,000 people.  It seems ridiculous to me that a pottery class is treated the same as a gym or a yoga class.  I don't think a sit-down restaurant poses the same risks as a shopping mall food court. I don't think a neighborhood pub poses the same risks as a packed nightclub with a dance floor full of sweaty people.

the initial focus is on keeping essential services open - determining what are essential services. Obviously reducing restrictions in terms of venue size becomes one of 'economy of scale'. By the by, how viable will those smaller 20 people venues truly be if 2m physical distancing is maintained... notwithstanding how accepting thinking 'safety conscious/concerned' people will be to visiting in the first place... and what requirements will an establishment need to meet in terms of staff protections, sanitizing , etc..

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts
« Reply #113 on: April 19, 2020, 02:52:26 am »
member kimmy, as an aside, I expect tied to your limited corporate world employment experience, you show your complete naivety in railing on about the relatively short job loss period to-date in relation to COVID-19 shutdowns... even extending that forward to say, 6 months to a year of unemployment. Those extended periods of lost job related unemployment are not that unusual in the work history of many of the boomers you so brazenly and repeatedly denigrate.


The BC government is now looking at ways of relaxing restrictions-- it's not just dumb-people and rednecks anymore. Dr Bonnie Henry says: "I believe this summer, we will have the opportunity to have way more social opportunities … but we're not quite there yet. So I'm asking for patience."

"this summer" ... is that June, July, August or what - 2+, 3+, 4+ months away or what? The point being, they can't {yet} say, let alone estimate. More to the point, per B.C. Health Minister Dix:

Quote
Dix said finding a balance where British Columbians could resume some activities while containing the virus would be a huge task for officials in the weeks ahead.

"We must find a healthy way forward for the next 12 to 18 months … a healthy new normal that sustains us and keeps us safe," he said. 

"We need to find a way forward that allows us to socialize. Whatever actions we take, we know there's a significant human cost if we get it wrong. The situation is complex, and it is without precedent in our lifetimes."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/covid19-restrictions-bc-1.5535716

They are projecting the anticipated rate of patients in critical care on the level of social interaction going on.  The graph shows that if we resume 100% or 80% of normal levels of social interaction, the number of cases goes through the roof.  On the other hand, lower levels of interaction-- 60% of less, results in a rate of cases that doesn't snowball and remains low enough for the healthcare system to manage quite easily, as it is doing right now.  They estimate our level of interaction is currently at the range of about 30%, so there's certainly room for some restrictions to be lifted.  And restrictions can be put back in place as required to deal with "rebound outbreaks" that they anticipate will occur.

the waldo trusts the data and analysis is there; however, my crack research team hasn't found it... sure, sure, the Google COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports are readily available, but just how has the B.C. Health Authority used them to arrive at that current 30% level of interaction figure? Notwithstanding the most basic points that this Google "geolocation tracking" data presumes upon using Google Maps and requires people to have turned the normally off defaulted "Location History" setting on..... cause who has any concerns about privacy! So how does this possibly skew the data? Or that the reports are by generic type, rather than particular location specific (e.g. the broad/generic Retail and Recreation category). In any case, your described "room for some restrictions to be lifted" over the interaction range 30%-to-60% has no foundation without some degree of specificity in term of "room, restrictions & lifted by how much"!

example - April 5th snapshot of 'up to April 2nd' data => if nothing else, an interesting statement on Canada versus the U.S. and, in particular, where certain states and provinces slot within. As for British Columbia: 54% mobility reduction in the Retail & Recreation category... 47% mobility reduction in the Workplace category


Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts
« Reply #114 on: April 19, 2020, 03:04:39 am »
I relish this and like posts of your flummoxed-self where you mock/ignore/deflect, as you call it, sciency-looking evidence! Apparently, you believe all viruses act/respond the same - yowzer! That Lancet paper offers evidence to allow you to, with some degree of authority, speak of child infections of the SARS-CoV-2 virus; you know, that "healthy children are at a low risk for dying from Covid-19 but this evidence is monumental in stating children can and are being infected as both symptomatic and asymptomatic transmitters of the virus"

in your best Trumpian-like deflection, you're the one calling for an end to current restrictions... but somehow, for some reason, you haven't provided a "how to plan" to do so - you haven't responded to this waldo request/challenge:
=>member kimmy, what conditions/requirements, if any, do you believe should be in place... before restrictions/shutdowns are eliminated? I trust your response will give consideration to the reality of asymptomatic carriers of the virus... as well as the more recent raised concerns over "some number" of released recovered patients who retest as positive while showing no symptoms (again, asymptomatic carriers).

name your conditions/requirements member kimmy - name them!

member kimmy, I trust your "unknown/unidentified plan"... thinks of the children and their infection characteristics!

The impact of transmission through children is already built into the statistics regarding new cases and critical care cases, which are the main metric being used to track the spread of the virus. Your astounding revelation doesn't change anything. Dr Henry's charts and graphs from yesterday? The effects of children are already built into that data.

The Lancet report will probably be of interest to those deciding when and how to reopen schools and daycare operations and youth sports and other activities where children congregate in numbers, but I doubt anybody making those kinds of decisions was under the assumption that children wouldn't spread the viruses.  Schools in Taiwan and South Korea imposed social distancing measures on their students early on in their fight against the virus, so clearly people already anticipated that children would be carriers.

not surprisingly, even after multiple exchanges concerning that Lancet paper, you fail to grasp that without evidence from that paper (and its like), there is no foundation to state that, as it did, "healthy children are at a lower risk from dying from COVID-19"... and more pointedly that, "children can and are being infected as both symptomatic and asymptomatic transmitters of the virus".


Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts
« Reply #115 on: April 19, 2020, 03:22:02 am »
To me, the conditions/requirements for easing of restriction are that our healthcare system be able to handle the number of critical cases.  That's it, that's my criterion.  I don't base it on the existence of a vaccine, or a 100% accurate test, or whatever. When those things do appear, they will considerably improve the level of risk mitigation we're able to do, but it is and always will be a matter of risk mitigation.  We won't be able to do 100% testing of the population, we won't be able to identify every asymptomatic carrier, we won't be able to guarantee nobody comes down with COVID in the future. But we can certainly keep things at a level where we can care for cases as they arise, as we do with other communicable diseases.

As we learn more about how this thing works, we will learn what kind of situations pose high risks of transmissions and what kind of situations can reopen without adding substantially to the level of risk.

your emphasis is on risk... even qualifying the buzzword mitigation as risk mitigation! By the by, who/what bears the risk in your view?

what's always telling to the waldo is to ask someone just what their interpretation of... their understanding of... COVID-19 mitigation actually is - and you member kimmy - and you? In any case, without drilling down into them, following are the broad conditions that must first be met, as set by the WHO, for any government to start lifting restrictions:

Quote

1. Disease transmission is under control

2. Health systems are able to "detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact"

3. Hot spot risks are minimized in vulnerable places, such as nursing homes

4. Schools, workplaces and other essential places have established preventive measures

5. The risk of importing new cases "can be managed"

6. Communities are fully educated, engaged and empowered to live under a new normal


Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts
« Reply #116 on: April 20, 2020, 08:56:04 pm »
your emphasis is on risk... even qualifying the buzzword mitigation as risk mitigation! By the by, who/what bears the risk in your view?

what's always telling to the waldo is to ask someone just what their interpretation of... their understanding of... COVID-19 mitigation actually is - and you member kimmy - and you?

What I meant in using it is that activities, events, and venues that present an obvious risk of spread of the disease remain closed, while activities, events, and venues that present minimal opportunity for spread of the disease should be reopened as soon as possible. A hockey game or rock concert that puts 20,000 people into the same building for 3 hours presents an astronomically large number of interactions that could spread the virus, whereas reopening the clothing store down the street would create a minimal number of interactions that wouldn't make a measurable impact on the spread of the disease.

I don't care if that's not the official definition the health authorities might use when they use that term, that's the point I was trying to make.

In any case, without drilling down into them, following are the broad conditions that must first be met, as set by the WHO, for any government to start lifting restrictions:
Quote
1. Disease transmission is under control

2. Health systems are able to "detect, test, isolate and treat every case and trace every contact"

3. Hot spot risks are minimized in vulnerable places, such as nursing homes

4. Schools, workplaces and other essential places have established preventive measures

5. The risk of importing new cases "can be managed"

6. Communities are fully educated, engaged and empowered to live under a new normal

So which of these conditions do you feel we haven't met at this point?  Point 6-- "a new normal" is clearly bullshit, because nobody has yet defined what "a new normal" looks like, but people are clearly educated, engaged, and empowered to live under the temporary normal in which we find ourselves.  BC's numbers prove it, as the curve is not just "flattened" but falling.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts
« Reply #117 on: April 20, 2020, 10:21:19 pm »
member kimmy, as an aside, I expect tied to your limited corporate world employment experience, you show your complete naivety in railing on about the relatively short job loss period to-date in relation to COVID-19 shutdowns... even extending that forward to say, 6 months to a year of unemployment. Those extended periods of lost job related unemployment are not that unusual in the work history of many of the boomers you so brazenly and repeatedly denigrate.

The boomers have certainly not experienced anything like this in their lifetimes.  The nature of the steps undertaken to fight this epidemic are unlike anything seen since WWII, and the economic impact of this is being projected by every expert to be worse than anything since the Great Depression.  In short: no, the Boomers don't have anything like this in their work histories.

Some things we saw after the 2007-8 recession:
 -stock markets and real-estate prices rebounded a lot faster than the job market
 -the job market was depressed for 4-5 years afterward
 -younger workers were disproportionately affected (older workers either kept their jobs or got early retirement packages; workers with the less experience and less seniority were cut loose, with less benefits and severance than their more senior peers.)

With this new economic depression, we can well expect that the crater is going to be deeper and wider than the 2007 recession.  And we can expect that young people will fare even worse. Not just because of the reasons mentioned above, but also because the industries hardest hit by the pandemic (restaurants, hospitality, travel, tourism, retail) are industries that disproportionately employ young people.

BC Chick's parents will be fine, boomers with defined-benefit pension plans will be even better and will probably be able to scoop up some real estate bargains while the market is recovering. Coonlight proposes that Millennials might be able to find real estate bargains during this time as well, but probably most of them will be too broke to take advantage.

"this summer" ... is that June, July, August or what - 2+, 3+, 4+ months away or what? The point being, they can't {yet} say, let alone estimate. More to the point, per B.C. Health Minister Dix:
Quote
Dix said finding a balance where British Columbians could resume some activities while containing the virus would be a huge task for officials in the weeks ahead.

"We must find a healthy way forward for the next 12 to 18 months … a healthy new normal that sustains us and keeps us safe," he said.

"We need to find a way forward that allows us to socialize. Whatever actions we take, we know there's a significant human cost if we get it wrong. The situation is complex, and it is without precedent in our lifetimes."

Dr Henry speaks of resuming some activities within the next few weeks, and way more socializing this summer.  Health Minister Dix speaks of finding "a new normal" over the next 12 to 18 months. Do you feel those two ideas are contradictory?  They aren't.

the waldo trusts the data and analysis is there; however, my crack research team hasn't found it... sure, sure, the Google COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports are readily available, but just how has the B.C. Health Authority used them to arrive at that current 30% level of interaction figure? Notwithstanding the most basic points that this Google "geolocation tracking" data presumes upon using Google Maps and requires people to have turned the normally off defaulted "Location History" setting on..... cause who has any concerns about privacy!

Dr Henry's statisticians and analysts and data crunchers are well aware that people can turn off the geolocation features in their phones.  I haven't asked them, but I can 100% guarantee that they know this.  I have to point out that your level of pomposity and hubris here has gone from its usual level (merely obnoxious) to an astounding new height (laugh-out-lout funny, comical, self-parody).

Your notion here, that you've spotted a "gotcha" that  BC Health's data scientists and epidemiologists never thought of, reminds me of our old friend pliny (at MLW) and his notion that he'd spotted flaws in physics theory that the greatest physics scholars somehow missed for centuries.

I can't tell if you're serious or you're trying to be funny, but whichever your intent: it's funny.

"But kimmy," someone might ask. "If people can turn off the location features in their smartphone, how do we know what's really going on?"

Well, it's like this. We don't need data from every person, or even every smart phone owner, to know what impact the restrictions are having. We get lots of data from people who do have their location features enabled, and we can compare the data since the lock down to the data from before the lockdown, and see how much the lockdown is restricting people.  We can use information provided by the people who have location features enabled to make projections about how the restrictions are affecting everybody else.


So how does this possibly skew the data? Or that the reports are by generic type, rather than particular location specific (e.g. the broad/generic Retail and Recreation category). In any case, your described "room for some restrictions to be lifted" over the interaction range 30%-to-60% has no foundation without some degree of specificity in term of "room, restrictions & lifted by how much"!

example - April 5th snapshot of 'up to April 2nd' data => if nothing else, an interesting statement on Canada versus the U.S. and, in particular, where certain states and provinces slot within. As for British Columbia: 54% mobility reduction in the Retail & Recreation category... 47% mobility reduction in the Workplace category



Again you post a graph and expect everybody to go "wow, that looks sciency! the waldo has really done his homework!" while hoping that nobody reads the fine print.  Your graph tracks "mobility", while Dr Henry's analysis is based on "contacts", not "mobility".

"But kimmy," someone might ask. "What's the difference?"

Here's the difference. Mobility doesn't measure how much you're interacting with people.   For example: a single trip to the grocery store, since after social distancing measures were put in place, would have the same "mobility" as single a trip to the grocery store before social distancing measures.  But it would would result in fewer contacts.  Before social distancing, you're in a busier store, you're standing within a couple of feet of each other at the broccoli counter and the checkout. Since social distancing, the store is only letting so many people in at once, people are mostly taking steps to give each other space, and the checkout line has everybody spaced out by 2m. Also consider the kinds of activities that are still open and those that are closed. A trip to the local arena to see a concert could generate a huge number of contacts, a walk in the woods could generate the same "mobility" as the concert while creating zero "contacts" at all.

So while the "mobility" data might indicate that people are making just 50% as many trips as they were before the lockdown, we can also project that the amount of "contacts" has decreased by an even larger degree because of social distancing measures.



 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts
« Reply #118 on: April 20, 2020, 11:07:59 pm »
clarification: the waldo stands to be corrected; however, my crack research team has found the original notice that banned gatherings of over 250 people... and the update notice that, given worsening circumstance, banned gatherings of over 50 people - however, the team says they haven't (yet) found the notice that reduces the gathering ban even further. In your want to get the bars/pubs back open, are you sure you're not confusing the reason they're closed; i.e., not an essential service versus a gathering ban count restriction?

Lots of places have banned gatherings over 10 people, including a number of countries and many US states. In Canada,  the ban in BC is 50, in Alberta it's 15, Newfoundland, Yukon, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan have banned gatherings over 10, Ontario and Nova Scotia have banned gatherings over 5, Nunavut has banned all gatherings, and Quebec has banned gatherings of 2 or more (gatherings of one are apparently still allowed, which is reassuring in these troubled times.)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-coronavirus-rules-by-province-physical-distancing-open-closed/

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: BACK TO WORK!! It’s just killing old farts
« Reply #119 on: April 20, 2020, 11:26:25 pm »
the initial focus is on keeping essential services open - determining what are essential services. Obviously reducing restrictions in terms of venue size becomes one of 'economy of scale'. By the by, how viable will those smaller 20 people venues truly be if 2m physical distancing is maintained... notwithstanding how accepting thinking 'safety conscious/concerned' people will be to visiting in the first place... and what requirements will an establishment need to meet in terms of staff protections, sanitizing , etc..

A 20 seat venue might be a 50 seat venue with some of its tables closed off to maintain distance between customers.  The viability of a business under such circumstances is a decision for the owner and staff, and isn't something Dr Henry needs to concern herself with.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City