xyz48B

@Jim_n_NYC – I’m curious how they’re determining “protection.”

A few questions… 1. What classifies as a “younger person?” 2. Are we sure younger people are wearing masks less than older people? Or is that perception? 3. Is the constant line drawing between younger and older generations helpful in building up goodwill as a society to combat this or face any other challenge we face? My experience has been that my friends and I have had to incessantly hound our parents and grandparents to wear the damn mask. So the idea that older folks are behind this lock, stock, and barrel is fully accurate – at least from my own experience. I’d like to see data that shows a statistically relevant survey of age groups complying with masks and social distancing. And not skewed in its sampling locations to wear “younger” people are going to congregate.

I think the mask mandates are toothless – especially when governors and mayors say they won’t back them up through penalties. What will make people start wearing masks if a few people getting arrested and forced to pay $5000 per infraction. It’s asinine to create a public ordinance and in the same press conference tell the public that you’re relying on their goodwill and cooperation to participate, that enforcement will be limited-to-none by the police. Instead of killing black people, the police ought to be arresting maskless morons and fining them, with hefty fines too. What do Americans cherish more than their freedumb? Their money. Hit ‘em where it hurts.

I have quite enjoyed the new atmosphere of restaurants, particularly less crowded. I am willing to pay more for a less crowded experience. I believe restaurants in Massachusetts have been told to keep the music/radio down so patrons aren’t talking as much, so the quieter eating experience has also been nice. I’ve eaten out several times since we’ve been allowed to, in different establishments, and everyone, staff and patrons alike, seem to be taking the precautions seriously.

I suppose you could calculate the probability based off the positive case rate for the city against the population of the city as a whole. I find raw numbers not terribly useful. 300 new daily cases is very different in a city of multiple millions versus even 30 new cases in a city of just a couple of thousands. Furthermore, if NYC is testing a lot, you’d expect to find more cases as a percentage of the whole. 2% of 100 is 2 2% of 1000 is 20 2% of 15,000 is 300 The point is just if the testing is effectively taking a snapshot of the moment, and NYC is doing 100 or of 15,000 tests, with a 2% positive rate, the numbers will change. So to say new 300 positive cases means little unless that 300 reflects a change over against other metrics.

It’s dangerous and to a degree intellectually lazy to think the etymological history of one word should correspond to the etymological history of another word. Language behaves according to conventional rules, but there are always deviations from those rules.

Not so much that they’re more quoted than the Bible.

It’s been quite a few years since the 18th century.

I’ve never heard Bacon’s interpretation of Pilate. Pretty sure Pilate is more often quoted than Bacon...

Oklahoma’s governor just tested positive for COVID-19.

@Rudynate – so far. What is to come, that will be higher, but we cannot really know. But I did say “so far.”

@TruthBTold – I just cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would go. I understand (if that’s the right word) Trump’s pathological need to have a worship service for himself, the rest of the cult doesn’t need to show up. Many high ranking Republicans have said they’re not going. This will be one for the history books, no matter who wins in November.

Hmmm...what translation is that? Seems a smidgen redacted to me ?

It’s this that makes drawing historical parallel conclusions or inferences difficult, particularly the 1918 pandemic with regards to this one. I think it’s fair to say we might expect it to behave that way or that we suspect it will given historical precedent(s), but we shouldn’t say so cavalierly that it will. Perhaps I’m splitting hairs here, but when the world is hanging on every word scientists and politicians are saying, slicing, dicing, and interpreting them...it behooves us to be exact in our communication. At the end of the day we can guess, but we don’t know. The only thing we know for sure is we know nothing for sure.

In this instance I was speaking more broadly. Which is a valid point and makes sense to implement more invasive measures. The necessity is not my concern. My concern is still without a valid or satisfactory answer: what metrics are we using to implement mitigation efforts before exhaustion of resources happens? For example – Cuomo, I understand, has stated that the virus is coming back to NY. What grounds does he have to say that other than fear? I’m suggesting he’s wrong. I’m asking how he knows. Is it an increase? Uptick? Spike? Surge? And what thresholds make him say that? Is there a reason the public isn’t privy to this information? In Massachusetts, we receive a daily dashboard of information, broken down pretty clearly what’s up. What in the NY data makes Cuomo say the virus coming back? Where in the “dashboard” for NY can we find that info, for instance? Questions. Questions. Questions.

Basic statistical analysis though is pretty incumbent upon someone being able to make an informed decision about anything. If you can’t read a graph, for instance, it’s pretty easy to be manipulated with emotional ploys.

I believe THIS is critical to sane living. The problem of course is a population woefully unable to interpret data.

Tell him that’s an exclusive club you’re not interested in joining.

Precisely. Precisely. And at some point, someone with real or metaphoric balls needs to say – this metric is the determinant. It can’t a constantly moving goal post. That logarithmic curve you talked about – that was what we wanted to flatten months ago. Little to nothing is said about that anymore. Now we just have to accept it’s too complicated for us to understand and just accept the experts are telling the politicians what is best! I don’t say they don’t know more than me or better than me. But if you can’t break it down in terms that are comprehensible, then someone is failing.

Worrying, yes. Or perhaps worth watching. Raw numbers are critically important. But what’s also important is looking back to May and comparing the last triple digital day as far as testing. Was testing higher then? Now? About the same? If the percentage has remained low, it’s “fine.” Look – I want the virus to go away. I also believe in sensible precaution. But data can be manipulated. A triple digit day means something radically different if you’re only doing total tests in the triple digits versus a triple digit day with total tests with five digits. Either way, I’d assess any number of positive cases as bad. But one situation is more concerning. This goes back to the original question. Is an uptick measured by sheer raw numbers or by percentages of positive cases against tests done? I’ve heard talk about critical ICU bed usage remaining at 70% or lower. Then I read stories (not out of Arizona or the like but other “surging” places) where ICU usage is 10%. Do we want any COVID in ICU? No. Is 10% far from the critical 70%? Yes. So what’s the crisis point? Do we need to halt society when ICU usage is at 60% because we’re approaching 70%? 50%? 10%? Who decides this and on what grounds? I know it sounds all rather inhumane to speak in numerical terms, but sadly we’re looking a numerical behemoth here. We have over 3 million people affected by this disease alone. It cannot sadly be a personal issue for all 3 million. To say nothing of the lives of those who are displaced for those 3 million directly affected so far.

Well, the media loves to skew words. Still haven’t learned what “increase,” “uptick,” “surge” mean. What are those metrics? Of course if you have low, low rates, any increase is going to look drastic by percentages. Are we looking at this as a percentage of the population? As raw numbers? As percentage increase over 3, 5, 7, 10, etc. days? Data is important but it’s really helpful when you know what the data is telling you. That’s where understanding happens. “It’s bad”* isn’t necessarily helpful unless you can understand the data. *I’m not saying it’s not bad. Just I want to know how we arrived at that conclusion. After all, we are disrupting the very basic day-to-day goings-on of our lives based off of “It’s bad.”

Quickest way to get me to say thanks no thanks is ignore what I asked you!

I also love when you ask a straightforward question and they respond with “Hey babe. $300 in my room today. Tell me when.” It’s like...ummm, you didn’t even address the question.

What is precaution? What is caution? What is overreaction? What is paranoia? I ask this because as we look at numbers coming in throughout the country, we see that many states are experiencing “surges.” When you look at the numbers, these are nothing like March or April numbers. To be sure, they seem to be cause of precaution, but the actions of, say, California in light of what I see on CovidActNow don’t seem nearly as alarming as earlier this year. It seems fear is behind some of what’s going on as far as the political response. No one really knows much about this disease, so we’re told. Except every horrible imaginable thing about it is incontrovertibly true. That seems like paranoia to me. Precaution seems like looking at the facts and acting accordingly. No doubt, some behavioral changes need to be made right now, but too many are acting like this disease has poisoned the very air we breathe the world over.

Whom Actually Literally Virtually Recite, when used to mean “read out loud” Also these phrases... I echo that. Check your privilege. I could care less. (It should be “couldn’t.”)