More interesting data regarding Covid

[former lurker]

And, there is absolutely NO political agenda behind the fact that 'evidence that the protests did not contribute to a rise in cases' ??? I find it extremely hard to believe.

 

It is hypocritical for 'outdoor gatherings to be limited to 25' yet allow thousands to march together.

 

Don't get me wrong, I 100% SUPPORT the BLACK LIVES MATTER movement and the movement to end racism. HOWEVER, you can't have it one way for this reason and other way for this reason.

 

Either we CAN HAVE large public gatherings with proper mask wearing, etc. or we CAN'T HAVE large public gatherings with proper mask wearing. And, for the record, the people protesting in my state were about half wearing masks and absolutely NOT practicing social distancing.

 

It's not a matter of having it both ways. You're comparing apples and oranges. In areas where the protests have been handled well (distancing, wearing masks, etc), there's been little to no evidence of a surge in Covid cases. In areas where people gather without masks and don't maintain distancing, there have been surges. In large part, the BLM protests have been conducted with a concerted effort to mitigate the risks of spreading Covid. The locations where surges have occurred are largely those where a good portion of the leaders and the population insisted the virus was a hoax, that the media overstated the risks, etc. Unsurprisingly, those who bought this line of bs did not act to mitigate the risks of contracting or spreading the disease.

[Todd Jenkins]

Nope, LITERALLY it's the same. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WEARING MASKS SCREAMING VS. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WEARING MASKS SCREAMING.

[former lurker]

Nope, LITERALLY it's the same. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WEARING MASKS SCREAMING VS. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WEARING MASKS SCREAMING.

 

NOPE, because in those areas where the virus is surging, the thousands aren't "wearing masks", they're gathering in bars and at rallies without distancing and without wearing masks. Your revising the facts to fit your view rather than revising your view to fit the facts.

[RealAvalon]

Nope, LITERALLY it's the same. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WEARING MASKS SCREAMING VS. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WEARING MASKS SCREAMING.

I understand that you want that to be true. And, your want, doesn't make it true. That's just truthiness.

 

 

Facts are stubborn things.

Edited July 14, 2020 by RealAvalon

[Todd Jenkins]

NOPE, because in those areas where the virus is surging, the thousands aren't "wearing masks", they're gathering in bars and at rallies without distancing and without wearing masks. Your revising the facts to fit your view rather than revising your view to fit the facts.

What I am saying is this - if we can have A, we can have B. See below.

 

A – THOUSANDS screaming in protest marching in close proximity - it happened in my city, I know of which I speak – with 50-75% wearing masks

B – THOUSANDS at a concert / festival in close proximity with 50-75% wearing masks, as socially distanced as possible.

 

IF we can have A, we can have B. That is my point.

[former lurker]

What I am saying is this - if we can have A, we can have B. See below.

 

A – THOUSANDS screaming in protest marching in close proximity - it happened in my city, I know of which I speak – with 50-75% wearing masks

B – THOUSANDS at a concert / festival in close proximity with 50-75% wearing masks, as socially distanced as possible.

 

IF we can have A, we can have B. That is my point.

 

I don't find your A credible. It isn't what's been happening in most of the cities with large BLM protests. What city are you referring to? Also, which concerts and festivals can you point to where there were 75% of the attendees wearing masks? The data clearly reflects that most of the states where surges are occurring are those where the political leaders and population did not consider the virus to be a serious threat requiring closing bars, etc., and were quick to reopen them. How do you explain why the virus is surging in Florida, South Carolina, etc, but not in NYC?

[Todd Jenkins]

I don't find your A credible. It isn't what's been happening in most of the cities with large BLM protests. What city are you referring to? Also, which concerts and festivals can you point to where there were 75% of the attendees wearing masks? The data clearly reflects that most of the states where surges are occurring are those where the political leaders and population did not consider the virus to be a serious threat requiring closing bars, etc., and were quick to reopen them. How do you explain why the virus is surging in Florida, South Carolina, etc, but not in NYC?

 

We can't COMPARE festivals and concerts because "large outdoor gatherings are limited to 25 or less people" unless you are in protest so we have not been PERMITTED to have any!!!! It's COMPLETE and utter BULLSHIT!

 

And I SUPPORT BLACK LIVES MATTER, but we can't have it one way for one group and one way for the other. Rules are rules, right?

 

We shall see what happens in NYC. One must remember that they went on a MUCH stricter lockdown than anywhere else in the US.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Todd Jenkins

[Todd Jenkins]

I don't find your A credible.

 

My A has been seen in SEVERAL places – one being HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD. Go google the photo of the BLM protest on Hollywood Blvd and you will see MANY not wearing masks and NO social distancing..

 

That is ONE example./

[RealAvalon]

What I am saying is this - if we can have A, we can have B. See below.

 

A – THOUSANDS screaming in protest marching in close proximity - it happened in my city, I know of which I speak – with 50-75% wearing masks

B – THOUSANDS at a concert / festival in close proximity with 50-75% wearing masks, as socially distanced as possible.

 

IF we can have A, we can have B. That is my point.

I know I am speaking from the outside looking in, on what is happening in the USA. This is meant as a reality check, as the virus that the USA, Canada and the European Union is containing, is the same virus. No difference. And it isn't inevitable that the virus wins.

 

The European Union's three day rolling average, with a population similar to the USA, has been about 2,000-2,500 new cases daily. Canada (population 37 million) had 237 new cases of COVID yesterday, with 10 COVID related deaths. In Canada, we are starting to talk about whether outdoor mass gatherings can commence again.

 

The USA talking about opening the economy, opening schools, allowing mass gatherings ... ? It sounds a lot like "I want a pony for Christmas." It sounds like either magical thinking or an admission of failure. And what's the body count on failure that is acceptable?

 

It must seem pointless to expect/hope for your federal leadership vacuum to be filled with something other than hot air. And it remains critical from the experience of every other country that hasn't given up.

[Todd Jenkins]

I know I am speaking from the outside looking in, on what is happening in the USA. This is meant as a reality check, as the virus that the USA, Canada and the European Union is containing, is the same virus. No difference. And it isn't inevitable that the virus wins.

 

The European Union's three day rolling average, with a population similar to the USA, has been about 2,000-2,500 new cases daily. Canada (population 37 million) had 237 new cases of COVID yesterday, with 10 COVID related deaths. In Canada, we are starting to talk about whether outdoor mass gatherings can commence again.

 

The USA talking about opening the economy, opening schools, allowing mass gatherings ... ? It sounds a lot like "I want a pony for Christmas." It sounds like either magical thinking or an admission of failure. And what's the body count on failure that is acceptable?

 

It must seem pointless to expect/hope for your federal leadership vacuum to be filled with something other than hot air. And it remains critical from the experience of every other country that hasn't given up.

 

And this is where I agree with you –

WE

SHOULD

NOT

BE

OPENING

UP

ANYTHING

AT

ALL

RIGHT

NOW!!!!!!!!

 

My exhaustion is the thought process of: 'it's ok to protest, but not ok to live your life' - that is BULLSHIT! If it's wrong, IT IS WRONG - FULL STOP!

[RealAvalon]

And this is where I agree with you –

WE

SHOULD

NOT

BE

OPENING

UP

ANYTHING

AT

ALL

RIGHT

NOW!!!!!!!!

 

My exhaustion is the thought process of: 'it's ok to protest, but not ok to live your life' - that is BULLSHIT! If it's wrong, IT IS WRONG - FULL STOP!

Expecting concert promoters not to sell tickets is one thing, expect civil society not to react to injustice is something else. Isn't it? We've had protests up here - here is more about Aboriginal rights rather than BLM - and similar results. Not a lot of infections or new cases from protests.

 

Our community spread 'embers' are coming up at - seriously - strip clubs that opened. Two strips clubs, a suburban McDonald's and a lake party were the community spread events last week.

[Todd Jenkins]

Expecting concert promoters not to sell tickets is one thing, expect civil society not to react to injustice is something else. Isn't it? We've had protests up here - here is more about Aboriginal rights rather than BLM - and similar results. Not a lot of infections or new cases from protests.

 

Our community spread 'embers' are coming up at - seriously - strip clubs that opened. Two strips clubs, a suburban McDonald's and a lake party were the community spread events last week.

 

Nah, to me it's not. If it doesn't spread at open air protests, it won't spread at open air festivals/concerts. Stopping people from living their lives is causing DEPRESSION and SUICIDE.

[Todd Jenkins]

Nah, to me it's not. If it doesn't spread at open air protests, it won't spread at open air festivals/concerts. Stopping people from living their lives is causing DEPRESSION and SUICIDE.

And strip clubs should absolutely NOT be open at this point.

[former lurker]

We can't COMPARE festivals and concerts because "large outdoor gatherings are limited to 25 or less people" unless you are in protest so we have not been PERMITTED to have any!!!! It's COMPLETE and utter BULLSHIT!

 

And I SUPPORT BLACK LIVES MATTER, but we can't have it one way for one group and one way for the other. Rules are rules, right?

 

We shall see what happens in NYC. One must remember that they went on a MUCH stricter lockdown than anywhere else in the US.

 

This latest of your posts exposes your real views and real agenda. You're no longer claiming to compare equivalent situations, you're imagining what would happen if your unsubstantiated assumptions were to come to pass. And USING ALL CAPS doesn't make your claim of a double standard where none exists any less telling.

 

I guess I missed the part of your post where you told us what city you're in where there have been large scale protests with 25%-50% of people not wearing masks.

 

As for the "rules are rules" part of your "argument", that's not correct either as a matter of law and policy. Protest marches are textbook instances of core political activity protected against governmental restrictions by the first amendment. Concerts for entertainment are not, nor is spring break, Cochella, or any number of other large gatherings. Political rallies get the same deference and are allowed. Both protest marches and candidate rallies may, however, be required to observe public health regulations (meeting fire codes w/r/t numbers allowed, masks b/c of Covid, etc.).

 

You are putting a lot of effort into characterizing different circumstances as equivalent so as to falsely claim a double standard. That's plain, and it says a lot more than you're willing to admit.

[former lurker]

My A has been seen in SEVERAL places – one being HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD. Go google the photo of the BLM protest on Hollywood Blvd and you will see MANY not wearing masks and NO social distancing..

 

That is ONE example./

 

If SoCal is your example, it's atypical of the rallies around the country, and it's an area where there has been a resurgence of covid cases. Not so in most other large cities with large BLM protest marches. What other large scale or crowded gatherings have been allowed in SoCal preceding the recent surge?

[Todd Jenkins]

This latest of your posts exposes your real views and real agenda. You're no longer claiming to compare equivalent situations, you're imagining what would happen if your unsubstantiated assumptions were to come to pass. And USING ALL CAPS doesn't make your claim of a double standard where none exists any less telling.

 

I guess I missed the part of your post where you told us what city you're in where there have been large scale protests with 25%-50% of people not wearing masks.

 

As for the "rules are rules" part of your "argument", that's not correct either as a matter of law and policy. Protest marches are textbook instances of core political activity protected against governmental restrictions by the first amendment. Concerts for entertainment are not, nor is spring break, Cochella, or any number of other large gatherings. Political rallies get the same deference and are allowed. Both protest marches and candidate rallies may, however, be required to observe public health regulations (meeting fire codes w/r/t numbers allowed, masks b/c of Covid, etc.).

 

You are putting a lot of effort into characterizing different circumstances as equivalent so as to falsely claim a double standard. That's plain, and it says a lot more than you're willing to admit.

Typical bullshit – this is allowed, but this isn't.

 

Right, I see.

[RealAvalon]

Typical bullshit – this is allowed, but this isn't.

 

I'm not 100% sure I'm getting the point you are trying to make, but ""this is allowed, but this isn't" is frequently the case. Its not necessarily unusual or unfair. Not all mass events are created equal.

 

A Beyonce concert would be a super spreader event. And unnecessary and can be canceled, postponed, watch her on Zoom

A November Presidential election would be a super spreader event. And necessary and couldn't be canceled.

 

One is allowed, and one isn't, and it isn't bullshit. People exercising their civil right to protest (with organizers encouraging mask use, rather than seeing it as a conspiracy), is not the same as concerts or other commercial events (in my humble opinion).

Edited July 14, 2020 by RealAvalon

[former lurker]

Typical bullshit – this is allowed, but this isn't.

 

Right, I see.

 

Perhaps a brief primer in the structure of our government and our rights will help you understand. States have broad, general powers in all areas with delineated exceptions. The Federal Government is a government of enumerated (listed) powers. Some of those federal powers are exclusive to the feds, most may also be regulated by the states so long as the states' laws don't conflict with the federal laws (that's because the Federal government has "supreme" authority in those areas specifically listed in the Constitution).

 

There are, however, certain rights retained by the people that neither the states nor the Federal Government may restrict (freedom of speech, political assembly, freedom of the press, etc.). To regulate those activities, the feds or the states must have greater cause to do so and may only do so in a limited fashion. Thus, the government can't ban political rallies, but it can limit the size of crowds, require the wearing of masks, etc. Those are referred to as "time, place and manner" limits. It would not be okay for the government to simply disallow political assembly outright. Restricting circuit parties, gatherings in bars, closing beaches and stadiums for athletics or concerts do not raise the same concerns because those activities are not political speech in the same way a candidate's rally or a civil rights protest are.

 

If you really can't see the difference, you should take a few classes on the first amendment. I suspect you can see the difference, it just undercuts your argument of a double standard so you pretend the distinctions don't exist or don't matter.

[+ sync]

The Constitutional right of peaceful political protest is, of course, negated when a Presidential photo op necessitates the ordering of federal troops to attack the peaceful, unarmed political protesters.

[+ keroscenefire]

Everyone is making very good points about the first amendment. Just out of curiosity, I decided to look up photos of LA BLM protests. Truly most people were wearing masks in the photos I found.

width=581pxhttps://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/93586e0/2147483647/strip/true/crop/6720x4480+0+0/resize/840x560!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F50%2F1a%2F0ecff8d5465a8c4771b96335dcc1%2Fla-photos-1staff-557633-me-0614-refuseracism-protest-01-cmh.JPG[/img]

 

width=547pxhttps://www.dailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/LDN-L-PROTEST-BLM-0515_16-1.jpg?w=620[/img]

 

width=568pxhttps://s7d2.scene7.com/is/image/TWCNews/blm-6-17-20_jpg[/img]

width=533pxhttps://www.dailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/LDN-L-PROTEST-LA-HOLLYWOOD-0602-11-1.jpg[/img]

[mike carey]

In The Atlantic I came across an article about the pandemic, how it spreads and the concept of herd immunity. It's complex, and I won't try to explain it in detail, but at the core of it is the idea that the spread of a novel virus is subject to wildly varied results as a result of very small variations in the conditions in which it's spreading. I won't try to describe the aspects of chaos theory and the butterfly effect that are used in the discussion. At the start of its spread there are variations in the transmission of the virus and the susceptibility of the people exposed to it. Things like nose hair or how loud people talk could affect it (nose hair helps filter the air people breathe—not by much—and talking more loudly projects droplets and aerosols further). These—the general differences not the two examples—mean that two separate outbreaks in broadly similar circumstances can go in radically different directions, and small interventions can be magnified in the subsequent spread of the virus. In summary the smooth graphs that appeared in some of the modelled predictions depend on homogeneity and the actual world is a heterogeneous system, and every variation has the potential to change the course of the epidemic, sometimes radically.

 

Moving to the issue of herd immunity, the article quotes mathematicians and epidemiologists who have looked at the pandemic progression and seen that the heterogeneity of the system is likely to throw up little road blocks to the progress of the disease that can potentially disrupt its spread. In a vaccination model, everyone has the same exposure to the virus or viral protein so the result is more consistent, and that is the model from which the publicly cited herd immunity figures have been derived. In the disease path that we are seeing, the inconsistency of the way in which it develops is likely to mean that herd immunity, or more likely a stable level of disease in the population can be reached with a lower level of exposure to the disease, perhaps as low as 20%.

 

A final point in the article is that the herd itself can influence the level at which this immunity or stability kicks in. So the things that we are doing now, distancing, masks, hand sanitising and washing, and cough and sneeze hygiene are part of what will reduce the level of exposure to the disease needed for the herd to be immune.

 

The article is behind their paywall, but there is a free allowance and if you register you can see a few more articles per month. For those who are under their limit or who are subscribers, the full article is here. The podcast below it, which discusses the article, seems to be outside the paywall.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/herd-immunity-coronavirus/614035/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20200713&silverid-ref=Njc0NjY2MjkyNzExS0

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-will-it-take-to-get-to-herd-immunity/id1502770015?i=1000484135770

[former lurker]

Everyone is making very good points about the first amendment. Just out of curiosity, I decided to look up photos of LA BLM protests. Truly most people were wearing masks in the photos I found.

width=581pxhttps://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/93586e0/2147483647/strip/true/crop/6720x4480+0+0/resize/840x560!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F50%2F1a%2F0ecff8d5465a8c4771b96335dcc1%2Fla-photos-1staff-557633-me-0614-refuseracism-protest-01-cmh.JPG[/img]

 

width=547pxhttps://www.dailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/LDN-L-PROTEST-BLM-0515_16-1.jpg?w=620[/img]

 

width=568pxhttps://s7d2.scene7.com/is/image/TWCNews/blm-6-17-20_jpg[/img]

width=533pxhttps://www.dailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/LDN-L-PROTEST-LA-HOLLYWOOD-0602-11-1.jpg[/img]

 

Your observations (and these photos) are consistent with what I've seen, heard and read. And it makes sense to me that protests organized with the attitude that the virus is real and precautions are needed but that the message conveyed by the protest is important enough to assemble would be conducted by people looking to mitigate the risks of spreading the virus. On the other hand, assembling as a means of protesting the restrictions imposed by the response to the virus are much more likely to be chock full of people for whom the act of assembly is defiance of the medical warnings and are more likely to be conducted without the same level of care for the risks of spreading the virus.

[+ keroscenefire]

Very interesting and promising study in Israel that suggests the commonly available anti-cholesterol drug fenofibrate may significantly improve outcomes for COVID patients. Apparently COVID actually tells our lung and other cells to stop burning fat as fuel and it's these fat cells that get built up in lungs, liver and other tissues and cause (in part anyway) the debilitating damage that COVID does to the body. The drug basically reverses this process, allows cells to burn the lipids and "downgrades COVID to a common cold," according to the main doctor doing the study.

 

This study was done on human tissues outside of the body and not actually in any human trials, but the outcomes were so positive that they are going to begin human trials soon. The other nice thing about using fenofibrate is like remdesivir and other existing drugs, it's already been proven to be generally safe. So it doesn't need to go through the long process that a COVID vaccine or new medication would. If the human trials prove effective, it could be used as a treatment in a matter of couple months or so. The doctor doing the study was very optimistic saying his observations of the effect of this drug on human cells was like, "when the plug is removed from the bathtub." Still have to see if the drug works in actual human beings with COVID, but if it works as well as it did in the human lung cells, this really could be a game changer in COVID treatment.

Edited July 18, 2020 by keroscenefire

[+ Charlie]

Goodnews, bad news department: Fenofibrate is one of the meds that my spouse takes daily. If this turns out to be true, it will probably make it suddenly harder to get and more expensive.

[+ keroscenefire]

Goodnews, bad news department: Fenofibrate is one of the meds that my spouse takes daily. If this turns out to be true, it will probably make it suddenly harder to get and more expensive.

 

Yeah sorry if that's the case. It is widely available and has been around since the 1970s, so maybe it won't be the situation of remdesvir, where it wasn't commonly available to begin with. It's also widely available as a generic too so it's not like remdesvir, which is solely available through Gilead. Hopefully it won't lead to shortages and higher cost, but I totally understand your nervousness about that.