Do we Cancel Everything? You still Travelling??

[birdguy 3,943]

1 hour ago, pete_auau said:

Why do you need  to take  your  mask off  for  talking is  the  question?   You  still  can  talk  with your  mask on.

I've explained tis before.  Talking through a mask sounds like mumbling.  It's worse when you suffer  gearing loss.  you hear sound but can't make out the words.  Noy even when I'm wearing my hearing aid.

I can't watch television without my hearing aid for the same reason.  Except talking through a mask is worse.

https://theconversation.com/masks-and-distancing-make-it-tough-for-the-hard-of-hearing-but-heres-how-to-help-136104

Noel

[Alan_A 1,650]

A few more things to catch up on...

Periodically, one member or another will post that covid-19 deaths are much higher in older populations than in any other.  Strictly speaking, that's true. However, the statistic by itself doesn't provide enough detail - it's low-resolution.  By itself, it seems to suggest that only older people are at risk and need to be protected, and that everyone else should be fine to go about their business.  Unfortunately, we're not dealing with a simple binary - die or get well.  There's a whole range of things that happen in the middle, including very severe, very debilitating illness with the potential for life-altering effects.  It also ignores the potential for exposure and death in other populations.  For example, of those who died and were under 60, how many were healthcare workers and first responders?  Or transit workers and other public employees.  And do you want to accept deaths in those populations?  You're losing some highly trained, highly dedicated people in the course of this.

Talking about this also points us toward the reasons covid-19 is different from other conditions with high death totals that are frequently cited - flu, heart disease, deaths in automobile accidents, etc.  What sets covid-19 apart from those others is that a) it's highly infectious, with the potential to jump populations, and b) there's no cure or treatment.  To take those factors into account, you have to think about a couple of things other than the total number of deaths.  You also have to think about interconnectedness - how do people move from one setting or group or geography to another?  - and transmissability - how do those travels affect the spread of the disease? In other words, it's not a stable, static phenomenon, it's a dynamic one, so you have to think about where it's trending.

That brings you up against some less-obvious effects.  Somebody mentioned schools and suggested that since young people don't have high covid-19 fatality rates, it should be OK to reopen.  And sure, they may not die of the disease in large numbers. But they can transmit it.  So before crowding them all in together, it might be worth thinking about where they come from and where they go.  Do they live on campus or do they commute?  If they live on campus, do they visit bars and restaurants?  If they commute, where's home, and how do they travel, and who do they meet on the way?  Elementary school kids? Low-risk group, based on the numbers, but some of their teachers are in high-risk groups.  And the kids go home every night.  And they go visit grandma on the weekends.  Those are some of the dynamics you'd have to look at before you put them all under one roof.

Here's a really interesting study along those lines - the Social Analytics Lab at the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy modeled the way states influence other states, through travel, common borders, cultural or business connections, and other factors that tie regions together.  Some of the connections are obvious and others are much less so.  The reason they've done the modeling is to enable states, as they reopen, to look at trends in other states that might have an impact on them, and help them make better-informed decisions about how to balance economic and health factors.  There's a summary of the study at this page, with a link to the full report (it's quite long).

Another point of contention where we could use some more detail - the idea that there's a duel between public health on the one hand and the economy on the other.  No, once again, there are big gray areas in between, and that's where people are mostly trying to operate.  There's some good work being done along those lines - the best so far was that German study I linked to the other day that found that there was a sweet spot of R0=0.75 where you could balance economic activity against reduced transmission.  Here's a report on another study - this one got a lot of attention today - that uses exponential growth, the basic dynamic of an infectious disease, to look at the timing of lockdown orders and the resulting impact on deaths.  The headline is that if the US had gone to lockdown one week earlier, deaths would have been reduced by 36,000.  Two weeks earlier would have meant a reduction of 54,000.  There are two reasons why this matters - it helps establish that severe restrictions earlier would have made for a shorter lockdown and a faster restoration of economic activity (something that the 1918-1919 data also bears out), and it provides a template for what to do in the case of future localized outbreaks or a second wave.

Final item for this round - there's sometimes a tendency to dismiss small events as statistically meaningless (e.g., there have been deaths in children, but only a very few, so it's anecdotal).  Very true that those deaths don't have much of an impact on the overall demographics - again, the mortality risk is mainly in the elderly.  But... again, because we're talking about a dynamic disease, you also need to look at small groups because something new might be emerging.  Maybe it's an exception, or maybe it's the first point on a new trend line.  The first report of HIV in the US, in 1981, described five cases of Kaposi's Sarcoma, a rare skin cancer, in five otherwise healthy young gay men.  Kaposi's normally occurred in very old men, mostly of Mediterranean ancestry.  That first emergence was tiny - five cases! - but what it showed was that something unusual and at the time unexplainable was happening.  So... reason to pay attention.

That's it for now. I'm sure tomorrow will bring a fresh round of data and a rested bunch of members ready to debate. Or to talk ham radio and the MSFS NDA.  In the words of Jimmy McGill, it's all good, man...

 

 

[dave2013 1,130]

10 hours ago, Alan_A said:

A few more things to catch up on...

For the most part I agree with you.  You bring up some good points, but some of your arguments, or the ones you cite, are mostly academic and not based in reality.  You point to a study that had we shut down earlier then we could have prevented deaths.  Aside from the fact that this is common sense, the very nature of these types of outbreaks is that we don't ever react quickly enough because our knowledge and information are limited - we aren't omniscient.  To make matters worse, I believe, based on a lot of evidence, that at least one govt. knew how severe this virus was but failed to inform the rest of the world quickly enough.

Everyone is at risk from this virus.  The question is: how much risk?  If our goal is to reduce the risk to zero, or near zero, then we might as well give up on life altogether because one cannot live without incurring some amount of risk.

We had the shutdowns and lockdowns to buy time to prepare.

We've encouraged, and in some cases mandated, preventative/protective measures like social distancing, wearing masks, sanitizing, etc. to slow the spread of the virus.

We've ramped up testing nationwide to find out how many are infected and who is infected.  This must continue and increase so that we can quickly isolate and quarantine those infected.

We've ramped up development of treatments and have had some promising results.

We've ramped up vaccine development on an unprecedented scale. 

As a civilization we're doing all we can within reason to combat the virus, prevent its spread, and save as many lives as we can *reasonably* save.  And that's where a lot of the disagreement lies I think, i.e. what is "reasonable"?  How far should we go to save X number of lives?  At what point does the cure become worse than the disease?

My contention is that we should focus primarily on protecting the elderly and sick.  If that means engaging in age discrimination and mandating that they stay home, or have highly restricted travel, then so be it.  If it means the kids and grand kids can't visit for a year, then so be it.  

Some people are going to die from this no matter what we do, and we just have to accept that.  Imposing harsh restrictions on the 95% of the population who have an extremely low chance of dying from this is not a good long-term solution.  Will a lot of people get sick?  Probably.  Just like millions of people get sick from colds, flu, and other infections every single year.

The long-term solution is awareness and education so that people will naturally and voluntarily take the proven, reasonable measures to protect themselves and others, not stay home all the time and fear going out.  This has to become a habit.  Effective treatments and vaccines will be the ultimate solution.

Dave

Edited May 22, 2020 by n4gix
REMOVED EXCESSIVE QUOTE!!! Please stop quoting the entire post you are replying to!

[dave2013 1,130]

9 hours ago, Alan_A said:

Talking about this also points us toward the reasons covid-19 is different from other conditions with high death totals that are frequently cited - flu, heart disease, deaths in automobile accidents, etc.  What sets covid-19 apart from those others is that a) it's highly infectious, with the potential to jump populations, and b) there's no cure or treatment.  To take those factors into account, you have to think about a couple of things other than the total number of deaths.  You also have to think about interconnectedness - how do people move from one setting or group or geography to another?  - and transmissability - how do those travels affect the spread of the disease? In other words, it's not a stable, static phenomenon, it's a dynamic one, so you have to think about where it's trending.

I would argue that automobile accidents are in many ways similar to an infectious disease.  I can "catch" an automobile accident from anyone, anytime, anywhere.  All it takes is for a single person to have one second of inattentiveness or recklessness, either the other driver or me, and I can die or be paralyzed for life.  If I take certain preventative/protective measures like wearing a seat belt, driving a car with anti-lock brakes, air bags, collision avoidance, etc, and practice defensive driving then I can greatly reduce my chances of having an accident and/or being killed or paralyzed.

The same goes for an infection, i.e. a single infected person can pass the virus to me through a moment of inattentiveness or recklessness either on their part or mine.  If I and others take the proper preventative/protective measures then I can greatly reduce my chances of contracting the disease.

Dave

Edited May 22, 2020 by dave2013

[birdguy 3,943]

37 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

As a civilization we're doing all we can within reason to combat the virus, prevent its spread, and save as many lives as we can *reasonably* save.  And that's where a lot of the disagreement lies I think, i.e. what is "reasonable"?  How far should we go to save X number of lives?  At what point does the cure become worse than the disease?

I agree David and let me add this.  We have to determine a point at where we treat the coronavirus like all the other life risks we have learned to live with like random shootings, accidents that started with falling off a horse many years ago to airline crashes.  Lung cancer we know smoking causes but we can't outlaw tobacco.  Liver ailments caused by alcoholism but we can't outlaw  beer or wine or gin.  We tried that once.  Heart disease, cancer, kidney failure, sudden infant death syndrome.

We are going to have to determine a level of coronavirus acceptance and live and die with that.  Shutting down society over the long term will just, at some point, make people say the hell with it and accept the risks.

You speak of protecting the elderly.  How far do we protect them?  My brother is in long term care in a nursing home and only leaves, under supervision, to medical facilities.  The 'inmates' are not allowed visitors so the only contact they have with their families is by e-mail (if they have a computer) or telephone (if they have a telephone).  

In my brother's case I am sometimes asked to appear at the facility he is going to and stay with him while he is examined or undergoes treatment like chemo.  But otherwise even immediate families have no contact with them.  Is that a life?  Is it better to protect the lives of the elderly at all costs or perhaps shorten their lives with a better quality of life like letting immediate family members take them home for an evening or out to dinner like I did with my brother before the lockdown.

Noel

Edited May 22, 2020 by birdguy

[KevinAu 441]

36 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Some people are going to die from this no matter what we do, and we just have to accept that.  Imposing harsh restrictions on the 95% of the population who have an extremely low chance of dying from this is not a good long-term solution.  Will a lot of people get sick?  Probably.  Just like millions of people get sick from colds, flu, and other infections every single year.

Dave

You are making an assumption here. An assumption that is required to brush off the seriousness of this disease. You are assuming that the 95% who recover have no long term effects from the illness. About 10% will need icu care. How many need icu care from the flu? Do you know that you can still perform your job, hold a faa medical or dot medical after this illness if you ended up bad enough to be placed in the icu?

[dave2013 1,130]

6 minutes ago, birdguy said:

You speak of protecting the elderly.  How far do we protect them?  My brother is in long term care in a nursing home and only leaves, under supervision, to medical facilities.  The 'inmates' are not allowed visitors so the only contact they have with their families is by e-mail (if they have a computer) or telephone (if they have a telephone).  

In my brother's case I am sometimes asked to appear at the facility he is going to and stay with him while he is examined or undergoes treatment like chemo.  But otherwise even immediate families have no contact with them.  Is that a life?  Is it better to protect the lives of the elderly at all costs or perhaps shorten their lives with a better quality of life like letting immediate family members take them home for an evening or out to dinner like I did with my brother before the lockdown.

Yes, and I should clarify my position.  I personally don't advocate forcing anyone to stay home, except for someone we know for a fact is infected, so we treat and quarantine them temporarily.

What I mean is that if we must have restrictions, which again I don't advocate, then at least have effective, fact-based ones, which would have to focus on the elderly, sick, and known infected.

Dave

[Bob Scott 7,720]

21 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I would argue that automobile accidents are in many ways similar to an infectious disease.  I can "catch" an automobile accident from anyone, anytime, anywhere.  All it takes is for a single person to have one second of inattentiveness or recklessness, either the other driver or me, and I can die or be paralyzed for life.  If I take certain preventative/protective measures like wearing a seat belt, driving a car with anti-lock brakes, air bags, collision avoidance, etc, and practice defensive driving then I can greatly reduce my chances of having an accident and/or being killed or paralyzed.

The same goes for an infection, i.e. a single infected person can pass the virus to me through a moment of inattentiveness or recklessness either on their part or mine.  If I and others take the proper preventative/protective measures then I can greatly reduce my chances of contracting the disease.

This brings to mind the ongoing scourge of texting while driving.  We certainly have the technical means, for example using GPS already embedded into every phone to detect motion/speed and electronics that can detect proximity of a device to a sensor (mostly used for keyless ignitions now), and yet nothing has been done to implement technical safeguards that might curb the deadly practice of texting while behind the wheel.  Frankly, anyone who has ever sent or read a text while driving has no right whatsoever to lecture any of us about masks, social distancing, etc.

And then one has to ask why any bar is allowed to have a parking lot...we know that even one drink impairs driving ability, and that impaired driving, whether above or below the legal DUI threshold, kills and maims tens of thousands of people every year.  Shouldn't we mandate that cars be impounded in the parking lot and only be released to leave with a driver who blows 0.0?

I mention these two because some people I know think the above control measures would be an affront to their free choices, yet they rabidly advocate mandatory quarantine of entire regions and an endless supply of free gub'mint cheese for the duration.

 

[dave2013 1,130]

1 minute ago, KevinAu said:

You are making an assumption here. An assumption that is required to brush off the seriousness of this disease. You are assuming that the 95% who recover have no long term effects from the illness. About 10% will need icu care. How many need icu care from the flu? Do you know that you can still perform your job, hold a faa medical or dot medical after this illness if you ended up bad enough to be placed in the icu?

Do you know the percentage of those under 60 years of age that have long term effects from Covid-19?  If it's more than a few percent then I might have to alter my position a bit.

Where are you getting your figure that 10% of those under 60 who contract Covid-19 need icu care?  I'm reading reports from all over the country that the hospitals are practically empty. These are eyewitness reports from not only the public but doctors and nurses as well.

Lastly, what is your solution?  What do you recommend?

It's easy to criticize and poke holes in everyone else's opinions and suggestions.

Put your cards on the table.

Dave

[SteveFx 258]

I though that this was interesting on the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52754280

It suggests that many patients in ICUs  that have serious issues with covid-19 have been found to have greatly reduced T-Cell counts - its implied that the virus  is causing this in some way.

[dave2013 1,130]

1 minute ago, w6kd said:

This brings to mind the ongoing scourge of texting while driving.  We certainly have the technical means, for example using GPS to detect motion/speed and electronics that can detect proximity of a device to a sensor (mostly used for keyless ignitions now), and yet nothing has been done to implement technical safeguards that might curb the deadly practice of texting while behind the wheel.  Frankly, anyone who has ever sent or read a text while driving has no right whatsoever to lecture any of us about masks, social distancing, etc.

And then one has to ask why any bar is allowed to have a parking lot...we know that even one drink impairs driving ability, and that impaired driving, whether above or below the legal DUI threshold, kills and maims tens of thousands of people every year.  Shouldn't we mandate that cars be impounded in the parking lot and only be released to leave with a driver who blows 0.0?

I mention these two because some people I know think the above control measures would be an affront to their free choices, yet they rabidly advocate mandatory quarantine of entire regions and an endless supply of free gub'mint cheese for the duration.

 

I couldn't agree more.  Just yesterday I was on a 4-lane 65mph speed limit highway and there was a lady who kept slowing down and speeding up, so she would pass me and then a few minutes later I would have to pass her over and over.  We came to a stoplight and when the light turned green she just sat there for almost 10 seconds until I tapped the horn.  I passed her slowly on purpose  and sure enough she was texting.

The penalties for this should be much more severe than they are.  It's almost tantamount to driving under the influence.

Dave

[HiFlyer 9,359]

25 minutes ago, w6kd said:

This brings to mind the ongoing scourge of texting while driving.  We certainly have the technical means, for example using GPS already embedded into every phone to detect motion/speed and electronics that can detect proximity of a device to a sensor (mostly used for keyless ignitions now), and yet nothing has been done to implement technical safeguards that might curb the deadly practice of texting while behind the wheel.  Frankly, anyone who has ever sent or read a text while driving has no right whatsoever to lecture any of us about masks, social distancing, etc.

And then one has to ask why any bar is allowed to have a parking lot...we know that even one drink impairs driving ability, and that impaired driving, whether above or below the legal DUI threshold, kills and maims tens of thousands of people every year.  Shouldn't we mandate that cars be impounded in the parking lot and only be released to leave with a driver who blows 0.0?

I mention these two because some people I know think the above control measures would be an affront to their free choices, yet they rabidly advocate mandatory quarantine of entire regions and an endless supply of free gub'mint cheese for the duration.

I think the difference is that there are already effective societal disincentives for texting and driving, dui, impaired driving etc. These include escalating fines, forfeiture of license, insurance rate hikes, and jail time.

Further disincentives include, public service messages and driver retraining, public shaming via printing of names in local papers, lawsuits by parties injured by one's actions......

Currently, enforcement for violations on covid guidelines is pretty much non existent, except for businesses and egregious offenders who make spectacles of themselves.

I can only imagine the outcry if we did indeed make covid quarantine violations as stringent as those for traffic violation enforcement!

As far as mandatory quarantine of entire regions..... this is again something we find unobjectionable in other types of public emergencies. Forest fires, floods, chemical spills, and a host of other events threatening public safety necessitate similar actions, including "government cheese" via FEMA and other responsive agencies......

I suspect it's the nationwide nature of the event, that is causing some of the angst, but so would martial law if this was an actual war instead of the war against a virus, as proclaimed by our government.

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by HiFlyer

[birdguy 3,943]

I have no idea if this I bogus or not.  I found it interesting but like a lot f the stuff posted here it may not be true.  How will people respond to second lockdown?

Noel

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/what-a-second-coronavirus-lockdown-could-do-mental-health-192923653.html

[birdguy 3,943]

The texting while driving posts reminded me of another hazard.  Touchscreen controls in your car.

I have a large one in my new Prius and hate it.  The only way I can adjust the air conditioner-heater fan is to first bring up the environment control screen and then look for the fan control.  All the while my eyes are off the road for a few seconds.  I am not adept at this.

So I either set the environmental controls after I start the engine and before I start to move or, while driving, find a place to park.

Of course the new touchscreen digital world of technology is so much better than the dash knobs you could just reach down and twist to do the same job without taking your eyes off the road.

I sometimes wish I had my old one back.

Noel

[n4gix 4,947]

17 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

I’m extra cautious - I try to stay 28 MHz distant. (Speaking of 10 and DX, some pretty good Es openings this week!)

I have been maintaining 40m distance for some weeks now. I'd readily settle for 80m or even 160m. Unfortunately my little G5RV-Junior won't resonate at all on them. :(