Great Barrington Declaration, lets get back to Cruising!!

[Pratique]

52 minutes ago, TheMastodon said:

Pratique I don’t know how we could quantify how many wear masks compared to who doesn’t.  When I go to Target, Costco, Home Depot, grocery, small biz , etc every patron is wearing a mask.  Sure, I’ve seen some here and there that aren’t but the vast majority are.  At this point someone not wearing a mask sticks out like a sore thumb.  I would estimate the vast vast majority in my area are masked up and I think it’s great.  

The numbers aren't clear but we can guess.

 

My state of New Hampshire is the only one without a mandatory seat belt law for adults. Everyone here who wears a seat belt does it because they believe it is worth doing, not because they have to do it. I don't see many not wearing seatbelts but there are studies showing that we have the lowest seatbelt utilization rate in the country.

 

There is no question that seat belts save lives, and that states that require their use have higher utilization rates. So the logical conclusion is that requiring masks would increase the number of people who wear them. I encountered someone not too long ago who said she would only wear a mask if the government required it. Just because we don't see maskless people doesn't mean they aren't out there. It appears that a significant amount of Covid spreading is now occurring in private settings, such as parties and weddings, not at restaurants or schools or in public places where we can see it.

 

So why not mandate it? And why are people like the mayor of Wichita being targeted for supporting mask usage? I think you are overestimating the numbers at least outside of your area.

Edited October 20, 2020 by Pratique
Sorry meant over not under.

[TheMastodon]

42 minutes ago, Pratique said:

The numbers aren't clear but we can guess.

 

My state of New Hampshire is the only one without a mandatory seat belt law for adults. Everyone here who wears a seat belt does it because they believe it is worth doing, not because they have to do it. I don't see many not wearing seatbelts but there are studies showing that we have the lowest seatbelt utilization rate in the country.

 

There is no question that seat belts save lives, and that states that require their use have higher utilization rates. So the logical conclusion is that requiring masks would increase the number of people who wear them. I encountered someone not too long ago who said she would only wear a mask if the government required it. Just because we don't see maskless people doesn't mean they aren't out there. It appears that a significant amount of Covid spreading is now occurring in private settings, such as parties and weddings, not at restaurants or schools or in public places where we can see it.

 

So why not mandate it? And why are people like the mayor of Wichita being targeted for supporting mask usage? I think you are overestimating the numbers at least outside of your area.

Solid analogy.  I’d be all for that.  Although the anti mask crowd would prob still not obey.  I still contend vast majority are masking but again have no way of proving that.  
 

Also worth noting not all masks are created equal and how they are used.  

[mayleeman]

The current surge in cases is attributable to a large degree to simple human impatience. People are tired of masks and restrictions, so they decide to stop doing those things or to disregard the risks as they experience the costs  and consequences and inconveniences.

 

An analogy would be to watch people waiting to cross a busy street when a crossing light is either not working or just set to a long delay.  Some people will wait patiently until the "Walk" signal occurs, no matter how long, or if it is broken only cross when there are no cars coming. But some others who get tired of waiting will decide to engage in riskier behavior by going out into traffic that they normally would not enter.

 

Impatience is not a scientific principle, so it makes no sense to base any medical strategy upon it.

Edited October 20, 2020 by mayleeman

[BND]

34 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

The current surge in cases is attributable to a large degree to simple human impatience. People are tired of masks and restrictions, so they decide to stop doing those things or to disregard the risks as they experience the costs  and consequences and inconveniences.

 

An analogy would be to watch people waiting to cross a busy street when a crossing light is either not working or just set to a long delay.  Some people will wait patiently until the "Walk" signal occurs, no matter how long, or if it is broken only cross when there are no cars coming. But some others who get tired of waiting will decide to engage in riskier behavior by going out into traffic that they normally would not enter.

 

Impatience is not a scientific principle, so it makes no sense to base any medical strategy upon it.

Have you ever been to NYC?  Everyone crosses whenever there's an opening, regardless of the sign that's lit.  

[torpeedo]

8 minutes ago, BND said:

It's surging due to fatigue, not anything that leaders have said.  It's surging among younger people because they're sick and tired of not being able to be social like they should be.  We do have to live life.

So true.  We had a big football win here in SC this weekend and the students had a huge party, 2,000 kids partying at one of the student complexes..  They will do what young people do.  

And PS It is going to go away.  The only question remaining is when. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by torpeedo

[Lou33]

5 minutes ago, BND said:

It's surging due to fatigue, not anything that leaders have said.  It's surging among younger people because they're sick and tired of not being able to be social like they should be.  We do have to live life.

 

I'll say it again.  If this virus primarily affected younger people.  Then the older people would do "anything" to save them.  

 

We all have to make sacrifices.  Is it asking too much to wear a mask and not go to a bar until this is over?

[torpeedo]

7 minutes ago, Lou33 said:

 

We all have to make sacrifices.  Is it asking too much to wear a mask and not go to a bar until this is over?

 

Apparently so by anecdotal evidence.

[John&LaLa]

2 hours ago, Lou33 said:

 

I'll say it again.  If this virus primarily affected younger people.  Then the older people would do "anything" to save them.  

 

We all have to make sacrifices.  Is it asking too much to wear a mask and not go to a bar until this is over?

 

I disagree with that now that I live in a masive retirement complex. Boomers aren't as saintly as you think they are.😉

[broberts]

5 hours ago, torpeedo said:

And PS It is going to go away.  The only question remaining is when. 

 

Not sure why you believe this. Influenza has been with us for more than 100 years and is still killing people.

[BND]

9 hours ago, John&LaLa said:

 

I disagree with that now that I live in a masive retirement complex. Boomers aren't as saintly as you think they are.😉

I see that at my MIL's independent living apt and at church.  I see more older people with their mask pulled down below their nose if they're wearing them at all.  It's spreading among younger people because they are getting together more and hanging out socializing and I guarantee pretty much everyone on here complaining about them would be doing the same thing in their 20's and early 30's because you are invincible and crave the  social aspect at that time.  We eat out every weekend and have been for months.  Mostly outside, but not always.  I'm technically a "boomer", born in 1960 and DH , 1957 but we wear masks inside and wherever requested.  

 

As for how "saintly" retirees are, all you have to do is look at stats on STD's in retirement communities, lol.  

[BND]

6 hours ago, broberts said:

 

Not sure why you believe this. Influenza has been with us for more than 100 years and is still killing people.

And people accept that risk and go on with their lives.  Which is what we'll end up doing with this virus too.  Treatments are as important if not moreso than vaccines because they will allow a return to "normal" life.

 

And influenza has been around a lot longer than 100 years.  The Spanish flu ran rampant 100 years ago, but the flu was hardly new.

Edited October 21, 2020 by BND

[Mapleleafforever]

13 minutes ago, BND said:

And people accept that risk and go on with their lives.  Which is what we'll end up doing with this virus too.  Treatments are as important if not moreso than vaccines because they will allow a return to "normal" life.

 

And influenza has been around a lot longer than 100 years.  The Spanish flu ran rampant 100 years ago, but the flu was hardly new.

And don't forget SARS.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

For those saying Covid deaths have been overstated:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

 

Do I think there have been some deaths incorrectly classified as "Covid deaths"?  Absolutely. 

Do I think it's happened in enough numbers to really make a difference in the count?  Absolutely not.

[nomad098]

31 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

For those saying Covid deaths have been overstated:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

 

Do I think there have been some deaths incorrectly classified as "Covid deaths"?  Absolutely. 

Do I think it's happened in enough numbers to really make a difference in the count?  Absolutely not.

 

If the head line figure were true this would be terrifying and very saddening however this a computer based model and the fact is it it may be so much worse

 

if this figure was true it would mean that a 30% of all deaths would be attributed to lockdowns, restrictions and there unintended consequences. Unfortunately even if a vaccine/treatments/other control measures come online to mitigate deaths from covid-19 because of the efforts/spending/unintended consequences it may well lead to this number growing to the point of equalling or surpassing covid-19

 

Because the US estimates quite a lot of it's deaths through modelling but is registering covid-19 deaths it may well be the case that excess non covid-19 deaths may well be far higher as stated in the CDC document.

 

[S.A.M.J.R.]

I'm assuming there are at least some fluctuation in year to year death numbers.  I wish that was easily found (and I admit I haven't looked yet).  I think it would be interesting to post the numbers from at least the last 5 years. 

 

[junglejane]

The fluctuation in year to year death numbers is exactly what yesterday's CDC report was about.   Total deaths in the US have been running well above normal since March.  There were two peaks in excess deaths in March/April and June/July, which coincided with the peaks in virus infection.  

 

It is known with certainty how many people died--they are counted one by one and reported to the National Vital Statistics System at CDC.  This is compared to a statistical "average" from prior years.  The result is that, so far in 2020, there have been 299,000 more deaths than normal.    Separately, individual death certificates have listed COVID as the cause of death in 216,000 cases.   Thus the statement that COVID has caused "at least 2/3" of the excess mortality.  The inference to be drawn is that COVID has caused more than 216,000 deaths, such as when a death certificate lists pneumonia (not COVID) as a cause of death.  

[S.A.M.J.R.]

1 hour ago, junglejane said:

The fluctuation in year to year death numbers is exactly what yesterday's CDC report was about.   Total deaths in the US have been running well above normal since March.  There were two peaks in excess deaths in March/April and June/July, which coincided with the peaks in virus infection.  

 

It is known with certainty how many people died--they are counted one by one and reported to the National Vital Statistics System at CDC.  This is compared to a statistical "average" from prior years.  The result is that, so far in 2020, there have been 299,000 more deaths than normal.    Separately, individual death certificates have listed COVID as the cause of death in 216,000 cases.   Thus the statement that COVID has caused "at least 2/3" of the excess mortality.  The inference to be drawn is that COVID has caused more than 216,000 deaths, such as when a death certificate lists pneumonia (not COVID) as a cause of death.  

I get all that.  I'd like to see the raw numbers.  What's the normal fluctuation between years?  5k? 10k? 100k?  

[time4u2go]

2 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

I'm assuming there are at least some fluctuation in year to year death numbers.  I wish that was easily found (and I admit I haven't looked yet).  I think it would be interesting to post the numbers from at least the last 5 years. 

 

The fluctuation really isn't that much:  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm. It's nowhere close to 300,000.

Edited October 21, 2020 by time4u2go

[nomad098]

29 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

I get all that.  I'd like to see the raw numbers.  What's the normal fluctuation between years?  5k? 10k? 100k?  

 

I can not speak to the US but the fluctuation in the UK is between 30k-40k between the high and low averages

[time4u2go]

7 minutes ago, nomad098 said:

 

I can not speak to the US but the fluctuation in the UK is between 30k-40k between the high and low averages

In the US, the average change from 2010-2018 was about 46k.  The highest was 86k.

[nomad098]

17 minutes ago, time4u2go said:

In the US, the average change from 2010-2018 was about 46k.  The highest was 86k.

 

Have you got a link to this info please?

 

It was my understanding that the CDC work from predicted deaths, once threshold for excess deaths is crossed then they start counting through observation.

 

It was also my understanding from the CDC that influenza deaths for children is accurately counted but adult deaths are modeled. 

 

[time4u2go]

1 minute ago, nomad098 said:

Have you got a link to this info please?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/06/11/how-many-people-died-the-year-you-were-born/111928450/

[John Reid]

On 10/20/2020 at 12:57 PM, TheMastodon said:

 

Yeah those various epidemiologists have said a lot of things that didn't pan out either.   We will just keep consuming what they say though. 

 

2.7% is based on confirmed positive cases.  If we were able to count all the asymptomatic people walking around with Covid19 (CDC estimates 10x)  it would be even lower right?  Or am I just loosing my mind

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, you are losing your mind.

[BND]

1 hour ago, John Reid said:

No, you are losing your mind.

Nope.  If cases are actually 8-10X the positive tests, then yes, the death rate would be lower. It's simple math.  It also means more people have been infected than have been reported.   Just based on studies done on waste water, it's been shown the infection rate is much higher than the positive test rate.  So, you are wrong, and rude.

[Olympian]

With all this discussion about life and death due to the dreaded COVID-19 the thing that pleases me the most is that people are finally agreeing with the principle of Sanctity of Life.  Life is Sacred and we should not have policies that could snuff it out prematurely.