The Covid-19 Info thread (keep politics out please)

[Johnson85]

I agree with you. As the same time, there are people on this board that are dismissive of the data being shared.

I highly doubt anyone on this thread is being a hermit and not socializing with their friends or neighbors. At the same time, I would hope that they think twice before they head out to participate in a large gathering. It boils down to common sense and I'm afraid that is lacking in our overall population.

I don't think anyone here is not empathetic to the situation and what impact it has had on kids, businesses, family lives, etc.

There absolutely are. You can see some posts that accuse people of wanting to let kids play sports of putting kids lives in danger to be entertained. And others that clearly think kids wanting to do things like rec league or high schools sports, or social activities like school dances, or going on beach vacations are being frivolous. They are so worried about their health and their fear of getting sick that they compare everything in the granular against the thought of they themselves dying, and so they are incapable of looking at the big picture and realizing how little sense their positions make when you aggregate the costs and benefits across the whole population.

To answer your question on justification, I don't think we'll be shutting things down again like they were earlier this year. I don't think that is a feasible option, nor is it warranted. At the same time, you can't ignore the spikes in cases and think that the virus won't at some point infiltrate your community. My greatest fear is that if it gets a hold of rural communities and spreads (like it did in Albany, GA) - there is going to be some severe heart break because there isn't enough healthcare to manage the volume.

Well, I'm afraid you can go ahead and get ready to see your greatest fear b/c it seems likely it's going to happen in some places. Populated areas can handle a few super spreader events and it may tax the system, but it's still basically just really loud noise. One super spreader event in a very rural area can hit a significant portion of the population by itself. Going to be a lot more volatility in rural communities, with it being easier for them to avoid the virus on a day to day basis, but much easier to hit a big portion of their population when they do have community events.

[Gutter Cobreh]

There absolutely are. You can see some posts that accuse people of wanting to let kids play sports of putting kids lives in danger to be entertained. And others that clearly think kids wanting to do things like rec league or high schools sports, or social activities like school dances, or going on beach vacations are being frivolous. They are so worried about their health and their fear of getting sick that they compare everything in the granular against the thought of they themselves dying, and so they are incapable of looking at the big picture and realizing how little sense their positions make when you aggregate the costs and benefits across the whole population.


Well, I'm afraid you can go ahead and get ready to see your greatest fear b/c it seems likely it's going to happen in some places. Populated areas can handle a few super spreader events and it may tax the system, but it's still basically just really loud noise. One super spreader event in a very rural area can hit a significant portion of the population by itself. Going to be a lot more volatility in rural communities, with it being easier for them to avoid the virus on a day to day basis, but much easier to hit a big portion of their population when they do have community events.

Appreciate your viewpoint.

Since this is a sports board, I will start there. I think that we are so consumed with sports that we let it overshadow the fact that it is not essential. I'm all for letting professional sports continue as they see fit, but I think you have to tread carefully when talking about high school or college sports. I think if our universities are so dependent on athletic revenue to balance their operating budgets - then something has gone amiss and this situation has brought to light the imbalance of what an institution of higher learning should be about. It isn't about "fear mongering" or "not seeing the bigger picture" - it is more about whether an activity is essential enough to waive the risks. If the general population feels like that sports at lower levels are essential enough to deal with kids potentially getting sick, then go for it. If a majority think the risks don't warrant cancelling, then have at it. You're going to have detractors and views for both sides. I don't know which side is correct, but I do know sports are entertainment.

To the same point, what are the largest events that typically happen in a rural area in the fall? Don't football games bring people together to sit in stands and root for their team? If you have an asymptomatic spreader that doesn't believe in the data and chooses to forgo a mask, wouldn't a football game where a majority of the community will attend provide an event for it to spread? Just a thought.

Full disclosure - my kid is prepping to play football this fall and is currently playing a league sport right now. My wife and I have discussed the situation and made the decision that we are going to continue our lives as best we can through this pandemic, while also being aware and doing our best to protect those around us by wearing masks. The virus isn't prevalent to a large degree in our current community, so no need to hunker down and be recluses.

[Johnson85]

Appreciate your viewpoint.

Since this is a sports board, I will start there. I think that we are so consumed with sports that we let it overshadow the fact that it is not essential. I'm all for letting professional sports continue as they see fit, but I think you have to tread carefully when talking about high school or college sports. I think if our universities are so dependent on athletic revenue to balance their operating budgets - then something has gone amiss and this situation has brought to light the imbalance of what an institution of higher learning should be about. It isn't about "fear mongering" or "not seeing the bigger picture" - it is more about whether an activity is essential enough to waive the risks. If the general population feels like that sports at lower levels are essential enough to deal with kids potentially getting sick, then go for it. If a majority think the risks don't warrant cancelling, then have at it. You're going to have detractors and views for both sides. I don't know which side is correct, but I do know sports are entertainment.

Not to pick on you or be argumentative, but I would say this entire paragraph is an example of not seeing the bigger picture. We don't normally require that things be essential in order to allow them to go forward even with risk. Phrase like "whether an activity is essential enough to waive the risks" to me indicates somebody whose risk meter is all out of whack. The first question should be from the kids interest. I.e., how much additional risk is a child exposed to from (for example) playing football. ANd the answer is, not much. If they aren't playing football, they will very likely be socializing in similar sized groups and possibly going to school in similar sized groups. Even if they don't do that, many of them will be working in jobs like retail that expose them to a good number of people. And of course, most importantly, for most of them, it's not a particularly serious threat as far as we know. If you ask most kids, "Would you give up high school sports and other group activities for two years of your high school and otherwise drastically reduce the number of people you interact with socially for two years, in order to cut your risk of catching COVID in half (which I'm not sure we can do), which means your risk of death from COVID would drop from something like 0.01% of dying of COVID to 0.005%, and also cut your risk from some as of yet unknown side effects by half, I think most teenagers would say "are you 17ing kidding me?", and I don't think they would answer that way b/c they are bad at assessing risk (although granted most teenagers are).

The interests of the kids are certainly not the only question. But the way this thing is talked about you would think their happiness/satisfaction counts about as much as the happiness/satisfaction of people's pet fish. Just because things are not biologically or economically necessary doesn't mean they have zero value.

Again, not meaning to direct this necessarily at you. Some may apply, some may not, but in general, people seem to be being obtuse ass holes about this. If teenagers were going around saying things like, "so you lose your business that you spent the last five years of your life on. Just go get a job like the vast majority of other people. Five years of your life is a small price to pay", people would rightfully look at those teenagers as ass holes, or I guess more accurately, as lacking perspective because they are teenagers.

But I don't know what the excuse is for adults who act like just taking away in person school, extra curricular activities, social events, etc. from high schoolers for a couple of years is no big deal. It's a big deal. There's more to life than biological and work necessities and lots of things that aren't those things are important.

To the same point, what are the largest events that typically happen in a rural area in the fall? Don't football games bring people together to sit in stands and root for their team? If you have an asymptomatic spreader that doesn't believe in the data and chooses to forgo a mask, wouldn't a football game where a majority of the community will attend provide an event for it to spread? Just a thought.

Full disclosure - my kid is prepping to play football this fall and is currently playing a league sport right now. My wife and I have discussed the situation and made the decision that we are going to continue our lives as best we can through this pandemic, while also being aware and doing our best to protect those around us by wearing masks. The virus isn't prevalent to a large degree in our current community, so no need to hunker down and be recluses.

[Gutter Cobreh]

Not to pick on you or be argumentative, but I would say this entire paragraph is an example of not seeing the bigger picture. We don't normally require that things be essential in order to allow them to go forward even with risk. Phrase like "whether an activity is essential enough to waive the risks" to me indicates somebody whose risk meter is all out of whack. The first question should be from the kids interest. I.e., how much additional risk is a child exposed to from (for example) playing football. ANd the answer is, not much. If they aren't playing football, they will very likely be socializing in similar sized groups and possibly going to school in similar sized groups. Even if they don't do that, many of them will be working in jobs like retail that expose them to a good number of people. And of course, most importantly, for most of them, it's not a particularly serious threat as far as we know. If you ask most kids, "Would you give up high school sports and other group activities for two years of your high school and otherwise drastically reduce the number of people you interact with socially for two years, in order to cut your risk of catching COVID in half (which I'm not sure we can do), which means your risk of death from COVID would drop from something like 0.01% of dying of COVID to 0.005%, and also cut your risk from some as of yet unknown side effects by half, I think most teenagers would say "are you 17ing kidding me?", and I don't think they would answer that way b/c they are bad at assessing risk (although granted most teenagers are).

I don't take this personal and enjoy the dialogue. My take is until a kid turns 18, it's up to the parents since they are considered a minor. You can't vote or enlist in the military without parental permission until you're 18, yet we want to give them the ability to make these decisions. Hell, at that age I thought I was invincible. All the examples you provide should be done with parental input.

You can't do anything sports related these days without signing COVID waivers. Why is that? It's to protect the entity sanctioning those events. I think my view is pretty global regarding this. With all due respect, this topic appears to be hitting home for you for whatever reason (but I could be completely off base). Irregardless, having different opinions isn't always a negative.

[Johnson85]

I don't take this personal and enjoy the dialogue. My take is until a kid turns 18, it's up to the parents since they are considered a minor. You can't vote or enlist in the military without parental permission until you're 18, yet we want to give them the ability to make these decisions. Hell, at that age I thought I was invincible. All the examples you provide should be done with parental input.

I agree with this. If parents want to put their kids on lock downs, that's the role they're actually supposed to play.

You can't do anything sports related these days without signing COVID waivers. Why is that? It's to protect the entity sanctioning those events. I think my view is pretty global regarding this. With all due respect, this topic appears to be hitting home for you for whatever reason (but I could be completely off base). Irregardless, having different opinions isn't always a negative.

It's actually not hitting close to me. We haven't had any negative financial impacts. Schools closing were certainly bad for our kids like they were for most kids and they were starting to show some wear around the edges from the social distancing (although I'm not sure how much was from them missing their friends versus picking up on it wearing on us), but they were at I would guess as easy an age as it could be as far as not really missing out on stuff that would make lasting impressions on them.

I would be handling it very poorly if it were hitting us particularly hard just because so many of the negative impacts are needlessly self-inflicted. And the panic and poor logic and risk assessments would be much more forgivable if there wasn't so much bad faith and dishonesty involved.