[BostonCard]

My wife and I were talking about my son playing golf for his high school team.  At its face, golf would be the last sport you would think would put someone at risk of transmission.  But after every match, of course, what do the kids do?  They take off their hat, run their fingers through their hair, and then shake hands with their opponent, so a great chance at transmission.

Softball games, the dugout is a great chance for transmission.  Swim meets you have to worry about the locker room.

The s*it is hitting the fan.

So rather than having kid play golf and instructing them not to take off hat, rub hand through hair and shake opponents hand, the directive is "shut it down."  Wow . . . 

The locker room means cancel all swim meets (as opposed to, you know, come to the meet in your suit, warm up at socially acceptable distance, and compete, and go home).  Again . . . wow.

The dugout . . . the classroom.  (And I'm smh at why schools have been open and remain open).

Admit it, BC, you think everyone should just stay home and limit all interaction.  That's okay.  Hell, that may be "the prudent" thing to do.  
But it's hard for me to accept that total shutdown is a good societal move, for a variety of reasons, including the overall meltdown that such reactions generate.

Doesn’t matter, his school was shut down and all activities shelved, from the school play to athletics.  I don’t have an issue with individuals pursuing individual athletic endevours.  My father in law’s golf club shut down the lockers, clubhouse, and restaurant, but the course remains open to members so I don’t have a problem with him playing a round.  My father bikes, and I’m more concerned that he’ll wipe out in the rain than I am that he will get COVID-19 doing so.  I’ve taken to taking walks outside in the neighborhood to avoid going stir crazy.  So, yeah, I do agree with you that the toll of complete isolation will be too much for society.

But I do think communal gatherings, team sports, and anything that puts many people together should be out.  The larger the group, the larger the probability that at least one person is infected and the larger the number of susceptible individuals who could get infected.  Imagine that 1 in 1000 people are infected with the virus.  If you get together for a round of golf with three friends, the likelihood that one of you is infected is 1 in 250, and at most that person can infect three others.  Now imagine you are involved in a 250 person wedding; the chances that at least one person is infected are 4% or so, and one infection puts 249 others at risk.

The larger the fraction of infected people, the smaller a gathering has to be so that at least one person is infected, so as the infection progresses, you will need to be more and more restrictive.  At its peak, you will pretty much have to shut everything down for a few weeks, as first China, then Italy, and now Spain have been doing.

BC

[BostonCard]

My wife and I were talking about my son playing golf for his high school team.  At its face, golf would be the last sport you would think would put someone at risk of transmission.  But after every match, of course, what do the kids do?  They take off their hat, run their fingers through their hair, and then shake hands with their opponent, so a great chance at transmission.

Softball games, the dugout is a great chance for transmission.  Swim meets you have to worry about the locker room.

The s*it is hitting the fan.

So rather than having kid play golf and instructing them not to take off hat, rub hand through hair and shake opponents hand, the directive is "shut it down."  Wow . . . 

The locker room means cancel all swim meets (as opposed to, you know, come to the meet in your suit, warm up at socially acceptable distance, and compete, and go home).  Again . . . wow.

The dugout . . . the classroom.  (And I'm smh at why schools have been open and remain open).

Admit it, BC, you think everyone should just stay home and limit all interaction.  That's okay.  Hell, that may be "the prudent" thing to do.  
But it's hard for me to accept that total shutdown is a good societal move, for a variety of reasons, including the overall meltdown that such reactions generate.

Doesn’t matter, his school was shut down and all activities shelved, from the school play to athletics.  I don’t have an issue with individuals pursuing individual athletic endevours.  My father in law’s golf club shut down the lockers, clubhouse, and restaurant, but the course remains open to members so I don’t have a problem with him playing a round.  My father bikes, and I’m more concerned that he’ll wipe out in the rain than I am that he will get COVID-19 doing so.  I’ve taken to taking walks outside in the neighborhood to avoid going stir crazy.  So, yeah, I do agree with you that the toll of complete isolation will be too much for society.

But I do think communal gatherings, team sports, and anything that puts many people together should be out.  The larger the group, the larger the probability that at least one person is infected and the larger the number of susceptible individuals who could get infected.  Imagine that 1 in 1000 people are infected with the virus.  If you get together for a round of golf with three friends, the likelihood that one of you is infected is 1 in 250, and at most that person can infect three others.  Now imagine you are involved in a 250 person wedding; the chances that at least one person is infected are 4% or so, and one infection puts 249 others at risk.

The larger the fraction of infected people, the smaller a gathering has to be so that at least one person is infected, so as the infection progresses, you will need to be more and more restrictive.  At its peak, you will pretty much have to shut everything down for a few weeks, as first China, then Italy, and now Spain have been doing.

BC