[Snorlax94]

The Russian roulette analogy was not mine, it was Snorlax.   My modification of his profer assumed taking the bullet means death, not merely risk of harm.  1/100 is looking like the overall death rate from the virus in the USA.  My point is that lifting SiP is not like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.

Yes, I was the first to use a Russian Roulette analogy, but in a different way. Also, I was clearly being sarcastic. Regarding states refusing to Shelter-In-Place, I wrote:
"I absolutely want people in those states to do well, be safe and be healthy. I have family and friends in many of those states, and I wish them the best by hoping they don’t ruin themselves.

It's like watching a loved one play Russian roulette, except you know there is a bullet in every chamber, and someone is asking, why are you so down? Maybe they are going to win!"

But I didn't use the metaphor to state a probability than an individual will die from Covid. I was saying, if I discourage someone from taking a path I am very confident will end in failure, if I am not supportive, it is not because I don't wish them well. It's because I don't want them to follow a course which will end very poorly (like a NYC or Italy type of situation). 

Anyway, with the recent data out from the Stanford study, maybe other states will be more willing to have a Shelter in Place or to stick out the ones already in place if we can potentially see a light at the end of the tunnel. It's one thing to comply with a Shelter-In-Place that feels indefinite. It's another to put up with one where the endpoint feels better defined. Gavin Newsom has been taking about a May 4 re-opening for a while. I think to hit those milestones, people need to comply with the Shelter-in-Place. If a bunch of megachurches decide they MUST have mass gatherings, that could derail the early May goal. Or, if the Shelter-In-Place is lifted on May 4, and people deny the importance of ongoing social distancing and demand to hold large gatherings this summer and fall, that could unfortunately spark another Shelter-In-Place.

I am still worried by the "social distancing denier" phenomenon, where people feel like a state or county cannot bar them from holding gatherings (like crowded political rallies where people are standing next to each other). Even if there is a much lower cfr, states and counties need to be able to regulate when Shelter-In-Places are needed, and what level of gathering is permissible. Additionally, if some states deny social distancing, as one state lifts its Shelter-In-Place, another state that never instituted a Shelter-In-Place could be flaring up.

[Snorlax94]

The Russian roulette analogy was not mine, it was Snorlax.   My modification of his profer assumed taking the bullet means death, not merely risk of harm.  1/100 is looking like the overall death rate from the virus in the USA.  My point is that lifting SiP is not like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.

Yes, I was the first to use a Russian Roulette analogy, but in a different way. Also, I was clearly being sarcastic. Regarding states refusing to Shelter-In-Place, I wrote:
"I absolutely want people in those states to do well, be safe and be healthy. I have family and friends in many of those states, and I wish them the best by hoping they don’t ruin themselves.

It's like watching a loved one play Russian roulette, except you know there is a bullet in every chamber, and someone is asking, why are you so down? Maybe they are going to win!"

But I didn't use the metaphor to state a probability than an individual will die from Covid. I was saying, if I discourage someone from taking a path I am very confident will end in failure, if I am not supportive, it is not because I don't wish them well. It's because I don't want them to follow a course which will end very poorly (like a NYC or Italy type of situation). 

Anyway, with the recent data out from the Stanford study, maybe other states will be more willing to have a Shelter in Place or to stick out the ones already in place if we can potentially see a light at the end of the tunnel. It's one thing to comply with a Shelter-In-Place that feels indefinite. It's another to put up with one where the endpoint feels better defined. Gavin Newsom has been taking about a May 4 re-opening for a while. I think to hit those milestones, people need to comply with the Shelter-in-Place. If a bunch of megachurches decide they MUST have mass gatherings, that could derail the early May goal. Or, if the Shelter-In-Place is lifted on May 4, and people deny the importance of ongoing social distancing and demand to hold large gatherings this summer and fall, that could unfortunately spark another Shelter-In-Place.

I am still worried by the "social distancing denier" phenomenon, where people feel like a state or county cannot bar them from holding gatherings (like crowded political rallies where people are standing next to each other). Even if there is a much lower cfr, states and counties need to be able to regulate when Shelter-In-Places are needed, and what level of gathering is permissible. Additionally, if some states deny social distancing, as one state lifts its Shelter-In-Place, another state that never instituted a Shelter-In-Place could be flaring up.

[chrisk]

Trump tweeted up a storm this morning:

“LIBERATE MINNESOTA!” “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” “LIBERATE VIRGINIA,” Trump said in a tweet-storm in which he also lashed out at New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo for criticizing the federal response. Cuomo “should spend more time `doing' and less time `complaining,'” the president said.

https://www.startribune.com/liberate-tru...569719442/

We'll see how the protesters in those states react.

[chrisk]

Trump tweeted up a storm this morning:

“LIBERATE MINNESOTA!” “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” “LIBERATE VIRGINIA,” Trump said in a tweet-storm in which he also lashed out at New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo for criticizing the federal response. Cuomo “should spend more time `doing' and less time `complaining,'” the president said.

https://www.startribune.com/liberate-tru...569719442/

We'll see how the protesters in those states react.

[pefloresjr]

Trying to rev up political support in swing states through unsafe medical practices is abominable.  

Based on what I've read from the medical experts, if we can manage the careful lifting of SIP with testing and tracing, we can lower the risk of harm to the most vulnerable and others.  But that requires a community effort that is planned and responsive to its actual viability in different communities. That seems to be what we can do to both save lives and help rebuild the economy.  Is that so outrageous?  I am confounded that most people aren't in agreement on this and working toward achieving it.  The fact that we are even fighting about this on the Cardboard is dispiriting at times.  

Cheers and health to all,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Trying to rev up political support in swing states through unsafe medical practices is abominable.  

Based on what I've read from the medical experts, if we can manage the careful lifting of SIP with testing and tracing, we can lower the risk of harm to the most vulnerable and others.  But that requires a community effort that is planned and responsive to its actual viability in different communities. That seems to be what we can do to both save lives and help rebuild the economy.  Is that so outrageous?  I am confounded that most people aren't in agreement on this and working toward achieving it.  The fact that we are even fighting about this on the Cardboard is dispiriting at times.  

Cheers and health to all,
Pete F.