[teejers1]

I care more saving lives than the economy. You got me figured.

But as has been said by me and many others, its a false choice. You don't accept that. You would prefer to call me an asshole with a God complex. I'll be your Doctor bogeyman crushing your economy. I can live with that on my moral high ground. But it's really sad that people think the scientists and doctors are the enemy, not the most lethal pandemic virus in our lifetime. I'll be adding you to the ignore list for now because you don't add anything to this forum for me. I'd welcome you to do the same.

The sanctimony in these parts is astounding.

To 2006, it's mighty convenient (and I believe counter-intuitive) for you to argue that the economy is hosed no matter what because people are scared, they won't go out anyway, etc.  First of all, I'm in the "every little bit" helps camp (as I suspect you are when it comes to taking precautions that might have no efffect on transmission - i.e., wearing masks outside while being socially distant).  Moreover, if it's true that people are scared and won't go out, then lifting SiP should cause very little increased risk overall, and certainly with respect to Hospital Armageddon.

To Dabig, first, thanks for your hero's work during this pandemic.  That should never be underappreciated.  
But your personal profession and job responsibilities do not alter the fundamental truth that every decision made re: this pandemic is about balancing.  And whenever there is a balancing discussion, there ought to be sanctimony-free, reasoned discussion.  I will never change your views on this . . . fine.  But really . . . DGAF?  C'mon now . . .

[teejers1]

I care more saving lives than the economy. You got me figured.

But as has been said by me and many others, its a false choice. You don't accept that. You would prefer to call me an asshole with a God complex. I'll be your Doctor bogeyman crushing your economy. I can live with that on my moral high ground. But it's really sad that people think the scientists and doctors are the enemy, not the most lethal pandemic virus in our lifetime. I'll be adding you to the ignore list for now because you don't add anything to this forum for me. I'd welcome you to do the same.

The sanctimony in these parts is astounding.

To 2006, it's mighty convenient (and I believe counter-intuitive) for you to argue that the economy is hosed no matter what because people are scared, they won't go out anyway, etc.  First of all, I'm in the "every little bit" helps camp (as I suspect you are when it comes to taking precautions that might have no efffect on transmission - i.e., wearing masks outside while being socially distant).  Moreover, if it's true that people are scared and won't go out, then lifting SiP should cause very little increased risk overall, and certainly with respect to Hospital Armageddon.

To Dabig, first, thanks for your hero's work during this pandemic.  That should never be underappreciated.  
But your personal profession and job responsibilities do not alter the fundamental truth that every decision made re: this pandemic is about balancing.  And whenever there is a balancing discussion, there ought to be sanctimony-free, reasoned discussion.  I will never change your views on this . . . fine.  But really . . . DGAF?  C'mon now . . .

[2006alum]

The sanctimony in these parts is astounding.

To 2006, it's mighty convenient (and I believe counter-intuitive) for you to argue that the economy is hosed no matter what because people are scared, they won't go out anyway, etc.  First of all, I'm in the "every little bit" helps camp (as I suspect you are when it comes to taking precautions that might have no efffect on transmission - i.e., wearing masks outside while being socially distant).  Moreover, if it's true that people are scared and won't go out, then lifting SiP should cause very little increased risk overall, and certainly with respect to Hospital Armageddon.

Teej, do me a favor in the future and rather than paraphrase me, quote me directly -- I suspect that if you had, you'd find that what I actually said is quite different than what you are claiming. 

For one thing, my only two contributions to this thread have nothing to do with whether "reopening" the economy is futile, so I'm not even sure who you think you're responding to in this thread, but it ain't me. 

For another, I've never said the economy is hosed no matter what. What I've said is that if a significant % of Americans don't feel comfortable resuming normal activities, debates about whether state and local governments should lift their SiP orders is somewhat missing the point. Most businesses can't survive with 70-80% of ordinary demand without significant layoffs, cost cutting, etc. So my suspicion is that folks are being way too overly optimistic about what will happen once SiP orders are lifted. And, relatedly, I think the focus should be on determining what it is that most Americans will need to see put into place to feel comfortable going back to their prior consumption patterns, and figuring out how to support (especially small) businesses that may need to operate at 50-80% of capacity for the foreseeable future. 

In the medium to long term, those questions, to me, are much more important than these fatuous, circular, and fruitless debates about the economy vs. lives.

[2006alum]

The sanctimony in these parts is astounding.

To 2006, it's mighty convenient (and I believe counter-intuitive) for you to argue that the economy is hosed no matter what because people are scared, they won't go out anyway, etc.  First of all, I'm in the "every little bit" helps camp (as I suspect you are when it comes to taking precautions that might have no efffect on transmission - i.e., wearing masks outside while being socially distant).  Moreover, if it's true that people are scared and won't go out, then lifting SiP should cause very little increased risk overall, and certainly with respect to Hospital Armageddon.

Teej, do me a favor in the future and rather than paraphrase me, quote me directly -- I suspect that if you had, you'd find that what I actually said is quite different than what you are claiming. 

For one thing, my only two contributions to this thread have nothing to do with whether "reopening" the economy is futile, so I'm not even sure who you think you're responding to in this thread, but it ain't me. 

For another, I've never said the economy is hosed no matter what. What I've said is that if a significant % of Americans don't feel comfortable resuming normal activities, debates about whether state and local governments should lift their SiP orders is somewhat missing the point. Most businesses can't survive with 70-80% of ordinary demand without significant layoffs, cost cutting, etc. So my suspicion is that folks are being way too overly optimistic about what will happen once SiP orders are lifted. And, relatedly, I think the focus should be on determining what it is that most Americans will need to see put into place to feel comfortable going back to their prior consumption patterns, and figuring out how to support (especially small) businesses that may need to operate at 50-80% of capacity for the foreseeable future. 

In the medium to long term, those questions, to me, are much more important than these fatuous, circular, and fruitless debates about the economy vs. lives.

[stupac2]

Moreover, if it's true that people are scared and won't go out, then lifting SiP should cause very little increased risk overall, and certainly with respect to Hospital Armageddon.

This is emphatically false. There's an asymmetry here where to successfully run a business without modifying staff levels you need a certain customer base that's going to be an appreciable fraction of normal (that will vary based on the business, but I'd guess most industries would be north of 50%), while to getting ~20% of the population exposed all at once is plenty to cause significant problems (NYC's antibody incidence was around 20%).

Just to be clear, my stance is that we should listen to the experts in epidemiology, public health, and economics, who nearly universally are recommending this course of action. I would really like to know why you think these people, who have spent their lives studying these topics or preparing for this situation, are all wrong.

[stupac2]

Moreover, if it's true that people are scared and won't go out, then lifting SiP should cause very little increased risk overall, and certainly with respect to Hospital Armageddon.

This is emphatically false. There's an asymmetry here where to successfully run a business without modifying staff levels you need a certain customer base that's going to be an appreciable fraction of normal (that will vary based on the business, but I'd guess most industries would be north of 50%), while to getting ~20% of the population exposed all at once is plenty to cause significant problems (NYC's antibody incidence was around 20%).

Just to be clear, my stance is that we should listen to the experts in epidemiology, public health, and economics, who nearly universally are recommending this course of action. I would really like to know why you think these people, who have spent their lives studying these topics or preparing for this situation, are all wrong.

[chrisk]

Pence wore a mask today when visiting GM in Indiana today.

[chrisk]

Pence wore a mask today when visiting GM in Indiana today.

[pefloresjr]

Pence wore a mask today when visiting GM in Indiana today.

Hooray for adaptation and change!  Since we will likely never know his true motivation, even if he tells us one (Applies to all politicians), I am just glad that he is setting a good example for the general public about the way to behave when in places where others are gathered.  I was aghast that he didn't wear one in a hospital.  Also, just to be clear, I don't really care if politicians and others wear them at the podium during press conferences as long as they are actually practicing social distancing.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Pence wore a mask today when visiting GM in Indiana today.

Hooray for adaptation and change!  Since we will likely never know his true motivation, even if he tells us one (Applies to all politicians), I am just glad that he is setting a good example for the general public about the way to behave when in places where others are gathered.  I was aghast that he didn't wear one in a hospital.  Also, just to be clear, I don't really care if politicians and others wear them at the podium during press conferences as long as they are actually practicing social distancing.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[teejers1]

Moreover, if it's true that people are scared and won't go out, then lifting SiP should cause very little increased risk overall, and certainly with respect to Hospital Armageddon.

This is emphatically false. There's an asymmetry here where to successfully run a business without modifying staff levels you need a certain customer base that's going to be an appreciable fraction of normal (that will vary based on the business, but I'd guess most industries would be north of 50%), while to getting ~20% of the population exposed all at once is plenty to cause significant problems (NYC's antibody incidence was around 20%).

Just to be clear, my stance is that we should listen to the experts in epidemiology, public health, and economics, who nearly universally are recommending this course of action. I would really like to know why you think these people, who have spent their lives studying these topics or preparing for this situation, are all wrong. 

1.  You can shave numbers in many ways.  For example, your arguments on sufficient volume for a business presume all competing businesses would open at the same time, right?  I mean, if 20% venture out, but only 20% of places open up, then those establishments might have a better chance at success.  And btw, I am in favor of slow, measured loosening of SiP, which would include restaurants having outside seating opening before others (without regard to when even those restaurants open up).  

2.  As for spread, I think our disagreement returns to a fundamental difference I had with one poster (maybe it was you) regarding human behavior.  My gut tells me that those who have symptoms are NOT going to venture out, and will SiP or go to a hospital if needed.  Stated differently, I think those venturing out will be a subset of those feeling good/no symptoms.  On top of that, everyone who is out and about will practice social distancing in whatever businesses are open.  These basic factors lead me to believe that spread will be limited once SiP begins to be lifted.  At least that's my hope.

3.  As for disagreements with policymakers, I don't know that I have (m)any.  For example, the guidelines for easing of SiP seem reasonable to me.  But I do have one question, which I have raised before, and it relates to hospital capacity.  The numbers for Santa Clara County (where I live) are encouraging on that front - at least from this layman's perspective.  Lots of hospital beds (acuter and ICU) and ventilators available.  So my question is this:  what will be better at end of May as opposed to middle of May?  Again, my belief is that number of positive tests is, to a large extent, background noise (and highly uncertain) - whether the reported number of confirmed cases is 2,000 or 10,000, the key numbers are still hospital capacity.  I "get" that having confirmed cases can give you an expected ratio to help estimate when capacity becomes alarmingly thin, but again, given that the number of folks out there who have it (or had it) is a big mystery, it seems like a less important figure.  
Maybe the decision-makers have stated what they're looking for before opening up, but my sense is it's more of "we think it safer to wait another 30 days."  It will always be safer to wait another 30 days . . . won't it?

P.S.  I guess my other disagreement is in shutting down activities (recreational, mostly) where there appear to be no real fear of transmission.  That's just bad policy, imo.  But this category is pretty small (tennis courts come to mind - I don't know about whether kids were prevented from kicking a soccer ball around, but if so, that seems over the top, too).   Golf is another, though that's part business, too.

[teejers1]

Moreover, if it's true that people are scared and won't go out, then lifting SiP should cause very little increased risk overall, and certainly with respect to Hospital Armageddon.

This is emphatically false. There's an asymmetry here where to successfully run a business without modifying staff levels you need a certain customer base that's going to be an appreciable fraction of normal (that will vary based on the business, but I'd guess most industries would be north of 50%), while to getting ~20% of the population exposed all at once is plenty to cause significant problems (NYC's antibody incidence was around 20%).

Just to be clear, my stance is that we should listen to the experts in epidemiology, public health, and economics, who nearly universally are recommending this course of action. I would really like to know why you think these people, who have spent their lives studying these topics or preparing for this situation, are all wrong. 

1.  You can shave numbers in many ways.  For example, your arguments on sufficient volume for a business presume all competing businesses would open at the same time, right?  I mean, if 20% venture out, but only 20% of places open up, then those establishments might have a better chance at success.  And btw, I am in favor of slow, measured loosening of SiP, which would include restaurants having outside seating opening before others (without regard to when even those restaurants open up).  

2.  As for spread, I think our disagreement returns to a fundamental difference I had with one poster (maybe it was you) regarding human behavior.  My gut tells me that those who have symptoms are NOT going to venture out, and will SiP or go to a hospital if needed.  Stated differently, I think those venturing out will be a subset of those feeling good/no symptoms.  On top of that, everyone who is out and about will practice social distancing in whatever businesses are open.  These basic factors lead me to believe that spread will be limited once SiP begins to be lifted.  At least that's my hope.

3.  As for disagreements with policymakers, I don't know that I have (m)any.  For example, the guidelines for easing of SiP seem reasonable to me.  But I do have one question, which I have raised before, and it relates to hospital capacity.  The numbers for Santa Clara County (where I live) are encouraging on that front - at least from this layman's perspective.  Lots of hospital beds (acuter and ICU) and ventilators available.  So my question is this:  what will be better at end of May as opposed to middle of May?  Again, my belief is that number of positive tests is, to a large extent, background noise (and highly uncertain) - whether the reported number of confirmed cases is 2,000 or 10,000, the key numbers are still hospital capacity.  I "get" that having confirmed cases can give you an expected ratio to help estimate when capacity becomes alarmingly thin, but again, given that the number of folks out there who have it (or had it) is a big mystery, it seems like a less important figure.  
Maybe the decision-makers have stated what they're looking for before opening up, but my sense is it's more of "we think it safer to wait another 30 days."  It will always be safer to wait another 30 days . . . won't it?

P.S.  I guess my other disagreement is in shutting down activities (recreational, mostly) where there appear to be no real fear of transmission.  That's just bad policy, imo.  But this category is pretty small (tennis courts come to mind - I don't know about whether kids were prevented from kicking a soccer ball around, but if so, that seems over the top, too).   Golf is another, though that's part business, too.

[magnus]

2.  As for spread, I think our disagreement returns to a fundamental difference I had with one poster (maybe it was you) regarding human behavior.  My gut tells me that those who have symptoms are NOT going to venture out, and will SiP or go to a hospital if needed.  Stated differently, I think those venturing out will be a subset of those feeling good/no symptoms.  On top of that, everyone who is out and about will practice social distancing in whatever businesses are open.  These basic factors lead me to believe that spread will be limited once SiP begins to be lifted.  At least that's my hope.

While the majority of people in America would act as you mention above, there is unfortunately, even now, a non negligible amount of people that either purposely ignore social distancing guidelines, or more likely, are oblivious or just occasionally forget.  When I go to the grocery store...most people respect your distance, but there's always at least one person who isn't paying attention and tries to reach past you for an apple, or stands next to you in the egg section.  And that doesn't include all the people who go the wrong way down a marked aisle (I confess, I do that too...but only when I see there's no one in my way).  Sure, the benefits of one way aisles are arguable, but it's an example of how people aren't always paying attention.

There will be exceptions to the ideal...I just hope none of them happens to be a super spreader.

[magnus]

2.  As for spread, I think our disagreement returns to a fundamental difference I had with one poster (maybe it was you) regarding human behavior.  My gut tells me that those who have symptoms are NOT going to venture out, and will SiP or go to a hospital if needed.  Stated differently, I think those venturing out will be a subset of those feeling good/no symptoms.  On top of that, everyone who is out and about will practice social distancing in whatever businesses are open.  These basic factors lead me to believe that spread will be limited once SiP begins to be lifted.  At least that's my hope.

While the majority of people in America would act as you mention above, there is unfortunately, even now, a non negligible amount of people that either purposely ignore social distancing guidelines, or more likely, are oblivious or just occasionally forget.  When I go to the grocery store...most people respect your distance, but there's always at least one person who isn't paying attention and tries to reach past you for an apple, or stands next to you in the egg section.  And that doesn't include all the people who go the wrong way down a marked aisle (I confess, I do that too...but only when I see there's no one in my way).  Sure, the benefits of one way aisles are arguable, but it's an example of how people aren't always paying attention.

There will be exceptions to the ideal...I just hope none of them happens to be a super spreader.

[stupac2]

1.  You can shave numbers in many ways.  For example, your arguments on sufficient volume for a business presume all competing businesses would open at the same time, right?  I mean, if 20% venture out, but only 20% of places open up, then those establishments might have a better chance at success.  And btw, I am in favor of slow, measured loosening of SiP, which would include restaurants having outside seating opening before others (without regard to when even those restaurants open up).  



2.  As for spread, I think our disagreement returns to a fundamental difference I had with one poster (maybe it was you) regarding human behavior.  My gut tells me that those who have symptoms are NOT going to venture out, and will SiP or go to a hospital if needed.  Stated differently, I think those venturing out will be a subset of those feeling good/no symptoms.  On top of that, everyone who is out and about will practice social distancing in whatever businesses are open.  These basic factors lead me to believe that spread will be limited once SiP begins to be lifted.  At least that's my hope.



3.  As for disagreements with policymakers, I don't know that I have (m)any.  For example, the guidelines for easing of SiP seem reasonable to me.  But I do have one question, which I have raised before, and it relates to hospital capacity.  The numbers for Santa Clara County (where I live) are encouraging on that front - at least from this layman's perspective.  Lots of hospital beds (acuter and ICU) and ventilators available.  So my question is this:  what will be better at end of May as opposed to middle of May?  Again, my belief is that number of positive tests is, to a large extent, background noise (and highly uncertain) - whether the reported number of confirmed cases is 2,000 or 10,000, the key numbers are still hospital capacity.  I "get" that having confirmed cases can give you an expected ratio to help estimate when capacity becomes alarmingly thin, but again, given that the number of folks out there who have it (or had it) is a big mystery, it seems like a less important figure.  

Maybe the decision-makers have stated what they're looking for before opening up, but my sense is it's more of "we think it safer to wait another 30 days."  It will always be safer to wait another 30 days . . . won't it?



P.S.  I guess my other disagreement is in shutting down activities (recreational, mostly) where there appear to be no real fear of transmission.  That's just bad policy, imo.  But this category is pretty small (tennis courts come to mind - I don't know about whether kids were prevented from kicking a soccer ball around, but if so, that seems over the top, too).   Golf is another, though that's part business, too.

Two comments:

1) You can spread the disease before or without showing symptoms, so self-quarantining isn't perfect. Additionally, not everyone has access to sick time, especially in low-paying jobs (that's likely a large reason behind the outbreaks in meat-processing facilities, from what I've read). Of course, near-universal adoption of mask-wearing for healthy people when they'll be near other people would likely help that a lot.

2) It sounds like you barely if at all disagree with me or anyone else on this board regarding policy. So why do you keep posting things like:

Hey Mick, either get in line with the GroupThink in these parts or get out.  This kind of talk is unacceptable.

If we all agree that SiP is a necessary evil, and that the plans for reopening are basically right, who are you even addressing with that comment? I genuinely don't understand this.

[stupac2]

1.  You can shave numbers in many ways.  For example, your arguments on sufficient volume for a business presume all competing businesses would open at the same time, right?  I mean, if 20% venture out, but only 20% of places open up, then those establishments might have a better chance at success.  And btw, I am in favor of slow, measured loosening of SiP, which would include restaurants having outside seating opening before others (without regard to when even those restaurants open up).  



2.  As for spread, I think our disagreement returns to a fundamental difference I had with one poster (maybe it was you) regarding human behavior.  My gut tells me that those who have symptoms are NOT going to venture out, and will SiP or go to a hospital if needed.  Stated differently, I think those venturing out will be a subset of those feeling good/no symptoms.  On top of that, everyone who is out and about will practice social distancing in whatever businesses are open.  These basic factors lead me to believe that spread will be limited once SiP begins to be lifted.  At least that's my hope.



3.  As for disagreements with policymakers, I don't know that I have (m)any.  For example, the guidelines for easing of SiP seem reasonable to me.  But I do have one question, which I have raised before, and it relates to hospital capacity.  The numbers for Santa Clara County (where I live) are encouraging on that front - at least from this layman's perspective.  Lots of hospital beds (acuter and ICU) and ventilators available.  So my question is this:  what will be better at end of May as opposed to middle of May?  Again, my belief is that number of positive tests is, to a large extent, background noise (and highly uncertain) - whether the reported number of confirmed cases is 2,000 or 10,000, the key numbers are still hospital capacity.  I "get" that having confirmed cases can give you an expected ratio to help estimate when capacity becomes alarmingly thin, but again, given that the number of folks out there who have it (or had it) is a big mystery, it seems like a less important figure.  

Maybe the decision-makers have stated what they're looking for before opening up, but my sense is it's more of "we think it safer to wait another 30 days."  It will always be safer to wait another 30 days . . . won't it?



P.S.  I guess my other disagreement is in shutting down activities (recreational, mostly) where there appear to be no real fear of transmission.  That's just bad policy, imo.  But this category is pretty small (tennis courts come to mind - I don't know about whether kids were prevented from kicking a soccer ball around, but if so, that seems over the top, too).   Golf is another, though that's part business, too.

Two comments:

1) You can spread the disease before or without showing symptoms, so self-quarantining isn't perfect. Additionally, not everyone has access to sick time, especially in low-paying jobs (that's likely a large reason behind the outbreaks in meat-processing facilities, from what I've read). Of course, near-universal adoption of mask-wearing for healthy people when they'll be near other people would likely help that a lot.

2) It sounds like you barely if at all disagree with me or anyone else on this board regarding policy. So why do you keep posting things like:

Hey Mick, either get in line with the GroupThink in these parts or get out.  This kind of talk is unacceptable.

If we all agree that SiP is a necessary evil, and that the plans for reopening are basically right, who are you even addressing with that comment? I genuinely don't understand this.

[76lsjumb]

Pence wore a mask today when visiting GM in Indiana today.

So, doesn't that deserve its own special thread?  "Pence Sets Good Example By Wearing Mask"

Odds are that there will be no actual difference [i.e., cause and effect in terms of people with whom he came in contact getting COVID] between his having worn a mask today and not having done so earlier.  The only potential difference is in the effect of whatever example he supposedly sets for the public.  Of course, for "setting an example" -- good or bad -- to happen on any scale at all, there has to be coverage of the behavior by the press.  Logic dictates, then, that the coverage he receives for setting a good example should be at least as great as for setting a bad example.  It is unlikely that is going to happen.  A quick check indicates that virtually all of the press about GM is little more than a thinly veiled mechanism for bashing him again for the Mayo Clinic visit, rather than using today's experience as a "teaching moment" for all of the people who apparently are expected to guide their behavior on the basis of what the VP does.  Why would that be?  Perhaps because the purpose of covering his action had nothing to do with allowing him to set a good example and everything to do with being able to criticize him [or, alternatively, providing an opportunity for people to criticize Trump through him].  

By the way, I understand Pence doesn't drink alcohol, which sets a very good example for everyone on how to avoid the adverse health effects of alcohol consumption.  He's been roundly ridiculed for that, too.

[76lsjumb]

Pence wore a mask today when visiting GM in Indiana today.

So, doesn't that deserve its own special thread?  "Pence Sets Good Example By Wearing Mask"

Odds are that there will be no actual difference [i.e., cause and effect in terms of people with whom he came in contact getting COVID] between his having worn a mask today and not having done so earlier.  The only potential difference is in the effect of whatever example he supposedly sets for the public.  Of course, for "setting an example" -- good or bad -- to happen on any scale at all, there has to be coverage of the behavior by the press.  Logic dictates, then, that the coverage he receives for setting a good example should be at least as great as for setting a bad example.  It is unlikely that is going to happen.  A quick check indicates that virtually all of the press about GM is little more than a thinly veiled mechanism for bashing him again for the Mayo Clinic visit, rather than using today's experience as a "teaching moment" for all of the people who apparently are expected to guide their behavior on the basis of what the VP does.  Why would that be?  Perhaps because the purpose of covering his action had nothing to do with allowing him to set a good example and everything to do with being able to criticize him [or, alternatively, providing an opportunity for people to criticize Trump through him].  

By the way, I understand Pence doesn't drink alcohol, which sets a very good example for everyone on how to avoid the adverse health effects of alcohol consumption.  He's been roundly ridiculed for that, too.

[magnus]

I agree with the statement that there should have been more coverage of Pence wearing a mask and heck, examples of other high level officials doing exemplary things.  Not enough positive vibe news these days.

[magnus]

I agree with the statement that there should have been more coverage of Pence wearing a mask and heck, examples of other high level officials doing exemplary things.  Not enough positive vibe news these days.

[burger]

Pence wore a mask today when visiting GM in Indiana today.

So, doesn't that deserve its own special thread?  "Pence Sets Good Example By Wearing Mask"

Odds are that there will be no actual difference [i.e., cause and effect in terms of people with whom he came in contact getting COVID] between his having worn a mask today and not having done so earlier.  The only potential difference is in the effect of whatever example he supposedly sets for the public.  Of course, for "setting an example" -- good or bad -- to happen on any scale at all, there has to be coverage of the behavior by the press.  Logic dictates, then, that the coverage he receives for setting a good example should be at least as great as for setting a bad example.  It is unlikely that is going to happen.  A quick check indicates that virtually all of the press about GM is little more than a thinly veiled mechanism for bashing him again for the Mayo Clinic visit, rather than using today's experience as a "teaching moment" for all of the people who apparently are expected to guide their behavior on the basis of what the VP does.  Why would that be?  Perhaps because the purpose of covering his action had nothing to do with allowing him to set a good example and everything to do with being able to criticize him [or, alternatively, providing an opportunity for people to criticize Trump through him].  

By the way, I understand Pence doesn't drink alcohol, which sets a very good example for everyone on how to avoid the adverse health effects of alcohol consumption.  He's been roundly ridiculed for that, too.

That recent New Yorker article comparing Seattle and NY's responses to the virus talked about the importance of modeling good behavior.  Trump et al. have been doing exactly the opposite of that this entire time.  They don't wear masks.  They didn't even start social distancing at press conferences until well into this.  Trump has egged on the idiot protesters repeatedly.

The incident at Mayo was just one example of terrible example setting from these people the entire time.  I see that Pelosi et al. have been wearing masks recently in some public appearances.  That's a good start and far better than what we've gotten from the white house.

[burger]

Pence wore a mask today when visiting GM in Indiana today.

So, doesn't that deserve its own special thread?  "Pence Sets Good Example By Wearing Mask"

Odds are that there will be no actual difference [i.e., cause and effect in terms of people with whom he came in contact getting COVID] between his having worn a mask today and not having done so earlier.  The only potential difference is in the effect of whatever example he supposedly sets for the public.  Of course, for "setting an example" -- good or bad -- to happen on any scale at all, there has to be coverage of the behavior by the press.  Logic dictates, then, that the coverage he receives for setting a good example should be at least as great as for setting a bad example.  It is unlikely that is going to happen.  A quick check indicates that virtually all of the press about GM is little more than a thinly veiled mechanism for bashing him again for the Mayo Clinic visit, rather than using today's experience as a "teaching moment" for all of the people who apparently are expected to guide their behavior on the basis of what the VP does.  Why would that be?  Perhaps because the purpose of covering his action had nothing to do with allowing him to set a good example and everything to do with being able to criticize him [or, alternatively, providing an opportunity for people to criticize Trump through him].  

By the way, I understand Pence doesn't drink alcohol, which sets a very good example for everyone on how to avoid the adverse health effects of alcohol consumption.  He's been roundly ridiculed for that, too.

That recent New Yorker article comparing Seattle and NY's responses to the virus talked about the importance of modeling good behavior.  Trump et al. have been doing exactly the opposite of that this entire time.  They don't wear masks.  They didn't even start social distancing at press conferences until well into this.  Trump has egged on the idiot protesters repeatedly.

The incident at Mayo was just one example of terrible example setting from these people the entire time.  I see that Pelosi et al. have been wearing masks recently in some public appearances.  That's a good start and far better than what we've gotten from the white house.

[stupac2]

By the way, I understand Pence doesn't drink alcohol, which sets a very good example for everyone on how to avoid the adverse health effects of alcohol consumption.  He's been roundly ridiculed for that, too.

I've never seen him ridiculed for it, in fact I wasn't even aware of it. I knew Trump abstained, but I've mostly seen it described as a virtue.

But isn't the current evidence such that moderate drinking is better than total abstention? It's all small effects I'm sure, but I've generally seen that one serving of beer or wine is associated with generally positive outcomes (of course, dietary studies are pretty notoriously difficult).

[stupac2]

By the way, I understand Pence doesn't drink alcohol, which sets a very good example for everyone on how to avoid the adverse health effects of alcohol consumption.  He's been roundly ridiculed for that, too.

I've never seen him ridiculed for it, in fact I wasn't even aware of it. I knew Trump abstained, but I've mostly seen it described as a virtue.

But isn't the current evidence such that moderate drinking is better than total abstention? It's all small effects I'm sure, but I've generally seen that one serving of beer or wine is associated with generally positive outcomes (of course, dietary studies are pretty notoriously difficult).

[magnus]

Pence acknowledges he should have worn a mask. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/vp-pence-m...-have-worn

Glad he's not too proud to admit it. Gives me hope he's listening to the health experts.

[magnus]

Pence acknowledges he should have worn a mask. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/vp-pence-m...-have-worn

Glad he's not too proud to admit it. Gives me hope he's listening to the health experts.

[Leftcoast]

Good for the VP.  I have much more respect for a human that can admit to and correct a mistake than for those who flat out refuse.

[Leftcoast]

Good for the VP.  I have much more respect for a human that can admit to and correct a mistake than for those who flat out refuse.

[Snorlax94]

Good for the VP.  I have much more respect for a human that can admit to and correct a mistake than for those who flat out refuse.

+1. It’s helpful to have a government that acknowledges the facts and follows science. Makes me more hopeful with Pence.

[Snorlax94]

Good for the VP.  I have much more respect for a human that can admit to and correct a mistake than for those who flat out refuse.

+1. It’s helpful to have a government that acknowledges the facts and follows science. Makes me more hopeful with Pence.

[2006alum]

Good for the VP.  I have much more respect for a human that can admit to and correct a mistake than for those who flat out refuse.

+1. It’s helpful to have a government that acknowledges the facts and follows science. Makes me more hopeful with Pence.

+2. How refreshing.

[2006alum]

Good for the VP.  I have much more respect for a human that can admit to and correct a mistake than for those who flat out refuse.

+1. It’s helpful to have a government that acknowledges the facts and follows science. Makes me more hopeful with Pence.

+2. How refreshing.

[BostonCard]

Pence acknowledges he should have worn a mask. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/vp-pence-m...-have-worn

Glad he's not too proud to admit it.  Gives me hope he's listening to the health experts.

Not going to start a new thread on it, but for 76lsjumb, "Pence sets a good example by admitting he was wrong not to wear a mask."

BC

[BostonCard]

Pence acknowledges he should have worn a mask. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/vp-pence-m...-have-worn

Glad he's not too proud to admit it.  Gives me hope he's listening to the health experts.

Not going to start a new thread on it, but for 76lsjumb, "Pence sets a good example by admitting he was wrong not to wear a mask."

BC

[76lsjumb]

Pence acknowledges he should have worn a mask. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/vp-pence-m...-have-worn

Glad he's not too proud to admit it.  Gives me hope he's listening to the health experts.

Not going to start a new thread on it, but for 76lsjumb, "Pence sets a good example by admitting he was wrong not to wear a mask."

BC

Well, that’s a start.  :-)

Maybe the next time won’t be a backhanded compliment...  Baby steps!

[76lsjumb]

Pence acknowledges he should have worn a mask. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/vp-pence-m...-have-worn

Glad he's not too proud to admit it.  Gives me hope he's listening to the health experts.

Not going to start a new thread on it, but for 76lsjumb, "Pence sets a good example by admitting he was wrong not to wear a mask."

BC

Well, that’s a start.  :-)

Maybe the next time won’t be a backhanded compliment...  Baby steps!

[BostonCard]

It wasn't a backhanded compliment.  It would have been easy for him to say nothing and just let the furor pass, rather than admitting his mistake.  He did set a positive example; one that few politicians follow.

BC

[BostonCard]

It wasn't a backhanded compliment.  It would have been easy for him to say nothing and just let the furor pass, rather than admitting his mistake.  He did set a positive example; one that few politicians follow.

BC

[fullmetal]

2.  As for spread, I think our disagreement returns to a fundamental difference I had with one poster (maybe it was you) regarding human behavior.  My gut tells me that those who have symptoms are NOT going to venture out, and will SiP or go to a hospital if needed.  Stated differently, I think those venturing out will be a subset of those feeling good/no symptoms.  On top of that, everyone who is out and about will practice social distancing in whatever businesses are open.  These basic factors lead me to believe that spread will be limited once SiP begins to be lifted.  At least that's my hope.

1) You can spread the disease before or without showing symptoms, so self-quarantining isn't perfect. Additionally, not everyone has access to sick time, especially in low-paying jobs (that's likely a large reason behind the outbreaks in meat-processing facilities, from what I've read). Of course, near-universal adoption of mask-wearing for healthy people when they'll be near other people would likely help that a lot.

This is the biggest issue with the virus.  IIRC, you are contagious for an average of three days before you start showing any symptoms.  By the time you lose your sense of smell, you may have spread the virus to everyone in sustained proximity to you from the past 72+ hours.  And that's why relying on your own sense of wellness is folly. 

(Also, it would not be shocking to discover that people are unreliable historians when it comes to whether they feel symptomatic enough to stay home.)

[fullmetal]

2.  As for spread, I think our disagreement returns to a fundamental difference I had with one poster (maybe it was you) regarding human behavior.  My gut tells me that those who have symptoms are NOT going to venture out, and will SiP or go to a hospital if needed.  Stated differently, I think those venturing out will be a subset of those feeling good/no symptoms.  On top of that, everyone who is out and about will practice social distancing in whatever businesses are open.  These basic factors lead me to believe that spread will be limited once SiP begins to be lifted.  At least that's my hope.

1) You can spread the disease before or without showing symptoms, so self-quarantining isn't perfect. Additionally, not everyone has access to sick time, especially in low-paying jobs (that's likely a large reason behind the outbreaks in meat-processing facilities, from what I've read). Of course, near-universal adoption of mask-wearing for healthy people when they'll be near other people would likely help that a lot.

This is the biggest issue with the virus.  IIRC, you are contagious for an average of three days before you start showing any symptoms.  By the time you lose your sense of smell, you may have spread the virus to everyone in sustained proximity to you from the past 72+ hours.  And that's why relying on your own sense of wellness is folly. 

(Also, it would not be shocking to discover that people are unreliable historians when it comes to whether they feel symptomatic enough to stay home.)