[OutsiderFan]

Luckily, the sham College Football Playoff will gladly take Ohio State into one of its Semi-Final games even if it doesn't play in the Big Ten Championship Game.

[OutsiderFan]

Luckily, the sham College Football Playoff will gladly take Ohio State into one of its Semi-Final games even if it doesn't play in the Big Ten Championship Game.

[JustAnotherFan]

There's no stopping the carnage this winter. I'm guessing they'll have to push back the CFP to March if they want to actually have one this year. There will be no conference championship games. Every non-CFP bowl game is going to get shut down. The CFP will probably include a team that will have only played 5 games.

[JustAnotherFan]

There's no stopping the carnage this winter. I'm guessing they'll have to push back the CFP to March if they want to actually have one this year. There will be no conference championship games. Every non-CFP bowl game is going to get shut down. The CFP will probably include a team that will have only played 5 games.

[JustAnotherFan]

The Sun Bowl has been cancelled. Not that we were going to get an invite. But still. 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...first-1935

[JustAnotherFan]

The Sun Bowl has been cancelled. Not that we were going to get an invite. But still. 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...first-1935

[teejers1]

The Sun Bowl has been cancelled. Not that we were going to get an invite. But still. 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...first-1935

So, if and when the CFP games are actually played, are you going to say that it was a sham and it never should have happened?

Your crusade against college football is admirable, but somewhat curious given the lack of any concrete harm to anyone . . . as far as I can tell.  If anyone catching the virus is the harm you're looking to stomp out, perhaps you might look at other communities - for starters, colleges where all students are (or were, before break) congregating, including those not even playing football.

P.S.  Darn it on the Sun Bowl.  Was looking forward to trip #5 to El Paso . . . during Covid . . . NOT!

[teejers1]

The Sun Bowl has been cancelled. Not that we were going to get an invite. But still. 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...first-1935

So, if and when the CFP games are actually played, are you going to say that it was a sham and it never should have happened?

Your crusade against college football is admirable, but somewhat curious given the lack of any concrete harm to anyone . . . as far as I can tell.  If anyone catching the virus is the harm you're looking to stomp out, perhaps you might look at other communities - for starters, colleges where all students are (or were, before break) congregating, including those not even playing football.

P.S.  Darn it on the Sun Bowl.  Was looking forward to trip #5 to El Paso . . . during Covid . . . NOT!

[Mick]

The Sun Bowl has been cancelled. Not that we were going to get an invite. But still. 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...first-1935

So, if and when the CFP games are actually played, are you going to say that it was a sham and it never should have happened?

Your crusade against college football is admirable, but somewhat curious given the lack of any concrete harm to anyone . . . as far as I can tell.  If anyone catching the virus is the harm you're looking to stomp out, perhaps you might look at other communities - for starters, colleges where all students are (or were, before break) congregating, including those not even playing football.

P.S.  Darn it on the Sun Bowl.  Was looking forward to trip #5 to El Paso . . . during Covid . . . NOT!

My former firm had an El Paso office, which I visited three times.  And that was just three times too many...

[Mick]

The Sun Bowl has been cancelled. Not that we were going to get an invite. But still. 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...first-1935

So, if and when the CFP games are actually played, are you going to say that it was a sham and it never should have happened?

Your crusade against college football is admirable, but somewhat curious given the lack of any concrete harm to anyone . . . as far as I can tell.  If anyone catching the virus is the harm you're looking to stomp out, perhaps you might look at other communities - for starters, colleges where all students are (or were, before break) congregating, including those not even playing football.

P.S.  Darn it on the Sun Bowl.  Was looking forward to trip #5 to El Paso . . . during Covid . . . NOT!

My former firm had an El Paso office, which I visited three times.  And that was just three times too many...

[JustAnotherFan]

The Sun Bowl has been cancelled. Not that we were going to get an invite. But still. 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...first-1935

So, if and when the CFP games are actually played, are you going to say that it was a sham and it never should have happened?

Your crusade against college football is admirable, but somewhat curious given the lack of any concrete harm to anyone . . . as far as I can tell.  If anyone catching the virus is the harm you're looking to stomp out, perhaps you might look at other communities - for starters, colleges where all students are (or were, before break) congregating, including those not even playing football.

P.S.  Darn it on the Sun Bowl.  Was looking forward to trip #5 to El Paso . . . during Covid . . . NOT!

My former firm had an El Paso office, which I visited three times.  And that was just three times too many...

The Sun Bowl was always a consolation bowl. It won't be missed.

[JustAnotherFan]

The Sun Bowl has been cancelled. Not that we were going to get an invite. But still. 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...first-1935

So, if and when the CFP games are actually played, are you going to say that it was a sham and it never should have happened?

Your crusade against college football is admirable, but somewhat curious given the lack of any concrete harm to anyone . . . as far as I can tell.  If anyone catching the virus is the harm you're looking to stomp out, perhaps you might look at other communities - for starters, colleges where all students are (or were, before break) congregating, including those not even playing football.

P.S.  Darn it on the Sun Bowl.  Was looking forward to trip #5 to El Paso . . . during Covid . . . NOT!

My former firm had an El Paso office, which I visited three times.  And that was just three times too many...

The Sun Bowl was always a consolation bowl. It won't be missed.

[fullmetal]

The only great part about the Sun Bowl was seeing all you Cardboarders in EP and eating at Cattleman's.

[fullmetal]

The only great part about the Sun Bowl was seeing all you Cardboarders in EP and eating at Cattleman's.

[JustAnotherFan]

Denial isn't working out for college football. 

“History will wonder whether this messy, muddled, and repeatedly interrupted season was worth all the risk.” 

I am pretty sure history will say it was a waste of time and a public health failure.

Apologies if this has already been shared.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...al/617225/

[JustAnotherFan]

Denial isn't working out for college football. 

“History will wonder whether this messy, muddled, and repeatedly interrupted season was worth all the risk.” 

I am pretty sure history will say it was a waste of time and a public health failure.

Apologies if this has already been shared.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...al/617225/

[teejers1]

Denial isn't working out for college football. 

“History will wonder whether this messy, muddled, and repeatedly interrupted season was worth all the risk.” 

I am pretty sure history will say it was a waste of time and a public health failure.

Apologies if this has already been shared.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...al/617225/

1.  Watch the Stanford players in pre-game interviews.  They are uniformly grateful to be playing games this season.  And this is Stanford . . . 1-2 Stanford (which probably won't win (m)any more games).  The kids want to play.  Period.

2.  The TV money is better than no TV money for universities and their athletic departments.  Whatever "the number" is, on balance I suspect it is helping sustain college sports, including minor sports . . . including at Stanford.

3.  Yes, games are being canceled/postponed . . . so what?  No one is dying; few players are even getting sick, are they?  You can point to the unknown "other risks that must be out there harming people."  Okay.  But that's true with everything we do outside the house, even walking the dog.  Are walking dogs a sham?  Shopping at stores?  Dining outside at restaurants? Having a "pod" of friends over to socialize?

4.  If folks are really worried about inevitable "other risks," then perhaps the focus/rants should shift to every college or university that invited kids back to campus.  There the numbers really spiked (no surprise).  But they test and they're doing their best.  

5.  As stated many moons ago, the USA will continue to muddle through until the vaccine takes sufficient hold.  That's just the way it is - and the US has been on this track for months.  Given hospital numbers, increased restrictions make sense.  Part of the fits and starts and scuffling through this thing.

6.  History will probably say lots of things about the pandemic and how it was addressed - older people and poorer communities getting racked.  That's where the real failure has occurred.  Somehow I don't think playing college sports will be considered much of a factor/consideration at all, in any Covid retrospective.

[teejers1]

Denial isn't working out for college football. 

“History will wonder whether this messy, muddled, and repeatedly interrupted season was worth all the risk.” 

I am pretty sure history will say it was a waste of time and a public health failure.

Apologies if this has already been shared.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...al/617225/

1.  Watch the Stanford players in pre-game interviews.  They are uniformly grateful to be playing games this season.  And this is Stanford . . . 1-2 Stanford (which probably won't win (m)any more games).  The kids want to play.  Period.

2.  The TV money is better than no TV money for universities and their athletic departments.  Whatever "the number" is, on balance I suspect it is helping sustain college sports, including minor sports . . . including at Stanford.

3.  Yes, games are being canceled/postponed . . . so what?  No one is dying; few players are even getting sick, are they?  You can point to the unknown "other risks that must be out there harming people."  Okay.  But that's true with everything we do outside the house, even walking the dog.  Are walking dogs a sham?  Shopping at stores?  Dining outside at restaurants? Having a "pod" of friends over to socialize?

4.  If folks are really worried about inevitable "other risks," then perhaps the focus/rants should shift to every college or university that invited kids back to campus.  There the numbers really spiked (no surprise).  But they test and they're doing their best.  

5.  As stated many moons ago, the USA will continue to muddle through until the vaccine takes sufficient hold.  That's just the way it is - and the US has been on this track for months.  Given hospital numbers, increased restrictions make sense.  Part of the fits and starts and scuffling through this thing.

6.  History will probably say lots of things about the pandemic and how it was addressed - older people and poorer communities getting racked.  That's where the real failure has occurred.  Somehow I don't think playing college sports will be considered much of a factor/consideration at all, in any Covid retrospective.

[JustAnotherFan]

I've muted Teejers, yet I can still see his responses when others reply to his messages. And I saw this:

Your crusade against college football is admirable, but somewhat curious given the lack of any concrete harm to anyone . . . as far as I can tell.  If anyone catching the virus is the harm you're looking to stomp out, perhaps you might look at other communities - for starters, colleges where all students are (or were, before break) congregating, including those not even playing football.

What a weird position to take. The pandemic doesn't work in a way in which we all know everyone downstream who dies from an infection to any one person. If only we had contact tracing that good. Lord knows we don't. The notion that you would have to prove that x number of people got infected, hospitalized, or died because college football was forced through (something that made the Pac-12 look even more foolish than the SEC or MAC) in order to believe "concrete harm" was done is absurd. Also, college football players are students, at colleges, where students are congregating.

[JustAnotherFan]

I've muted Teejers, yet I can still see his responses when others reply to his messages. And I saw this:

Your crusade against college football is admirable, but somewhat curious given the lack of any concrete harm to anyone . . . as far as I can tell.  If anyone catching the virus is the harm you're looking to stomp out, perhaps you might look at other communities - for starters, colleges where all students are (or were, before break) congregating, including those not even playing football.

What a weird position to take. The pandemic doesn't work in a way in which we all know everyone downstream who dies from an infection to any one person. If only we had contact tracing that good. Lord knows we don't. The notion that you would have to prove that x number of people got infected, hospitalized, or died because college football was forced through (something that made the Pac-12 look even more foolish than the SEC or MAC) in order to believe "concrete harm" was done is absurd. Also, college football players are students, at colleges, where students are congregating.

[BostonCard]

Teejers that's an oddly fatalistic outlook.  Like, "we shouldn't do things to prevent spread of COVID-19 because we are muddling through"

I'm thinking more along the lines of "we don't have to just muddle through, but to do so we would need to actually take steps to stop the spread".  Early in the pandemic, I made two points, which I think have held up pretty well.  The first is that COVID-19 was serious, and that it will spread rapidly.  I don't think we have anyone here who disagrees with that, though of course there is reasonable disagreement on how serious it is.  The second is that we are not powerless to slow the spread of the virus.  And we were somewhat successful in slowing it down, but pandemic fatigue and monetary concerns (exacerbated by a congress that is too paralyzed by division to help the individuals and businesses most affected by the pandemic and efforts to slow the spread), have made that much less effective.  But I do wonder what would happen if people actually advocated taking steps to reduce the spread instead of giving up.

With a vaccine EUA imminent, and the strong possibility that the situation will be much better in the spring (the weather will be better so transmission will probably go down, and the most vulnerable groups will have been vaccinated), I honestly don't get why we don't make a big push to reduce the spread until we get there, including having collegiate sports go on a 3-4 month pause and restart in the spring season.  Between now and the summer, when Slaoui believes we might have herd immunity, there are about 180 days.  If we average 1000 deaths between now and then, that's 180,000 more deaths, many of which are preventable.

Unlike back in March, we are not being asked to hunker down indefinitely; it's just another few months.

BC

---

Should add, the US now looks like Europe did a few weeks ago.  Europe placed some modified lockdowns that were less restrictive than the ones imposed in April.  And, they worked.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...re-working

If you look at the figure titled "Changes in viral spread rate ® caused by shifts in mobility", you can see that the biggest drop in R comes from decreases in trips from one area to another (more than the effect of restrictions on going to bars, restaurants and shops).  You know what involves a lot of travel from one region to another?  Intercollegiate (and professional) athletics.

BC

[BostonCard]

Teejers that's an oddly fatalistic outlook.  Like, "we shouldn't do things to prevent spread of COVID-19 because we are muddling through"

I'm thinking more along the lines of "we don't have to just muddle through, but to do so we would need to actually take steps to stop the spread".  Early in the pandemic, I made two points, which I think have held up pretty well.  The first is that COVID-19 was serious, and that it will spread rapidly.  I don't think we have anyone here who disagrees with that, though of course there is reasonable disagreement on how serious it is.  The second is that we are not powerless to slow the spread of the virus.  And we were somewhat successful in slowing it down, but pandemic fatigue and monetary concerns (exacerbated by a congress that is too paralyzed by division to help the individuals and businesses most affected by the pandemic and efforts to slow the spread), have made that much less effective.  But I do wonder what would happen if people actually advocated taking steps to reduce the spread instead of giving up.

With a vaccine EUA imminent, and the strong possibility that the situation will be much better in the spring (the weather will be better so transmission will probably go down, and the most vulnerable groups will have been vaccinated), I honestly don't get why we don't make a big push to reduce the spread until we get there, including having collegiate sports go on a 3-4 month pause and restart in the spring season.  Between now and the summer, when Slaoui believes we might have herd immunity, there are about 180 days.  If we average 1000 deaths between now and then, that's 180,000 more deaths, many of which are preventable.

Unlike back in March, we are not being asked to hunker down indefinitely; it's just another few months.

BC

---

Should add, the US now looks like Europe did a few weeks ago.  Europe placed some modified lockdowns that were less restrictive than the ones imposed in April.  And, they worked.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...re-working

If you look at the figure titled "Changes in viral spread rate ® caused by shifts in mobility", you can see that the biggest drop in R comes from decreases in trips from one area to another (more than the effect of restrictions on going to bars, restaurants and shops).  You know what involves a lot of travel from one region to another?  Intercollegiate (and professional) athletics.

BC

[teejers1]

Teejers that's an oddly fatalistic outlook.  Like, "we shouldn't do things to prevent spread of COVID-19 because we are muddling through"

I'm thinking more along the lines of "we don't have to just muddle through, but to do so we would need to actually take steps to stop the spread".  Early in the pandemic, I made two points, which I think have held up pretty well.  The first is that COVID-19 was serious, and that it will spread rapidly.  I don't think we have anyone here who disagrees with that, though of course there is reasonable disagreement on how serious it is.  The second is that we are not powerless to slow the spread of the virus.  And we were somewhat successful in slowing it down, but pandemic fatigue and monetary concerns (exacerbated by a congress that is too paralyzed by division to help the individuals and businesses most affected by the pandemic and efforts to slow the spread), have made that much less effective.  But I do wonder what would happen if people actually advocated taking steps to reduce the spread instead of giving up.

With a vaccine EUA imminent, and the strong possibility that the situation will be much better in the spring (the weather will be better so transmission will probably go down, and the most vulnerable groups will have been vaccinated), I honestly don't get why we don't make a big push to reduce the spread until we get there, including having collegiate sports go on a 3-4 month pause and restart in the spring season.  Between now and the summer, when Slaoui believes we might have herd immunity, there are about 180 days.  If we average 1000 deaths between now and then, that's 180,000 more deaths, many of which are preventable.

Unlike back in March, we are not being asked to hunker down indefinitely; it's just another few months.

BC

---

Should add, the US now looks like Europe did a few weeks ago.  Europe placed some modified lockdowns that were less restrictive than the ones imposed in April.  And, they worked.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...re-working

If you look at the figure titled "Changes in viral spread rate ® caused by shifts in mobility", you can see that the biggest drop in R comes from decreases in trips from one area to another (more than the effect of restrictions on going to bars, restaurants and shops).  You know what involves a lot of travel from one region to another?  Intercollegiate (and professional) athletics.

BC

1.  I have never said we shouldn't do things to limit spread;

2.  I have said imposing more restrictions now makes sense due to hospital issues;

3.  And if we're patting self on the back, I've been consistent from the jump on this pandemic re: hospital capacity should be driving decisions, with appropriate lag time, and (ii) evaluating activities by risk-benefit is the way to go.  

4.  As for muddling through, that what the US was destined to do once it became apparent that track and trace was not going to be happen.  That meant trial and error, fits and starts, what have you.  That is what we've seen.

5.  If "travel" causes problems, BC, then shut down airlines, trains, and buses.   Focusing on college sports seems rather narrow-minded, particularly if you believe the benefit outweighs the risk.

[teejers1]

Teejers that's an oddly fatalistic outlook.  Like, "we shouldn't do things to prevent spread of COVID-19 because we are muddling through"

I'm thinking more along the lines of "we don't have to just muddle through, but to do so we would need to actually take steps to stop the spread".  Early in the pandemic, I made two points, which I think have held up pretty well.  The first is that COVID-19 was serious, and that it will spread rapidly.  I don't think we have anyone here who disagrees with that, though of course there is reasonable disagreement on how serious it is.  The second is that we are not powerless to slow the spread of the virus.  And we were somewhat successful in slowing it down, but pandemic fatigue and monetary concerns (exacerbated by a congress that is too paralyzed by division to help the individuals and businesses most affected by the pandemic and efforts to slow the spread), have made that much less effective.  But I do wonder what would happen if people actually advocated taking steps to reduce the spread instead of giving up.

With a vaccine EUA imminent, and the strong possibility that the situation will be much better in the spring (the weather will be better so transmission will probably go down, and the most vulnerable groups will have been vaccinated), I honestly don't get why we don't make a big push to reduce the spread until we get there, including having collegiate sports go on a 3-4 month pause and restart in the spring season.  Between now and the summer, when Slaoui believes we might have herd immunity, there are about 180 days.  If we average 1000 deaths between now and then, that's 180,000 more deaths, many of which are preventable.

Unlike back in March, we are not being asked to hunker down indefinitely; it's just another few months.

BC

---

Should add, the US now looks like Europe did a few weeks ago.  Europe placed some modified lockdowns that were less restrictive than the ones imposed in April.  And, they worked.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...re-working

If you look at the figure titled "Changes in viral spread rate ® caused by shifts in mobility", you can see that the biggest drop in R comes from decreases in trips from one area to another (more than the effect of restrictions on going to bars, restaurants and shops).  You know what involves a lot of travel from one region to another?  Intercollegiate (and professional) athletics.

BC

1.  I have never said we shouldn't do things to limit spread;

2.  I have said imposing more restrictions now makes sense due to hospital issues;

3.  And if we're patting self on the back, I've been consistent from the jump on this pandemic re: hospital capacity should be driving decisions, with appropriate lag time, and (ii) evaluating activities by risk-benefit is the way to go.  

4.  As for muddling through, that what the US was destined to do once it became apparent that track and trace was not going to be happen.  That meant trial and error, fits and starts, what have you.  That is what we've seen.

5.  If "travel" causes problems, BC, then shut down airlines, trains, and buses.   Focusing on college sports seems rather narrow-minded, particularly if you believe the benefit outweighs the risk.

[BostonCard]

The problem, as it always has been, is that exponential growth means that setting a threshold at a particular level of virus (say, when hospitals are approaching capacity) then so long as R > 1, you will have to put in your restrictions sooner rather than later, so it is not like setting a higher threshold means your restrictions can be less strict; it just means you might have an extra week or two to institute them.  To add to the challenge, remember there is a one to two week delay between any measure you take and when you can measure its effect, so even if you think you aren't in trouble yet, you might be and just not know it.

Ultimately, restrictions should be set not based on level, but on growth rate.  If R > 1, then you need to tighten up restrictions until R < 1.  It is better with this virus to act decisively early than to have to scramble and wait and have to act in a panic later.  This means that if case levels are low but growing, you have some time to institute restrictions and test their effect and then act accordingly.  If you wait until its almost too late, then you have to scramble and don't have time to fine tune the restrictions.

And to answer your question, yes we should be instituting travel restrictions and limiting non-essential travel.  And Santa Clara county instituted a widely mocked (on this board) quarantine requirement for those traveling more than 150 miles, which, given the data, was actually pretty wise.

BC

[BostonCard]

The problem, as it always has been, is that exponential growth means that setting a threshold at a particular level of virus (say, when hospitals are approaching capacity) then so long as R > 1, you will have to put in your restrictions sooner rather than later, so it is not like setting a higher threshold means your restrictions can be less strict; it just means you might have an extra week or two to institute them.  To add to the challenge, remember there is a one to two week delay between any measure you take and when you can measure its effect, so even if you think you aren't in trouble yet, you might be and just not know it.

Ultimately, restrictions should be set not based on level, but on growth rate.  If R > 1, then you need to tighten up restrictions until R < 1.  It is better with this virus to act decisively early than to have to scramble and wait and have to act in a panic later.  This means that if case levels are low but growing, you have some time to institute restrictions and test their effect and then act accordingly.  If you wait until its almost too late, then you have to scramble and don't have time to fine tune the restrictions.

And to answer your question, yes we should be instituting travel restrictions and limiting non-essential travel.  And Santa Clara county instituted a widely mocked (on this board) quarantine requirement for those traveling more than 150 miles, which, given the data, was actually pretty wise.

BC

[M T]

Ultimately, restrictions should be set not based on level, but on growth rate.  If R > 1, then you need to tighten up restrictions until R < 1. 

I believe that is a wise strategy, but who would support it?  I get the feeling any restriction is questioned by the well-educated and mostly tuned-in members of this board.

If you look at the graph of R as calculated on https://ca-covid-r.info/  (The archived Nov 3 content shows month boundaries on the charts of state's R)
you will not see plateaus of R at -0.3  or +0.5.  Instead one sees steady slopes with inflection points. 
I've been trying to understand why we don't see plateaus instead.  Is it because there is some hysteresis built into the calculation, or maybe into the whole system of infections & testing?  Or is it sorta an elastic effect by the population bending the policies more and more after a while.

The steady slopes are weeks long.
I would have thought policy settings resulted in a more-or-less flat R during the policy's effective date.

If you did change policies at, say, 1.2 (turn on restrictions), 0.9 (turn off restrictions), using this calculation of R, it might be interesting to see what would have happened.

[M T]

Ultimately, restrictions should be set not based on level, but on growth rate.  If R > 1, then you need to tighten up restrictions until R < 1. 

I believe that is a wise strategy, but who would support it?  I get the feeling any restriction is questioned by the well-educated and mostly tuned-in members of this board.

If you look at the graph of R as calculated on https://ca-covid-r.info/  (The archived Nov 3 content shows month boundaries on the charts of state's R)
you will not see plateaus of R at -0.3  or +0.5.  Instead one sees steady slopes with inflection points. 
I've been trying to understand why we don't see plateaus instead.  Is it because there is some hysteresis built into the calculation, or maybe into the whole system of infections & testing?  Or is it sorta an elastic effect by the population bending the policies more and more after a while.

The steady slopes are weeks long.
I would have thought policy settings resulted in a more-or-less flat R during the policy's effective date.

If you did change policies at, say, 1.2 (turn on restrictions), 0.9 (turn off restrictions), using this calculation of R, it might be interesting to see what would have happened.

[teejers1]

And to answer your question, yes we should be instituting travel restrictions and limiting non-essential travel.  And Santa Clara county instituted a widely mocked (on this board) quarantine requirement for those traveling more than 150 miles, which, given the data, was actually pretty wise.
BC

1.  I'm actually okay with a travel ban policy . . . if it's reasonable and can be enforced.  How is SCC going to possibly enforce their 150 mile policy?  As noted when released, are there going to be checkpoints on I-5?  On 101?  And if so, what do they do then?  Tell the driver you have to go home and stay home for 14 days?  C'mon.

2.  It's great if I have "a policy of not drinking or smoking when I go to Vegas with my buddies," but if I don't enforce it, what good is it?

3.  FTR, all of these new lockdowns or restrictions have absolutely ZERO impact on my life - it won't change anything.  And I submit this is also illustrative of the problem:  you need to have people be smart, reasonable, and careful (not reckless), regardless of the restrictions imposed.  Maybe that's not possible - but I'd submit that it is doable.  We're seeing it in large parts of the Bay Area, including parts of SCC (notwithstanding SCC Health Officer's recent edict). I'm thinking massive media blitz and "masks at all times" - inside and out - with nominal (but real) fines for a 3-4 week period might be something achievable. Assuming reasonable rollout of vaccine to those most in need, there is actually a light at the end of this tunnel, I believe.

We just need people to not jump the gun.

[teejers1]

And to answer your question, yes we should be instituting travel restrictions and limiting non-essential travel.  And Santa Clara county instituted a widely mocked (on this board) quarantine requirement for those traveling more than 150 miles, which, given the data, was actually pretty wise.
BC

1.  I'm actually okay with a travel ban policy . . . if it's reasonable and can be enforced.  How is SCC going to possibly enforce their 150 mile policy?  As noted when released, are there going to be checkpoints on I-5?  On 101?  And if so, what do they do then?  Tell the driver you have to go home and stay home for 14 days?  C'mon.

2.  It's great if I have "a policy of not drinking or smoking when I go to Vegas with my buddies," but if I don't enforce it, what good is it?

3.  FTR, all of these new lockdowns or restrictions have absolutely ZERO impact on my life - it won't change anything.  And I submit this is also illustrative of the problem:  you need to have people be smart, reasonable, and careful (not reckless), regardless of the restrictions imposed.  Maybe that's not possible - but I'd submit that it is doable.  We're seeing it in large parts of the Bay Area, including parts of SCC (notwithstanding SCC Health Officer's recent edict). I'm thinking massive media blitz and "masks at all times" - inside and out - with nominal (but real) fines for a 3-4 week period might be something achievable. Assuming reasonable rollout of vaccine to those most in need, there is actually a light at the end of this tunnel, I believe.

We just need people to not jump the gun.

[Goose]

Ultimately, restrictions should be set not based on level, but on growth rate.  If R > 1, then you need to tighten up restrictions until R < 1.  It is better with this virus to act decisively early than to have to scramble and wait and have to act in a panic later.  This means that if case levels are low but growing, you have some time to institute restrictions and test their effect and then act accordingly.  If you wait until its almost too late, then you have to scramble and don't have time to fine tune the restrictions.

Absolutely agree with your comments about using R as the determining statistic. However, there are constraints. You certainly can't let the health care system saturate. The problem is "having some time ..." is very tricky. When R is > 1, the system is out of control. If your "tweaks" don't have the desired effects, the time you had to wait to measure the results has you now in a much worse situation total case wise and closer to saturation. That is kind of what we have been doing. The delay in the system makes it very difficult to control it by a "feedback" method, especially when the response to control inputs is somewhat unknown.

And to answer your question, yes we should be instituting travel restrictions and limiting non-essential travel.  And Santa Clara county instituted a widely mocked (on this board) quarantine requirement for those traveling more than 150 miles, which, given the data, was actually pretty wise.



BC

The quarantine requirement is interesting because since it isn't enforced (that I am aware of) it is more of an advisory. I don't criticize it as being too harsh. I think it is inadequate if they really want to drive the case count down rapidly. By comparison, my friend who lives near Aprilia in Italy cannot leave the commune (73k people) except to go to work and return. It isn't "quarantine when you get back". It is "you can't go" and they at least attempt to enforce it. Right now, people are being pretty compliant, because they have seen this movie before and don't want the "don't go to work" to be added. This is in an area of Italy that is in pretty "good" shape. Italy is finally getting it's case load down. That is what it has taken them to do it. SCC is nowhere near that yet.

[Goose]

Ultimately, restrictions should be set not based on level, but on growth rate.  If R > 1, then you need to tighten up restrictions until R < 1.  It is better with this virus to act decisively early than to have to scramble and wait and have to act in a panic later.  This means that if case levels are low but growing, you have some time to institute restrictions and test their effect and then act accordingly.  If you wait until its almost too late, then you have to scramble and don't have time to fine tune the restrictions.

Absolutely agree with your comments about using R as the determining statistic. However, there are constraints. You certainly can't let the health care system saturate. The problem is "having some time ..." is very tricky. When R is > 1, the system is out of control. If your "tweaks" don't have the desired effects, the time you had to wait to measure the results has you now in a much worse situation total case wise and closer to saturation. That is kind of what we have been doing. The delay in the system makes it very difficult to control it by a "feedback" method, especially when the response to control inputs is somewhat unknown.

And to answer your question, yes we should be instituting travel restrictions and limiting non-essential travel.  And Santa Clara county instituted a widely mocked (on this board) quarantine requirement for those traveling more than 150 miles, which, given the data, was actually pretty wise.



BC

The quarantine requirement is interesting because since it isn't enforced (that I am aware of) it is more of an advisory. I don't criticize it as being too harsh. I think it is inadequate if they really want to drive the case count down rapidly. By comparison, my friend who lives near Aprilia in Italy cannot leave the commune (73k people) except to go to work and return. It isn't "quarantine when you get back". It is "you can't go" and they at least attempt to enforce it. Right now, people are being pretty compliant, because they have seen this movie before and don't want the "don't go to work" to be added. This is in an area of Italy that is in pretty "good" shape. Italy is finally getting it's case load down. That is what it has taken them to do it. SCC is nowhere near that yet.

[JustAnotherFan]

Just a footnote in the thickheaded decision to keep pushing forward:

Miami Hurricanes starting safety Al Blades Jr. announced Tuesday he will miss the rest of the season after being diagnosed with myocarditis.

[JustAnotherFan]

Just a footnote in the thickheaded decision to keep pushing forward:

Miami Hurricanes starting safety Al Blades Jr. announced Tuesday he will miss the rest of the season after being diagnosed with myocarditis.

[teejers1]

Just a footnote in the thickheaded decision to keep pushing forward:

Miami Hurricanes starting safety Al Blades Jr. announced Tuesday he will miss the rest of the season after being diagnosed with myocarditis.

Not even a footnote.  (And he played in 8 games this year - more than anyone in Pac).


P.S.  It doesn't sound like Al regrets playing with "his brothers," but I'm sure he appreciates your crusade here on the board.

[teejers1]

Just a footnote in the thickheaded decision to keep pushing forward:

Miami Hurricanes starting safety Al Blades Jr. announced Tuesday he will miss the rest of the season after being diagnosed with myocarditis.

Not even a footnote.  (And he played in 8 games this year - more than anyone in Pac).


P.S.  It doesn't sound like Al regrets playing with "his brothers," but I'm sure he appreciates your crusade here on the board.

[magnus]

UW Huskies suspended football activities today due to an increase in Covid.

This puts their game this Saturday against Oregon in jeopardy.  

The plus side is that that would clinch the North for them.  The downside is that conference Covid protocols might then prevent them from playing in the Pac12 Championship game.

[magnus]

UW Huskies suspended football activities today due to an increase in Covid.

This puts their game this Saturday against Oregon in jeopardy.  

The plus side is that that would clinch the North for them.  The downside is that conference Covid protocols might then prevent them from playing in the Pac12 Championship game.

[BostonCard]

The game against Oregon is closed.

BC

[BostonCard]

The game against Oregon is closed.

BC