General COVID-19 talk, NHL remains suspended MOD Warning post #1

[KINGS17]

To paraphrase Fauci, if it looks like we overreacted, we did our job. I don't expect everyone to agree with that, and that's fine. But those models were based on what we knew at the time, which was next to nothing other than this is extremely infectious--without knowing the possible death rate, and for a while it was looking as high as 10%, the actions were taken to mitigate the spread. Now, knowing (guesstimating, really) it's actually MORE infectious, less deadly, is that really a problem? There's a reason opening is accelerating.

Early on in this situation all of this was fine, but as the actual data kept rolling in suggesting the models were flawed, many of those in public office continued to use the models and not the "live" data. Models were adjusted, but still they grossly overestimated the number of deaths.

What was done, definitely did not save lives in nursing homes. The lock down helped slow the spread so hospitals could prepare. Not overwhelming the hospitals was the objective. Once it was accomplished the reins should have been loosened more quickly and people should have worn masks, practiced improved hygiene, etc. Wrecking the economy and increases unemployment by large numbers is a consequence which has caused extreme damage to many people, and possibly damaged their health.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Early on in this situation all of this was fine, but as the actual data kept rolling in suggesting the models were flawed, many of those in public office continued to use the models and not the "live" data. Models were adjusted, but still they grossly overestimated the number of deaths.

What was done, definitely did not save lives in nursing homes. The lock down helped slow the spread so hospitals could prepare. Not overwhelming the hospitals was the objective. Once it was accomplished the reins should have been loosened more quickly and people should have worn masks, practiced improved hygiene, etc. Wrecking the economy and increases unemployment by large numbers is a consequence which has caused extreme damage to many people, and possibly damaged their health.

I have zero issue with anything you're saying here.

It's clear now that for all the focus on nursing homes on the micro level and NYC on the macro level that we didn't do enough for THOSE situations and we may have done too much for others.

To me, though, the overall lockdown reaction was appropriate based on what we knew then, and I think even at that point I had said early to mid may for starting to release things...which is happening quickly and I'm not sure what people are fighting at this point.

 

[KINGS17]

New York Stock Exchange floor trading partially reopened today.

NYSE floor reopens after historic two-month shutdown of Big Board for coronavirus

 

[KINGS17]

Purdue University president says not reopening in the fall is unacceptable and would be a failure of him to do his job.

Purdue University president says not reopening in the fall would be 'unacceptable'

Mitch Daniels, the former Republican governor of Indiana and current president of Purdue University, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed Tuesday morning that failing to reopen the university for students this fall would be "an unacceptable breach of duty," citing statistics on how the coronavirus mostly affects older people and not the 18-22-year-old cohort that attends colleges like his.

"Forty-five thousand young people — the biggest student population we’ve ever had — are telling us they want to be here this fall," Daniels wrote. "To tell them, 'Sorry, we are too incompetent or too fearful to figure out how to protect your elders, so you have to disrupt your education,' would be a gross disservice to them and a default of our responsibility."

"At the point when the campus was shut down, if we had needed to decide on our plans for the fall, we would have felt compelled to resume with remote instruction and keep the campus closed," Daniels wrote. "For all we knew, COVID-19 posed a danger across all lines of age and health status, and a place as densely populated as our campus would be defenseless against it — operations couldn’t be responsibly restarted."

He continued: "We have all learned a lot since then. What would have been a reckless and scientifically unjustified decision in late March is now plainly the best option from both a scientific and a stewardship standpoint, at least for our particular institution... this bug, so risky in one segment of the population, poses a near-zero risk to young people. Among covid-19 deaths, 99.9 percent have occurred outside the 15-to-24 age group; the survival rate in the 20-to-29 age bracket is 99.99 percent."

"We recognize that not every school can or should view the decision to reopen as we do," he wrote. "Unlike Purdue, many colleges were already struggling with low enrollment and precarious finances when the pandemic hit. But given what we have learned, with 45,000 students waiting and the financial wherewithal to do what’s necessary, failure to take on the job of reopening would be not only anti-scientific but also an unacceptable breach of duty.

 

[KINGS17]

Ultimately, my point is people will take higher risks on protocol or number fudging in the name of winning a championship, while these policies and procedures are hammered out in the name of the economy and revenue.

I fully concede nothing may change and people may still die as a result of best laid plans.

I just don't think the risk of damage, life, or optics are worth trying to salvage the season.

The time can be spent to review options and policies, and perhaps write up different response scenarios for future crises. And preseason is always the best time to try out changes. More resources for physical and psychological health can be prepared and provided.

Even with the perfect plan, the months of players not being fit and competing in intense playoff hockey runs a much greater risk of injury.

I understand injuries happen, but we really shouldn't be flippant about how they be treated.

The NHL was not prepared for this, and that's okay. I just think that in their rush, corners will be cut. I worry people (whether it's players, personnel, or staff at facilities and hotels) will unnecessarily suffer as a result of those corners. And I frankly expect more sensitivity towards that possibility.

Regarding your points on the players not being in top shape, being isolated and suffering mental distress from it, etc. All of this is true. The players should definitely consider all of these factors when the NHLPA votes on whether or not to return this season.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

So, what was the purpose of the lockdown in your opinion? What goal did it achieve? What goal did it succeed at? If you argue that it saved lives through slowing the spread, then do you think it is magically just going to go away? or do you think we are going to have to stay locked down until we find and distribute a vaccine? You can't say something saved lives until the virus has run it's course, because the purpose of the lockdown was to lengthen the period of activity.

Not sure where you're even going with this other than putting words in my mouth.

My initial point was that 1. you're accepting CDC projections without question and that 2. IF you're going to accept those numbers, fine, but it means the disease is much more infectious than we thought, and thus stopping things like gatherings of 18,118 people PROBABLY helped us stop that. And your response was "well we don't know if we saved any lives." So suddenly, needing outcomes data is important? Then you cannot accept the CDC projections until we measure them either! Or, in your words, "You can't say something [resulted in x] until the virus has run its course."

So, it seems your argument here is the opposite. They have the same amount of exposure as the other countries that did lock down? Doesn't that mean that the lockdowns were not effective if the virus still spread the same?

As a side note, Sweden already admitted to their mistakes. ~80% of their deaths were from nursing homes, they did not do a good enough job protecting them and suffered because of it.

I'm saying a neighboring country (actually, ALL neighboring countries) that locked down had FAR fewer deaths than the one that went for it with no lockdown. And that article you link actually shows that Norway doesn't get under R=1 until after lockdown. The conclusion they reach is that they MIGHT be able to mitigate a second wave without lockdown, there's no certainty in there. But she's certainly not expressing regret over locking down, in fact it seems the thing they're most in disagreement on was simply on closing schools.

Agreed wholeheartedly on the nursing homes though and that's especially wild given their health care system.

Haha, selective bias on my part, but the Imperial model is a red herring? That model was THE key model that caused this entire reaction and it had been questioned from the start, except anyone who did was silenced.

I also take it you didn't read the article I linked(which is fine, but it is a good read), but it talks about evidence based medicine vs projection based medicine. Ferguson's projection model is the only one I ahve discussed I believe and there are plenty of reasons not to trust it.

You should trust data we have today much more than data we had 2 months ago, opinions should change as we gain more information. If you are stuck on your opinion regarding a novel virus and don't adapt as we understand it, then I don't know what to tell you.

I'm saying that not even a month ago a large group of people was out at anyone that mentioned 'models' and suggesting that they're fighting on behalf of the Imperial Model when by and large everyone else was talking about other things. It was a dishonest argument meant to discredit data usage in models and projections. Now, suddenly, models are good, because they're showing outcomes people want to see.

No, I DONT trust data today more than we did two months ago. It was bad then, it's bad now. You're welcome to believe it more, I'm going to be very skeptical given the sources of all that data is all over the map. There are plenty of reporting scandals in the US alone, never mind places like China. Opinions should change and adapt as the information gets better, not when the fire hose of shitty info opens wider. Sadly we DONT understand this virus much more, we're still shaky on things like transmission, treatment, and vaccine progress, we're still getting new offshoots like inflammatory diseases in children/young adults, and because of all that we're still not collectively even remotely close to cohesive about what should be done in each state. If we were getting good data, a course of action would be a lot easier to choose.

I mentioned this a while back when we talked, but I work with models every day, but for material analysis. There is a significant difference between projection models and data driven models and I don't think they should be confused.

Projection models have value, but should not be considered gospel. Data driven models are much more accurate.

Maybe I'm guilty of interchanging them colloquially here but I think most people are generally accepting that we're talking about data-based theories, not raw projections, especially at this point. The problem is the data is questionable enough that the conclusions are easily manipulated.

Look, ultimately you and I are agreeing on how to use the data we have. I'm just pointing out there is a very large group of people who didn't like/respect the (data based) projections/models before who suddenly like them and defend the hell out of them when they report what those people want to see and all I can do, frankly, is scoff. Like, the people that were questioning the hell out of the 10% death rates in Italy are the same people who are now dishonestly posting shit like "only .01% of the population have died." The agendas are transparent. That wasn't at you at all, but for some reason you picked up the shoe and put it on.

Maybe it's just all my PTSD of my past life as an English teacher and dealing with people cherry picking the info that was convenient with complete disregard to context or contrary evidence.

 

[crassbonanza]

My initial point was that 1. you're accepting CDC projections without question and that 2. IF you're going to accept those numbers, fine, but it means the disease is much more infectious than we thought, and thus stopping things like gatherings of 18,118 people PROBABLY helped us stop that. And your response was "well we don't know if we saved any lives." So suddenly, needing outcomes data is important? Then you cannot accept the CDC projections until we measure them either! Or, in your words, "You can't say something [resulted in x] until the virus has run its course."

The CDC is not projecting. They are producing results from the data they have. They are running a basic equation, taking the number of symptomatic cases and dividing that by the number of cases that end in fatalities. They are not saying that there is going to be X amount of deaths if X,X, X or X.

No, I DONT trust data today more than we did two months ago. It was bad then, it's bad now. You're welcome to believe it more, I'm going to be very skeptical given the sources of all that data is all over the map. There are plenty of reporting scandals in the US alone, never mind places like China. Opinions should change and adapt as the information gets better, not when the fire hose of shitty info opens wider. Sadly we DONT understand this virus much more, we're still shaky on things like transmission, treatment, and vaccine progress, we're still getting new offshoots like inflammatory diseases in children/young adults, and because of all that we're still not collectively even remotely close to cohesive about what should be done in each state. If we were getting good data, a course of action would be a lot easier to choose.

Well, then what are you basing your opinion off of if you do not trust any data? There is a wide amount of data available now that largely agrees from country to country. We know who the high risk population is, we have a good general idea about the CFR and IFR, we know the main means of transmission. Things like linking Kawasaki, Covid toe or Covid mutations are just media running with anything for a good story. We are getting very good data, but now we have a population that is absolutely terrified and an economy on the verge of collapse. Do you think states can just open up now and say, this is not as deadly as we thought and we overreacted? Also, it is at a point where people are just waiting to blame any deaths on you if you say anything about the virus not being as deadly.

There is a reason why despite what the governors are saying, their actions are moving in a different direction.

Look, ultimately you and I are agreeing on how to use the data we have. I'm just pointing out there is a very large group of people who didn't like/respect the (data based) projections/models before who suddenly like them and defend the hell out of them when they report what those people want to see and all I can do, frankly, is scoff. Like, the people that were questioning the hell out of the 10% death rates in Italy are the same people who are now dishonestly posting shit like "only .01% of the population have died." The agendas are transparent. That wasn't at you at all, but for some reason you picked up the shoe and put it on.

I think a big difference between people talking about 10% death rates in Italy months ago and people talking about IFR numbers now is the rate of testing. This is the biggest issue we have had since the beginning. It was a novel virus that we were not testing widely for, the only people being tested were those who were gravely ill which presented very high CFR data. Coupled with the WHO saying that there were no asymptomatic cases, the projection models were based off of flawed data. With testing becoming much more prevalent the data is getting much more accurate. Although it's funny, higher testing leads to more cases, so as we started testing more it appeared that the virus was growing rapidly. Watching Nate Silver lose it at the media about this has been really funny over the past month or so.

 

[KINGS17]

Now this is funny. No explanation required as to why it is funny.

 

[tny760]

Now this is funny. No explanation required as to why it is funny.

i like how they post themselves up on the busiest sidewalk they can too

gotta love egotistical media

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The CDC is not projecting. They are producing results from the data they have. They are running a basic equation, taking the number of symptomatic cases and dividing that by the number of cases that end in fatalities. They are not saying that there is going to be X amount of deaths if X,X, X or X.

CB, the entire thing results in estimates. The CDC states, word for word, "The parameters in the scenarios are estimates intended to support public health preparedness and planning." Yes, it's using available data, to assume a number of outcomes based on a number of different ranges.

Here's the CDC Study: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

And here's an article that really meshes with my view, critiquing both the CDC study as well as the earlier studies, that also questions the data and cautions against making sweeping assumptions (and also for your entertainment cites Iaonnidis and bashes Imperial): The CDC's New 'Best Estimate' Implies a COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rate Below 0.3%

Again, my beef is a month ago everyone was questioning the CDC, now all of a sudden I'm just supposed to accept this data without question? No thanks. It's not a bad study, but I'm skeptical when I watch people change their tone after months of scoffing over masks and other precautions and reports, especially when it matches an agenda.

Well, then what are you basing your opinion off of if you do not trust any data? There is a wide amount of data available now that largely agrees from country to country. We know who the high risk population is, we have a good general idea about the CFR and IFR, we know the main means of transmission. Things like linking Kawasaki, Covid toe or Covid mutations are just media running with anything for a good story. We are getting very good data, but now we have a population that is absolutely terrified and an economy on the verge of collapse. Do you think states can just open up now and say, this is not as deadly as we thought and we overreacted? Also, it is at a point where people are just waiting to blame any deaths on you if you say anything about the virus not being as deadly.

There is a reason why despite what the governors are saying, their actions are moving in a different direction.

It's not binary, man. I'm not saying reject all data. I'm saying question it. That's all.

What you're painting as 'the media running with a good story' isn't inaccurate as it's sensationalist but again there's a grain of truth there, we're seeing a delayed inflammatory reaction in some groups that's worth being aware of. There is some corroborative information, but I'm still gonna stop short of calling it 'good data.'

No, states can't just open up and say "whoops, we goofed, everything is fine." that would be irresponsible. It's responsible to move forward with caution. But yes, public policy makers will--and should--shoulder the burden if deaths suddenly flare up again. It's why it's easy to armchair QB this thing, you and I aren't governors responsible for millions of lives. They've erred on the side of caution and it's pretty easy to see why.

I think a big difference between people talking about 10% death rates in Italy months ago and people talking about IFR numbers now is the rate of testing. This is the biggest issue we have had since the beginning. It was a novel virus that we were not testing widely for, the only people being tested were those who were gravely ill which presented very high CFR data. Coupled with the WHO saying that there were no asymptomatic cases, the projection models were based off of flawed data. With testing becoming much more prevalent the data is getting much more accurate. Although it's funny, higher testing leads to more cases, so as we started testing more it appeared that the virus was growing rapidly. Watching Nate Silver lose it at the media about this has been really funny over the past month or so.

Totally agree and it's still an issue. I think most of us here agreed that more testing would lead to more cases, lower death rates. And hard to find how far along virus has spread if you aren't testing the healthy. The testing and cases increasing is why, until we started running into areas where testing was going up but cases relatively weren't, I was looking more at deaths, and year-over-year-increase-in-deaths. But again, some places are still having testing discrepancies and controversies, so I'm not just going to accept that it's all good.

 

[crassbonanza]

CB, the entire thing results in estimates. The CDC states, word for word, "The parameters in the scenarios are estimates intended to support public health preparedness and planning." Yes, it's using available data, to assume a number of outcomes based on a number of different ranges.

An estimation is not a projection. Projection models predict outcomes, the CDC using the available data to estimate the CFR is not making a projection. Obviously we can not know the exact CFR until we are able to test the entire population and the virus has run it's course, which is why estimates are used. The projection models predicted the course of the virus based on assumptions applied by the developers of the code, in Ferguson's case his code used the Spanish Flu as the main model. Which is where he came up wither his numbers, if you notice his projected deaths for the Avian flu and Covid 19 are essentially the same once you adjust for population growth. Your link actually does a pretty great job explaining the difference between the CDC numbers and the projection models.

It's why it's easy to armchair QB this thing, you and I aren't governors responsible for millions of lives. They've erred on the side of caution and it's pretty easy to see why.

We have never done anything like this before and while I understood the initial 2 week pause to bend the curve, the continuation is what bothered me. The fact that decisions were not based off of science anymore, but based off of optics also bothered me.

 

[yankeeking]

Here are some scary thoughts from the doctors on cnn this mor.ning ....we are at about 5% infected right now heading towards 60% in a year when herd immunity would start to kick in , 74% of the new infections are people under 65 and 38% of that is under 40, 79% of deaths are people over 65 with58% over 75, and any talk of a vaccine is just talk and the normal process takes about 5 years but with the whole world working on it we might get it a little sooner.....so just thinking out loud if that 60% number is right just doing basic math we would have .....now at 5% =100,000 dead now so 60% =1.2 million ? Now that’s a scary number , right now I do not know anyone who has got the virus and the other managers at my office do not know of any (15) mrgs.there , nor do my techs or installers (53) there so it’s hard to believe things are as bad as we are being told , but 1,200,000 is a lot of dead .... due to our lack of quality leadership there has been no guidance ,no laid out plan no timetable to get to the next level , they laid out a plan to reopen and then almost every state totally disregarded it so we have that built in fear that lack of leadership brings so we Do what we normally do in a very not normal time , we do what makes us feel normal, go to church,go to bars,beaches,clubs ,parties, And until we have more “bring out your dead moments” we will continue, hears to hoping the experts, doctors and semi genius are wrong and the dumbass I can’t wait a few monthsTo go to parties and I won’t wear a mask crowd is right or those of us that got to see the whitey widings,rogies, Danny Maloney kings are in deep s***

 

[Lt Dan]

Here are some scary thoughts from the doctors on cnn this mor.ning .......Danny Maloney kings are in deep s***

wow. this is tough to read. I am going to try to break this up in to paragraphs

Here are some scary thoughts from the doctors on cnn this mor.ning ....we are at about 5% infected right now heading towards 60% in a year when herd immunity would start to kick in

Remember that is an estimate and also a nationwide number.
There has been estimates that CA is already higher.
It was estimates to be 4.1% over a month ago by USC and LA County and Stanford's test was roughly the same

74% of the new infections are people under 65 and 38% of that is under 40, 79% of deaths are people over 65 with 58% over 75

The young will get it and pass it on to the old who die from it. No new news here

and any talk of a vaccine is just talk and the normal process takes about 5 years but with the whole world working on it we might get it a little sooner.....so just thinking out loud if that 60% number is right just doing basic math we would have .....now at 5% =100,000 dead now so 60% =1.2 million ?

The question , which will be answered later is how many A-symptomatic people are there? The latest death estimate us still less than 1% of the people getting The Rona dying from it

Now that’s a scary number , right now I do not know anyone who has got the virus and the other managers at my office do not know of any (15) mrgs.there , nor do my techs or installers (53) there so it’s hard to believe things are as bad as we are being told , but 1,200,000 is a lot of dead

see above

.... due to our lack of quality leadership there has been no guidance ,no laid out plan no timetable to get to the next level , they laid out a plan to reopen and then almost every state totally disregarded it so we have that built in fear that lack of leadership brings

So you are talking Federally?
I personally think that a Federal plan is not a good idea. 50% of the deaths are in a small corner of the country. Should Alaska be treated the same as NY state? Should North NY even be treated the same as the 5 boroughs?

so we Do what we normally do in a very not normal time , we do what makes us feel normal, go to church,go to bars,beaches,clubs ,parties, And until we have more “bring out your dead moments” we will continue, hears to hoping the experts, doctors and semi genius are wrong and the dumbass I can’t wait a few monthsTo go to parties and I won’t wear a mask crowd is right or those of us that got to see the whitey widings,rogies, Danny Maloney kings are in deep s***

I have no idea what you are trying to say here

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

So you are talking Federally?
I personally think that a Federal plan is not a good idea. 50% of the deaths are in a small corner of the country. Should Alaska be treated the same as NY state? Should North NY even be treated the same as the 5 boroughs?

[/QUOTE]


The federal plan wasn't a one size fits all from that standpoint, it's the one outlining different phases. And even within this state, different counties are in different phases. I think that's reasonable. I do really like that they drafted it and are letting the states decide how to use it (to a degree), for me that's one of the only examples of effective leadership in this whole thing. Now it's on the governors to be responsible and report honestly (mixed bag of results there).

 

[jfont]

I think you know why this is not a good idea. If you go ahead with your choice then that would mean that you may, most likely, get infected yourself and pass the virus to someone vulnerable. That someone may get more sick and may require hospitalization. I think this is something we should avoid.

I blame this current administration for absence of leadership in this pandemic. We wouldn't be talking about this if there is one coherent and logical plan. There is none. Instead of a calming voice and a plan, we have someone pushing drugs with no evidence of working. Not to mention not using a mask.in public. This is not a choice. This is something his top people mandated.

This does not help.

 

[jfont]

And that's just fine. You can make that choice. People can make different decisions based on same facts. Some people think 1% is too high and some think even 0.1% is too high.

The problem we have now is that we don't get to make this decision. The government is making these decisions for us.

As for resuming the season, the players and the owners collective have made the decision to possibly resume the season and I'm all for it. As long as they can make proper accommodations for those who may not want to take that risk and those who can be categorized as high risk.

I think you know why this is not a good idea. If you go ahead with your choice then that would mean that you may, most likely, get infected yourself and pass the virus to someone vulnerable. That someone may get more sick and may require hospitalization. I think this is something we should avoid.

I blame this current administration for absence of leadership in this pandemic. We wouldn't be talking about this if there is one coherent and logical plan. There is none. Instead of a calming voice and a plan, we have someone pushing drugs with no evidence of working. Not to mention not using a mask.in public. This is not a choice. This is something his top people mandated.

 

[jfont]

Trump admin won't require nursing homes to count COVID-19 deaths that occurred before May 6

The Trump administration is not requiring nursing homes to provide data on COVID-19 deaths and cases that occurred prior to May 6, according to a public government document, limiting the accuracy of the federal data collection effort to measure the impact of the pandemic on older Americans.

The government's decision not to require reporting of deaths prior to May 6 was buried on a frequently asked questions section on page 18 of a 21-page memo published in early May by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency responsible for nursing home oversight.

 

[crassbonanza]

It's not supposed to be an aggregate sum.

I should have said "at least 20%...", around 4% ..", etc

Your numbers are slightly off, the current estimate for IFR is ~.26% and the latest hospitalization rates are about 2%.

 

[Bandit]

This does not help.

Man it sure is nice having a president that tries to openly bully his own people.

 

[Lt Dan]

5 deaths in OC today , only 2 were SNF

 

[Master Yoda]

I think you know why this is not a good idea. If you go ahead with your choice then that would mean that you may, most likely, get infected yourself and pass the virus to someone vulnerable. That someone may get more sick and may require hospitalization. I think this is something we should avoid.

I blame this current administration for absence of leadership in this pandemic. We wouldn't be talking about this if there is one coherent and logical plan. There is none. Instead of a calming voice and a plan, we have someone pushing drugs with no evidence of working. Not to mention not using a mask.in public. This is not a choice. This is something his top people mandated.

To say that you would "most likely" get infected if you were to make a decision to be out and about is just not true. If that were so, we'd all have it already. Even if we were going by the most generous numbers from the antibody test results, I think it's still less than 10% of the population.

Passing the virus to someone vulnerable is definitely a concern. But that is why we need to take precautions, wear masks indoors, quarantine vulnerable people, quarantine people with positive test, etc.

 

[fivehole32]

I think you know why this is not a good idea. If you go ahead with your choice then that would mean that you may, most likely, get infected yourself and pass the virus to someone vulnerable. That someone may get more sick and may require hospitalization. I think this is something we should avoid.

I blame this current administration for absence of leadership in this pandemic. We wouldn't be talking about this if there is one coherent and logical plan. There is none. Instead of a calming voice and a plan, we have someone pushing drugs with no evidence of working. Not to mention not using a mask.in public. This is not a choice. This is something his top people mandated.

Its fundamentally up to each state to handle this. Federalism is tricky. The administration can just give guidelines. But look at California and LA specifically, just a week ago Newsom and Garcetti were saying the state was going through its stage opening and it was going to take weeks to do it, now they are opening up at breakneck speed. That isn't because of the Federal administration. Its either political pressure put on these people by constituents or they are going by the science and realizing its not as devastating as initially thought.

 

[fivehole32]

To say that you would "most likely" get infected if you were to make a decision to be out and about is just not true. If that were so, we'd all have it already. Even if we were going by the most generous numbers from the antibody test results, I think it's still less than 10% of the population.

Passing the virus to someone vulnerable is definitely a concern. But that is why we need to take precautions, wear masks indoors, quarantine vulnerable people, quarantine people with positive test, etc.

That's my thought on all of this. Every time I've gone to Walmart, Target, or the grocery store there are tons of people there and people that are not in my normal orbit of folks I see every day. Everyone is wearing masks yet in most cases its not possible to socially distance. It would seem that we should have had a hot spot at one of these places over the last few weeks but thank goodness we haven't. Wearing masks indoors and doing our best to space ourselves out, and keeping people that are going about our lives from interacting with the vulnerable is the best we can hope to do.

 

[Lt Dan]

Its fundamentally up to each state to handle this. Federalism is tricky. The administration can just give guidelines. But look at California and LA specifically, just a week ago Newsom and Garcetti were saying the state was going through its stage opening and it was going to take weeks to do it, now they are opening up at breakneck speed. That isn't because of the Federal administration. Its either political pressure put on these people by constituents or they are going by the science and realizing its not as devastating as initially thought.

Others think lawsuits forced Newsom's hand
But who really knows


Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Tuesday during his daily video press briefing that hair salons and barber shops can now re-open in some counties. His announcement came well ahead of his original State 3 re-opening for salons, barbers, gyms and fitness studios, and that is because the federal court was supposed to rule on the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Professional Beauty Federation of California tomorrow.
“Score another victory for the Dhillon Law Group. Several weeks ago, Gavin Newsom said that barbershops would not be opening until late August or early September,” attorney Mark Meuser said on social media. “The Dhillon Law Group filed a lawsuit against Newsom on this issue and the court was supposed to rule on the issue tomorrow.”
The lawsuit was filed May 12, 2020 in U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Others think lawsuits forced Newsom's hand
But who really knows


Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Tuesday during his daily video press briefing that hair salons and barber shops can now re-open in some counties. His announcement came well ahead of his original State 3 re-opening for salons, barbers, gyms and fitness studios, and that is because the federal court was supposed to rule on the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Professional Beauty Federation of California tomorrow.
“Score another victory for the Dhillon Law Group. Several weeks ago, Gavin Newsom said that barbershops would not be opening until late August or early September,” attorney Mark Meuser said on social media. “The Dhillon Law Group filed a lawsuit against Newsom on this issue and the court was supposed to rule on the issue tomorrow.”
The lawsuit was filed May 12, 2020 in U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

"others," lol. Those guys are f***ing lunatics. They take credit for things they only peripherally touch. They're the same ones who sent a letter saying they might take legal action re: letting churches hold service in riverside county and took full credit for Riverside's decision, amongst other things. It's also pretty clear she has political aspirations, trying to take credit for conservative victories throughout the state even while doing nothing.

Dhillon herself is incredibly bright but she has a very very vested interest in pretending her lawsuits are the impetus for the whole state and that's a laughable notion to pretend they're forcing Newsom's hand given how much time there would be between litigation and action. Basically as long as she's made a phone call to a county, she's taking credit for the results in that county. It's insane.

Edit: especially given most of their lawsuits would likely be escalated given they keep citing the bill of rights and that these actions are unconstitutional. Maybe they don't want to give her the spotlight, I guess, but I have a hard time reconciling the contrary arguments that Newsom is a selfish power hungry asshole on one hand and that he's a pushover for a demand letter on another.

I think the simpler explanation is public pressure and governmental pressure as well as 'peer pressure' from other states. on top of reviewed phase openings and more positive data outside of the urban centers.