The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(09-15-2020 03:25 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 03:20 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 03:06 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Study: Urban Desnity Not Linked to Higher Infection Rates -- Is Linked to Lower COVID Death Rates

https://www.uta.edu/math/_docs/preprint/...014_05.pdf

So studies that show masks are useless are old studies and shouldn't be used (even if they were published in May), but studies from 5 years ago about density's effect on viral spreads, they're good.

Here's the thing: it would make sense to me that more dense populations would have more spreading of the virus. But, I can't keep up with this "Listen to the scientists over here, not the scientists over there" game. it's why, all along, my only point was to let me make decisions for myself, and I'll offer you the same opportunity.

I don't believe I've ever referenced a study on masks. To me, I really don't care. Its a minor inconvenience at best to throw on a maks before I enter a store. If it ends up not preventing the spread of the virus, oh well, i'm out of $3.50. If it does, cool, I was reponsible.

It’s not about the masks. It’s about the “this science is good, but that science is not” nonsense. Perhaps, we don’t know much about anything. I’m ok admitting I certainly fall in that camp.

But, again, given there is science that says masks work, and science that say masks aren’t effective, and science that says density matters, and other science that says not so much...isn’t our best course of action to lay it all out there and let individuals decide what is best for them? That’s been my point all along...

I wanted to bring this discussion over from the other thread, although at this point, I'm not sure it matters. But, anyway...

(09-16-2020 10:18 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  I do not see the corrleation you are trying to make. The decision of ODU has zero impact on me (outside of not being able to watch games). It doesn't affect me. It is the decision of a public institution.

The Gov. decision to lockdown or not has a huge impact on me. Whether others take the virus seriously or if they listen to Trump has an impact on me.

At this point, what businesses are locked down and told to shut up?

While businesses may not be "locked down" in the literal sense, every business has all kinds of restrictions in place and are being told to shut up about it. When my local gym opened, and the government, based on fire code, told them the capacity of the building, they built a financial structure based on that information. Now, they are told they have to keep business to a fraction of that. They have no say about it either. Same with my buddy's restaurant, that had a very slim profit margin under the rules he was originally given. Now, the government changes those rules. He's basically told to shut up about it. Our neighborhood hardware store has seen his business negatively impacted by the mask mandate, so he decided he wasn't going to enforce it. A single customer came in, complained about the non-enforcement, left, and then a few hours later a government official showed up and threatened to close his doors if he didn't enforce it. His recourse. Shut up.

Seriously, don't you see the problem?

(09-16-2020 10:56 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  I wanted to bring this discussion over from the other thread, although at this point, I'm not sure it matters. But, anyway...

(09-16-2020 10:18 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  I do not see the corrleation you are trying to make. The decision of ODU has zero impact on me (outside of not being able to watch games). It doesn't affect me. It is the decision of a public institution.

The Gov. decision to lockdown or not has a huge impact on me. Whether others take the virus seriously or if they listen to Trump has an impact on me.

At this point, what businesses are locked down and told to shut up?

While businesses may not be "locked down" in the literal sense, every business has all kinds of restrictions in place and are being told to shut up about it. When my local gym opened, and the government, based on fire code, told them the capacity of the building, they built a financial structure based on that information. Now, they are told they have to keep business to a fraction of that. They have no say about it either. Same with my buddy's restaurant, that had a very slim profit margin under the rules he was originally given. Now, the government changes those rules. He's basically told to shut up about it. Our neighborhood hardware store has seen his business negatively impacted by the mask mandate, so he decided he wasn't going to enforce it. A single customer came in, complained about the non-enforcement, left, and then a few hours later a government official showed up and threatened to close his doors if he didn't enforce it. His recourse. Shut up.

Seriously, don't you see the problem?

Im reading through scratching my head a bit, but I have a good friend that has a gym and the gym exploded with members this summer. Obviously, not every business is affected to the same degree. How was the neighborhood hardware store negatively affected by people having to wear a mask?

My business has luckily taken off with only minor invconviences (wearing a mask when I go somewhere). I miss going out to restraurants with friends, but have decided to be on the safer side in that respect (ordering out and touchless delivery). Does it suck that some businesses are affected....absolutely! Are there consequences when we have to make tough decisions....absolutely.

But, I don't and will not agree that we should just let everyone make their own decision. Im not interested in any anarchy. We can go round and round about this all year long but your viewpoint on it won't change mine and vice versa. IMO, something had to be done to slow the spread of COVID-19. And despite the measures taken, we are still at 200k deaths, but likely saved a bunch more.

(09-16-2020 10:13 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  The chart is an apples to orange comparison, but it does tell some stories.

Taking density out of the equation (although I have a tough time understanding how you can), New York City was hit when little was known about the virus, the effects, or effective methods to treat it. Masks and social distancing weren't a thing before the virus made it to NYC, and healthcare officials (globally) were still figuring out how to best take care of patients. Neither testing nor contact tracing were widespread items either, and few tools were available to make them available (especially testing). There was little help from the Feds either.

In that sense, it can be legitimately argued the Executive branch withholding information from Governors didn't allow states to prepare as best they could.

Anyways, I give DeSantis' government (and others) flack because we're months into the pandemic, have solutions on control methods, yet his inaction and casual disregard of science make things worse than it should be. There's no excuse we're in October and ~1000 Americans/day are still dying (and likely more).

At least testing is more accessible and healthcare officials have a better grasp how to save patients, which certainly benefits Florida (and everyone). If you want to give DeSantis credit, that's on you, but I give credit to the people fighting on the ground despite his ignorance.

To be honest, considering NYC alone is 40% of Florida's population, I'm impressed it's managed the outbreak so well since getting it under control. It's proof listening to science and data works, but it's also sad NYC didn't have the luxury of science and data at the start. In a way, they became the data.

How do you explain the fact that California had a similar outbreak to FL and at essentially the same time, even though they follow the exact prescription that you are upset with Desantis for not following? How do you explain the fact that much of Europe is seeing the same kind of increases that we saw in the first wave for states like FL, AZ, TX and CA if dumb Republican policies are the reason for outbreaks? Alternatively, we can accept the reality that nobody is exempt from COVID flare ups, no matter how hard they try destroy the economy under the guise of social distancing. The virus very obviously takes of, burns hot, hits her immunity relatively quickly, and the subsides. It is the same sequence everywhere regardless of lockdown efforts. I just could not be any more obvious at this point.

(09-16-2020 11:11 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 10:56 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  I wanted to bring this discussion over from the other thread, although at this point, I'm not sure it matters. But, anyway...

(09-16-2020 10:18 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  I do not see the corrleation you are trying to make. The decision of ODU has zero impact on me (outside of not being able to watch games). It doesn't affect me. It is the decision of a public institution.

The Gov. decision to lockdown or not has a huge impact on me. Whether others take the virus seriously or if they listen to Trump has an impact on me.

At this point, what businesses are locked down and told to shut up?

While businesses may not be "locked down" in the literal sense, every business has all kinds of restrictions in place and are being told to shut up about it. When my local gym opened, and the government, based on fire code, told them the capacity of the building, they built a financial structure based on that information. Now, they are told they have to keep business to a fraction of that. They have no say about it either. Same with my buddy's restaurant, that had a very slim profit margin under the rules he was originally given. Now, the government changes those rules. He's basically told to shut up about it. Our neighborhood hardware store has seen his business negatively impacted by the mask mandate, so he decided he wasn't going to enforce it. A single customer came in, complained about the non-enforcement, left, and then a few hours later a government official showed up and threatened to close his doors if he didn't enforce it. His recourse. Shut up.

Seriously, don't you see the problem?

Im reading through scratching my head a bit, but I have a good friend that has a gym and the gym exploded with members this summer. Obviously, not every business is affected to the same degree. How was the neighborhood hardware store negatively affected by people having to wear a mask?

My business has luckily taken off with only minor invconviences (wearing a mask when I go somewhere). I miss going out to restraurants with friends, but have decided to be on the safer side in that respect (ordering out and touchless delivery). Does it suck that some businesses are affected....absolutely! Are there consequences when we have to make tough decisions....absolutely.

But, I don't and will not agree that we should just let everyone make their own decision. Im not interested in any anarchy. We can go round and round about this all year long but your viewpoint on it won't change mine and vice versa. IMO, something had to be done to slow the spread of COVID-19. And despite the measures taken, we are still at 200k deaths, but likely saved a bunch more.

Can you provide evidence that limiting the capacity at gyms and restaurants has been effective in mitigating the virus. I'm looking forward to reviewing it.

(09-15-2020 03:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 03:07 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 03:06 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 02:13 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Who flattened the curve better?

You'd have to look at cases per day to find out.

Huh?

This chart is deaths per day not cases per day. To know who "flattened the curve" better you would have to look at cases per day. We all know the early days which largely affected NY and NJ were deadlier.

Not necessarily. That is a theory, but in the early days there were far fewer tests and one may assume most cases were not caught (and most probably still aren't caught). The only apples to apples comparison we have are deaths. If the virus is in fact weakening as per your explanation, then it is time to open up everything.

I suppose one can draw their own conclusions as to why the top ten are primarily in the south and republican.

(09-16-2020 12:50 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 12:32 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 10:13 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  The chart is an apples to orange comparison, but it does tell some stories.

Taking density out of the equation (although I have a tough time understanding how you can), New York City was hit when little was known about the virus, the effects, or effective methods to treat it. Masks and social distancing weren't a thing before the virus made it to NYC, and healthcare officials (globally) were still figuring out how to best take care of patients. Neither testing nor contact tracing were widespread items either, and few tools were available to make them available (especially testing). There was little help from the Feds either.

In that sense, it can be legitimately argued the Executive branch withholding information from Governors didn't allow states to prepare as best they could.

Anyways, I give DeSantis' government (and others) flack because we're months into the pandemic, have solutions on control methods, yet his inaction and casual disregard of science make things worse than it should be. There's no excuse we're in October and ~1000 Americans/day are still dying (and likely more).

At least testing is more accessible and healthcare officials have a better grasp how to save patients, which certainly benefits Florida (and everyone). If you want to give DeSantis credit, that's on you, but I give credit to the people fighting on the ground despite his ignorance.

To be honest, considering NYC alone is 40% of Florida's population, I'm impressed it's managed the outbreak so well since getting it under control. It's proof listening to science and data works, but it's also sad NYC didn't have the luxury of science and data at the start. In a way, they became the data.

How do you explain the fact that California had a similar outbreak to FL and at essentially the same time, even though they follow the exact prescription that you are upset with Desantis for not following? How do you explain the fact that much of Europe is seeing the same kind of increases that we saw in the first wave for states like FL, AZ, TX and CA if dumb Republican policies are the reason for outbreaks? Alternatively, we can accept the reality that nobody is exempt from COVID flare ups, no matter how hard they try destroy the economy under the guise of social distancing. The virus very obviously takes of, burns hot, hits her immunity relatively quickly, and the subsides. It is the same sequence everywhere regardless of lockdown efforts. I just could not be any more obvious at this point.

People need to take the virus seriously. Laws are inconsequential if society itself ignores them, but leaders do set the tone.

FWIW, California ranks far behind Florida when it comes to cases per 100K (between March and yesterday). In fact, the top ten are:

1. Louisiana - 3395
2. Florida - 3247
3. Alabama - 3156
4. Mississippi - 3029
5. Arizona - 3012
6. Georgia - 2884
7. South Carolina - 2693
8. Tennessee - 2635
9. Nevada - 2533
10. Texas - 2484
-
13. New York - 2272
-
23. California - 1963
-
32. Virginia - 1610

https://www.latimes.com/projects/califor...-outbreak/

It shows that taking action actually helps. Can you prevent it? Likely never, but you can mitigate it.

I wonder why you prefer to quote cases rather than the statistic that actually matters in the real world, deaths. In fact, high case numbers with low death numbers is the perfect combination since it allows us reach a level of herd immunity more quickly and with fewer deaths. So, should we consider deaths rather than cases when we decide how states have handled the virus?

(09-16-2020 12:37 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 03:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 03:07 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 03:06 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 02:13 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Who flattened the curve better?

You'd have to look at cases per day to find out.

Huh?

This chart is deaths per day not cases per day. To know who "flattened the curve" better you would have to look at cases per day. We all know the early days which largely affected NY and NJ were deadlier.

Not necessarily. That is a theory, but in the early days there were far fewer tests and one may assume most cases were not caught (and most probably still aren't caught). The only apples to apples comparison we have are deaths. If the virus is in fact weakening as per your explanation, then it is time to open up everything.

Virus weakening, better treatment, younger demographic making up the sick. Lots of possible reasoning for lower death rates. I concede that number of cases in March was more understated than currently due to testing. We're still seeing around 1000 deaths per day, we're not likely to hit 2M deaths or even 1M but if we opened up everything 500K in a year could be reached pretty easily.

(09-16-2020 12:57 PM)VB Monarch Wrote:  I suppose one can draw their own conclusions as to why the top ten are primarily in the south and republican.

Or we can just cherry pick meaningless data because the meaningful data paints a completely different picture than the one we prefer.

Deaths Per 100k

Democrat run states make up 11 of the top 15, including two of the worst locations in the entire world in NY and NJ

New Jersey - D
New York - D
Massachusetts - D
Connecticut - D
Louisiana - D
Rhode Island - D
Mississippi - R
DC - D
Arizona - R
Michigan - D
Illinois - D
Maryland - R (In name only)
Delaware - D
Pennsylvania - D
Georgia - R

Lowest Unemployment Rate

Democrat run states make up 5 or the top 15 lowest unemployment rates.

Utah - R
Nebraska - R
Idaho - R
Kentucky - D
South Dakota - R
Montana - D
Iowa - R
North Dakota - R
Missouri - R
Wisconsin - D
Arkansas - R
Oklahoma - R
Wyoming - R
Kansas - D
Colorado - D
Georgia - R

So somehow those Republican states have managed to keep COVID deaths low while protecting their economies.

Lets also consider that California makes up HALF of the current US unemployment claims.

(09-16-2020 12:58 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 12:50 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 12:32 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 10:13 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  The chart is an apples to orange comparison, but it does tell some stories.

Taking density out of the equation (although I have a tough time understanding how you can), New York City was hit when little was known about the virus, the effects, or effective methods to treat it. Masks and social distancing weren't a thing before the virus made it to NYC, and healthcare officials (globally) were still figuring out how to best take care of patients. Neither testing nor contact tracing were widespread items either, and few tools were available to make them available (especially testing). There was little help from the Feds either.

In that sense, it can be legitimately argued the Executive branch withholding information from Governors didn't allow states to prepare as best they could.

Anyways, I give DeSantis' government (and others) flack because we're months into the pandemic, have solutions on control methods, yet his inaction and casual disregard of science make things worse than it should be. There's no excuse we're in October and ~1000 Americans/day are still dying (and likely more).

At least testing is more accessible and healthcare officials have a better grasp how to save patients, which certainly benefits Florida (and everyone). If you want to give DeSantis credit, that's on you, but I give credit to the people fighting on the ground despite his ignorance.

To be honest, considering NYC alone is 40% of Florida's population, I'm impressed it's managed the outbreak so well since getting it under control. It's proof listening to science and data works, but it's also sad NYC didn't have the luxury of science and data at the start. In a way, they became the data.

How do you explain the fact that California had a similar outbreak to FL and at essentially the same time, even though they follow the exact prescription that you are upset with Desantis for not following? How do you explain the fact that much of Europe is seeing the same kind of increases that we saw in the first wave for states like FL, AZ, TX and CA if dumb Republican policies are the reason for outbreaks? Alternatively, we can accept the reality that nobody is exempt from COVID flare ups, no matter how hard they try destroy the economy under the guise of social distancing. The virus very obviously takes of, burns hot, hits her immunity relatively quickly, and the subsides. It is the same sequence everywhere regardless of lockdown efforts. I just could not be any more obvious at this point.

People need to take the virus seriously. Laws are inconsequential if society itself ignores them, but leaders do set the tone.

FWIW, California ranks far behind Florida when it comes to cases per 100K (between March and yesterday). In fact, the top ten are:

1. Louisiana - 3395
2. Florida - 3247
3. Alabama - 3156
4. Mississippi - 3029
5. Arizona - 3012
6. Georgia - 2884
7. South Carolina - 2693
8. Tennessee - 2635
9. Nevada - 2533
10. Texas - 2484
-
13. New York - 2272
-
23. California - 1963
-
32. Virginia - 1610

https://www.latimes.com/projects/califor...-outbreak/

It shows that taking action actually helps. Can you prevent it? Likely never, but you can mitigate it.

I wonder why you prefer to quote cases rather than the statistic that actually matters in the real world, deaths. In fact, high case numbers with low death numbers is the perfect combination since it allows us reach a level of herd immunity more quickly and with fewer deaths. So, should we consider deaths rather than cases when we decide how states have handled the virus?

Many people are reporting lasting illness from this virus so death isn't the only consequence. But looking at deaths per million CA - 370. FL - 607

(09-16-2020 01:20 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 12:58 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 12:50 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 12:32 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 10:13 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  The chart is an apples to orange comparison, but it does tell some stories.

Taking density out of the equation (although I have a tough time understanding how you can), New York City was hit when little was known about the virus, the effects, or effective methods to treat it. Masks and social distancing weren't a thing before the virus made it to NYC, and healthcare officials (globally) were still figuring out how to best take care of patients. Neither testing nor contact tracing were widespread items either, and few tools were available to make them available (especially testing). There was little help from the Feds either.

In that sense, it can be legitimately argued the Executive branch withholding information from Governors didn't allow states to prepare as best they could.

Anyways, I give DeSantis' government (and others) flack because we're months into the pandemic, have solutions on control methods, yet his inaction and casual disregard of science make things worse than it should be. There's no excuse we're in October and ~1000 Americans/day are still dying (and likely more).

At least testing is more accessible and healthcare officials have a better grasp how to save patients, which certainly benefits Florida (and everyone). If you want to give DeSantis credit, that's on you, but I give credit to the people fighting on the ground despite his ignorance.

To be honest, considering NYC alone is 40% of Florida's population, I'm impressed it's managed the outbreak so well since getting it under control. It's proof listening to science and data works, but it's also sad NYC didn't have the luxury of science and data at the start. In a way, they became the data.

How do you explain the fact that California had a similar outbreak to FL and at essentially the same time, even though they follow the exact prescription that you are upset with Desantis for not following? How do you explain the fact that much of Europe is seeing the same kind of increases that we saw in the first wave for states like FL, AZ, TX and CA if dumb Republican policies are the reason for outbreaks? Alternatively, we can accept the reality that nobody is exempt from COVID flare ups, no matter how hard they try destroy the economy under the guise of social distancing. The virus very obviously takes of, burns hot, hits her immunity relatively quickly, and the subsides. It is the same sequence everywhere regardless of lockdown efforts. I just could not be any more obvious at this point.

People need to take the virus seriously. Laws are inconsequential if society itself ignores them, but leaders do set the tone.

FWIW, California ranks far behind Florida when it comes to cases per 100K (between March and yesterday). In fact, the top ten are:

1. Louisiana - 3395
2. Florida - 3247
3. Alabama - 3156
4. Mississippi - 3029
5. Arizona - 3012
6. Georgia - 2884
7. South Carolina - 2693
8. Tennessee - 2635
9. Nevada - 2533
10. Texas - 2484
-
13. New York - 2272
-
23. California - 1963
-
32. Virginia - 1610

https://www.latimes.com/projects/califor...-outbreak/

It shows that taking action actually helps. Can you prevent it? Likely never, but you can mitigate it.

I wonder why you prefer to quote cases rather than the statistic that actually matters in the real world, deaths. In fact, high case numbers with low death numbers is the perfect combination since it allows us reach a level of herd immunity more quickly and with fewer deaths. So, should we consider deaths rather than cases when we decide how states have handled the virus?

Many people are reporting lasting illness from this virus so death isn't the only consequence. But looking at deaths per million CA - 370. FL - 607

Ahh the old Trumpian "many people" stat. How many?

Financially speaking, many more people have been impacted because of government-mandated restrictions than have been impacted from actually getting the virus. And, that financial impact has been far more targeted at the lower income levels.

(09-16-2020 01:26 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 12:58 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  I wonder why you prefer to quote cases rather than the statistic that actually matters in the real world, deaths. In fact, high case numbers with low death numbers is the perfect combination since it allows us reach a level of herd immunity more quickly and with fewer deaths. So, should we consider deaths rather than cases when we decide how states have handled the virus?

The cases are significant in the real world. I feel like people forget there are social and economic implications to getting the virus itself, in addition to possible long-term effects.

It can be a huge financial strain on individuals, especially as the virus disproportionately effects low-income populations. If you're struggling (and many Americans were even before the pandemic), you have to take time off work, can't support yourself or your family, have to pay for medical treatments, pay for alternative housing, and there's even stories of bankruptcies.

And in some cases, not only are the ill affected, loved ones around them are as well. They have to take time off to look after sick relatives, and of course have a higher risk to get it themselves.

Deaths are important, but there's more to it. Americans are being strained even if they survive, but the segments hit hardest have always been on the peripheries of society (migrants, factory workers, immigrant communities, low-income residents, retail workers, old people in homes, etc.), so I somewhat understand your question. People like us - assuming we're both middle-class to upper-middle class - mostly get affected when someone dies. We can afford insurance, taking time off, going to a doctor, or whatever. The lower classes and people we rarely see, they're affected differently.

I would argue that folks in CA are being strained more by the massive number of people out of work due to overzealous lockdown policies than people in FL are being strained by simply testing positive for COIVD. 66 people died in CA (a state of 40 Million people) yesterday, yet they have taken the right to earn a living away from millions.

(09-16-2020 01:25 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 01:20 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 12:58 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 12:50 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 12:32 PM)Monarchblue Wrote:  How do you explain the fact that California had a similar outbreak to FL and at essentially the same time, even though they follow the exact prescription that you are upset with Desantis for not following? How do you explain the fact that much of Europe is seeing the same kind of increases that we saw in the first wave for states like FL, AZ, TX and CA if dumb Republican policies are the reason for outbreaks? Alternatively, we can accept the reality that nobody is exempt from COVID flare ups, no matter how hard they try destroy the economy under the guise of social distancing. The virus very obviously takes of, burns hot, hits her immunity relatively quickly, and the subsides. It is the same sequence everywhere regardless of lockdown efforts. I just could not be any more obvious at this point.

People need to take the virus seriously. Laws are inconsequential if society itself ignores them, but leaders do set the tone.

FWIW, California ranks far behind Florida when it comes to cases per 100K (between March and yesterday). In fact, the top ten are:

1. Louisiana - 3395
2. Florida - 3247
3. Alabama - 3156
4. Mississippi - 3029
5. Arizona - 3012
6. Georgia - 2884
7. South Carolina - 2693
8. Tennessee - 2635
9. Nevada - 2533
10. Texas - 2484
-
13. New York - 2272
-
23. California - 1963
-
32. Virginia - 1610

https://www.latimes.com/projects/califor...-outbreak/

It shows that taking action actually helps. Can you prevent it? Likely never, but you can mitigate it.

I wonder why you prefer to quote cases rather than the statistic that actually matters in the real world, deaths. In fact, high case numbers with low death numbers is the perfect combination since it allows us reach a level of herd immunity more quickly and with fewer deaths. So, should we consider deaths rather than cases when we decide how states have handled the virus?

Many people are reporting lasting illness from this virus so death isn't the only consequence. But looking at deaths per million CA - 370. FL - 607

Ahh the old Trumpian "many people" stat. How many?

It's like nothing anyone has seen before. I can tell you that.

(09-16-2020 11:11 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Im reading through scratching my head a bit, but I have a good friend that has a gym and the gym exploded with members this summer. Obviously, not every business is affected to the same degree. How was the neighborhood hardware store negatively affected by people having to wear a mask?

My business has luckily taken off with only minor invconviences (wearing a mask when I go somewhere). I miss going out to restraurants with friends, but have decided to be on the safer side in that respect (ordering out and touchless delivery). Does it suck that some businesses are affected....absolutely! Are there consequences when we have to make tough decisions....absolutely.

But, I don't and will not agree that we should just let everyone make their own decision. Im not interested in any anarchy. We can go round and round about this all year long but your viewpoint on it won't change mine and vice versa. IMO, something had to be done to slow the spread of COVID-19. And despite the measures taken, we are still at 200k deaths, but likely saved a bunch more.

The neighborhood hardware store was adversely affected because some of his regular customers refuse to wear masks. They are willing to take the chance of getting the virus, and the business owner was ok with that. Then, the government had to step in, because of one person complaining.

Truly glad to hear that your business has done well. Not everyone is in the same boat. That's what happens in business, when the playing field is level. We have a situation where the government is stepping in and picking what businesses are "essential" and which ones are expendable. I have a major problem with that. As you know, it's freakin' hard to run a successful business, when times are normal. It's nearly impossible when the government starts mandating additional restrictions.

(09-16-2020 01:54 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 11:11 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Im reading through scratching my head a bit, but I have a good friend that has a gym and the gym exploded with members this summer. Obviously, not every business is affected to the same degree. How was the neighborhood hardware store negatively affected by people having to wear a mask?

My business has luckily taken off with only minor invconviences (wearing a mask when I go somewhere). I miss going out to restraurants with friends, but have decided to be on the safer side in that respect (ordering out and touchless delivery). Does it suck that some businesses are affected....absolutely! Are there consequences when we have to make tough decisions....absolutely.

But, I don't and will not agree that we should just let everyone make their own decision. Im not interested in any anarchy. We can go round and round about this all year long but your viewpoint on it won't change mine and vice versa. IMO, something had to be done to slow the spread of COVID-19. And despite the measures taken, we are still at 200k deaths, but likely saved a bunch more.

The neighborhood hardware store was adversely affected because some of his regular customers refuse to wear masks. They are willing to take the chance of getting the virus, and the business owner was ok with that. Then, the government had to step in, because of one person complaining.

Truly glad to hear that your business has done well. Not everyone is in the same boat. That's what happens in business, when the playing field is level. We have a situation where the government is stepping in and picking what businesses are "essential" and which ones are expendable. I have a major problem with that. As you know, it's freakin' hard to run a successful business, when times are normal. It's nearly impossible when the government starts mandating additional restrictions.

The primary purpose of the mask mandate is to prevent the mask wearer from spreading the virus. If people walk into a store and people aren’t wearing masks, they feel uncomfortable and vulnerable. The store owner runs the risk of losing those customers. If you want to give store owners a choice then that is fine, but they should have to post a sign at the door saying they are not enforcing the mask policy so that people can make a choice whether they want to enter the business or not.

(09-16-2020 02:10 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote:  The primary purpose of the mask mandate is to prevent the mask wearer from spreading the virus. If people walk into a store and people aren’t wearing masks, they feel uncomfortable and vulnerable. The store owner runs the risk of losing those customers. If you want to give store owners a choice then that is fine, but they should have to post a sign at the door saying they are not enforcing the mask policy so that people can make a choice whether they want to enter the business or not.

Deal.


See, this isn't that hard. Why do our politicians suck?

(09-16-2020 02:18 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(09-16-2020 02:10 PM)Chillie Willie Wrote:  The primary purpose of the mask mandate is to prevent the mask wearer from spreading the virus. If people walk into a store and people aren’t wearing masks, they feel uncomfortable and vulnerable. The store owner runs the risk of losing those customers. If you want to give store owners a choice then that is fine, but they should have to post a sign at the door saying they are not enforcing the mask policy so that people can make a choice whether they want to enter the business or not.

Deal.


See, this isn't that hard. Why do our politicians suck?

I dunno, but the one problem I can see is large businesses with hundreds of customers in the store like Walmart. Maybe you would have to exclude large businesses from opting out so they don’t become super spreaders. Maybe that is what the politicians foresee. Or they just suck.