Jump to content
Alan's Forums
Sally

Covid prediction

Recommended Posts

patrickdaly

I wonder whether they were referring to indoor or outdoor surfaces and whether they made a distinction between them. I imagine it would certainly not be easily transmittable on outdoor surfaces.

On the other point of over-reaction versus under-reaction by authorities, I think that you cannot have precision management of restrictions by region, by sector, or by demographic if you don’t have the testing capacity to pinpoint where the virus is and what its rate of transmission is.
Some countries already had this capability or they have developed it rapidly and others have not. Those that did have managed the illness without the need for blanket lockdowns.
In the absence of this kind of capability, prudent governments have implemented generalised measures, to buy time while they do build it. Some people perceive this as an over reaction because it damages the economy in the short term.

Meanwhile, others opt to open-up blind, without having built the required capability. The risk here is that they end up with both high mortality and being forced to lock down again later with even greater damage to the economy.
There are no easy answers here.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Becky Morgan
2 hours ago, Kim Wilkerson said:

Not one article I've seen in the last 48 hours said you CAN'T pick up the disease from surfaces. They all said, "it doesn't easily transmit that way." They still caution that you can become infected by touching the a surface with the virus on it and then touching your eyes/nose/mouth. Might seem like a nuance in wording and messaging, but it's not. It's significantly different. 

CDC hasn’t changed their position:

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/22/861193550/advice-on-surface-spread-of-covid-19-has-not-changed-cdc-says?utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin Berchelmann
42 minutes ago, Becky Morgan said:

CDC hasn’t changed their position:

Maybe. They did certainly change the wording of their warning to lessen the significance. In the throes of a pandemic, language matters.

KB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Becky Morgan
24 minutes ago, Kevin Berchelmann said:

Maybe. They did certainly change the wording of their warning to lessen the significance. In the throes of a pandemic, language matters.

KB

I agree. Language matters. Whether right or wrong scientific insights, the CDC no longer controls wording. Not the first agency to be edited in recent years. It’s a shame. 
That’s a sad observation, not an effort to increase political debate here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kevin Berchelmann
47 minutes ago, Becky Morgan said:

...the CDC no longer controls wording.

You have evidence the wording was changed against the CDC's will? I haven't seen that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan Weiss

Come on. Everyone was frantic about not touching things, and there is a huge amount of reporting now, with the CDC participating, that the disease isn't transmitted by touching surfaces. Most authorities have concluded that wearing gloves is more dangerous than not wearing them. I've maintained from the outset that we've overreacted, often caused far more harm than good, and we've acted on very poor (or no) information. This ain't the scientific method. The scientific method will develop a vaccine one of these days.

We dined out (finally) last night, and every restaurant with outdoor capacity was filled by 6 (and some had hidden indoor capacity). Valets are not permitted, so there was a guy in the uniform who was "technically not a valet" but was giving parking directions. He technically parked my car for a technical tip.

If you believe the government has acted wisely and not frantically, consider the fact that small businesses are having a hard time getting employees back because they're making more from subsidies and unemployment than they do at work. So you can finally open up for the season, but you can't staff up to meet demand. There's a real case for big government as the answer for national problems. 

"Prudent government" is an oxymoron.

IMG_0233.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patrickdaly
25 minutes ago, Alan Weiss said:

Prudent government" is an oxymoron.

It certainly is in some countries and states I can think of.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan Weiss

One of the original theories about national government was that it was to protect the coasts and deliver the mail. I can understand some expansion since then, such as interstate commerce and air traffic control. But to look on it as the default "savior" is a huge mistake. The endemic bureaucracy alone makes is slow, uninformed, and non-innovative. And its blindness to adverse consequences, such as people now making more at home than they would at work, is astonishing. One of the reasons for the failure of much of US overseas aid is that we merely provided food instead of investing in local agriculture. Hence, we put local people out of work and destroyed self-sufficiency. These are ham-handed actions. If we can go through immigration in 60 seconds using Global Entry, why can't we do the same with TSA and avoid the interaction? 

The average intelligence of senior leaders of all parties and all persuasions is no greater than that of the general populace. In Rhode Island, the incarceration rate of legislators, judges, governors, and senior appointed officials is about three times that of the general population! If they're going to take my temperature to get on an airplane, then they should provide an intelligence test for anyone attempting to run for office.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patrickdaly
3 hours ago, Alan Weiss said:

If they're going to take my temperature to get on an airplane, then they should provide an intelligence test for anyone attempting to run for office.

That, I do agree with.

We have a dunce cult running several of the world’s most important nations right now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan Weiss

This morning's papers are talking about no carry-on on planes. The panic continues. Strapped airlines will have delayed boarding, piles of people at baggage claim, more lost bags, fewer people able to work on trips, more people getting drunk. Another great idea. This could bring back trains and boats. 

As for mental tests, did you see what Biden actually uttered the other day? The intrinsic belief that black people must vote Democratic is so shockingly crass that I scarcely know where to begin with it. And he poured fuel on the fire of incompetence and lack of compos mentis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...