~*Official #COVID-19 Thread of Doom*~ Revenge of Omicron Prime

[Joe]

Mask mandate appears to be helping in Texas, but experts ask Gov. Greg Abbott not to rule out a shutdown

WWW.KCBD.COM

---

A plateauing of new virus cases would hardly represent a victory over the pandemic, but it would help keep hospitals from being overrun with sick patients.

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 minute ago, Chris- said:

I think you are under estimating the number of people who will do something because it is even nominally required from a legal standpoint. There’s no consequence for running a stop sign if no one is around, but plenty of people still stop because they inherently will follow whatever has been proscribed. 

Also, for the dunces out there,

More Republicans follow COVID guidelines when they're told it will protect themselves

PHYS.ORG

---

For decades, scientists have predicted that a deadly pandemic would sweep the globe—but what they didn't expect was that basic public health measures such as mask wearing and social...

 

 

[Commodore D]

2 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

What do you think it more likely? Trump lied and ended up being proven right, or people at Pfizer decided to let him know the preliminary results of a clinical trial, perhaps before any statistical analysis had even happened?

 

There’s zero reason to take Trump at his word on shit like this.

Zero is pretty strong.

 

"I'm going to cut taxes." - happened

"I'm going to cut regulations." - happened

"I'm going to work for veterans." - happened

"I'm going to work to reduce drug prices." - happened

"I'm going to fight China on trade." - happened

"I'm against going to war." - happened

"I'm going to get out and redo NAFTA." - happened

"I'm going to get out the Paris Climate Accords." - happened

"I'm going to work for the black community." - happened

 

I can go on and on; so like I said zero is pretty strong, especially if you live in actuals. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Chris- said:

I think you are under estimating the number of people who will do something because it is even nominally required from a legal standpoint. There’s no consequence for running a stop sign if no one is around, but plenty of people still stop because they inherently will follow whatever has been proscribed. 

This is only true for a portion of the population, typically in the 60-65% range. So I’m not underestimating it, mask usage in the US is already around that or slightly higher. How much more are you reasonable going to capture with an unenforceable mandate from the White House?

 

 

[Joe]

Anyway, this isn't even an issue regarding the efficacy of mandates. It's that Biden wants to push this on the state and local level instead of being a leader and doing it on the federal level.

[Chris-]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

This is only true for a portion of the population, typically in the 60-65% range. So I’m not underestimating it, mask usage in the US is already around that or slightly higher. How much more are you reasonable going to capture with an unenforceable mandate from the White House?

 

 

Over 100k people are testing positive every day, so the answer to your question is ‘Who cares’. Even if a legal mandate is toothless, whatever gains can be reaped are worth it, even if they are relatively small. 

[Kal-El814]

Just now, Commodore D said:

Zero is pretty strong.

 

"I'm going to cut taxes." - happened

"I'm going to cut regulations." - happened

"I'm going to work for veterans." - happened

"I'm going to work to reduce drug prices." - happened

"I'm going to fight China on trade." - happened

"I'm against going to war." - happened

"I'm going to get out and redo NAFTA." - happened

"I'm going to get out the Paris Climate Accords." - happened

"I'm going to work for the black community." - happened

 

I can go on and on; so like I said zero is pretty strong, especially if you live in actuals. 

 

My guy, I have been in the clinical trials industry my entire adult life. Nobody says shit like, “after an interim analysis that will take place in the fall, we are confident our drug will work.” It doesn’t work that way. I’m on clinicaltrials.gov right now and the only Phase III study I see on there for BNT162b2, the compound Pfizer is working on, is an observer-blind, dose-finding study. There’s no fucking way they knew it was working at the time Trump talked about something going to show positive results in the fall. His team is also actively lying about this specific compound being part of Operation Warp Speed, when it is not. Get out of town.

[Comet]

13 minutes ago, Joe said:

Mask mandate appears to be helping in Texas, but experts ask Gov. Greg Abbott not to rule out a shutdown

WWW.KCBD.COM

---

A plateauing of new virus cases would hardly represent a victory over the pandemic, but it would help keep hospitals from being overrun with sick patients.

 

We passed 1 million cases!

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Chris- said:

Over 100k people are testing positive every day, so the answer to your question is ‘Who cares’. Even if a legal mandate is toothless, whatever gains can be reaped are worth it, even if they are relatively small. 

Except that the evidence is becoming more and more clear that it isn’t public places driving infection rates to new highs here and abroad. All the good luck convincing people to mask up in their own homes with no teeth mandates.

 

What has been most effective in getting mask usage up has been educating the public about the effectiveness. That is an area where the Biden administration can have positive effects as they try and shape behavior.

[Mr.Vic20]

5 minutes ago, Comet said:

We passed 1 million cases!

With a total population of around 29 million, that's really something! 

[Joe]

Just now, sblfilms said:

Except that the evidence is becoming more and more clear that it isn’t public places driving infection rates to new highs here and abroad. All the good luck convincing people to mask up in their own homes with no teeth mandates.

 

What has been most effective in getting mask usage up has been educating the public about the effectiveness. That is an area where the Biden administration can have positive effects as they try and shape behavior.

 

That sounds great as well! Democrats can do multiple things at once, I hope!

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Joe said:

Mask mandate appears to be helping in Texas, but experts ask Gov. Greg Abbott not to rule out a shutdown

WWW.KCBD.COM

---

A plateauing of new virus cases would hardly represent a victory over the pandemic, but it would help keep hospitals from being overrun with sick patients.

 

Texas has the same mask mandate still and like 10k cases a day now, so, thanks for proving the point  

[Jason]

45 minutes ago, Commodore D said:

Except for you know, what actual happened.

 

I know people don't like to live in actuals, but they exist.

 

broken clocks 

[Joe]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Texas has the same mask mandate still and like 10k cases a day now, so, thanks for proving the point  

 

The positivity rate has been far lower since the mandate. Even the high they are hitting now is less than half of what they were hitting in the summer. You know this, too.

[Jason]

32 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

This is only true for a portion of the population, typically in the 60-65% range. So I’m not underestimating it, mask usage in the US is already around that or slightly higher. How much more are you reasonable going to capture with an unenforceable mandate from the White House?

 

 

 

"Not everyone will comply so why even bother?" 

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Joe said:

 

The positivity rate has been far lower since the mandate. Even the high they are hitting now is less than half of what they were hitting in the summer. You know this, too.

It’s not less than half. The highest 3 day average in the state was about 12k/day and we around 10k/day right now. and it’s the beginning of what will likely turn into a 20k-30k/day period of bleakness in the state over the next 6 weeks.

 

30 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

"Not everyone will comply so why even bother?" 

Still not what I said. Non-enforced rules typically have a best case rate of 60-65% adoption, which is already the approximate rate of mask usage nationally. So the question is how many more people could reasonably be expected to comply beyond that? 
 

Save the straw men  

[Joe]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It’s not less than half. The highest 3 day average in the state was about 12k/day and we around 10k/day right now. and it’s the beginning of what will likely turn into a 20k-30k/day period of bleakness in the state over the next 6 weeks.

 

Still not what I said. Non-enforced rules typically have a best case rate of 60-65% adoption, which is already the approximate rate of mask usage nationally. So the question is how many more people could reasonably be expected to comply beyond that? 
 

Save the straw men  

 

Less than half of the positivity rate. We've talked about positivity rate before. I've seen you discuss how total cases do not matter, but rather the positivity rate. Come on.

[Joe]

 

http://covidactnow.org//logo192.png America’s COVID warning system.

COVIDACTNOW.ORG

---

Covid Act Now has real-time COVID data and risk level for your community. See how your community is doing at covidactnow.org.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Joe said:

 

Less than half of the positivity rate. We've talked about positivity rate before. I've seen you discuss how total cases do not matter, but rather the positivity rate. Come on.

Sorry, I get that. Positivity rate seemed to matter with regards to controlling spread in the early days, but we are at a level and speed of increase in which it frankly doesn’t matter much if at all. The nominal infections are so out of control, even with those mask mandates in a majority of states, that control of spread is pretty well out the window.

 

Unless we actually lock down again. Physical distance is the only thing that will meaningfully change the game prior to vaccines being widely administered.

[vaxick]

9 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

Wrong thread?

 

My bad, lol, didn't realize I accidentally posted that in the Covid thread.  

[Chris-]

35 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It’s not less than half. The highest 3 day average in the state was about 12k/day and we around 10k/day right now. and it’s the beginning of what will likely turn into a 20k-30k/day period of bleakness in the state over the next 6 weeks.

 

Still not what I said. Non-enforced rules typically have a best case rate of 60-65% adoption, which is already the approximate rate of mask usage nationally. So the question is how many more people could reasonably be expected to comply beyond that? 
 

Save the straw men  

You’ve now cited that 60-65 range twice, so I’m gonna need a source on that one, hombre. 

[Iculus]

3 hours ago, Joe said:

 

You don't actually know this. You're just voicing your opinion. I live in a fairly moderate suburban county in NJ and conservatives and liberals alike where masks indoors at all times. You might catch a stray person with the mask on wrong, but otherwise everyone wears them.

I'm harassed daily for wearing a mask in Georgia. There aren't very many places that require them for customers. I wear mine everywhere.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Chris- said:

You’ve now cited that 60-65 range twice, so I’m gonna need a source on that one, hombre. 

 

Sorry, had to go dig through my school books which were put away while we moved from the guestroom to the new master bedroom. 

 

The best data I have seen was from "Why People Obey the Law", though it's 30ish years old. But the general idea is that normative decision making leads to around 6/10 people following a rule simply because it exists and they would feel bad for breaking the norm. If you want people to comply at higher rates, you need to capture self-interested people too. This is why you have rewards and punishments to induce certain behaviors.

 

If you're asking about mask usage, I've seen that 60% number in the NYT on many occasions since the summer.

 

But let's set aside my claim. You think that it would meaningfully increase usage just because it was mandated. What are you basing that on?

[Joe]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Sorry, I get that. Positivity rate seemed to matter with regards to controlling spread in the early days, but we are at a level and speed of increase in which it frankly doesn’t matter much if at all. The nominal infections are so out of control, even with those mask mandates in a majority of states, that control of spread is pretty well out the window.

 

Unless we actually lock down again. Physical distance is the only thing that will meaningfully change the game prior to vaccines being widely administered.

 

This isn't accurate though. Positivity rate is still considered important and is cited by governors when reporting numbers. Even now, the total number of infections reported daily are still a vast underestimation of the the true numbers, just as before. That is why positivity rate is so important.

 

For example, NJ has seen a sharp uptake in cases. Our numbers are close to our peaks in April. So why did Murphy not announce a shutdown today? Because our positivity rate, although rising, has not skyrocketed:

 

 

Nominal cases were always going to increase as testing increased. Decisions are made based off Rt and positivity rate, not nominal cases.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Joe said:

 

This isn't accurate though. Positivity rate is still considered important and is cited by governors when reporting numbers. Even now, the total number of infections reported daily are still a vast underestimation of the the true numbers, just as before. That is why positivity rate is so important.

 

For example, NJ has seen a sharp uptake in cases. Our numbers are close to our peaks in April. So why did Murphy not announce a shutdown today? Because our positivity rate, although rising, is still under 10%:

 

Positivity rates could remain identical if testing increases and actual infections increase proportionally to that. If testing growth outpaces and infection growth stayed flat, you would even see decreases in test positivity. Are you going to suggest that a large scale outbreak is less bad if the positivity rates are low compared to a small scale outbreak with high positivity rates. Because that is the logical end of the argument you are making here. Transmission rates of course are important because you can assess whether community spread is increasing or decreasing.

[Chris-]

49 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Sorry, had to go dig through my school books which were put away while we moved from the guestroom to the new master bedroom. 

 

The best data I have seen was from "Why People Obey the Law", though it's 30ish years old. But the general idea is that normative decision making leads to around 6/10 people following a rule simply because it exists and they would feel bad for breaking the norm. If you want people to comply at higher rates, you need to capture self-interested people too. This is why you have rewards and punishments to induce certain behaviors.

 

If you're asking about mask usage, I've seen that 60% number in the NYT on many occasions since the summer.

 

But let's set aside my claim. You think that it would meaningfully increase usage just because it was mandated. What are you basing that on?

I never said it would meaningfully increase usage, I said any increase in usage is worth it. There’s a difference. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Chris- said:

I never said it would meaningfully increase usage, I said any increase in usage is worth it. There’s a difference. 

 

You don't think it will meaningfully increase usage, but should be done anyway? What is the basis for the idea it will increase usage at all then?

[sexy_shapiro]

 

[Chris-]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

You don't think it will meaningfully increase usage, but should be done anyway? What is the basis for the idea it will increase usage at all then?

Basic math. Ten million Americans have been infected - a number which increases by 100k every day - and hundreds are dying every day. Even if it only increase adoption by 1%, it is worth it, even if that isn’t a ‘meaningful’ increase. 
 

Put more simply: pedantry can piss off when people’s lives are at risk. 

[Joe]

20 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Positivity rates could remain identical if testing increases and actual infections increase proportionally to that. If testing growth outpaces and infection growth stayed flat, you would even see decreases in test positivity. Are you going to suggest that a large scale outbreak is less bad if the positivity rates are low compared to a small scale outbreak with high positivity rates. Because that is the logical end of the argument you are making here. Transmission rates of course are important because you can assess whether community spread is increasing or decreasing.

 

I never said to only use positivity rates. They are to be used in conjunction with rate of transmission.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Chris- said:

Basic math. Ten million Americans have been infected - a number which increases by 100k every day - and hundreds are dying every day. Even if it only increase adoption by 1%, it is worth it, even if that isn’t a ‘meaningful’ increase. 
 

Put more simply: pedantry can piss off when people’s lives are at risk. 

 

So show me the expected adoption based on a federal mask mandate and the net effects of it. That is how you get to the point of figuring out if the policy does have a meaningful impact. So far you've provided nothing to indicate a federal mask mandate would do anything, and apparently the Biden administration at this point agrees that it wouldn't based on their policy proposals. Or I guess they are fine with people needlessly dying when the issuance of the mandate isn't a particularly difficult bit of policy work.

 

[Joe]

8 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

So show me the expected adoption based on a federal mask mandate and the net effects of it. That is how you get to the point of figuring out if the policy does have a meaningful impact. So far you've provided nothing to indicate a federal mask mandate would do anything, and apparently the Biden administration at this point agrees that it wouldn't based on their policy proposals. Or I guess they are fine with people needlessly dying when the issuance of the mandate isn't a particularly difficult bit of policy work.

 

 

This is not what is happening. They are planning to push mask mandates, just at the state and local level. They don't want it to be federal.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Joe said:

 

This is not what is happening. They are planning to push mask mandates, just at the state and local level. They don't want it to be federal.

Because the federal government can't do anything to enforce them, so it would be completely about @Chris-'s idea that complying would happen voluntarily to a degree that makes a difference. The state governments at least have some tools of enforcement, like punitive actions against businesses who don't enforce the mandates on their customers. 

[Joe]

8 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Because the federal government can't do anything to enforce them, so it would be completely about @Chris-'s idea that complying would happen voluntarily to a degree that makes a difference. The state governments at least have some tools of enforcement, like punitive actions against businesses who don't enforce the mandates on their customers. 

 

He's going by the notion that legally he can't, which makes @mclumber1happy:

The Latest: Biden offers details of 'national mask mandate' - ABC News

ABCNEWS.GO.COM

---

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is detailing his approach on what he’s called a “national mask mandate” as he campaigns against President Donald Trump

 

I guess he had announced this over a month ago. Oh well.

[Joe]

There's also the notion that viral loads when people are wearing masks are significantly lower:

 

http://www.ucsf.edu//themes/custom/ucsf/favicon.ico One More Reason to Wear a Mask: You’ll Get Less Sick From COVID-19

WWW.UCSF.EDU

---

It’s likely that face masks, by blocking even some of the coronavirus-carrying droplets you inhale, can reduce your risk of falling seriously ill from COVID-19, according to Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist at UCSF.

 

 

So even if you do get the disease and the mask mandate literally does not reduce transmission by a single case (not true), you are less likely to get severely ill if you are wearing a mask. This is why even as cases spike in Europe, death rates have not in nearly the same degree.