Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My point was that extending the stay at home order is what is needed to prevent the ICU's from reaching 0% capacity and even that may not be enough.
I think you and I look at these orders completely differently. You view this as a government overreach whereas I view them as a result of bad behavior (lack of mask wearing, social distancing, etc.). In my view, if you don't want stricter government orders, comply with the ones we have in the first place.
How do you expect people to comply with them when they make little sense and are not based on any data or evidence at this point?
LA County never left the purple tier and has been under a tougher stay-at-home order for almost a month now, so if they work why hasn't their case rate gone down and ICU capacity increased?
How do you expect people to comply with them when they make little sense and are not based on any data or evidence at this point?
LA County never left the purple tier and has been under a tougher stay-at-home order for almost a month now, so if they work why hasn't their case rate gone down and ICU capacity increased?
So, you're saying that putting orders in place with the intent to limit contact with those outside your household make zero sense? Even with your claim on outdoor dining, the intent has been to limit contact with those outside your household (e.g., areas to congregate). You can pick apart the individual orders all you want but only someone who doesn't WANT to understand why they were in place won't get it. Its not rocket science to understand that mask wearing and social distancing will essentially "starve" COVID to prevent further spread.
The reason why LA county hasn't improved is because despite these orders people are not complying.
So, you're saying that putting orders in place with the intent to limit contact with those outside your household make zero sense? Even with your claim on outdoor dining, the intent has been to limit contact with those outside your household (e.g., areas to congregate). You can pick apart the individual orders all you want but only someone who doesn't WANT to understand why they were in place won't get it. Its not rocket science to understand that mask wearing and social distancing will essentially "starve" COVID to prevent further spread.
The reason why LA county hasn't improved is because despite these orders people are not complying.
Just because it's meant to limit something doesn't mean it will and can actually make the problem worse. Mask wearing and social distancing are a lot more likely in public and businesses than they are in private homes. I don't get how you can't understand that view.
I under why they are in place but I also understand why they possibly aren't working. Other experts understand that too. You should give it a shot and see if you can as well.
So, you're saying that putting orders in place with the intent to limit contact with those outside your household make zero sense? Even with your claim on outdoor dining, the intent has been to limit contact with those outside your household (e.g., areas to congregate). You can pick apart the individual orders all you want but only someone who doesn't WANT to understand why they were in place won't get it. Its not rocket science to understand that mask wearing and social distancing will essentially "starve" COVID to prevent further spread.
The reason why LA county hasn't improved is because despite these orders people are not complying.
The last line seems like a copout and not a sound argument: "The reason why LA county hasn't improved is because despite these orders people are not complying." I think that is part of the reason why a lot of folks struggle with the seemingly arbitrary way things are closed down. You could use that same exact copout argument either for or against the lockdown, if the numbers went down you could say "see, see, the lockdown is working", but then if the numbers don't go down you could say "well, it's only because people are not complying". If that is the approach you are going to take, then it doesn't make any sense for anyone to discuss it with you because you'll be 100% right no matter what the outcome is with that approach. It's sort of a shutdown tactic used when people don't actually want to have a rational argument about something.
There are folks on here that argue that the schools should shut down completely, yet there is no real evidence that is the source of spreading. Private schools are open full time, yet I haven't read of a single large outbreak forcing them to shut down. Very few elementary districts have had issues. So it can be done properly. Same with dining, if done properly it can be safe, so it punishes those who are doing it the right way to just blanket shut it all down. The key is to establish protocol and then follow it, which the schools and businesses can do. Then if they don't, go ahead and shut them down.
Every country that I've looked at the data from around the entire globe is having MASSIVE spikes, and they all have differing policies regarding shutdowns, mask wearing, etc. I hate to say it, but we aren't capable of the type of lockdown to really make a difference. That would be to lock down everything 100% except life or death medical services, sort of like a place like China could do. I'd say that is what we should do at this point, if saving lives is prioritized at the expense of everything else, let's go ahead and lock everything down 100% for about a month. Since that isn't going to happen, all the arbitrary shutdowns don't seem like they are ultimately going to do anything other than put folks out of business. Given the massive worldwide spikes, can anyone really point to any scientific data or examples from other countries that show that our ridiculous "no dining or haircuts, but you shopaholics can hit the mall and stores to your hearts content" lockdown is going to make a shred of difference?
All that sunshine and rainbows aside, the good news is that LA isn't actually 0% ICU capacity, 0% just means that it has hit into the 20% surge capacity, so they're actually closer to 83.3%. Still a very serious situation no doubt, but hopefully as we crest through the peak of this wave we still won't actually have anyone turned away from an ICU bed even in the worst hit areas.
Just because it's meant to limit something doesn't mean it will and can actually make the problem worse. Mask wearing and social distancing are a lot more likely in public and businesses than they are in private homes. I don't get how you can't understand that view.
I under why they are in place but I also understand why they possibly aren't working. Other experts understand that too. You should give it a shot and see if you can as well.
That article resonates with what I'm seeing in my own anecdotal experience as well: Most reasonable folks willingly went along with lockdowns at the beginning, for the greater good, and they seemed to make rational sense. Early on it was seemed like more right wing types that railed against it mostly for political purposes or ideology. Now though, especially post election, the folks I know really aren't looking at COVID from a political standpoint where you're either for or against it based on which "team" you support. They're looking at it from a rational standpoint where the science seems to indicate that outdoor activities are fine, having kids in schools with proper protocols isn't a real danger, and the shutdown isn't based on science or fact especially given the things you can do. Now that the political COVID battle is over, people are more and more using their own logic to make decisions about what to follow or not. It's ironically beautiful in a way, I'm seeing folks from both sides of the political spectrum come together and start thinking for themselves again.
I think everyone agrees that what is happening with the death rates is horrible and that we should do what we can to slow or stop it. The issue is that the things we are trying to do don't seem to be the right things when looked at from a rational and scientific perspective. It's asinine to close a restaurant and leave a shopping mall open.
Just because it's meant to limit something doesn't mean it will and can actually make the problem worse. Mask wearing and social distancing are a lot more likely in public and businesses than they are in private homes. I don't get how you can't understand that view.
I under why they are in place but I also understand why they possibly aren't working. Other experts understand that too. You should give it a shot and see if you can as well.
I read the article. Some would counter argue that the reason for the uptick is that the restrictions weren't tough enough or consistent enough and that the yo-yo effect of re-opening and then having to close again was more of a driver vs just keeping the restrictions until it would be safe to reopen.
That article resonates with what I'm seeing in my own anecdotal experience as well: Most reasonable folks willingly went along with lockdowns at the beginning, for the greater good, and they seemed to make rational sense. Early on it was seemed like more right wing types that railed against it mostly for political purposes or ideology. Now though, especially post election, the folks I know really aren't looking at COVID from a political standpoint where you're either for or against it based on which "team" you support. They're looking at it from a rational standpoint where the science seems to indicate that outdoor activities are fine, having kids in schools with proper protocols isn't a real danger, and the shutdown isn't based on science or fact especially given the things you can do. Now that the political COVID battle is over, people are more and more using their own logic to make decisions about what to follow or not. It's ironically beautiful in a way, I'm seeing folks from both sides of the political spectrum come together and start thinking for themselves again.
I think everyone agrees that what is happening with the death rates is horrible and that we should do what we can to slow or stop it. The issue is that the things we are trying to do don't seem to be the right things when looked at from a rational and scientific perspective. It's asinine to close a restaurant and leave a shopping mall open.
Yup completely agree. You can't just blame "Trumpers"/right wingers anymore, which Roadwarrior still does. It is nice to see it becoming less political and more people uniting against nonsensical govt decisions here in CA. It's long overdue.
I read the article. Some would counter argue that the reason for the uptick is that the restrictions weren't tough enough or consistent enough and that the yo-yo effect of re-opening and then having to close again was more of a driver vs just keeping the restrictions until it would be safe to reopen.
Sure you could argue that but you wouldn't really have many or any examples to use as proof. In fact quite a few you could use to continue to counter that argument.
The type of lockdown you seem to be suggesting likely isn't possible in a country like ours. You need to realize the limitations with what you're working with.
The last line seems like a copout and not a sound argument: "The reason why LA county hasn't improved is because despite these orders people are not complying." I think that is part of the reason why a lot of folks struggle with the seemingly arbitrary way things are closed down. You could use that same exact copout argument either for or against the lockdown, if the numbers went down you could say "see, see, the lockdown is working", but then if the numbers don't go down you could say "well, it's only because people are not complying". If that is the approach you are going to take, then it doesn't make any sense for anyone to discuss it with you because you'll be 100% right no matter what the outcome is with that approach. It's sort of a shutdown tactic used when people don't actually want to have a rational argument about something.
There are folks on here that argue that the schools should shut down completely, yet there is no real evidence that is the source of spreading. Private schools are open full time, yet I haven't read of a single large outbreak forcing them to shut down. Very few elementary districts have had issues. So it can be done properly. Same with dining, if done properly it can be safe, so it punishes those who are doing it the right way to just blanket shut it all down. The key is to establish protocol and then follow it, which the schools and businesses can do. Then if they don't, go ahead and shut them down.
Every country that I've looked at the data from around the entire globe is having MASSIVE spikes, and they all have differing policies regarding shutdowns, mask wearing, etc. I hate to say it, but we aren't capable of the type of lockdown to really make a difference. That would be to lock down everything 100% except life or death medical services, sort of like a place like China could do. I'd say that is what we should do at this point, if saving lives is prioritized at the expense of everything else, let's go ahead and lock everything down 100% for about a month. Since that isn't going to happen, all the arbitrary shutdowns don't seem like they are ultimately going to do anything other than put folks out of business. Given the massive worldwide spikes, can anyone really point to any scientific data or examples from other countries that show that our ridiculous "no dining or haircuts, but you shopaholics can hit the mall and stores to your hearts content" lockdown is going to make a shred of difference?
All that sunshine and rainbows aside, the good news is that LA isn't actually 0% ICU capacity, 0% just means that it has hit into the 20% surge capacity, so they're actually closer to 83.3%. Still a very serious situation no doubt, but hopefully as we crest through the peak of this wave we still won't actually have anyone turned away from an ICU bed even in the worst hit areas.
^ This
It's like the phrase Have you stopped beating your wife.
So my son gets a text message 2 people have tested + at his work. Then it says he'll get a notification with 48 hours if he needs to quarantine. But, they expected him to still come in to work for those two days!! I advised him to use his sick leave.
It's like how ant poison works. Go out and get it then bring it home to infect that entire household.
Sure you could argue that but you wouldn't really have many or any examples to use as proof. In fact quite a few you could use to continue to counter that argument.
The type of lockdown you seem to be suggesting likely isn't possible in a country like ours. You need to realize the limitations with what you're working with.
"In 1918, a San Francisco health officer shot three people when one refused to wear a mandatory face mask. In Arizona, police handed out $10 fines for those caught without the protective gear. But eventually, the most drastic and sweeping measures paid off. After implementing a multitude of strict closures and controls on public gatherings, St. Louis, San Francisco, Milwaukee, and Kansas City responded fastest and most effectively: Interventions there were credited with cutting transmission rates by 30 to 50 percent. New York City, which reacted earliest to the crisis with mandatory quarantines and staggered business hours, experienced the lowest death rate on the Eastern seaboard."
"In 2007, a study in the Journal of the American Medial Association analyzed health data from the U.S. census that experienced the 1918 pandemic, and charted the death rates of 43 U.S. cities. That same year, two studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences sought to understand how responses influenced the disease’s spread in different cities. By comparing fatality rates, timing, and public health interventions, they found death rates were around 50 percent lower in cities that implemented preventative measures early on, versus those that did so late or not at all. The most effective efforts had simultaneously closed schools, churches, and theaters, and banned public gatherings. This would allow time for vaccine development (though a flu vaccine was not used until the 1940s) and lessened the strain on health care systems."
Last edited by roadwarrior101; 12-22-2020 at 10:52 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
