Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Florida: home equity, villages, communication)

[brightdoglover]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I don’t know why you claim the countries that are doing worse than the US “have certainly responded faster and better”

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...n-inhabitants/

Faster shutdown and more compliance in public with precautions.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by brightdoglover

Faster shutdown and more compliance in public with precautions.

Again, this isn’t borne out by data. The French curve is considerably steeper than the US curve:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/t...ountry=FRA~USA

Are there quantitative unifications of compliance that you’re using to make your assessment?

[brightdoglover]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

Again, this isn’t borne out by data. The French curve is considerably steeper than the US curve:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/t...ountry=FRA~USA

Are there quantitative unifications of compliance that you’re using to make your assessment?

No, just that they shut down harder ands sooner and had more public compliance (hard to get less than the U.S.). I didn't say they had better results.

[bohemka]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

The "curves" for fatalities in AZ, TX, FL, are flat. Texas is a massive state that registers fewer deaths a day than Massachusetts.

Did anyone look into what these allegedly surging statistics might be? I posted some thoughts earlier, I see those were promptly ignored.

Why is all "bad news" immediately believed without question, but "good news" denied? Every time.

Why are so many other places in the world not concerned as much? Is it really ridiculous to question how stats are taken and recorded? It has always been a cluster to keep track of what these metrics mean and then when they change midstream. It's shocking how little curiosity you guys on here have about all this.

The only thing shocking is why you aren't in charge of everything. You're smarter than the scientists, the government, every person who posts. We're just wasting our time using our minds. Tell us what to think, bjimmy24.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by brightdoglover

No, just that they shut down harder ands sooner and had more public compliance (hard to get less than the U.S.). I didn't say they had better results.

I would think of "shutting down better" as implying better results.

If the French had a stricter lockdown and had worse outcomes, that could indicate we could learn important lessons about what DOESN'T work.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I was walking around Westwood with my kids and when someone started turning right on red directly into my family crossing on a walk signal, they honked, got upset, and the yelled the F word at me because I didn’t have a mask on. Even without anyone else within 100 feet of us. People use the mask thing to feel superior.

I agree that's a bit extreme, and what they did was far worse. But what's wrong with wearing a mask to model the right behavior to others, including your own kids? (even if they're below the age where it's required)

I don't like the emergence of mask Nazis myself, but I do think it's a very small, temporary inconvenience (even if you don't believe in the science) vs. for example, wearing seatbelts.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I would think of "shutting down better" as implying better results.

If the French had a stricter lockdown and had worse outcomes, that could indicate we could learn important lessons about what DOESN'T work.

I wouldn't say "shutting down better." Earlier would have helped, and the modeling confirms that. But not many, if any, were willing to lock down around March 3 (which would have been ideal) vs. March 13 and later (which was the reality). And of course as we know, 9 states never bothered to put any restrictions in place. So comparing the US, which had looser and more distributed restrictions, to more centralized governments, is a mistake. Then you factor in the highly individualistic US culture, every man/woman/child for themselves, and you end up with what we have.

The biggest mistake IMO was the CDC openly discouraging mask usage for the longest time. This was not only incorrect, it bred a lot of cynicism as naysayers can just say, "hey, why should I believe them this time."

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

I agree that's a bit extreme, and what they did was far worse. But what's wrong with wearing a mask to model the right behavior to others, including your own kids? (even if they're below the age where it's required)

I don't like the emergence of mask Nazis myself, but I do think it's a very small, temporary inconvenience (even if you don't believe in the science) vs. for example, wearing seatbelts.

The rule is "wear a mask if you can't socially distance". We didn't get within 30 feet of anyone else during our walk. We never do. You're advocating doing something that has absolutely no proven or even suggested benefit just for the sake of doing it.

Governor Baker has issued an Order effective Wednesday, May 6 requiring face masks or cloth face coverings in public places where social distancing is not possible. This applies to both indoor and outdoor spaces.

It's basically like asking people to only ever drive 10 mph because it might be safer. Even when the speed limit is 25 mph or 65 mph. Why not wear a mask indoors? When playing in our 1 acre yard? In the car? Are you wearing a mask RIGHT NOW? Why not?

The reason I'm not wearing a mask right now is because it's uncomfortable. I'll wear one out in public when I'm not able to socially distance, in accordance with the law. Working in a field where chemical safety and safety in general is important, asking people to do useless stuff just for the sake of it is a bad long-term move. They'll comply with the overly-strict guidelines for a while and then just start ignoring everything.

And, for what it's worth, we see plenty of other people on our walks (and are able to keep a good 30 foot distance) and no one is wearing a mask. Some people have masks, but they don't have them over their faces.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

The rule is "wear a mask if you can't socially distance". We didn't get within 30 feet of anyone else during our walk. We never do. You're advocating doing something that has absolutely no proven or even suggested benefit just for the sake of doing it.

And, for what it's worth, we see plenty of other people on our walks (and are able to keep a good 30 foot distance) and no one is wearing a mask. Some people have masks, but they don't have them over their faces.

I think there are plenty of local ordinances and regulations that are stricter than the MA directive. Case in point--on the Minuteman Trail in Arlington.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

I think there are plenty of local ordinances and regulations that are stricter than the MA directive. Case in point--on the Minuteman Trail in Arlington.

I wasn't on the Minuteman trail. I was in my neighborhood in Westwood. Have you been on the Minuteman trail? It's typically so crowded that you can't socially distance properly. Have you been to my neighborhood? In the unlikely event you run into someone else walking, you just cross the street.