Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Boston: subletting, low income housing, Ivy League)

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

Let us see what else is inaccurate, the tests, the modeling, the virus, the lockdowns, etc. They have been wrong at every turn, but yet they continue to scare people. They are already scaring colleges when many are testing positive but not contagious or even sick at all.

Scare people? For what reason?

If anything, I'd argue the virus has been downplayed in an effort to keep the economy somewhat afloat.

[Urban Peasant]

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

I've seen the model, which is a complete joke. So we will have more deaths in the next 4 months then the previous 8 months, ok, sure. I would like to actually see what this model is basing anything on, cause it is widely inaccurate. Numbers in the vast majority areas after a peak decline substantially, regardless of masks and lockdowns. It peaks for about 4 to 8 weeks and then some sort of herd immunity is developed.

Let us see what else is inaccurate, the tests, the modeling, the virus, the lockdowns, etc. They have been wrong at every turn, but yet they continue to scare people. They are already scaring colleges when many are testing positive but not contagious or even sick at all.

What are you, trying to base your own model on some sort of gravitational physics or something? What goes up must come down? You have continuously claimed the model is inaccurate, that these epidemiologists putting them out are deliberately trying to scare the public, that the number of cases and deaths resulting from cases is overblown and so forth but I have yet to hear a solid unbiased counterargument from you. When I attended graduate school a decade ago, I knew several public health students and I would never dare to question their knowledge about their own field they were studying lest they question mine. Scaring the public indeed. Nothing is scarier than someone who refutes researched science without backing and tells people to believe the exact opposite.

[porterhouse]

Interesting dinner (al fresco at my house) with a few D1 college athletes this evening, one of who is a close family member. They have been explicitly not to wear any logo or identifying gear from their university when doing their training runs around the area, or out in a group of any kind. These kids are more responsible than I ever was. It was pretty apparent that wide spread partying is happening, both in the dorms (RAs looking other way) and at off campus houses and fraternities.


I also saw some #1 busses this week that while not packed, were certainly full and not distanced.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by porterhouse

Interesting dinner (al fresco at my house) with a few D1 college athletes this evening, one of who is a close family member. They have been explicitly not to wear any logo or identifying gear from their university when doing their training runs around the area, or out in a group of any kind. These kids are more responsible than I ever was.

Athletes need to be especially careful.

The virus + heavy exercise = heart problems

[id77]

Originally Posted by porterhouse

Interesting dinner (al fresco at my house) with a few D1 college athletes this evening, one of who is a close family member. They have been explicitly not to wear any logo or identifying gear from their university when doing their training runs around the area, or out in a group of any kind. These kids are more responsible than I ever was. It was pretty apparent that wide spread partying is happening, both in the dorms (RAs looking other way) and at off campus houses and fraternities.


I also saw some #1 busses this week that while not packed, were certainly full and not distanced.

The #1 was heavily used well before students came back. I was seeing it looking pretty full back in May when there was still a lot of stuff shut down.

[LeavingMA]

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

What are you, trying to base your own model on some sort of gravitational physics or something? What goes up must come down? You have continuously claimed the model is inaccurate, that these epidemiologists putting them out are deliberately trying to scare the public, that the number of cases and deaths resulting from cases is overblown and so forth but I have yet to hear a solid unbiased counterargument from you. When I attended graduate school a decade ago, I knew several public health students and I would never dare to question their knowledge about their own field they were studying lest they question mine. Scaring the public indeed. Nothing is scarier than someone who refutes researched science without backing and tells people to believe the exact opposite.

Tell me what health official and what major source has been accurate the entire time? First it was 2 million deaths. Oh, and it was also we need to lockdown for 14 days to protect the hospitals, which I was actually fine with. Then they extended it, now its all about cases when we have no control. And we know that the average age of death is 78 and most have at least 2 major underlying conditions. Yet, not one health official has talked about health lifestyle and expressed that if your under 60 your death rate is very minimal. People continue to listen to one number, but avoid every other stat that shows something else. People want to believe lockdowns worked.

So let us deal with stats. Why no statistical analysis on what lockdowns would do to relatively healthy people versus those that are high risk. Why no conversation on other methods that might work. Instead we continue to do the same thing over and over again and wonder why it doesn't work; or blame others instead.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

Tell me what health official and what major source has been accurate the entire time? First it was 2 million deaths. Oh, and it was also we need to lockdown for 14 days to protect the hospitals, which I was actually fine with. Then they extended it, now its all about cases when we have no control. And we know that the average age of death is 78 and most have at least 2 major underlying conditions. Yet, not one health official has talked about health lifestyle and expressed that if your under 60 your death rate is very minimal. People continue to listen to one number, but avoid every other stat that shows something else. People want to believe lockdowns worked.

So let us deal with stats. Why no statistical analysis on what lockdowns would do to relatively healthy people versus those that are high risk. Why no conversation on other methods that might work. Instead we continue to do the same thing over and over again and wonder why it doesn't work; or blame others instead.

Didn't you just sort of admit that it works in your acknowledgement that the number of cases and hospitals were not overwhelmed as expected?


Also, I hope you aren't just worried about deaths.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by porterhouse

It was pretty apparent that wide spread partying is happening, both in the dorms (RAs looking other way) and at off campus houses and fraternities.

Check out what's going on at URI:


https://www.city-data.com/forum/59100994-post1030.html

[in_newengland]

Originally Posted by redplum33

Check out what's going on at URI:


https://www.city-data.com/forum/59100994-post1030.html

If the public schools don't succeed in getting everything closed down again, the colleges will. That's a lot of snotty kids hanging out in the middle of the night for no particular reason. But that's what college kids do--all over America. Close the colleges. They are the worst offenders (having lived in Amherst near UMass, I know first hand!)

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

If the public schools don't succeed in getting everything closed down again, the colleges will. That's a lot of snotty kids hanging out in the middle of the night for no particular reason. But that's what college kids do--all over America. Close the colleges. They are the worst offenders (having lived in Amherst near UMass, I know first hand!)

I'm of the opinion that basically nothing is more important than getting schools public school opened again. I'm happy to forgo all the other possibly risky stuff that people seem to think is more important (gyms, bars, restaurants, casinos) because it's stuff they like.

If we shut down schools for a full year or more, there are going to be a lot of kids that fall permanently behind. The "schools shouldn't reopen" mantra is misplaced. Schools have reopened in most of the rest of the world without significant problems. The risk is relatively low and the reward is huge.