Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[Ratman_tf]

Don't get caught up in semantics.  It's a lockdown.  if I can't life my life like I did in November 2019, it's a lockdown.  Semantics is semantics.  Italy told their government they'd had enough.  Italy.  Do you remember Italy?  Even they've had enough.

The article that he posted is talking about the US needed to continue to have travel restrictions on people coming into the nation, like screening for the virus when you arrive at an airport from a foreign nation. That's not a fucking lockdown, by any definition of that term. Unless you thought, for example, that screening for terrorists at airports was also a "lockdown" because that is also a travel restriction?

Read the fucking article before commenting, you doink.

Speaking to Sky News, Dr Clare Wenham, assistant professor of global health policy at London School of Economics, said the COVID-19 pandemic will not be over until the world's population is protected.

So the pandemic will continue. Which means the lockdowns will continue.

"At the moment, the data is showing it's going to be 2023/24 before the global vaccines are distributed to everybody," she said.

"That's a long time. And distributing some now might be able to get us back to normal life sooner."

The pandemic will continue. Which means the lockdowns will continue until a "sufficient" number of people are vaccinated. How many will that be? It depends on the rates of infection and deaths, which the local governments are using as metrics to justify lockdowns.

Even once the UK population had been vaccinated, restrictions such as border controls would continue to exist because of the threat posed by resistant coronavirus variants being brought in from outside, she said.

Restrictions such as border controls. That does not rule out other kinds of restrictions. And if the numbers don't hit certain targets, the lockdowns will continue.

Sir Jeremy Farrar, a member of the government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), has also warned that vaccinating "a lot of people in a few countries, leaving the virus unchecked in large parts of the world, will lead to more variants emerging".

And there's the big takeaway. There is a real possibility that the vaccinations will create environments where new strains of the virus may evolve that are not affected by the current vaccinations. They can't control an entire population, and some joker could brings a variant strain of the Coof back and everything starts all over again.

[Ratman_tf]

Nothing you just said has anything to do with what that article said. NOTHING. Screening travelers arriving from foreign nations is not a lockdown on small local businesses.

Locking down the borders is a type of lockdown. It's a vague term which is used to mean a lot of different things, from border controls to business closings to individuals under isolation or quarantine orders. That's why I always try to qualify or otherwise explain how I'm using the term, because it leads to people talking past each other.

You're correct that the article is primarily talking about travel restrictions not business closings. That's a valid point. But Ratman's first post just said lockdowns, without any qualifications like "small local business". And if you read the article closely there are a couple case where they suggest other measures may also be necessary, though they don't go into any details, so it's not just about borders. And travel restrictions can definitely impact small local businesses, because international trade is so integrated into local markets.

Masks and lockdowns are the only things governments are using to fight the Coof. If the pandemic is expected to last for the next 2-3 years, the lockdowns will continue.
Mistwell seems upset that I drew that conclusion, but I'd like to ask anyone if my statement underlined is incorrect.

[HappyDaze]

Nothing you just said has anything to do with what that article said. NOTHING. Screening travelers arriving from foreign nations is not a lockdown on small local businesses.

Locking down the borders is a type of lockdown. It's a vague term which is used to mean a lot of different things, from border controls to business closings to individuals under isolation or quarantine orders. That's why I always try to qualify or otherwise explain how I'm using the term, because it leads to people talking past each other.

You're correct that the article is primarily talking about travel restrictions not business closings. That's a valid point. But Ratman's first post just said lockdowns, without any qualifications like "small local business". And if you read the article closely there are a couple case where they suggest other measures may also be necessary, though they don't go into any details, so it's not just about borders. And travel restrictions can definitely impact small local businesses, because international trade is so integrated into local markets.

Masks and lockdowns are the only things governments are using to fight the Coof. If the pandemic is expected to last for the next 2-3 years, the lockdowns will continue.
Mistwell seems upset that I drew that conclusion, but I'd like to ask anyone if my statement underlined is incorrect.

I would think promoting vaccinations might be something to add to your "masks and lockdowns" list of things governments are doing (even if it's not the government directly vaccinating people). There's also educating people on the virus, but that's shown itself to be almost useless in the face of widespread disinformation and bullheaded stupidity.

[Ratman_tf]

Nothing you just said has anything to do with what that article said. NOTHING. Screening travelers arriving from foreign nations is not a lockdown on small local businesses.

Locking down the borders is a type of lockdown. It's a vague term which is used to mean a lot of different things, from border controls to business closings to individuals under isolation or quarantine orders. That's why I always try to qualify or otherwise explain how I'm using the term, because it leads to people talking past each other.

You're correct that the article is primarily talking about travel restrictions not business closings. That's a valid point. But Ratman's first post just said lockdowns, without any qualifications like "small local business". And if you read the article closely there are a couple case where they suggest other measures may also be necessary, though they don't go into any details, so it's not just about borders. And travel restrictions can definitely impact small local businesses, because international trade is so integrated into local markets.

Masks and lockdowns are the only things governments are using to fight the Coof. If the pandemic is expected to last for the next 2-3 years, the lockdowns will continue.
Mistwell seems upset that I drew that conclusion, but I'd like to ask anyone if my statement underlined is incorrect.

I would think promoting vaccinations might be something to add to your "masks and lockdowns" list of things governments are doing (even if it's not the government directly vaccinating people). There's also educating people on the virus, but that's shown itself to be almost useless in the face of widespread disinformation and bullheaded stupidity.

Vaccinations are only being rolled out now. And they are having distribution issues. I'd wait to see the numbers on distribution and the results.
I don't expect the lockdowns will be eased if the vaccination efforts have no or little effect on the numbers.

[Pat]

Nothing you just said has anything to do with what that article said. NOTHING. Screening travelers arriving from foreign nations is not a lockdown on small local businesses.

Locking down the borders is a type of lockdown. It's a vague term which is used to mean a lot of different things, from border controls to business closings to individuals under isolation or quarantine orders. That's why I always try to qualify or otherwise explain how I'm using the term, because it leads to people talking past each other.

You're correct that the article is primarily talking about travel restrictions not business closings. That's a valid point. But Ratman's first post just said lockdowns, without any qualifications like "small local business". And if you read the article closely there are a couple case where they suggest other measures may also be necessary, though they don't go into any details, so it's not just about borders. And travel restrictions can definitely impact small local businesses, because international trade is so integrated into local markets.

Masks and lockdowns are the only things governments are using to fight the Coof. If the pandemic is expected to last for the next 2-3 years, the lockdowns will continue.
Mistwell seems upset that I drew that conclusion, but I'd like to ask anyone if my statement underlined is incorrect.

There's a huge variation in the types of lockdowns, and you missed the biggest weapon in their arsenal: Persuasion. Public health's primary responsibility isn't authoritarian shit like shutting down small businesses or banning evictions, it's informing the public and encouraging them to voluntarily engage in safe behavior. Examples include hand washing, physical distancing, ventilation, temperature checks, discouraging certain types of gatherings, and so on.

Of course, they've failed miserably at it. They've overstated things and even lied, pushed highly destructive measures with little or no evidence and without considering the trade offs, and stood by or even acted as cheerleaders as everything associated with the pandemic got heavily associated with one of the two highly adversarial sides, making it nearly impossible to have rational discussions. As a result, they've lost almost all credibility and ensured we're probably less ready for the next pandemic than we were in 2019 (and we were horribly unprepared in 2019).

[moonsweeper]

Nothing you just said has anything to do with what that article said. NOTHING. Screening travelers arriving from foreign nations is not a lockdown on small local businesses.

Locking down the borders is a type of lockdown. It's a vague term which is used to mean a lot of different things, from border controls to business closings to individuals under isolation or quarantine orders. That's why I always try to qualify or otherwise explain how I'm using the term, because it leads to people talking past each other.

You're correct that the article is primarily talking about travel restrictions not business closings. That's a valid point. But Ratman's first post just said lockdowns, without any qualifications like "small local business". And if you read the article closely there are a couple case where they suggest other measures may also be necessary, though they don't go into any details, so it's not just about borders. And travel restrictions can definitely impact small local businesses, because international trade is so integrated into local markets.

Masks and lockdowns are the only things governments are using to fight the Coof. If the pandemic is expected to last for the next 2-3 years, the lockdowns will continue.
Mistwell seems upset that I drew that conclusion, but I'd like to ask anyone if my statement underlined is incorrect.

I would think promoting vaccinations might be something to add to your "masks and lockdowns" list of things governments are doing (even if it's not the government directly vaccinating people). There's also educating people on the virus, but that's shown itself to be almost useless in the face of widespread disinformation and bullheaded stupidity.

Vaccinations are only being rolled out now. And they are having distribution issues. I'd wait to see the numbers on distribution and the results.
I don't expect the lockdowns will be eased if the vaccination efforts have no or little effect on the numbers.

They've already said masking/social-distancing/lockdowns will continue, even with the vaccinations.  Here is one of Misty's 'legitimate paper's of record' talking about masking...

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/01/coronavirus-vaccine-masks-how-much-longer/617747/

...and obviously, if masking is still important then so is social distancing (according to Herr Fauci on CNBC)...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/16/fauci-why-still-need-masks-social-distancing-after-covid-19-vaccine.html

...and here is CNN's medical expert Bill Gates telling us it won't be back to normal until at least late summer...

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/12/13/sotu-gates-full.cnn

[EOTB]

Don't get caught up in semantics.  It's a lockdown.  if I can't life my life like I did in November 2019, it's a lockdown.  Semantics is semantics.  Italy told their government they'd had enough.  Italy.  Do you remember Italy?  Even they've had enough.

The article that he posted is talking about the US needed to continue to have travel restrictions on people coming into the nation, like screening for the virus when you arrive at an airport from a foreign nation. That's not a fucking lockdown, by any definition of that term. Unless you thought, for example, that screening for terrorists at airports was also a "lockdown" because that is also a travel restriction?

Yeah, I'm ready to give up the resentment the Empire causes, and be able to fly like normal people used to within my own lifetime.

[Ratman_tf]

WA moving some areas to "Phase 2", which means some businesses can open up again.

Inslee's actions on Covid have been nonsensical and based on fear rather than data. Resteraunts closed but bars stay open. Places with high population are opening but places with low population remain in "Phase 1" lockdowns. etc.

[oggsmash]

I wonder if the amazingly accurate new Chinese Coronavirus detection tests are going to catch on here.  I have a feeling some folks will gladly engage.

[Zirunel]

Resteraunts closed but bars stay open.

If that's what's happening where you are, then yes I agree, closing restaurants but not bars seems arbitrary and silly.

When I look back at past exposure alerts and case clusters where I am (leaving aside long term care facilities), the far and away number one risk is commercial airline flights. By a huge margin.

Next is bars, restaurants and gyms. More or less equally. It makes no sense to treat bars, restaurants and gyms differently from each other.

[Pat]

Resteraunts closed but bars stay open.

If that's what's happening where you are, then yes I agree, closing restaurants but not bars seems arbitrary and silly.

When I look back at past exposure alerts and case clusters where I am (leaving aside long term care facilities), the far and away number one risk is commercial airline flights. By a huge margin.

Next is bars, restaurants and gyms. More or less equally. It makes no sense to treat bars, restaurants and gyms differently from each other.

Do you have any citations for that? I've seen tons of rhetoric and very little data on the topic, but the data I've seen suggests spread in businesses like bars and restaurants is quite low.

https://www.newsweek.com/restaurants-bars-account-less-2-percent-new-covid-19-cases-new-york-1554206

[Ratman_tf]

Of note: Phase 2 still involves heavy restrictions. 25% capacity limit, 6 feet distance and masking when not eating or drinking. Which is silly when I'm contantly taking my mask off and putting it back on again between bites, but like I said, our restrictions are based on fear.

[Zirunel]

Resteraunts closed but bars stay open.

If that's what's happening where you are, then yes I agree, closing restaurants but not bars seems arbitrary and silly.

When I look back at past exposure alerts and case clusters where I am (leaving aside long term care facilities), the far and away number one risk is commercial airline flights. By a huge margin.

Next is bars, restaurants and gyms. More or less equally. It makes no sense to treat bars, restaurants and gyms differently from each other.

Do you have any citations for that? I've seen tons of rhetoric and very little data on the topic, but the data I've seen suggests spread in businesses like bars and restaurants is quite low.

https://www.newsweek.com/restaurants-bars-account-less-2-percent-new-covid-19-cases-new-york-1554206

Unfortunately, no, I can't.  Locally, those data are presented as active alerts, and each one drops off the charts after two weeks as the risk is presumed to disappear. At present, they are dominated by recent exposures on a passenger ferry (not a typical risk location over the past year). I'd have to dig around to see if the older cases are archived anywhere I can find them.

[Zirunel]

contantly taking my mask off and putting it back on again between bites.

Really? Between bites? I dunno, bars and restaurants are open here and you have to wear one coming in, and moving around the room, but once you're at your table, the mask stays off.

Clearly "lockdown" doesn't mean the same thing everwhere. But then, I guess we always knew that.

[Pat]

Unfortunately, no, I can't.  Locally, those data are presented as active alerts, and each one drops off the charts after two weeks as the risk is presumed to disappear. At present, they are dominated by recent exposures on a passenger ferry (not a typical risk location over the past year). I'd have to dig around to see if the older cases are archived anywhere I can find them.

Shame. If we lived in an abnormal unpoliticized world, there would have been a wave of shutdowns based on essentially gut feelings about which businesses were highest risk, but then after a few weeks we'd have seen reports like "well, ach-tually, 95% of all cases have been traced to occult bookstores, and gyms and hair salons are totally safe". But we're not seeing that. Sure, some governmental entities have refused to provide the data and a few have been caught lying about it, but what about all the rest? There's been nearly dead silence on the topic. We're still in the gut feeling stage, and it doesn't even appear to be a topic considered worth of conversation.