Oh, and the second week of chest symptoms were very scary, despite having a moderate case which did not need hospital care. I’m a ex-nurse with a robust healthy attitude to disease and I found it very disturbing.
Of the number of people I know who have had it, about half have had lingering post-viral symptoms of various kinds, and a couple are still not back in full time work 5 months on (in one case they had existing conditions, but in the other they were fitter, healthier and younger than me).
I understand that some people really do believe that non mask-wearers are really threatening their health. I think that's a neurotic over-reaction except in cases where people are clearly toast if they get the virus.
One cannot know if thye will be "toast" or not. Completely healthy, physically fit young people have died. This disease is not called novel for nothing.
And I think if that's the case, they should remain isolated, since face masks even if you admit a significant reduction are not a full protection by any means. Anyway, I agree that my valuation of this counts for nothing.
People wish to be selfish bastards instead of take the minimal precautions, so other people should rearrange their lives? Nice.
The only area where I agree with you is that people, like me, who dislike masks can relatively easily organise their lives to avoid them and should cope with the situation in this way. Since the mandate I have worn one for about a total of ~5 mins without causing any problem. You just have to avoid certain situations.
Everyone should organise their lives to minimise contact. What worries me about anti-maskers is that many under-weight precautions
The Zoe study says that 10% of people have symptoms longer than 3 weeks and acknowledges that many of us have symptoms for months https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-long-term . I think someone mentioned the BBC documentary 'Surviving the virus' earlier. The co-presenter has a far worse cardiac arrhythmia than I did; he required his heart restarting https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000ljnb/surviving-the-virus-my-brother-me
As well as the personal impact, this is costing the NHS money. I had a fairly mild arrhythmia by comparison and I've had 2 trips to casualty and a trip to the admissions unit for investigations. I've had blood tests, ECGs (including a 24 hour reading), a chest x-ray, a lung scan and an ultrasound of my heart, as well as a few telephone consultations with my GP.
I'm lucky in that I'm only employed term time so have been able to convalesce over the summer but many other people will also be trying to work while fighting a wide range of sometimes frightening and debilitating symptoms.
I understand that some people really do believe that non mask-wearers are really threatening their health. I think that's a neurotic over-reaction except in cases where people are clearly toast if they get the virus.
A woman died of COVID-19 on Friday after contracting the illness from someone who attended a crowded wedding reception in Millinocket on Aug. 7.
Millinocket Regional Hospital said Friday that a woman who had been admitted to the hospital after developing COVID-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus, died early Friday afternoon.
The hospital did not identify the woman and a spokesman said Friday that she had contracted the coronavirus from someone who attended the reception on Aug. 7, but did not attend it herself.
I guess she should have known better than to have contact with someone who had attended a mass gathering, or something? At the very least her family will take comfort in @Anteater's reassurances that it's her own fault and she should have known in advance (somehow) that she'd be "toast".
And I think if that's the case, they should remain isolated, since face masks even if you admit a significant reduction are not a full protection by any means.
Thanks for exposing this long-standing conspiracy, dating back decades. Hospitals routinely use face masks during surgery despite knowing that they're "not a full protection by any means" against post-surgical infections, which I guess means they shouldn't bother. It's all one huge conspiracy by Big Mask to make hospitals buy their product.
It appears likely that this virus will be hiding/infecting/lurking somewhere in the human population essentially forever ...
Plenty of viruses do just that, the difference is they're either not as infectious or not as dangerous. In time coronavirus will enter one or other of those categories, be it due to mutation of the virus itself or the gradual increase in immunity throughout the population.
The problem is what we do until that point is reached.
Thanks for exposing this long-standing conspiracy, dating back decades.
Sorry what conspiracy? I do not believe in any of the COVID related conspiracy theories, and I'm rather intrigued about what you are referring to.
The idea that surgical masks can prevent infection. Big Mask has apparently forced this idea on the medical profession, all to sell their masks to surgical teams. Luckily you're here to set the record straight!
People wish to be selfish bastards instead of take the minimal precautions, so other people should rearrange their lives? Nice.
That's wide of my point by the usual margin. I was merely making the obvious point that the current restrictions cannot reduce the risk to zero, and probably reduce it by no more than 50% compared with the restrictions in place when COVID was at its height tho' that's only my guess. It is the ongoing, albeit much reduced, presence of the threat that is the issue.
So the only way to reduce risk to the lowest possible is still to self isolate, and there are people I know who still practice this and intend to so long as the threat is there.
And I agree that people should not refuse to exercise precautions for selfish reasons, so long as they are capable. As indeed I am, and don't claim otherwise.
That's wide of my point by the usual margin. I was merely making the obvious point that the current restrictions cannot reduce the risk to zero, and probably reduce it by no more than 50% compared with the restrictions in place when COVID was at its height tho' that's only my guess.
AFAIK, most people model R as being between 4 and 6 during peak Covid, and in the US and UK, R is now probably close to 1 in most places. That might better describe the effect of the current restrictions than your guess.
So the only way to reduce risk to the lowest possible is still to self isolate, and there are people I know who still practice this and intend to so long as the threat is there.
This is true. Any time you venture out in public, even with careful precautions, you admit some risk. But most people are not in the position of minimizing their Covid risk at any cost, because they have competing costs to balance - their own mental health, the mental health of their children, their children's education, their employment and ability to make money, their need to care for relatives, and so on.
In the UK people who self-certify as having a valid reason for not wearing a face mask are protected by the law, and therefore do have a legal right. Which presumably you do not care about.
You're right - I don't care about that very much. Because people who are self-certifying that they have a reason not to wear a mask aren't actually any less likely to have Covid-19, so letting them out in public makes no sense at all.
In most places in the US, schoolkids are allowed to claim a religious exemption from the otherwise mandatory vaccines. So if you claim the exemption, you can attend school even though you're not vaccinated against measles. If you claim such an exemption, and there is a measles outbreak in the area, you will be required to remain home until the outbreak is over. Your rights to avoid vaccination do not extend to the right to endanger the public.
I view masks in the same light. If you can't wear one, don't go out.
I understand that some people really do believe that non mask-wearers are really threatening their health. I think that's a neurotic over-reaction except in cases where people are clearly toast if they get the virus. And I think if that's the case, they should remain isolated, since face masks even if you admit a significant reduction are not a full protection by any means. Anyway, I agree that my valuation of this counts for nothing.
You're right - your evaluation counts for nothing, because you made it up without reference to any actual data.
Several posters here have experienced (and some continue to experience) the effects of Covid. Most of those of us that haven't have friends who have. I have one friend - a perfectly healthy man in middle age - who spent three weeks on a ventilator and some considerable time after that in rehab because of Covid. He had it worse than some other people, but his case wasn't unusually bad.
I dare you to tell him that you think he's neurotic to worry about people who don't wear masks.
Here is a nice visualization from Georgia Tech about the risk of sharing space with a Covid carrier. Gather with 10 random people in the state of Georgia, and depending on where in the state you are, there's about a 30% to 50% probability that you're in a room with a Covid carrier.
If there's more like 20 people in the room, then it's more than likely that one of them has the virus everywhere in the state.
If I'm in a room, or a bus, or restaurant, or some other enclosed space, with a modest number of people, one of them is probably infectious. Explain to me why it's neurotic to worry about people who aren't trying to keep their possibly-infectious droplets to themselves?
(I picked on Georgia, because it's where Georgia Tech is, but the numbers aren't different enough to matter much anywhere in the US.)
There's evidently a lot of arguing among med/sci folks about terminology and categories. But many of them reportedly say that smaller particles can hang out in the air and float around--not just the larger droplets that have publicly mentioned.
Apparently the latest is that your risk of infection is double if you are over 6 feet tall, due to the nature of aerosol transmssion, which could explain why more men get it than women - who knows.
Leorning Cniht:
The Georgia model is a good piece of work. My area has always been one of the least affected in England despite being near a holiday resort and has roughly one tenth of the prevalence in Geogia. Even so, as we consider the possibility of re-assembling our concert (wind) band, it does mean that if the full complement of 40 arrived (unlikely) there is a 27% chance that one of them is infected.
But what to you do with this, to balance risk and quality of life (music being an important part of that for me)? I'm sure many of the band will just not come, but then what was the point of social distancing if we were not assuming we would be in the same general area as infected persons. Face masks are clearly out but counter-intuitively perhaps, playing a wind instrument is less spreading than general chat (flutes excepted - sorry!). So we have already hired a larger space to self distance, though there is likely to be chit chat during the interval and people are likely to move closer. Would you go? I suspect not. I on the other hand would. Nobody can decide for someone else what risk is worth taking.
I dare you to tell him that you think he's neurotic to worry about people who don't wear masks.
There is such a thing as tact. I would not tell somebody who is so scared of cars that he will not get in one even as a passenger, that he is being excessively fearful* if recently a close friend had died in a crash. Shit happens. I know two people who were involved in an accident as driver when the passenger died, in one case his wife. Horrible things happen but do not necessarily justify all fears. Absent any immediate adverse case, I would try and persuade any friend of mine that fear of being in a motor car is worth overcoming.
And in some case I might try this with regard to COVID. But you can quickly lose friends that way, and what business is it of mine?
*I admit that neurotic was a wrong choice because it has a precise technical meaning which I did not fully mean to imply.
Crœsos: I assume you are sort of agreeing in a somewhat sardonic tone. I never really expect you (or for that matter many on this ship) to agree with me just like that.
I wasn't aware that anybody thought masks were a perfect protection, but I do believe that there are types of masks which offer a high degree but that they cost a lot and need to be used with expertise.
As soon as anybody mentions COVID and Conpiracy, I immediately think of China using it to undermine the Freedom of the West, or Bill Gates injecting nano-bots via vaccines. Aka delusional fears rather than excessive ones.
An individual virus is incredibly tiny and all guidelines for transmission need to take that into account. I think the other issue is how long they can survive (dormant or otherwise) outside the shelter of a host.
My guess is we’re not talking about impossible, rather ‘more likely than not’ means of live virus transmission. I think that argument applies to doseage and exposure as well. You’d be very unlucky if a single live virus caused a disease but I think it could happen.
It’s hard to get our heads around probabilities and risk management sometimes when we’re looking for assurances of safety, but that’s the real world.
Apparently the latest is that your risk of infection is double if you are over 6 feet tall, due to the nature of aerosol transmssion, which could explain why more men get it than women - who knows.
Yeah, but no. tl;dr Massively flawed conclusions from the study.
Leorning Cniht:
The Georgia model is a good piece of work. My area has always been one of the least affected in England despite being near a holiday resort and has roughly one tenth of the prevalence in Geogia. Even so, as we consider the possibility of re-assembling our concert (wind) band, it does mean that if the full complement of 40 arrived (unlikely) there is a 27% chance that one of them is infected.
But what to you do with this, to balance risk and quality of life (music being an important part of that for me)? I'm sure many of the band will just not come, but then what was the point of social distancing if we were not assuming we would be in the same general area as infected persons. Face masks are clearly out but counter-intuitively perhaps, playing a wind instrument is less spreading than general chat (flutes excepted - sorry!). So we have already hired a larger space to self distance, though there is likely to be chit chat during the interval and people are likely to move closer. Would you go? I suspect not. I on the other hand would. Nobody can decide for someone else what risk is worth taking.
Unless you live in a literal bubble the rest of the time, you are taking risks for other people. You are deciding what risks are worth taking for the people you come in contact with.
Unless you live in a literal bubble the rest of the time, you are taking risks for other people. You are deciding what risks are worth taking for the people you come in contact with.
Yes, this is part of the story - that you engaging in risky behaviour creates extra risk for the unknowing people that you have contact with.
There's also the bigger picture still - that the more people decide it's "worth the risk", the longer the virus persists in the community, and so the longer slightly more risk-averse people have to not do anything.
(In Anteater's circumstance, I might consider practicing outdoors and appropriately spaced to be reasonably safe, on the condition that you erected a number of large spikes suitable for impaling people that were too keen on "chit chat" to keep their distance. Perhaps the brass players should play with mutes in )
My guess is we’re not talking about impossible, rather ‘more likely than not’ means of live virus transmission. I think that argument applies to doseage and exposure as well. You’d be very unlucky if a single live virus caused a disease but I think it could happen.
Yes - exposure time and intensity of exposure are both important.
I saw something to the effect that Jewish players of the shofar horn in Israel should put a face mask on the opening at the far end of the horn! Makes some sense, though: shofars are big and heavy, and you probably have to use a lot of forceful breath to play them...which could mean virus flying out.
IIRC, it was a suggestion, rather than a regulation.
Is not this one of the key points that divide people, between those who think eradication is the reasonable aim and those who think the virus will always exist at some level?
I was at my eye doctor yesterday for a routine post-cataract surgery exam ...
She's one of the REAL Doctors of Medicine who is devoted to *healing* and to authentic care of her patients ... She takes time, listens, engages with us ...
We talked for some while about the ongoing -- likely mostly permanent -- changes to medical care brought about by this novel virus ...
Unless you live in a literal bubble the rest of the time, you are taking risks for other people.
Of course. Aren't we all? Or do you really believe that you take no risk at all to others? How do you manage that except by total isolation?
"Again I saw that under the Sun the race is not to the swift,
nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise,
nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the skillful;
but time and chance happen to them all ...
For no one can anticipate the time of disaster.
Like fish taken in a cruel net, and like birds caught in a snare,
so mortals are snared at a time of calamity,
when it suddenly falls upon them." -- Ecclesiastes 9: 11-12 ...
So ...
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do with your might;
for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom
in Sheol, to which you are going." -- Ecclesiastes 9: 10
My sister (in Wales) received the expected parcel of books from her local library. Of course, she opened it straight away to see what they had sent. Only when folding up the wrapping paper did she see the notice that said: "Do not open for 72 hours"!
Unless you live in a literal bubble the rest of the time, you are taking risks for other people.
Of course. Aren't we all? Or do you really believe that you take no risk at all to others? How do you manage that except by total isolation?
True. But the same applies to car driving: any use of a car is a risk to other people; but it is still better to travel at 20 and not to hare down the road past the school doing 45 at pick up time.
There is a difference between the risks that one must take and the risks one chooses to take.
Yes but this is always in the opinion of the risk taker. What "must" you risk?
I have already said that I know people who fully intend never to venture out of the house until COVID is still around. So why would I (or you) have to risk infecting others by going to a place where they are? Who says you "have to"? I think most things are a matter of choice. If you say there are no cases where you choose to mix with other people (which even with all precautions involves some risk, thus making you in the considered opinion of some a fucking asshole, then yes I have to accept that. I'd still like to know how you do it.
Dafyd:
But the same applies to car driving: any use of a car is a risk to other people; but it is still better to travel at 20 and not to hare down the road past the school doing 45 at pick up time.
This is an argument often used. The logic is that it is wrong to take a horrendous risk (you could add doing all that when you are drunk), so obviously any risk should not be taken. I know nobody who would dispute that deaths would be reduced if the speed limit on all UK roads were 40 mph. Do you deny that to be the case? So I assume that if you had the power you would mandate a universal 40 mph limit.
I have already said that I know people who fully intend never to venture out of the house until COVID is still around. So why would I (or you) have to risk infecting others by going to a place where they are?
Who says you "have to"? I think most things are a matter of choice. If you say there are no cases where you choose to mix with other people (which even with all precautions involves some risk, thus making you in the considered opinion of some a fucking asshole, then yes I have to accept that. I'd still like to know how you do it.
I tend not to give much of a fuck about what most people think about me. This is not about that. It is about accurately presenting the effects of what we choose to do.
...
We talked for some while about the ongoing -- likely mostly permanent -- changes to medical care brought about by this novel virus ...
Not good ...
Anything more specific?
There does seem to be increasing awareness of the flaws in our long-term and home care delivery.
In terms of acute care, we managed to "flatten the curve" and didn't overload our ICUs, but we also deferred elective surgeries, in- and out-patient treatments, tests and examinations. I'm overdue for 4 different things myself.
...
We talked for some while about the ongoing -- likely mostly permanent -- changes to medical care brought about by this novel virus ...
Not good ...
Anything more specific?
There does seem to be increasing awareness of the flaws in our long-term and home care delivery.
In terms of acute care, we managed to "flatten the curve" and didn't overload our ICUs, but we also deferred elective surgeries, in- and out-patient treatments, tests and examinations. I'm overdue for 4 different things myself.
As an M.D. she has her finger on the med/surg pulse, so to speak ... She anticipates an exodus of medical providers OUT of the profession, clinics closing ...
Marvin The Martian:
I don't want to debate speed limits. It was just an example which I believe to be true but is not essential to the argument that risk is not a binary concept. After some research I realise that there is a genuine difference of opinion on this. OK I should've checked.
But my point still stands and I doubt you would deny this: Risks associated with actions vary hugely. So driving past a school at coming out time at 45 mph, is very different to participating in a sensibly spaced musical event, or going to a supermarket even with a mask. In all three cases there is a risk, but they are not comparable.
For that matter driving past a school at coming out time at 20 mph is a risk. Driving at all is a risk. Someone I knew suffered greatly because he hit a young child (fortunately not seriously injured but could have been) who just ran out from being concealed between vehicles when he was well below the applicable limit.
There seems to be a growing mood that life can be made risk free. I know that nobody would actually stand up and say that, but it is what happens when people just think of risk as risk with no attention to the huge difference that the actual risk level makes.
I have already said that I know people who fully intend never to venture out of the house until COVID is still around. So why would I (or you) have to risk infecting others by going to a place where they are? Who says you "have to"? I think most things are a matter of choice.
This is true only if you're living an enormously privileged life. For instance, you have to either work the kind of job that you can do from home or have sufficient wealth that you don't have to work. You have to live somewhere with enough infrastructure that you can get your groceries and other necessities delivered (and be able to pay the mark-up for delivery service). You have to be fit enough that you don't need regular medical appointments to monitor a chronic condition. You have to be free of responsibilities like providing care and/or assistance to older relatives who don't live with you. You probably have to live in a detached, single family home so you don't have to risk running into people (or touching the same surfaces as other people) when you go out to your apartment building's garbage chute (for example). So if you can say 'yes' to all these things (and probably others that haven't occurred to me) then you don't "have to" leave your home. But simply assuming that this is going to describe everyone (or even a majority of everyone) seems ridiculously blinkered. At the very least it assumes the existence of a rather large support staff who do have to go out (delivery drivers, garbage collectors, etc.) so that you don't have to.
There seems to be a growing mood that life can be made risk free. I know that nobody would actually stand up and say that, but it is what happens when people just think of risk as risk with no attention to the huge difference that the actual risk level makes.
Nobody thinks that.
I'd like you to give some consideration to the principle "as low as reasonably achievable".
@Anteater
You’ve got the car analogy wrong.
It is the difference between driving sober and driving impaired that is correlative to doing only what is necessary v activities of choice.
@Anteater
You’ve got the car analogy wrong.
It is the difference between driving sober and driving impaired that is correlative to doing only what is necessary v activities of choice.
Only if it's necessary to a) drive (rather than walk, cycle or take the bus, or even not make the journey at all), b) drive past the school (as opposed to taking a different route), c) drive past the school at turning out time (as opposed to making the journey at another time), and d) drive past the school at turning out time at 40mph rather than 20mph. I can see lots of options there other than it being necessary to take the risk of driving past a school at turning out time at 40mph, and therefore a choice was made to do so.
@Anteater
You’ve got the car analogy wrong.
It is the difference between driving sober and driving impaired that is correlative to doing only what is necessary v activities of choice.
Only if it's necessary to a) drive (rather than walk, cycle or take the bus, or even not make the journey at all), b) drive past the school (as opposed to taking a different route), c) drive past the school at turning out time (as opposed to making the journey at another time), and d) drive past the school at turning out time at 40mph rather than 20mph. I can see lots of options there other than it being necessary to take the risk of driving past a school at turning out time at 40mph, and therefore a choice was made to do so.
Jesus, there is no point to spin scenarios too finely. The point Anteater seems to be missing is the difference between what we need to do and what we do not.
Could someone explain matters withOut reference to speed limits?
For the non drivers amongst us......
The speed limit scenarios are rubbbishg in this comparison. It is simple, do what one needs to and forgo recreational pleasures unless they can be performed solo.
We will infect each other doing the bare minimum, no need to make that greater by doing more.
People act as if they might as well just die if they cannot do their hobbies.
I'd like you to give some consideration to the principle "as low as reasonably achievable".
Whereas I take the calculation to be "as low as I find acceptable", and am perfectly aware that this will be viewed as anti-social arrogance by some, although as all of my friends are, SFAIK, of a similar mind, I can live with that.
There is no way I know of to solve the balance between the desires of the community for conformity and the desires of the individual to decide for themselves. I can accept that nobody could care less what risk I take for myself, and may have a secret thrill of schadenfreude if the joke ends up on me and I either die or am severely affected through getting COVID. The issue is that (since no man is an island) any risk to myself is a risk to others.
Well, yes and no. If we look at my Croquet hobby, which I practice 3-4 times a week, that is in an informal bubble where all who participate are, as I see it, jointly accepting a risk. Similar would apply to my bands, though they are still inoperative.
If they do that over the protests of their nearest and dearest, I can see problems there, but that does not apply in my case. Nor to I object that my wife, amongst many other risk-taking behaviours sees her daughter-in-law's kids once a week, and they go to school and yes they do at times crawl all over her. Kids do. Plus she goes to Church, visits people et al. And we both eat in a restaurant about 2-3 times a week.
As for risk to perfect strangers, well yes I walk about in the open air without a mask as do around 90% of people where I live. I don't go to supermarkets or other places where a mask is required simply because I want neither to wear a mask nor cause people to be stressed. Or to other shops since I don't enjoy shopping with a face-mask. I get the feeling that many posters on this thread think that visits to buy non-essentials should still not happen. Fine I just do it online.
So really the only people that in my view have an objection is people who I pass in the street who themselves are wearing a mask, and sort of saying they think I should. And that risk is one that I accept. I could lower it by always wearing a mask in public which I choose not to do. If that decision leads people to condemn me, and most of those amongst whom I live then that's my tough luck. It's part of the downside of not conforming that I accept.
The point Anteater seems to be missing is the difference between what we need to do and what we do not.
I don't think so. I admit I choose to play croquet. I don't need to. I do need on occasion to visit a shop like to get prescription meds. So I wear a mask, and like I've said, I've needed to for less than 10 minutes in total, which is not about to affect my life.
It is true I think people often excuse there choices by making them needs. But I do accept there is a difference.
I think the U.K. government is beginning to realise they can’t control this virus or people’s reactions to it.
They are beginning to run scared that their way of doing things has gone, maybe permanently.
Next week they are starting a big ‘back to the office’ campaign having seen empty city centres and many people enjoying a re-think of their lifestyles.
It will be very interesting how this plays out. The Telegraph are, as usual, using scare tactics ‘you’ll get sacked if you don’t get back to the office pronto’.
I think the U.K. government is beginning to realise they can’t control this virus or people’s reactions to it.
They are beginning to run scared that their way of doing things has gone, maybe permanently.
I suspect it's more about the impact on things like the commercial property sector, for a party supposedly on the side of capital they are really only on the side of the most regressive bits.
Comments
Of the number of people I know who have had it, about half have had lingering post-viral symptoms of various kinds, and a couple are still not back in full time work 5 months on (in one case they had existing conditions, but in the other they were fitter, healthier and younger than me).
As well as the personal impact, this is costing the NHS money. I had a fairly mild arrhythmia by comparison and I've had 2 trips to casualty and a trip to the admissions unit for investigations. I've had blood tests, ECGs (including a 24 hour reading), a chest x-ray, a lung scan and an ultrasound of my heart, as well as a few telephone consultations with my GP.
I'm lucky in that I'm only employed term time so have been able to convalesce over the summer but many other people will also be trying to work while fighting a wide range of sometimes frightening and debilitating symptoms.
Related:
I guess she should have known better than to have contact with someone who had attended a mass gathering, or something? At the very least her family will take comfort in @Anteater's reassurances that it's her own fault and she should have known in advance (somehow) that she'd be "toast".
Thanks for exposing this long-standing conspiracy, dating back decades. Hospitals routinely use face masks during surgery despite knowing that they're "not a full protection by any means" against post-surgical infections, which I guess means they shouldn't bother. It's all one huge conspiracy by Big Mask to make hospitals buy their product.
Plenty of viruses do just that, the difference is they're either not as infectious or not as dangerous. In time coronavirus will enter one or other of those categories, be it due to mutation of the virus itself or the gradual increase in immunity throughout the population.
The problem is what we do until that point is reached.
The idea that surgical masks can prevent infection. Big Mask has apparently forced this idea on the medical profession, all to sell their masks to surgical teams. Luckily you're here to set the record straight!
So the only way to reduce risk to the lowest possible is still to self isolate, and there are people I know who still practice this and intend to so long as the threat is there.
And I agree that people should not refuse to exercise precautions for selfish reasons, so long as they are capable. As indeed I am, and don't claim otherwise.
AFAIK, most people model R as being between 4 and 6 during peak Covid, and in the US and UK, R is now probably close to 1 in most places. That might better describe the effect of the current restrictions than your guess.
This is true. Any time you venture out in public, even with careful precautions, you admit some risk. But most people are not in the position of minimizing their Covid risk at any cost, because they have competing costs to balance - their own mental health, the mental health of their children, their children's education, their employment and ability to make money, their need to care for relatives, and so on.
You're right - I don't care about that very much. Because people who are self-certifying that they have a reason not to wear a mask aren't actually any less likely to have Covid-19, so letting them out in public makes no sense at all.
In most places in the US, schoolkids are allowed to claim a religious exemption from the otherwise mandatory vaccines. So if you claim the exemption, you can attend school even though you're not vaccinated against measles. If you claim such an exemption, and there is a measles outbreak in the area, you will be required to remain home until the outbreak is over. Your rights to avoid vaccination do not extend to the right to endanger the public.
I view masks in the same light. If you can't wear one, don't go out.
You're right - your evaluation counts for nothing, because you made it up without reference to any actual data.
Several posters here have experienced (and some continue to experience) the effects of Covid. Most of those of us that haven't have friends who have. I have one friend - a perfectly healthy man in middle age - who spent three weeks on a ventilator and some considerable time after that in rehab because of Covid. He had it worse than some other people, but his case wasn't unusually bad.
I dare you to tell him that you think he's neurotic to worry about people who don't wear masks.
Here is a nice visualization from Georgia Tech about the risk of sharing space with a Covid carrier. Gather with 10 random people in the state of Georgia, and depending on where in the state you are, there's about a 30% to 50% probability that you're in a room with a Covid carrier.
If there's more like 20 people in the room, then it's more than likely that one of them has the virus everywhere in the state.
If I'm in a room, or a bus, or restaurant, or some other enclosed space, with a modest number of people, one of them is probably infectious. Explain to me why it's neurotic to worry about people who aren't trying to keep their possibly-infectious droplets to themselves?
(I picked on Georgia, because it's where Georgia Tech is, but the numbers aren't different enough to matter much anywhere in the US.)
"Scientists say the coronavirus is airborne. Here’s what that means.
The WHO says aerosol Covid-19 transmission 'cannot be ruled out.' Let’s explain." (Vox)
There's evidently a lot of arguing among med/sci folks about terminology and categories. But many of them reportedly say that smaller particles can hang out in the air and float around--not just the larger droplets that have publicly mentioned.
FWIW, YMMV.
Leorning Cniht:
The Georgia model is a good piece of work. My area has always been one of the least affected in England despite being near a holiday resort and has roughly one tenth of the prevalence in Geogia. Even so, as we consider the possibility of re-assembling our concert (wind) band, it does mean that if the full complement of 40 arrived (unlikely) there is a 27% chance that one of them is infected.
But what to you do with this, to balance risk and quality of life (music being an important part of that for me)? I'm sure many of the band will just not come, but then what was the point of social distancing if we were not assuming we would be in the same general area as infected persons. Face masks are clearly out but counter-intuitively perhaps, playing a wind instrument is less spreading than general chat (flutes excepted - sorry!). So we have already hired a larger space to self distance, though there is likely to be chit chat during the interval and people are likely to move closer. Would you go? I suspect not. I on the other hand would. Nobody can decide for someone else what risk is worth taking.
There is such a thing as tact. I would not tell somebody who is so scared of cars that he will not get in one even as a passenger, that he is being excessively fearful* if recently a close friend had died in a crash. Shit happens. I know two people who were involved in an accident as driver when the passenger died, in one case his wife. Horrible things happen but do not necessarily justify all fears. Absent any immediate adverse case, I would try and persuade any friend of mine that fear of being in a motor car is worth overcoming.
And in some case I might try this with regard to COVID. But you can quickly lose friends that way, and what business is it of mine?
*I admit that neurotic was a wrong choice because it has a precise technical meaning which I did not fully mean to imply.
I wasn't aware that anybody thought masks were a perfect protection, but I do believe that there are types of masks which offer a high degree but that they cost a lot and need to be used with expertise.
As soon as anybody mentions COVID and Conpiracy, I immediately think of China using it to undermine the Freedom of the West, or Bill Gates injecting nano-bots via vaccines. Aka delusional fears rather than excessive ones.
My guess is we’re not talking about impossible, rather ‘more likely than not’ means of live virus transmission. I think that argument applies to doseage and exposure as well. You’d be very unlucky if a single live virus caused a disease but I think it could happen.
It’s hard to get our heads around probabilities and risk management sometimes when we’re looking for assurances of safety, but that’s the real world.
Yes, this is part of the story - that you engaging in risky behaviour creates extra risk for the unknowing people that you have contact with.
There's also the bigger picture still - that the more people decide it's "worth the risk", the longer the virus persists in the community, and so the longer slightly more risk-averse people have to not do anything.
(In Anteater's circumstance, I might consider practicing outdoors and appropriately spaced to be reasonably safe, on the condition that you erected a number of large spikes suitable for impaling people that were too keen on "chit chat" to keep their distance. Perhaps the brass players should play with mutes in
Yes - exposure time and intensity of exposure are both important.
I saw something to the effect that Jewish players of the shofar horn in Israel should put a face mask on the opening at the far end of the horn! Makes some sense, though: shofars are big and heavy, and you probably have to use a lot of forceful breath to play them...which could mean virus flying out.
IIRC, it was a suggestion, rather than a regulation.
She's one of the REAL Doctors of Medicine who is devoted to *healing* and to authentic care of her patients ... She takes time, listens, engages with us ...
We talked for some while about the ongoing -- likely mostly permanent -- changes to medical care brought about by this novel virus ...
Not good ...
"Again I saw that under the Sun the race is not to the swift,
nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise,
nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the skillful;
but time and chance happen to them all ...
For no one can anticipate the time of disaster.
Like fish taken in a cruel net, and like birds caught in a snare,
so mortals are snared at a time of calamity,
when it suddenly falls upon them." -- Ecclesiastes 9: 11-12 ...
So ...
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do with your might;
for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom
in Sheol, to which you are going." -- Ecclesiastes 9: 10
.
I think you are unnecessarily universalizing LB's statement.
Let me make it more local. "You" here is the impersonal "one".
If you could, through a cheap and easy method, reduce harm to others, but choose not to, you're a fucking asshole.
I have already said that I know people who fully intend never to venture out of the house until COVID is still around. So why would I (or you) have to risk infecting others by going to a place where they are? Who says you "have to"? I think most things are a matter of choice. If you say there are no cases where you choose to mix with other people (which even with all precautions involves some risk, thus making you in the considered opinion of some a fucking asshole, then yes I have to accept that. I'd still like to know how you do it.
Dafyd: This is an argument often used. The logic is that it is wrong to take a horrendous risk (you could add doing all that when you are drunk), so obviously any risk should not be taken. I know nobody who would dispute that deaths would be reduced if the speed limit on all UK roads were 40 mph. Do you deny that to be the case? So I assume that if you had the power you would mandate a universal 40 mph limit.
So we differ. All risks are not equal.
Did you mean to type "40", rather than, say, "30" or even "20"? Because if you did mean 40 then I'll dispute it right here and now.
This doesn't make sense.
I tend not to give much of a fuck about what most people think about me. This is not about that. It is about accurately presenting the effects of what we choose to do.
Anything more specific?
There does seem to be increasing awareness of the flaws in our long-term and home care delivery.
In terms of acute care, we managed to "flatten the curve" and didn't overload our ICUs, but we also deferred elective surgeries, in- and out-patient treatments, tests and examinations. I'm overdue for 4 different things myself.
Revert to riding horseback -- NO carriages/buggies, however ...
As an M.D. she has her finger on the med/surg pulse, so to speak ... She anticipates an exodus of medical providers OUT of the profession, clinics closing ...
I don't want to debate speed limits. It was just an example which I believe to be true but is not essential to the argument that risk is not a binary concept. After some research I realise that there is a genuine difference of opinion on this. OK I should've checked.
But my point still stands and I doubt you would deny this: Risks associated with actions vary hugely. So driving past a school at coming out time at 45 mph, is very different to participating in a sensibly spaced musical event, or going to a supermarket even with a mask. In all three cases there is a risk, but they are not comparable.
For that matter driving past a school at coming out time at 20 mph is a risk. Driving at all is a risk. Someone I knew suffered greatly because he hit a young child (fortunately not seriously injured but could have been) who just ran out from being concealed between vehicles when he was well below the applicable limit.
There seems to be a growing mood that life can be made risk free. I know that nobody would actually stand up and say that, but it is what happens when people just think of risk as risk with no attention to the huge difference that the actual risk level makes.
This is true only if you're living an enormously privileged life. For instance, you have to either work the kind of job that you can do from home or have sufficient wealth that you don't have to work. You have to live somewhere with enough infrastructure that you can get your groceries and other necessities delivered (and be able to pay the mark-up for delivery service). You have to be fit enough that you don't need regular medical appointments to monitor a chronic condition. You have to be free of responsibilities like providing care and/or assistance to older relatives who don't live with you. You probably have to live in a detached, single family home so you don't have to risk running into people (or touching the same surfaces as other people) when you go out to your apartment building's garbage chute (for example). So if you can say 'yes' to all these things (and probably others that haven't occurred to me) then you don't "have to" leave your home. But simply assuming that this is going to describe everyone (or even a majority of everyone) seems ridiculously blinkered. At the very least it assumes the existence of a rather large support staff who do have to go out (delivery drivers, garbage collectors, etc.) so that you don't have to.
Nobody thinks that.
I'd like you to give some consideration to the principle "as low as reasonably achievable".
You’ve got the car analogy wrong.
It is the difference between driving sober and driving impaired that is correlative to doing only what is necessary v activities of choice.
For the non drivers amongst us......
We will infect each other doing the bare minimum, no need to make that greater by doing more.
People act as if they might as well just die if they cannot do their hobbies.
There is no way I know of to solve the balance between the desires of the community for conformity and the desires of the individual to decide for themselves. I can accept that nobody could care less what risk I take for myself, and may have a secret thrill of schadenfreude if the joke ends up on me and I either die or am severely affected through getting COVID. The issue is that (since no man is an island) any risk to myself is a risk to others.
Well, yes and no. If we look at my Croquet hobby, which I practice 3-4 times a week, that is in an informal bubble where all who participate are, as I see it, jointly accepting a risk. Similar would apply to my bands, though they are still inoperative.
If they do that over the protests of their nearest and dearest, I can see problems there, but that does not apply in my case. Nor to I object that my wife, amongst many other risk-taking behaviours sees her daughter-in-law's kids once a week, and they go to school and yes they do at times crawl all over her. Kids do. Plus she goes to Church, visits people et al. And we both eat in a restaurant about 2-3 times a week.
As for risk to perfect strangers, well yes I walk about in the open air without a mask as do around 90% of people where I live. I don't go to supermarkets or other places where a mask is required simply because I want neither to wear a mask nor cause people to be stressed. Or to other shops since I don't enjoy shopping with a face-mask. I get the feeling that many posters on this thread think that visits to buy non-essentials should still not happen. Fine I just do it online.
So really the only people that in my view have an objection is people who I pass in the street who themselves are wearing a mask, and sort of saying they think I should. And that risk is one that I accept. I could lower it by always wearing a mask in public which I choose not to do. If that decision leads people to condemn me, and most of those amongst whom I live then that's my tough luck. It's part of the downside of not conforming that I accept.
It is true I think people often excuse there choices by making them needs. But I do accept there is a difference.
They are beginning to run scared that their way of doing things has gone, maybe permanently.
Next week they are starting a big ‘back to the office’ campaign having seen empty city centres and many people enjoying a re-think of their lifestyles.
It will be very interesting how this plays out. The Telegraph are, as usual, using scare tactics ‘you’ll get sacked if you don’t get back to the office pronto’.
I suspect it's more about the impact on things like the commercial property sector, for a party supposedly on the side of capital they are really only on the side of the most regressive bits.
I ll go back to my blackberry picking...... not a soul in sight
https://bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-53943522
Yet the English *government* insists that schools and offices are safe!