Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[11B4V]

Who is still going on cruises? Why are cruises still happening?
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2020/08/03/hurtigruten-covid-19-outbreak-passengers-crew-infected-cruise/5570867002/

[The Larch]

CSU athletes, staff say athletic administration covering up COVID-19 health threat

CSU football players and university athletic department staff say coaches have told players not to report COVID-19 symptoms, threatened players with reduced playing time if they quarantine and claim CSU is altering contact tracing reports to keep players practicing.

[The Larch]

Who is still going on cruises?

People with a death wish? Extreme bargain hunters?

[Valmy]

I have a 1-in-1000 chance of dying if I catch it? Damn. That's actually higher than I am comfortable with, if I am honest.

Are you comfortable with a 2-in-1000 chance of dying?  That's what you're living through every year at your age.

Your point being?

You can safely ignore anything that has a risk of death lower than your base death rate.

Except we are not comparing apples and oranges here. That is the cumulative chance of everything killing you over an entire year vs just having Covid for a short time.

My chances of dying riding a motorcycle once are probably a great deal less than 2 in 1000 but I should still wear a helmet.

[crazy canuck]

Who is still going on cruises? Why are cruises still happening?
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2020/08/03/hurtigruten-covid-19-outbreak-passengers-crew-infected-cruise/5570867002/

Pretty sure cruise ships have rock climbing walls.

[PDH]

CSU athletes, staff say athletic administration covering up COVID-19 health threat

CSU football players and university athletic department staff say coaches have told players not to report COVID-19 symptoms, threatened players with reduced playing time if they quarantine and claim CSU is altering contact tracing reports to keep players practicing.

Colorado State is a home of dullards and jackasses.  They want to be cool like the University of Colorado, but instead they are insipid, like the University of Colorado.

[alfred russel]

None, probably.

AR and others are obsessed with the death rate, ignoring the many complications related to getting Covid and recovering from it.

In this case, Tamas pointed out his death risk from covid, and DGuller and I pointed out his overall risk of death. If you want to compare the risk of permanent disability from covid versus the general risk of permanent disability from other causes, we can do that, though the risks related to permanent disability from covid are a bit speculative at this point.

[alfred russel]

Except we are not comparing apples and oranges here. That is the cumulative chance of everything killing you over an entire year vs just having Covid for a short time.

My chances of dying riding a motorcycle once are probably a great deal less than 2 in 1000 but I should still wear a helmet.

As you may or may not remember, I climbed the matterhorn a few years ago. I looked it up--something like 6 people a year are killed on average trying to climb that mountain, with 3,000 or so successful summits. The number of deaths have been falling in recent years, and summits increasing, but that aside the risk was probably somewhere around 2 in 1000. I was allowed to do that because we are a free society and people can take risks. FWIW I wore a helmet.

Covid comes along and not only shuts down outdoor pursuits but for a while I was under an order threatening me with up to a year in jail if I got a haircut.

There is a huge difference between taking precautions and shutting down schools for a year and keeping people from going to work.

[Zoupa]

The issue, for the MILLIONTH TIME, is that if you do as you please and climb that rock and fall, you risk your own life.

If you do as you please during a pandemic, you risk others.

This extreme individualism strain in the US is mind-boggling.

[Sheilbh]

There's a few points there though.

I agree that closing outdoor locations is wrong - especially given people without any access to their own outdoor space (and access to outdoor space is linked to class and race in this country). But if the government decides for whatever reason to shut down businesses and issue a quarantine order, don't they have to enforce that?

Surely the only options are it's purely advisory and relies on good citizenship, like Sweden, or it's an order which relies on the state's coercive power? In England the approach is similar to anti-social behaviour or public drunkenness, so small fines that can then escalate into large fines and you can be jailed if you don't pay. Which I think is a reasonable approach and maybe Georgia went straight for being jailed if you breach any of the orders which seems a little extreme. But ultimately if our governments decide to shut things down, doesn't that need to be enforceable in some way.

The other point is as I say earlier the weird is how different the risk for different sections of society. The focus should be on re-opening schools, but it can't just be done - there is work that's necessary to make schools safer. But children are very low risk, adults are more able to socially distance and the impact on children losing a year in school, a year of social life is huge. But that might mean closing down other points of contact and transmission - here there's talk about it being a choice between pubs and schools, which is not a choice any British politician wants to make. I suppose which sections of society are you willing to re-open when the risk for the elderly is closer to a 10% IFR than less than 1%?

[jimmy olsen]

There have been several studies that have come out saying Covid causes serious organ damage even to people who don't seem to have serious symptoms. I wouldn't be blase about getting it in any circumstances. Which is part of what makes opening the schools up right now so insane.

[crazy canuck]

There's a few points there though.

I agree that closing outdoor locations is wrong - especially given people without any access to their own outdoor space (and access to outdoor space is linked to class and race in this country). But if the government decides for whatever reason to shut down businesses and issue a quarantine order, don't they have to enforce that?

Surely the only options are it's purely advisory and relies on good citizenship, like Sweden, or it's an order which relies on the state's coercive power? In England the approach is similar to anti-social behaviour or public drunkenness, so small fines that can then escalate into large fines and you can be jailed if you don't pay. Which I think is a reasonable approach and maybe Georgia went straight for being jailed if you breach any of the orders which seems a little extreme. But ultimately if our governments decide to shut things down, doesn't that need to be enforceable in some way.

The other point is as I say earlier the weird is how different the risk for different sections of society. The focus should be on re-opening schools, but it can't just be done - there is work that's necessary to make schools safer. But children are very low risk, adults are more able to socially distance and the impact on children losing a year in school, a year of social life is huge. But that might mean closing down other points of contact and transmission - here there's talk about it being a choice between pubs and schools, which is not a choice any British politician wants to make. I suppose which sections of society are you willing to re-open when the risk for the elderly is closer to a 10% IFR than less than 1%?

middle ground - issue an order and count on high rates of compliance because you don't have politicians out front but it is made by a well respected rock star public health official.

[Sheilbh]

middle ground - issue an order and count on high rates of compliance because you don't have politicians out front but it is made by a well respected rock star public health official.

Oh sure - there is no country that you'd want to live in that can actually enforce these orders if people don't voluntarily comply. There's just not enough police. You'd need the army in the streets to actually enforce them. But they need to have some teeth.

[DGuller]

You need to have just enough rules so that you can enforce them all, and then you have to actually enforce them.  Anything else is just a tragic governance mistake.

[crazy canuck]

middle ground - issue an order and count on high rates of compliance because you don't have politicians out front but it is made by a well respected rock star public health official.

Oh sure - there is no country that you'd want to live in that can actually enforce these orders if people don't voluntarily comply. There's just not enough police. You'd need the army in the streets to actually enforce them. But they need to have some teeth.

Exactly so.

In a functional democracy there is generally high levels of compliance but I am not so sure how functional some democracies are at the moment.

I would hate to imagine what kind of society would be created if DGuller's theory of how the state should function prevailed.  Just enough rules so you can enforce them all seems like an Ayn Rand wet dream dystopia.