Corona Virus: It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint

[morlac]

I do like how the Atlantic is out of fucks to give:

Georgia’s Experiment in Human Sacrifice - The state is about to find out how many people need to lose their lives to shore up the economy.

...



From the Article:
"In the Atlanta suburb of Marietta, another salon owner, Sabra Dupree, has decided to give reopening a shot. She has run a place called Kids Kuts for more than 20 years. When the governor shut down businesses like hers, she began preparing to eventually reopen. “We gutted the whole salon,” she told me. “We sanitized it. We cleaned it. We repainted the stations. We took the porous countertops off and put granite countertops on.” Only three of the salon’s five staff members want to work right now. During their shifts, they’ll be fully outfitted in the protective gear—masks, face shields, gowns, and gloves—now required by the state’s board of cosmetology. “If I’m doing it wrong, shame on me, but I’m trying,” Dupree said. “It would be different if I were sitting here in a mansion and I could give every single person $10,000 to be closed and stay home, but that’s not an option for us.”

I live in Marietta and know this place. On one hand I applaud her for her tenacity in assuring a safe work environment. On the other, I am appalled people feel the need to get their kids $30 hair cuts at what amounts to a kids beauty saloon during a pandemic. Me, I look like a wild unkempt hippie. I haven't shaved in a month and was already a month past due on a haircut before this got started. Basically 23 year old me with more wrinkles and an inch or 2 on my waist People are starting to get "over it" and becoming more lax as the Government encourages it. Will be interesting to see the next 3 weeks unfold here locally as the folks that don't seem to care interact with those that are still locking down. I have already seen some ugly stare downs out and about this weekend.

[malchior]

Is Georgia trying to upstage its southern neighbor? Insurance companies be like...mmkay...

https://twitter.com/Complex/status/1255634158916907009

Georgia teens will no longer need to pass a formal driving test to get a driver's license due to the pandemic.

They will only need parents approval

[Kraken]

/me jots down another reason to never visit GA.

[El Guapo]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/statu ... 6853092354

So this is mostly a question for Smoove, our unpaid forum public health expert. I've seen a few references like this, that suggest that experts are less worried about outdoors transmission of coronavirus. Is that accurate?

I ask in part because there's been some discussion among my in-laws about doing a 'socially distant' (6 ft+) gathering of ~ 11 people on a beach this weekend or next weekend, and I'm calibrating my level of concern.

[malchior]

Not to tread on the question because I have no idea about outdoors transmission but I think this is a shit take and Nate is really starting to grate on me. He *knows* absolutely *knows* that the lockdown protests are outliers and irrelevant. Something like 80+% of people approve of the coronavirus controls in place. This criticism doesn't look at it holistically and I suspect he knows it. Yet here he is been playing the click bait game.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

I'm guessing that outdoor transmission is only less of a concern because you aren't in enclosed spaces (duh) and you will be less likely to within 6' of other people for any length of time. For instance, at the beach someone may walk past you while within 6 feet, but that'll only be for a few seconds. I would also guess an outdoor area like a playground, where people are continuously near each other, wouldn't be much safer than an indoor area of the same size.

[malchior]

I'm guessing that outdoor transmission is only less of a concern because you aren't in enclosed spaces (duh) and you will be less likely to within 6' of other people for any length of time. For instance, at the beach someone may walk past you while within 6 feet, but that'll only be for a few seconds. I would also guess an outdoor area like a playground, where people are continuously near each other, wouldn't be much safer than an indoor area of the same size.

The only thing I'd say to this is that there is a little evidence that it might be carried on air pollution. Still 'being outdoors' isn't the entirety of the issue. People don't magically appear spaced out on the beach. They need to park, there are bathrooms involved, changing rooms, etc. Now could they take measured controls to minimize this and keep crowd sizes down. Maybe. And maybe they are figuring it out. Maybe this is too much and yes maybe people won't like it or get it but let's not overlook that this 'dissent' is pretty minimal at the moment. And we need to be smart and not ruled by the loudest whiners. It is how we got in this fucking mess to begin with.

[Smoove_B]

I ask in part because there's been some discussion among my in-laws about doing a 'socially distant' (6 ft+) gathering of ~ 11 people on a beach this weekend or next weekend, and I'm calibrating my level of concern.

I haven't seen recommendations change in the last month, but no I can't endorse - not even after masks were mandated. The whole point of social distancing is to minimize contact - any contact where the virus can potentially spread. While the risk for what you're proposing hasn't been quantified, it's still not zero - by virtue of the fact that you're interacting. Engaging in these types of activities encourages/promotes situations where comfort levels increase and vigilance drops. "We're 12 feet apart and tossing a Frisbee or playing can jam - what's the problem?" Virus could be on your hands, transferred to Frisbee and then passed along. Or you're all wearing masks and then yelling to be heard. "This is ridiculous - we can't continue to yell through these masks and I can't hear you over the roar of waves!" Off come the masks, and closer you move. Are virus particles being ejected and carried by the wind? Probably. Is there risk? Maybe. In truth, risk is likely low but I cannot endorse it because it violates the intention of what we're trying to accomplish. They're opening parks and golf courses in NJ this weekend. In theory it sounds great. But I know we've just introduced risk because there's going to be people that refuse to wear masks and maintain distance. As always, someone is going to ruin it for everyone. Let's see if I'm right.

I would humbly ask you take detailed notes of the gathering so I can write something for the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly summer special.

EDIT: I should probably post something from an individual that is more risk-tolerant than I am, but I'll note:

“It is nearly impossible to control the movements of others and when one person starts a trend, others tend to follow,” Barocas said. “For this reason, gatherings at parks and beaches should be discouraged.”

“A park or a beach may become a crowded space in a short period of time, which may make distancing yourself at least 6 feet from everyone else nearly impossible,” Yuan explained.

[malchior]

I see it all around me even here in my neck of NJ where it is bad. Purely an anecdote but my neighbors had a ton of landscaping done over the last two days. The landscapers were all masked up. Towards the afternoon yesterday my neighbors come out to review the work. They have no masks on. They are having issues communicating. My neighbor couldn't hear him or understand him and kept saying 'what' really loudly. This is what drew my attention. I happened to glance out and the landscapers had taken off his mask and were in uncomfortable 'close talking' range.

[LawBeefaroni]

I'm going to a private long-distance range this weekend. There are several of us and we have talked about social distancing. We are going to meet up in a parking lot and caravan the last few miles (it's in BFE Illinois) in separate cars. Talking won't be a problem because we'll all have electronic ears but masks get in the way of headsets and fog up glasses big time. Masks will be on hand but since we'll be 15+ feet apart most of the time I'm not sure if we'll wear them all the time. Going to be kind of weird.



But hey, I've heard you can shoot COVID-19 so maybe we'll come up with the cure.

[Smoove_B]

Not even sure where to post this:

https://twitter.com/vote4robgill/status ... 6120146947

Multiple armed gunmen storm Michigan’s State House, State police are protecting @GovWhitmer and blocking the gunmen from gaining access to the house floor.

This is America in the age of Trump.

I'm putting it here because it's being done in protest of the state of emergency related to COVID-19, but if it needs to be moved so be it.

[malchior]

I was wondering if we would see violence. I'm still wondering but the possibility of it doesn't seem that far off...as to the thread? I think it unfortunately belongs more in the 2020 thread but not enough evidence yet. I weakly suspect that if you got to the core of it this is more electorally focused than a real grassroots movement.

[Dogstar]

Changed the thread title as it looks like we're going to be here for awhile, and as a friend of mine pointed out, if there's another bug/epidemic, it should probably have it's own thread. COVID-19 is big enough on its own.

I'm not even sure there are words to fully encapsulate my reaction to Smoove's post about Michigan. Can we carve out a state or something where everyone that wants to act like this gets to live out their fantasy?

[Holman]

We've had plenty of armed protests before, but something about the rowdiness and aggression of this one seems stronger. It's really hard to believe that a culture of conspiracy-fueled armed protest won't erupt into a bloodbath someday soon.

Black Lives Matter should start carrying assault rifles. We'd see meaningful gun control passed within a week.

[El Guapo]

Not to tread on the question because I have no idea about outdoors transmission but I think this is a shit take and Nate is really starting to grate on me. He *knows* absolutely *knows* that the lockdown protests are outliers and irrelevant. Something like 80+% of people approve of the coronavirus controls in place. This criticism doesn't look at it holistically and I suspect he knows it. Yet here he is been playing the click bait game.

I don't think that's fair, and this isn't about the lockdown protests in any shape or form. Lockdown measures are broadly supported now, but we can't assume that they will remain so (and logically, you would figure that support would tend to erode over time, given a set virus level). So policy makers should probably factor in things like the risk level of various activities and long-term sustainability in terms of which areas to focus on in keeping things shut down.

[malchior]

Not to tread on the question because I have no idea about outdoors transmission but I think this is a shit take and Nate is really starting to grate on me. He *knows* absolutely *knows* that the lockdown protests are outliers and irrelevant. Something like 80+% of people approve of the coronavirus controls in place. This criticism doesn't look at it holistically and I suspect he knows it. Yet here he is been playing the click bait game.

I don't think that's fair, and this isn't about the lockdown protests in any shape or form. Lockdown measures are broadly supported now, but we can't assume that they will remain so (and logically, you would figure that support would tend to erode over time, given a set virus level). So policy makers should probably factor in things like the risk level of various activities and long-term sustainability in terms of which areas to focus on in keeping things shut down.

I agree with your last sentence but that isn't what he said. He doesn't reference the protests explicitly but he does specifically talk about eroding support for lock down. There is very little to point to beyond the protests to frame that post against. Except that isn't a "real" phenomenon. If he said that the data doesn't support this policy position he would have been in a good place. Instead he went a step beyond and framed it against an issue he has to know isn't real. He has about one or two of these sort of borderline click bait-y posts every couple of days lately IMO.

Edit: And I'd agree it is a bit of a nit but he is a data guy. He knows that the framing of the 'argument' is a key factor. I think he is getting a bit loose with it in a misleading way.

[malchior]

Meanwhile this really happened. Also, he told the press that many didn't know that NJ is one of the densely populated states. Who knew!?

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1255971874921644034

TRUMP: "I don't think anybody could feel any worse than I do about all of the death and destruction that is so needless. Nobody ... Nobody is thinking about it more." (Trump spent last night and this morning posting angry tweets about the FBI.)

...


JOHN ROBERTS: The Director of National Intelligence put out a statement saying they think the coronavirus was naturally occurring

TRUMP: Who?

R: It was a statement from the DNI office

TRUMP: Oh, he would know that, huh?

R: That would be your Director of National Intelligence

[Alefroth]

Black Lives Matter should start carrying assault rifles. We'd see meaningful gun control passed within a week.

I doubt that, but I bet we'd see some dead black people.

[Smoove_B]

This is normal

https://twitter.com/postlive/status/1255878355016134656

Maryland @GovLarryHogan on whether he was concerned that the federal government would seize the tests the state procured from South Korea. He says the tests are being guarded by the National Guard at an undisclosed location.

[Zaxxon]

Not just Maryland...

https://twitter.com/JesseAPaul/status/1 ... 31552?s=19

[Smoove_B]

I cannot emphasize enough how bonkers this is. Like...textbook re-writes are going to be necessary if this shit continues much longer.

[malchior]

I cannot emphasize enough how bonkers this is. Like...textbook re-writes are going to be necessary if this shit continues much longer.

True. There will have to be a strike through on the word United in a *lot* of places.

[Isgrimnur]

Pluribus

[El Guapo]

Not to tread on the question because I have no idea about outdoors transmission but I think this is a shit take and Nate is really starting to grate on me. He *knows* absolutely *knows* that the lockdown protests are outliers and irrelevant. Something like 80+% of people approve of the coronavirus controls in place. This criticism doesn't look at it holistically and I suspect he knows it. Yet here he is been playing the click bait game.

I don't think that's fair, and this isn't about the lockdown protests in any shape or form. Lockdown measures are broadly supported now, but we can't assume that they will remain so (and logically, you would figure that support would tend to erode over time, given a set virus level). So policy makers should probably factor in things like the risk level of various activities and long-term sustainability in terms of which areas to focus on in keeping things shut down.

I agree with your last sentence but that isn't what he said. He doesn't reference the protests explicitly but he does specifically talk about eroding support for lock down. There is very little to point to beyond the protests to frame that post against. Except that isn't a "real" phenomenon. If he said that the data doesn't support this policy position he would have been in a good place. Instead he went a step beyond and framed it against an issue he has to know isn't real. He has about one or two of these sort of borderline click bait-y posts every couple of days lately IMO.

Edit: And I'd agree it is a bit of a nit but he is a data guy. He knows that the framing of the 'argument' is a key factor. I think he is getting a bit loose with it in a misleading way.

Only he doesn't talk about eroding support for lockdown. He says this "seems like a way to possibly erode public support for lockdown measures." He's saying that closing down beaches could "possibly" erode public support. Saying if you do X then Y may happen is not saying that Y is currently happening.

[Z-Corn]

Not even sure where to post this:

https://twitter.com/vote4robgill/status ... 6120146947

Multiple armed gunmen storm Michigan’s State House, State police are protecting @GovWhitmer and blocking the gunmen from gaining access to the house floor.

This is America in the age of Trump.

I'm putting it here because it's being done in protest of the state of emergency related to COVID-19, but if it needs to be moved so be it.

Like SNL put it...a bunch of idiots engaging in Ted Nugent cosplay...

[malchior]

Only he doesn't talk about eroding support for lockdown.

I did not he said this. I'm saying it is at best bad framing.

He says this "seems like a way to possibly erode public support for lockdown measures." He's saying that closing down beaches could "possibly" erode public support. Saying if you do X then Y may happen is not saying that Y is currently happening.

In what context does that sentence fragment make any sense based on current reporting on public support for lockdown measures? He is a data guy. Implicit to his statement is a trade off between erosion of support and public health. He knows what the measure of support is. It is sky high. North of 80%. Do you think he honestly believes that closing the beaches makes any significant dent in that level of lockdown support? He also knows there is essentially only one thing getting batted around in the Twitter-verse that frames that statement and that is lockdown protests. This isn't a big leap here.

[Smoove_B]

I need to reiterate - this is bonkers:

Florida health officials have stopped publishing real-time coronavirus death data reported by medical examiners after they showed a higher number of fatalities than the official state total.

The Sunshine State has not released lists compiled by the state Medical Examiners Commission in the last nine days. The updates stopped after The Tampa Bay Times reported that the medical examiners' death count was 10% higher than the number reported by the Florida Department of Health.

...

The health department told The Times that it "participated in conference calls" with law enforcement officials to express "privacy concerns for the individuals that passed away related to COVID-19."

The request came after the health department last month tried to convince the Miami-Dade County medical examiner's office to block access to death records, according to The Miami Herald. The county released the data, anyway.

The health department also refused to release information about infections in nursing homes until news outlets sued for the information.

"It's just shocking to me the level of interference," Barbara Petersen of the First Amendment Foundation told The Times.

This.Is.Not.Fucking.Normal.

[El Guapo]

Only he doesn't talk about eroding support for lockdown.

I did not he said this. I'm saying it is at best bad framing.

He says this "seems like a way to possibly erode public support for lockdown measures." He's saying that closing down beaches could "possibly" erode public support. Saying if you do X then Y may happen is not saying that Y is currently happening.

What context does that sentence fragment make any sense based on current reporting on public support for lockdown measures? He is a data guy. Implicit to his statement is a trade off between erosion of support and public health. He knows what the measure of support is. It is sky high. North of 80%. Do you think he honestly believes that closing the beaches makes any significant dent in that level of lockdown support? He also knows there is essentially only one thing getting batted around in the Twitter-verse that frames that statement and that is lockdown protests. This isn't a big leap here.

He is saying that the measure that California is taking could potentially erode support for lockdown measures. He doesn't say by how much, he's not saying that they're suddenly going to be wildly unpopular. That would include support going from 80% --> 78%. You're just reading a ton into it and getting mad at what you're reading into it. It's also odd to accuse him of clickbait when the tweeted link is to an AP news story. And this is one tweet among dozens that he's made about lockdowns, their effect on public health, and the trade-offs involved.

But anyway, if you read it differently then you read it differently, I guess.

[malchior]

He is saying that the measure that California is taking could potentially erode support for lockdown measures. He doesn't say by how much, he's not saying that they're suddenly going to be wildly unpopular. That would include support going from 80% --> 78%. You're just reading a ton into it and getting mad at what you're reading into it. It's also odd to accuse him of clickbait when the tweeted link is to an AP news story. And this is one tweet among dozens that he's made about lockdowns, their effect on public health, and the trade-offs involved.

You still haven't considered what measure/mechanism of public support erosion he is implicitly referencing. Also, click bait doesn't have to lead back to his article to be click bait. If it gets people clicking on his tweet, liking it, and/or following him its a win. And to be fair it might not even be him doing all these tweets and someone on his team could have just framed it badly. Like I said this is part of a pattern of these framed arguments from him which aren't good from a 'data guy' point of view.

But anyway, if you read it differently then you read it differently, I guess.

Right and I get you want to trust the guy but it isn't like his business history indicates he is pure as driven snow. He is a news entertainment business person.

[El Guapo]

He is saying that the measure that California is taking could potentially erode support for lockdown measures. He doesn't say by how much, he's not saying that they're suddenly going to be wildly unpopular. That would include support going from 80% --> 78%. You're just reading a ton into it and getting mad at what you're reading into it. It's also odd to accuse him of clickbait when the tweeted link is to an AP news story. And this is one tweet among dozens that he's made about lockdowns, their effect on public health, and the trade-offs involved.

You still haven't considered what measure/mechanism of public support erosion he is implicitly referencing. Also, click bait doesn't have to lead back to his article to be click bait. If it gets people clicking on his tweet, liking it, and/or following him its a win. And to be fair it might not even be him doing all these tweets and someone on his team could have just framed it badly. Like I said this is part of a pattern of these framed arguments from him which aren't good from a 'data guy' point of view.

But anyway, if you read it differently then you read it differently, I guess.

Right and I get you want to trust the guy but it isn't like his business history indicates he is pure as driven snow. He is a news entertainment business person.

The mechanism is that people get annoyed about not getting to go to the beach, so they feel worse about lockdown measures, so public support drops.

[Zaxxon]

Man, I saw the new title and got all excited, as in my experience marathons take at most a handful of hours.

And yet here we are.

[malchior]

He is saying that the measure that California is taking could potentially erode support for lockdown measures. He doesn't say by how much, he's not saying that they're suddenly going to be wildly unpopular. That would include support going from 80% --> 78%. You're just reading a ton into it and getting mad at what you're reading into it. It's also odd to accuse him of clickbait when the tweeted link is to an AP news story. And this is one tweet among dozens that he's made about lockdowns, their effect on public health, and the trade-offs involved.

You still haven't considered what measure/mechanism of public support erosion he is implicitly referencing. Also, click bait doesn't have to lead back to his article to be click bait. If it gets people clicking on his tweet, liking it, and/or following him its a win. And to be fair it might not even be him doing all these tweets and someone on his team could have just framed it badly. Like I said this is part of a pattern of these framed arguments from him which aren't good from a 'data guy' point of view.

But anyway, if you read it differently then you read it differently, I guess.

Right and I get you want to trust the guy but it isn't like his business history indicates he is pure as driven snow. He is a news entertainment business person.

The mechanism is that people get annoyed about not getting to go to the beach, so they feel worse about lockdown measures, so public support drops.

Then you are saying that Nate Silver the vaunted data journalist bothered with some open ended pondering? It doesn't make sense. He has had multiple posts that seem to question the support for lock downs. Below is another one. Yes you could interpret that as him just stating the obvious but then what value does it bring then? That last sentence and the 'beach post' is Chris Cillizza level analysis if you take it at face value. He's smarter than that. He is talking to the Twitter-verse. That audience has been non-stop talking about lock down protests. Again not a big leap here.

Edit: FWIW I'm coming at this from mild disappointment and not anger. Silver has been a strong advocate for empirical reporting in a time of access journalism/shoddy framing. All of a sudden he is occasionally dropping some dopey non-supported statements? I don't get or buy it. Maybe he is loosening up for some reason but I suspect it is a bit intentional, the team thing, or he let a little bias slip in accidentally.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/statu ... 7552439297

[El Guapo]

A broader thread through Nate Silver's posts is pondering and projecting how this is all going to play out over the next weeks / months / year+. Part of that is how lockdowns are going to progress - how long we're going to stay at the level we're at, when different states will reopen, to what degree that they will reopen, will there need to be subsequent shutdowns, etc. In the new post, he's looking at Italy's schedule, which is SUPER relevant, since Italy / Lombardy has been the worst hit, except for maybe NYC. Plus Italy was hit earlier, so it seems eminently reasonable to analyze Italy's response in assessing how different states here will approach this when the time comes.

[malchior]

A broader thread through Nate Silver's posts is pondering and projecting how this is all going to play out over the next weeks / months / year+. Part of that is how lockdowns are going to progress - how long we're going to stay at the level we're at, when different states will reopen, to what degree that they will reopen, will there need to be subsequent shutdowns, etc. In the new post, he's looking at Italy's schedule, which is SUPER relevant, since Italy / Lombardy has been the worst hit, except for maybe NYC. Plus Italy was hit earlier, so it seems eminently reasonable to analyze Italy's response in assessing how different states here will approach this when the time comes.

I never questioned any of that. The point was to show how the 2nd tweet saying (paraphrasing) 'Folks - this lockdown is popular right now but it can't last forever' is uncharacteristically bland/lazy/not valuable. Maybe he is aping Cillizza. I don't know. For a guy with 3M followers he is getting under a thousand likes on most posts. That beach post is full of all sorts of lock down opponents saying Nate gets it and has way more likes. I expect more posts like that.

[El Guapo]

A broader thread through Nate Silver's posts is pondering and projecting how this is all going to play out over the next weeks / months / year+. Part of that is how lockdowns are going to progress - how long we're going to stay at the level we're at, when different states will reopen, to what degree that they will reopen, will there need to be subsequent shutdowns, etc. In the new post, he's looking at Italy's schedule, which is SUPER relevant, since Italy / Lombardy has been the worst hit, except for maybe NYC. Plus Italy was hit earlier, so it seems eminently reasonable to analyze Italy's response in assessing how different states here will approach this when the time comes.

I never questioned any of that. The point was to show how the 2nd tweet saying (paraphrasing) 'Folks - this lockdown is popular right now but it can't last forever' is uncharacteristically bland/lazy/not valuable.

Do you disagree that support for a full lockdown won't last forever? This just seems like a progression from "people can't do this forever" to "ok, now accepting that, when and how will these measures be eased?"

[malchior]

A broader thread through Nate Silver's posts is pondering and projecting how this is all going to play out over the next weeks / months / year+. Part of that is how lockdowns are going to progress - how long we're going to stay at the level we're at, when different states will reopen, to what degree that they will reopen, will there need to be subsequent shutdowns, etc. In the new post, he's looking at Italy's schedule, which is SUPER relevant, since Italy / Lombardy has been the worst hit, except for maybe NYC. Plus Italy was hit earlier, so it seems eminently reasonable to analyze Italy's response in assessing how different states here will approach this when the time comes.

I never questioned any of that. The point was to show how the 2nd tweet saying (paraphrasing) 'Folks - this lockdown is popular right now but it can't last forever' is uncharacteristically bland/lazy/not valuable.

Do you disagree that support for a full lockdown won't last forever? This just seems like a progression from "people can't do this forever" to "ok, now accepting that, when and how will these measures be eased?"

I'm baffled right now. You have progressively ignored the core of my argument over and over. Are you Nate? Is he family?

[El Guapo]

A broader thread through Nate Silver's posts is pondering and projecting how this is all going to play out over the next weeks / months / year+. Part of that is how lockdowns are going to progress - how long we're going to stay at the level we're at, when different states will reopen, to what degree that they will reopen, will there need to be subsequent shutdowns, etc. In the new post, he's looking at Italy's schedule, which is SUPER relevant, since Italy / Lombardy has been the worst hit, except for maybe NYC. Plus Italy was hit earlier, so it seems eminently reasonable to analyze Italy's response in assessing how different states here will approach this when the time comes.

I never questioned any of that. The point was to show how the 2nd tweet saying (paraphrasing) 'Folks - this lockdown is popular right now but it can't last forever' is uncharacteristically bland/lazy/not valuable.

Do you disagree that support for a full lockdown won't last forever? This just seems like a progression from "people can't do this forever" to "ok, now accepting that, when and how will these measures be eased?"

I'm baffled right now. You have progressively ignored the core of my argument over and over. Are you Nate? Is he family?

For what it's worth I am equally baffled, if not more so. I had thought "do you disagree with X?" was responsive to a post of "It is bad that he posted X".

[Smoove_B]

Good to see the state of MA (or city of Worcester) doing actual, legitimate public health interventions. This is *exactly* what needs to happen and the kind of thing you can do when you're on top of monitoring diseases and ready to swoop in and enact control measures. This is also what I am hoping starts happening in the greater NY/NJ area moving forward.

A Walmart in Worcester has been closed to the public after 23 employees there tested positive for coronavirus, a city official said Wednesday.

The store on Tobias Boland Way will not be allowed to reopen until it is professionally cleaned and all employees are tested for the virus, said Worcester City Manager Edward Augustus Jr. during a press conference Wednesday afternoon.

Augustus said the earliest cases among store employees occurred on April 8, but “the bulk of those 23 (positive cases) have happened in the last seven days."

...

All 400 employees will have to be tested or re-tested before the store is able to reopen, he said.

The city’s health department inspected the store Tuesday and found employees and customers were not wearing masks or personal protective equipment. Worcester’s medical director, Dr. Michael Hirsh, said during the press conference that this was the first time he’s had to issue an emergency order, but it was needed.

[malchior]

A broader thread through Nate Silver's posts is pondering and projecting how this is all going to play out over the next weeks / months / year+. Part of that is how lockdowns are going to progress - how long we're going to stay at the level we're at, when different states will reopen, to what degree that they will reopen, will there need to be subsequent shutdowns, etc. In the new post, he's looking at Italy's schedule, which is SUPER relevant, since Italy / Lombardy has been the worst hit, except for maybe NYC. Plus Italy was hit earlier, so it seems eminently reasonable to analyze Italy's response in assessing how different states here will approach this when the time comes.

I never questioned any of that. The point was to show how the 2nd tweet saying (paraphrasing) 'Folks - this lockdown is popular right now but it can't last forever' is uncharacteristically bland/lazy/not valuable.

Do you disagree that support for a full lockdown won't last forever? This just seems like a progression from "people can't do this forever" to "ok, now accepting that, when and how will these measures be eased?"

I'm baffled right now. You have progressively ignored the core of my argument over and over. Are you Nate? Is he family?

For what it's worth I am equally baffled, if not more so. I had thought "do you disagree with X?" was responsive to a post of "It is bad that he posted X".

If all you're taking away is that I think it is 'bad' then you are very far off from my point and I've expanded on it several times. It's not about what's bad. I'm questioning his motives for posting some of what he is posting because it doesn't fit his 'brand' as a data guy. That the 'off brand' stuff happens to coincide with controversial stuff on Twitter IMO isn't a coincidence. I believe it is a new pattern with him recently. I thought it was interesting and annoying since if it is true it's disappointing. That's it.

[malchior]

Good to see the state of MA (or city of Worcester) doing actual, legitimate public health interventions. This is *exactly* what needs to happen and the kind of thing you can do when you're on top of monitoring diseases and ready to swoop in and enact control measures. This is also what I am hoping starts happening in the greater NY/NJ area moving forward.

I know it is not ideal but what do you think happens in industries where the labor is not trackable? They aren't going to be on anyone's radar but they are working through this crisis and getting very sick.