Theme park group says state guidelines ‘sentence’ laid off and furloughed workers to ‘poverty’ - OCR/SCNG

[MoonRakerSCM]

I travel and do what I want because my life dream is to see the "Bring out your dead!" guy from Month Python and the Holy Grail.

 

[October82]

Shutting down the economy is not working and most importantly doing so doesn't stop the spread. It's an unproven approach that was tried and now that the experiment is done it failed miserably.

This is obviously not true. Reasonable people can disagree about the balance between economic costs and preventing cases, but you lose a lot of credibility when you make these more extreme claims. A really nice example of how effective "lockdown" measures can be at averting cases and deaths is the trajectory of the Czech Republic. After being hit particularly hard by the "second wave" in Europe, they reintroduced business closures and a national mask mandate, and saw an immediate reversal in their rise in the number of cases.

 

[Mac Tonight]

This is obviously not true. Reasonable people can disagree about the balance between economic costs and preventing cases, but you lose a lot of credibility when you make these more extreme claims. A really nice example of how effective "lockdown" measures can be at averting cases and deaths is the trajectory of the Czech Republic. After being hit particularly hard by the "second wave" in Europe, they reintroduced business closures and a national mask mandate, and saw an immediate reversal in their rise in the number of cases.

View attachment 514547

I the Czech Republic.

 

[Pete Schweddy]

At one point back in May, 66% of New York city's COVID cases were people that were staying home and locked down. Another example of effective lockdown measures?

 

[October82]

At one point back in May, 66% of New York city's COVID cases were people that were staying home and locked down. Another example of effective lockdown measures?

This is actually what you expect if people are following stay at home orders. The percentage of people who get sick has to increase with the number of people who are staying at home, essentially because more people are staying at home. This will be especially true given that safer at home orders were short lived relative to the length of time people are infectious.

Epidemiological estimates of the reproductive number for Covid-19 in New York are ~3 prior to the implementation of social distancing measures, drop to 2.2 with the first social distancing measures and reach ~0.5-0.6 within three weeks of the stay at home order going into effect.

 

[Stripes]

This is obviously not true. Reasonable people can disagree about the balance between economic costs and preventing cases, but you lose a lot of credibility when you make these more extreme claims. A really nice example of how effective "lockdown" measures can be at averting cases and deaths is the trajectory of the Czech Republic. After being hit particularly hard by the "second wave" in Europe, they reintroduced business closures and a national mask mandate, and saw an immediate reversal in their rise in the number of cases.

View attachment 514547

But, we would have to lockdown for much longer than politically feasible (or societally acceptable) in order to contact trace or root out the virus entirely in order to prevent future spread.

I’m also worried about the health consequences of lockdowns. Not just the economic consequences.

 

[October82]

That’s just one case and a correlation ≠ causation.

It's an illustrative example. We know how lockdowns work and to what degree from epidemiological modeling and detailed empirical analyses, not CNN graphics.

(a side note: correlation does not imply causation is often overused in arguments. Although one should be cautious to establish causation, correlation often does indicate causation.)

Further, if we were to accept this to be true we would have to lockdown for much longer than politically feasible (or societally acceptable) in order to contact trace or root out the virus entirely in order to prevent future spread.

Not at all, and this is a really unreasonable standard to set for what we want to achieve. Lockdowns are more effective over longer periods of time, but even short lockdowns can dramatically improve the public health situation.

To be clear, I am not arguing that we should or should not implement such a policy. Reasonable people can and do disagree. I was (am) merely responding to the implausible claim that they are not effective. They are.

 

[Stripes]

Lockdowns are more effective over longer periods of time, but even short lockdowns can dramatically improve the public health situation.

If the health system is overwhelmed, lockdowns can bring more control to the COVID situation. They are not effective as a longer term solution (unless you are willing to lockdown for a very long period of time which is ill-advised and simply won’t be tolerated by the public). And I would absolutely argue against them on the basis of the damage inflicted to the population’s long-term health.

t's an illustrative example. We know lockdowns how lockdowns work and to what degree from epidemiological modeling and detailed empirical analyses.

(a side note: correlation does not imply causation is often overused. Although one should be cautious to establish causation, correlation often does indicate causation.)

My only point in making that comment is that it is foolish and irresponsible to simply post one example. As a scientist, you should know better and post a study or two instead. (And there are plenty of studies that illustrate the short-term efficacy of lockdowns in terms of containing the spread of the virus.)

 

[October82]

If the health system is overwhelmed, lockdowns can bring more control to the COVID situation. They are not effective as a longer term solution (unless you are willing to lockdown for a very long period of time which is ill-advised and simply won’t be tolerated by the public). And I would absolutely argue against them on the basis of the damage inflicted to the population’s long-term health.

Depends what we mean by longterm. They certainly reduce the reproductive number to a more manageable level, which certainly has longterm consequences for the effectiveness of other mitigation strategies.

As far as the bolded goes, that's really another topic that is similarly confounded by the use of this point in political discussions rather than scientific ones. All policies will have tradeoffs that reasonable people can disagree with. The basic issue that I was responding to was not about the cost/benefits of any given policy, but about whether lockdowns control the spread of the virus. They do.

My only point in making that comment is that it is foolish and irresponsible to simply post one example. As a scientist, you should know better and post a study or two instead. (And there are plenty of studies that illustrate the short-term efficacy of lockdowns in terms of containing the spread of the virus.)

We're discussing a topic on a Disney discussion board. That's not to disparage the medium, as there are plenty of very smart and reasonable people around (yourself included), merely to point out that it's a good idea to know one's audience. It's fine to bring up illustrative case studies and leave them at that in general conversation. If the conversation evolves, the details are always there.

 

[TP2000]

Hospitals are being overwhelmed right now.

Then why has no governor or big city mayor asked for the US Army to build 1,000 bed field hospitals in convention centers and requested the US Navy send their hospital ships to their ports?

When President Trump did both of those things proactively back in March, both the field hospitals and the hospital ships sat unused for a month on both coasts until they were shut down or sent back to home port. What's changed now that those two things aren't needed?

 

[Stripes]

Depends what we mean by longterm. They certainly reduce the reproductive number to a more manageable level, which certainly has longterm consequences for the effectiveness of other mitigation strategies.

Take the example of contact tracing. Are we willing to lockdown for the period of time necessary to get the reproductive number low enough to make contact tracing effective at containing the virus? Is that even desirable after considering the costs of such action? With all of the money we’ve thrown at this problem via the bills that have passed through Congress, why isn’t there an army’s worth of resources yet? Or is there? Lockdowns are, according to the experts, to “reorganize, regroup, and rebalance your resources.” To buy time. Surely enough time has gone by to do just that.

As far as the bolded goes, that's really another topic that is similarly confounded by the use of this point in political discussions rather than scientific ones. All policies will have tradeoffs that reasonable people can disagree with. The basic issue that I was responding to was not about the cost/benefits of any given policy, but about whether lockdowns control the spread of the virus. They do.

Absolutely. And it’s important to examine the benefits AND the costs when weighing policy. Frankly, I think the general public and the TV news media fail to do this.

But science does have a role to play: to better inform us of the costs and benefits on lockdowns. What we do with that information is the political question.

We're discussing a topic on a Disney discussion board. That's not to disparage the medium, as there are plenty of very smart and reasonable people around (yourself included), merely to point out that it's a good idea to know one's audience. It's fine to bring up illustrative case studies and leave them at that in general conversation. If the conversation evolves, the details are always there.

I wouldn’t have submitted just one graph of raw data to prove a point as large as the effectiveness of lockdowns. But, that’s just my posting style. Perhaps you just wait for further discussion before spending more of your time on a point.

 

[Stripes]

Can someone explain the rationale for Newsom’s 10pm-5am curfew? Is there any scientific evidence to support such an act whatsoever?

 

[TP2000]

Can someone explain the rationale for Newsom’s 10pm-5am curfew? Is there any scientific evidence to support such an act whatsoever?

No, there's no actual science behind it. Plus pretty much every business that is already staying open past 10pm (supermarkets, big box stores, fast food, Starbucks, gas stations, liquor stores, pot shops, 7-11, etc.) is deemed "Essential" and will be remaining open past 10pm even during the curfew.

It appears to be an attempt to shut down the bar and nightclub business, regardless of what Tier your county is in.

But it would seem to me that young folks are always going to want the company of other young folks. And so they will just throw parties at their own homes instead of going out to the bars. And those parties will be a more confined, less healthy, and less regulated location than a licensed and governable bar or nightclub.

 

[October82]

Take the example of contact tracing. Are we willing to lockdown for the period of time necessary to get the reproductive number low enough to make contact tracing effective at containing the virus? Is that even desirable after considering the costs of such action? With all of the money we’ve thrown at this problem via the bills that have passed through Congress, why isn’t there an army’s worth of resources yet? Or is there? Lockdowns are, according to the experts, to “reorganize, regroup, and rebalance your resources.” To buy time. Surely enough time has gone by to do just that.

What is at stake here is not really about issues of "buying time" in the sense that you suggest here, but of changing the reproductive number of the disease. Lockdowns do this in a very dramatic way. That makes everything easier. Whether other policies are able to or have been able to take advantage of that basic reality is a question for the politics sub-forum.

On that topic, the Disneyland sub-forum has strict policies around discussing politics that you should be aware of. The topic of this thread needs to stay on Covid-19 or posts will likely be removed.

Absolutely. And it’s important to examine the benefits AND the costs when weighing policy. Frankly, I think the general public and the TV news media fail to do this.

I don't know if I agree with this. The overwhelming discussion around the idea of "lockdowns" in the media (at least that I consume, which is pretty mainstream) is about their relative costs and benefits.

But science does have a role to play: to better inform us of the costs and benefits on lockdowns. What we do with that information is the political question.

The point I was making there is that epidemiology doesn't tell you about the economic costs of a lockdown. That's for economics and perhaps medicine. It's also a conversation that has really been muddied by the worst sort of politics. Which is to say, it's another topic and not really one for this sub-forum (we can talk more via PM if you'd like, or bring it up in the Covid-19 thread in the politics sub-forum).

I wouldn’t have submitted just one graph of raw data to prove a point as large as the effectiveness of lockdowns. But, that’s just my posting style. Perhaps you just wait for further discussion before spending more of your time on a point.

Case studies ('single graphs') are fine ways of explaining or illustrating complicated points. I'm really not certain why it's something you're objecting to.

 

[October82]

Can someone explain the rationale for Newsom’s 10pm-5am curfew? Is there any scientific evidence to support such an act whatsoever?

Yes, from the state health order in question:

This Limited Stay at Home Order will reduce opportunities for disease transmission with the goal of decreasing the number of hours individuals are in the community and mixing with individuals outside of their household. Every intervention to decrease mixing of households is critical during this unparalleled increase in case rate rise of about 50 percent during the first week in November. In particular, activities conducted during 10:00pm to 5:00am are often non-essential and more likely related to social activities and gatherings that have a higher likelihood of leading to reduced inhibition and reduced likelihood to adhere to COVID-19 preventive measures (e.g., wearing face coverings and maintaining physical distance).

Curfews are a relatively new measure, intended to help avoid the need for "lockdowns", so there hasn't yet been time for scientific papers on the topic to have been published.

 

[mandelbrot]

A single person Federal Poverty Line is $12,760 in 2020. At $13 per hour, that is about 1,000 hours or 20 hours per week. And only if they don't have a second job.

2020 Poverty Guidelines

U.S. Federal Poverty Guidelines Used to Determine Financial Eligibility for Certain Federal Programs [Federal Register Notice, January 17, 2020 Full text] [Computations for the 2020 Poverty Guidelines] There are two slightly different versions of the federal poverty measure:

aspe.hhs.gov

So the answer is no.

Federal guidelines do not take local cost of living standards into consideration. If you think a person making a thousand bucks a month in Orange County isn't living in poverty I'm not sure you understand reality.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Then why has no governor or big city mayor asked for the US Army to build 1,000 bed field hospitals in convention centers and requested the US Navy send their hospital ships to their ports?

When President Trump did both of those things proactively back in March, both the field hospitals and the hospital ships sat unused for a month on both coasts until they were shut down or sent back to home port. What's changed now that those two things aren't needed?

“News junkie”. Air Force nurses are being sent to North Dakota. Hospitals increased bed capacity but that doesn’t mean anything if there is nobody to staff them. All issues that have been reported on.

 

[Stripes]

Yes, from the state health order in question:



Curfews are a relatively new measure, intended to help avoid the need for "lockdowns", so there hasn't yet been time for scientific papers on the topic to have been published.

My question would be: how doesn’t this increase the density of people performing non-essential activities from 5am-10pm?

In my family, Christmas shopping takes place in the very late and early hours. Now, if we were under this curfew, we would have to do that shopping during the day, thus increasing the density of people shopping during the day and further exacerbating a potential superspreader event.

 

[Stripes]

That makes everything easier.

Certainly not “everything” as lockdowns make an untold number of lives much, much harder to bear. Now and in the future after the lockdown has passed.

I don't know if I agree with this. The overwhelming discussion around the idea of "lockdowns" in the media (at least that I consume, which is pretty mainstream) is about their relative costs and benefits.

Your experience is certainly different than mine.

Case studies ('single graphs') are fine ways of explaining or illustrating complicated points. I'm really not certain why it's something you're objecting to.

I object to it because it alone doesn’t show whether lockdowns are effective or not.

Stronger and better evidence is necessary to prove such a point.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Certainly not “everything” as lockdowns make an untold number of lives much, much harder to bear. Now and in the future after the lockdown has passed.

There is no single way to implement a lockdown. There are means of mitigating the burden born by some, but it’s not unquantifiable. Those hit hardest by a lockdown are also hit hardest by a pandemic. This idea that activity would otherwise carry on is completely unfounded.

I object to it because it alone doesn’t show whether lockdowns are effective or not.

They are effective for their intended purpose. They drastically reduce person-to-person interaction. If the virus has no place to go then it cannot spread. They’re not supposed to be a long term solution. During the spring was supposed to be when systems of containment were out in place. That largely did not happen and now we’re again left staring at blunt instruments.